SINCE THE 1990s, stories of San Francisco’s housing shortage have regularly produced national headlines and reports of astronomical rent increases, million-dollar home prices, evictions, and tenant resistance. Almost immediately after a string of apartment purchases began in 2013, landlord Anne Kihagi made headlines for her brutal tactics used to evict tenants from rent-controlled units. Tenants—including a cabinet maker, a teacher, and retirees in their 90s—worked with City Attorney Dennis Herrera to fight the evictions. Herrera, who since 2001 had used his office to advocate for civil, consumer, and political rights, won a $2.4 million victory against Kihagi. Judge Angela Bradstreet ruled in favored of the tenants because “Kihagi and her associates had ‘purposefully destroyed their tenants’ quiet enjoyment and any sense of sanctuary through their long, continued and unrelenting campaign of harassment, reductions in services, and unlawful and fraudulent evictions. Their reprehensible conduct,” Bradstreet emphasized, “had a terrible effect on the lives of multiple San Francisco citizens.”1 Amid soaring housing costs, the ruling against Kihagi offered a small victory in a much larger struggle over housing and neighborhood control, justice, and citizenship.
The difficulties associated with the city’s housing have generated considerable discussion about the problem, its consequences, and, to a lesser extent, solutions. Residents and visitors alike love San Francisco for its quirkiness and diversity, its neighborhoods, and its civic life, but the loss of residents due to the lack of affordable housing has undermined many of the city’s communities and charms. Importantly, the shortage of safe, affordable housing and its consequences are not new. Since before the 1906 earthquake and fire, the city’s residents have grappled with high housing costs and with finding ways to expand affordable housing in their city. Of their varied efforts, the city’s public housing program has been one of the more important.
Many people equate public housing with misguided government action. News editors, especially since the 1950s, have run sensational stories about public housing’s spectacular failures. Housing projects in these narratives are sites of poverty, vice, and despair; they frequently link the “ghetto” and urban problems to public housing, reinforcing stereotypes about urban space and the poor in addition to those about public housing. Housing officials at every level of government consistently make the news for corrupt and scandalous behavior. Some editors portray public housing as just another government program for dependent clients who traded hard work and skill acquisition for free government handouts. News stories have sometimes blamed the programs for maintaining racial and class segregation and for warehousing poor people rather than providing high-quality homes. Cherry-picked tenant opinions legitimate these negative stereotypes. Public intellectuals and urban professionals have criticized government homes for their design and social goals, and they have sometimes conflated the effects of urban renewal with public housing in poor neighborhoods. The media have disseminated research from institutes, think tanks, and sometimes government agencies and commissions that have highlighted the problems associated with government social programs.2 Novelists have described the projects as dangerous and crime infested, as have movies, television, and documentaries.3 All together, these sources have contributed to a negative image of public housing and presented public housing tenants and their neighbors as the “other,” as a social group apart from mainstream society and less deserving of government programs. Perhaps just as important, public housing, in theory and practice, runs counter to classical liberal economic values and assumptions about the superiority of privately owned homes and limited government.4
Scholars have also documented problems associated with public housing. The academic narrative of government housing often tells the story of a federal program that began in the 1930s with the promise to solve the nation’s housing shortage, create jobs, and play a positive role in urban planning. Across the country, public housing programs did build quality homes for a diverse but usually segregated tenant population and put many people to work transforming neighborhoods and city infrastructure alike. But, to continue the conventional academic narrative, by the 1950s the housing program began to suffer from insufficient funding and political attacks in addition to many of the problems causing the prevalent negative images of public housing mentioned above. Scholars of public housing have connected the rise and fall of support for public housing to the arc of support for government social programs and the welfare state.5
This narrative needs refinement. Despite its flaws, government housing has generated jobs and provided homes as well as a wide range of social services to low-income residents (mundane but important accomplishments often ignored by the media and in common perceptions of the program). By 2015, roughly 3,300 local public housing authorities were in charge of about 1.2 million units nationwide, though that was down from a peak of 1.4 million units in 1994.6 Government housing has supported city governments financially, increased the number of housing units under the public’s control, and removed property from the speculative market. Remarkably, this government program has constructed housing for use, not profit, in a nation that rewards individual and speculative homeownership. In addition to these material benefits, the program, especially as it was administered through local housing authorities, has provided opportunities for supporters and opponents, tenants and non-tenants, experts and non-experts to participate in the policymaking process.
