San Francisco’s affordable housing isn’t always affordable for everyone. Units are often available to people making more than 50% of the city’s average income, which is about $52,450 for a single-person household. Although more affordable options for lower-income earners would be ideal, developers often face financial challenges to create truly low-cost housing.
Affordable Housing Leaving Some Behind
For those earning very little, San Francisco’s affordable housing doesn’t always meet their needs, which can lead to homelessness. The latest count showed that 60% of San Francisco’s homeless population were previously housed in the city but later lost their homes. Additionally, certain groups, like elderly residents, are experiencing rising homelessness, with a 94% increase in homeless families recorded between 2022 and 2024. A survey revealed that 29% of unhoused people in San Francisco have a physical disability, making them even more vulnerable.
Proposition G: Aiming to Help the Most Vulnerable
Proposition G, a budget measure, aims to help extremely low-income seniors, people with disabilities, and families by dedicating funds for rental assistance. This funding would help cover the gap between what very low-income residents earn and the rent in “affordable” housing units. For example, a unit designed for people earning 80% of the median income could be rented to those earning only 30%, with the city covering the remaining cost.
The Importance of Steady Funding
The success of this affordable housing program depends on ongoing funding. If these rental subsidies end, residents would suddenly need to pay the full rent, putting them at risk of homelessness. Fortunately, the city has consistently supported similar affordable housing rental assistance programs since 2019, starting with $5 million from the Board of Supervisors and the mayor, and a one-time addition of $52.3 million from the state.
Do We Need Proposition G?
Some believe that putting Proposition G on the ballot may not be necessary. A recent city report argued that too many set-asides like Prop G limit budgeting flexibility. Instead, it suggests that city leaders should manage funds responsibly without needing constant voter-approved budget measures.