Even though experts and local elites have dominated this process, ordinary residents have turned to the program to debate issues ranging from the role of the state and the legitimacy of private property to the economic and civil rights of residents. This participatory process has included both advocates and opponents to the public housing program, which has generated a high level of political engagement in part because housing and neighborhood are so closely tied to one’s identity, economic interests and security, and community.7 Compared to private housing, government housing as a publicly funded program provided a higher level of access and accountability that allowed the city’s residents to influence their housing and some of the major issues of the twentieth century. Tenants—and women especially—have exercised power through this program. For many, the program became closely tied to the civil and economic rights of citizens and some of the other social movements of the twentieth century. Housing the City by the Bay develops this more complex narrative of public housing by balancing a recognition of the contributions of government housing with an acknowledgment of policy mistakes and political and economic limitations.
San Francisco’s public housing program captures this complexity. One year after the creation of the United States Housing Authority in 1937, San Francisco residents worked with the city’s political leaders to establish the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA), which became the local institution in charge of building and managing the city’s public housing. In 1940, the SFHA completed the first public housing project west of the Rocky Mountains. Built in the working-class Bernal Heights district, Holly Courts offered 118 two-story row houses that resembled the popular garden-style government homes constructed in England. Apartments with three bedrooms, a dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and living room rented for $21.20 per month, which included utilities and a host of modern amenities. Tenants also had access to landscaped grounds, a space for political and community meetings, public transportation, and a park with great views of the city. Rent-dollar for rent-dollar, Holly Courts provided a better value than what was then available from private landlords. Applications to live in Holly Courts, like those for later SFHA projects, always outpaced supply.8
The SFHA was not free of policy mistakes. Its leadership sometimes missed opportunities to expand the program and, with few exceptions, brought a limited analysis of the housing problem and role of government in the economy. For example, SFHA officials failed to secure all available federal housing funds, either because they neglected to apply for them or they ineffectively navigated the federal political landscape. Few SFHA officials questioned the fundamental principles of liberal economic values, especially the sanctity of private property rights and the idea of a limited government. The power of eminent domain, for example, was rarely used.
The SFHA program never came close to providing enough housing to meet demand because public housing advocates could not muster the legal, intellectual, or political power to articulate, in law and practice, a right to housing that superseded the power of private property rights. On issues of discrimination, the SFHA leadership structured many of its early policies to reinforce privileges for members of some social groups while shutting out individuals from other social groups. The doors of Holly Courts, for example, remained closed to nonwhites for more than a decade before a San Francisco Superior Court decision forced the SFHA to integrate the project, and in the post–World War II era, war veterans received favored status over nonveteran SFHA housing applicants. Although the SFHA provided an active site for policymaking, bringing in many participants and political views, politically appointed commissioners and SFHA staff have generally limited tenant and resident power in their city’s housing. And in recent decades, the loss of public housing units has contributed to less diversity in the city and a drop in participatory politics.
It is here, at the intersection of San Francisco’s changing demographics and politics, that the SFHA program provides insight into historical struggles for economic and civil rights in the United States. Housing the City by the Bay connects a hundred years of housing reforms to some of the larger questions related to citizenship and housing that U.S. society has wrestled with since its founding. What economic rights and protections should nation-states provide their citizens? Who is a full political citizen? Who is eligible for those rights and protections? Who is deserving? Undeserving? If not every citizen receives the same rights and protections, then why? Should housing be privately owned? Or, are there nonspeculative public and cooperative alternatives to housing the nation? These very questions have shaped discussions and U.S. political struggles to define the proper role of government and the rights attached to citizenship—and they have motivated many of the larger social movements in U.S. history, including those connected to the provision and ownership of housing. This case study explores how San Francisco residents engaged with these discussions and movements.9
Significantly, from its inception, the city’s public housing program became an important institution in the political debates surrounding housing, planning, and citizenship. To examine both the debates and the policies that followed in the city, I have applied a methodological approach similar to that used by historian Lawrence Vale called “design politics.” Design politics highlights the ways political culture, as much as urban space, shapes not only which housing and redevelopment projects get approved, but also what these projects look like and whom they serve. Design politics reveals how political and economic elites have exercised power in shaping these processes, from how they used language and symbols in urban development to drawing on and reinforcing stereotypes about social groups and communities. This approach also focuses attention on how ordinary individuals and their communities were part of the process even though the effects of their participation were limited by unequal distribution of power and resources.10
The “design politics” approach helps illuminate three issues needing interpretation: housing policy in relation to the changing political and ideological content of U.S. liberalism over time; race relations and discrimination; and the important role of political activism. Liberalism comes, of course, in varied and nuanced varieties. As the dominant public philosophy in the United States through most of the twentieth century, liberalism has combined assumptions and values centered on a faith in capitalism and private property rights, representative government, and political equality for citizens. Yet some liberals have turned to government to achieve economic security and social justice, whereas others have preferred to rely as much as possible on nongovernmental organizations, private philanthropy, and the so-called free market to achieve a good society. These alternatives—between government and nongovernment solutions, a statist liberalism and classical liberalism—animated public discussions about the proper role of government from the long progressive era through the decline of the New Deal order, marked by the shift in the Carter–Reagan years when government turned to deregulation, lower taxes, and reductions in government social programs.11
The persistence of inequality and injustice has focused the nation’s attention on the extent to which government should address such problems to serve the public good. From the 1860s through the Great Society until the legislation of the 1960s, political support overall increased for government programs and regulations and the expansion of political, civil, and economic rights. The state did expand in this period to bring about a greater degree of justice and equality, as the nation’s residents and political leaders modified their values and assumptions by supporting a more active government in their daily lives, especially in the economy, even when those beliefs led to public policies that challenged private property rights.
By the 1960s, adherence to a stronger state liberalism began to shift again, this time retreating from a vision of government that provided a growing list of economic and civil rights. Scholars have noted that resistance to civil rights legislation, a declining standard of living, and a loss of faith in the federal government have been crucial to this shift. These neoliberal preferences for smaller government shaped legislation at all levels and led to defunding and dismantling of government regulations, programs, and civil and economic rights for citizens. Public housing scholars have documented key aspects of this evolution of liberalism as have others interested in social policy and civil rights.12 The ebb and flow of federal housing legislation often defined what happened in San Francisco.
Housing the City by the Bay contributes to this discussion of the public policies associated with the varied iterations of U.S. liberalism through an examination of San Francisco elites and nonelites, homeowners and renters, as these different groups debated and defined the proper role of government in housing, civil and economic rights, and urban development. From the debates and social movements at the turn of the twentieth century that expanded government into urban space, to the scaling back of some urban programs in the 1960s, Housing the City by the Bay offers a history of the ideological defense of public housing in San Francisco. The book contends that many city residents, especially nonelites, articulated a broad set of economic and civil rights through their discussions of and struggles for public housing. This history captures ideas and actions by the city’s tenants and gives us a richer, more complete picture of twentieth-century urban liberalism. By putting the topic of housing activism at the center of Bay Area politics, Housing the City by the Bay complements the work of Robert Self, Christopher Agee, Chester Hartman, William Issel, and Rebecca Solnit, scholars who have found an active citizenry in the Bay Area struggling to shape the role of government.13
A focus on civil rights and the historical construction of race make up the second strand of Housing the City by the Bay. Neighborhoods have done much to shape individual and group identities in cities. San Francisco scholars—including Albert Broussard, Judy Yung, Nayan Shah, Estella Habal, and Tomás Summers Sandoval—have highlighted the ways these connections have contributed to racial identities and urban demographics and politics. Living in particular neighborhoods and housing can also limit or expand an individual’s access to public and private resources, opportunities, and safety. In different ways, the confluence of inequality, race relations, and civil rights struggles often coalesce around housing and redevelopment projects. The SFHA program was regularly at the center of these battles. To be sure, many white San Francisco residents used public housing to maintain segregation in the city, as did their counterparts across the nation. But as a public agency, the SFHA also became subject to activist and legal challenges of its segregationist policies. Almost from the SFHA’s inception, city residents used the agency to promote and deny equality in public policies, to influence who had access to SFHA jobs and training, and to pressure labor unions and other private institutions to integrate. By examining these processes, Housing the City by the Bay also reconstructs the evolution of race relations in a multiracial city and weaves a range of social groups’ experiences into a single case study that focuses on the intersection of civil rights, urban space, and power across a hundred-year period.14
The third theme of the book is political activism. Every chapter follows the housing-related movements launched by reformers and radicals, tenants and property owners, nonelites and elites. This focus on competing class politics builds on the many histories of active civic and working-class life in the city.15 Housing the City by the Bay documents the ways tenants organized to influence housing policy, advocate for justice and democracy, and define citizenship; it connects tenant activism at the project level to broader city and national movements; and it shows how property owners and developers pursued their own class interests through SFHA policymaking. San Francisco’s housing-related social movements show how federal policies, especially those tied to economic and civil rights, attracted people not only to join the debate but to engage in the policymaking process. These movements also show how institutions and laws can blunt, absorb, and sometimes reflect the goals and desires of individuals in social movements. Importantly, the highest level of political activism followed the growth of SFHA permanent units—and as the number of permanent SFHA units declined, so too did tenant political activism.
In San Francisco, as in other cities, public housing programs have encountered very real problems, ranging from underfunding and structural inequalities in implementation to tenants and their allies not sustaining their participation and influence. Public housing supporters and opponents, scholars, and editors of popular media have, by highlighting these problems, contributed to negative stereotypes of government housing. Critics of the program have blamed public housing for problems created by structural problems in the economy, for perpetuating inequality and discrimination, and for a host of social evils. Yet San Francisco’s public housing program delivered housing and services to low-income residents not served by the private sector, contributed to improving the social and physical landscape of the city, and provided space and resources for residents to participate in decisions, small and large, that affected their lives, housing, neighborhoods, and city.
Most importantly, the SFHA program became a focal point for debates and struggles over economic and civil rights attached to citizenship. The history of how San Francisco’s residents have shaped this program—how they worked with federal public housing officials, how they thought about policies and their implementation, how they envisioned the civil and economic rights of citizens—suggests ways to design public housing and other social programs around the nation to encourage greater equity through enhanced public participation. For residents and housing officials alike, the history of the SFHA offers examples of urban housing becoming more inclusive, more democratic, and more responsive to the needs of residents.
1. When Kihagi failed to pay, the city required her tenants to pay their rent to the city. See J. K. Dineen, “Court Says Landlord Must Pay SF $2.4 Million for Bad Evictions,” SFGate (May 2, 2017); Joe Eskenazi, “SF Goes After City’s Cruelest Landlord, Snatching Away Her Rent Payments,” Mission Local (February 5, 2018).
2. For images of public housing, see Nicholas Dagen Bloom, Fritz Umbach, and Lawrence J. Vale, eds., Public Housing Myths: Perception, Reality, and Social Policy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015); R. Allen Hays, The Federal Government and Urban Housing (New York: SUNY Press, 2012); Alex F. Schwartz, Housing Policy in the United States, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014). For earlier images of government housing, see Nathan Straus, The Seven Myths of Housing (New York: Arno Press, 1974 [1944]).
3. Novels featuring public housing include Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead (1943) and several by Richard Price: Freedomland (1998), Clockers (1992), and Samaritan (2003). For movies and documentaries, see Candyman (1992), Losing Isaiah (1995), Clockers (1995), Public Housing (1997), He Got Game (1998), Bringing Out the Dead (1999), and Girlfight (2000). For television, see The Wire (2002–2008). Although the 1970s television classic Good Times (1974–1979) offered a hardworking, politicized, and creative family in the Chicago projects, the story of the building and neighborhood reflected the prevailing images of government housing. Joseph Godlewski, “The Tragicomic Televisual Ghetto: Popular Representations of Race and Space at Chicago’s Cabrini-Green,” Berkeley Planning Journal 22, 1 (2009): 115–25.
4. Gwendolyn Wright, Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983); Hays, The Federal Government and Urban Housing; Lawrence J. Vale, Purging the Poorest: Public Housing and the Design Politics of Twice-Cleared Communities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013); Michael B. Katz, The Undeserving Poor: America’s Enduring Confrontation with Poverty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
5. Arnold R. Hirsch, Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940–1960 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983); John F. Bauman, Public Housing, Race, and Renewal: Urban Planning in Philadelphia, 1920–1974 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987); Robert B. Fairbanks, Making Better Citizens: Housing Reform and the Community Development Strategy in Cincinnati, 1890–1960 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988); Gail Radford, Modern Housing for America: Policy Struggles in the New Deal Era (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Sudhir Venkatesh, American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000). For recent works that often expand the location, time period, and impact of public housing, see Rhonda Y. Williams, The Politics of Public Housing: Black Women’s Struggles Against Urban Inequality (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004); Donald Craig Parson, Making a Better World: Public Housing, the Red Scare, and the Direction of Modern Los Angeles (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005); Nicholas Dagen Bloom, Public Housing That Worked: New York in the Twentieth Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008); D. Bradford Hunt, Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009); John Arena, Driven from New Orleans: How Nonprofits Betray Public Housing and Promote Privatization (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012); Edward G. Goetz, New Deal Ruins: Race, Economic Justice, and Public Housing Policy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013); Amy Lynne Howard, More Than Shelter: Activism and Community in San Francisco Public Housing (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014); Vale, Purging the Poorest.
6. The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Connecting Public Housing and Health: A Health Impact Assessment of HUD’s Designated Housing Rule,” Health Impact Project (June 16, 2015).
7. On the relationship of political engagement, neighborhood, and identity, see Ocean Howell, Making the Mission: Planning and Ethnicity in San Francisco (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015).
8. “New Designs for Living,” San Francisco News (March 19, 1940); Catherine Bauer, A Citizen’s Guide to Public Housing (Poughkeepsie, NY: Vassar College, 1940), 44–45; rent cost is from SFHA, Third Annual Report (1941).
9. I use the term “citizenship” broadly. To be sure, there are incidents in the book when residents of the city connected their housing ideas and actions to the modern nation-state model of citizenship, but at other times residents—immigrants and citizens alike—constructed a model of citizenship grounded in basic human rights and participatory decision making that transcended national (and nation-state) boundaries. For the classic study of citizenship and the modern nation-state, see T. H. Marshall, Class, Citizenship, and Social Development (New York: Doubleday, 1964). See also Alan Dawley, Struggles for Justice: Social Responsibility and the Liberal State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993); Daniel T. Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000); Thomas J. Sugrue, Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North (New York: Random House, 2008); Michael B. Katz, The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare State (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008).
10. See Vale, Purging the Poorest, chapter 1. David Harvey’s work has also examined the relationship of individuals, communities, power, and built space in Social Justice and the City (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2008).
11. The competing visions of liberalism and, by extension, government and the market that emerged in the 1870s to 1940s are often described like this. Advocates of “new liberalism” moved away from classical economic liberalism, sometimes referred to in shorthand as laissez-faire economics, and argued for a greater role for government in the economy and civic life, with the aim of bringing about greater equality and justice not only in the United States but in other parts of the industrialized world. This new liberalism stood in contrast to a corporate or volunteer model of liberalism that advocated minimal government and increased voluntary activity to address poverty and social inequality. New liberalism would take hold in the United States with the New Deal and then the Great Society but become less popular among voters by the 1970s. Steve Fraser and Gary Gerstle, eds., The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930–1980 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990); Mary O. Furner and Barry Supple, eds., The State and Economic Knowledge: The American and British Experiences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Michael J. Lacey and Mary O. Furner, eds., The State and Social Investigation in Britain and the United States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings; Alice O’Connor, Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century U.S. History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001); Alice Kessler-Harris, In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in 20th-Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); Robert O. Self, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Postwar Oakland (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005); David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); Edward J. Balleisen and David A. Moss, eds., Government and Markets: Toward a New Theory of Regulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Katz, The Undeserving Poor and The Price of Citizenship; Gail Radford, The Rise of the Public Authority: Statebuilding and Economic Development in Twentieth-Century America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013).
12. Radford, Rise of Public Authority and Modern Housing for America; Thomas J. Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005); Arena, Driven from New Orleans; Vale, Purging the Poorest.
13. Chester Hartman, City for Sale: The Transformation of San Francisco (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002); Self, American Babylon; Rebecca Solnit and Susan Schwartzenberg, Hollow City: The Siege of San Francisco and the Crisis of American Urbanism (New York: Verso, 2001); Christopher Lowen Agee, The Streets of San Francisco: Policing and the Creation of a Cosmopolitan Liberal Politics, 1950–1972 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), chapters 6–7; William Issel, “Liberalism and Urban Policy in San Francisco from the 1930s to the 1960s,” Western Historical Quarterly 22, 4 (1991): 431–50, and Church and State in the City: Catholics and Politics in Twentieth-Century San Francisco (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2012).
14. See Tomás Almaguer, Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); Albert S. Broussard, Black San Francisco: The Struggle for Racial Equality in the West, 1900–1954 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993); Judy Yung, Unbound Feet: A Social History of Chinese Women in San Francisco (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995); Nayan Shah, Contagious Divides: Epidemics and Race in San Francisco’s Chinatown (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001); Tomás F. Summers Sandoval, Latinos at the Golden Gate: Creating Community and Identity in San Francisco (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2013).
15. William Issel and Robert W. Cherny, San Francisco, 1865–1932: Politics, Power, and Urban Development (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986); Michael Kazin, Barons of Labor: The San Francisco Building Trades and Union Power in the Progressive Era (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987); Philip J. Ethington, The Public City: The Political Construction of Urban Life in San Francisco, 1850–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Hartman, City for Sale; Barbara Berglund, Making San Francisco American: Cultural Frontiers in the Urban West, 1846–1906 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007); Estella Habal, San Francisco’s International Hotel: Mobilizing the Filipino American Community in the Anti-Eviction Movement (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2007); Jessica Ellen Sewell, Women and the Everyday City: Public Space in San Francisco, 1890–1915 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011); Issel, Church and State in the City; Karl Beitel, Local Protests, Global Movements: Capital, Community, and State in San Francisco (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2013); Howard, More Than Shelter; Agee, The Streets of San Francisco, chapters 6–7.
PRESS