San Francisco is turning a corner, and Seattle should take note.
San Francisco has seen a remarkable improvement in its quality of life, and by that, I mean less crime, less street trash and disorder, fewer tents and RVs, downtown storefronts leasing up, and a general feeling among many residents and businesses that they have turned the corner toward better times.
They still have a long way to go, but the turnaround evidence is visible. Mayor Daniel Lurie has said his city is at a “fragile moment” and hopes San Franciscans don’t blow it. So, what led to the turnaround?
Perhaps the most significant factor was Lurie’s election in November 2024, when he defeated incumbent London Breed. Lurie has positioned himself as a political moderate, and his approach has been marked by blunt talk, decisive action, and a willingness to challenge nearly all of the city’s diverse political interest groups and activists. He’s accelerated police hiring, warned that public drug dealers and users will be arrested, expanded emergency shelter capacity, and reduced the prevalence of tents and RVs. Reported major crime fell 24.5% in 2025 compared with 2024, and it’s down another 18.3% so far this year through August 23.
Earlier this year, at the urging of San Francisco Superior Court judges, Lurie did something politicians rarely, if ever, do. He cut funding for a nonprofit group that operates diversion programs. The judges argued that the program was ineffective and urged the city to transfer the work to probation officers. The transfer is scheduled to take effect in July 2027.
As Lurie nears the end of his 18th month in office, his favorability rating stands at a remarkable 74%. A November 2025 survey by the Partnership for San Francisco found that 69% of voters believe the city is headed in the right direction.
Could San Francisco’s progress be duplicated here? Before answering that, it helps to see just how different our starting point is.
We’re a different city, with many of the same challenges. We struggle with open-air drug markets – think 12th & Jackson and some of our downtown streets – an increase in tents and RVs, along with the associated trash and disorder, and violent human trafficking on Aurora Avenue North. And, as you will see, our crime problem is much bigger.
Perceptions matter. Unlike San Francisco, only 38% of Seattle voters rate our mayor favorably, according to an early August poll sponsored by Challenge Seattle and the Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, 52% say the city is headed in the wrong direction.
Seattle is geographically larger than San Francisco. We have 84 square miles of land; they have 47. (I’m excluding bodies of water within both cities.) We have 41,300 fewer people, which translates to 9,343 people per square mile compared with their 17,576. San Francisco is a very dense city.
We have significantly more reported crime than San Francisco. Way more.
I’m focused here on the reported major crime rate for the eight crimes routinely reported by police to the FBI and analyzed by criminologists – aggravated assault, homicide, rape, robbery, arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. What’s not included are all the other felony and misdemeanor crimes, including all drug-related crimes.
In 2025, Seattle’s major crime rate was 52.89 per 1,000 people, while San Francisco’s was only 34.66. Even with fewer people, Seattle’s major crime rate was 52.6% higher last year than San Francisco’s. When these numbers are broken down into violent crimes against persons and property crimes, the differences are profound. Seattle’s violent crime rate was 6.47 per 1,000 people in 2025, compared to San Francisco’s 4.84. Our property crime rate is 46.42 per 1,000 people, compared to 29.82. (Crime statistics are a snapshot in time. Many factors influence these rates, with one of the most important being the public’s trust and confidence in the police. More trust, more reporting. Less trust, less reporting. Nationally, the annual crime victimization study shows that only about 40% to 60% of crimes are actually reported to the police.)
We have fewer police officers. At the end of 2025, we had 927 deployable officers, or 1.2 per 1,000 people. San Francisco had 1.82 officers per thousand. Viewed through another lens, we have 11 officers per square mile; San Francisco has 32.
With the above context, there’s another issue we are just beginning to address in Seattle. What is the most effective way to deal with the drug addiction and mental health challenges on our streets? Is it “housing first” and “harm reduction,” or is there a better way? Lurie’s approach in San Francisco is leaning toward another approach, although he contends he’s not abandoning compassionate alternatives to arrest and incarceration.
The Atlantic has an article in the September issue that addresses this directly: “The Cities That Said Yes to Drugs” by Michael Powell. Seattle is featured. You can also listen to Powell’s perspective on this Blue City Blues podcast.
I’ve always advocated for more on-demand addiction and mental health treatment services. Yes, it would be expensive, but what is the cost of our current approach, in which people openly smoke or inject drugs, overdose, or frighten others by screaming and running around naked? The harm reduction approach we follow now waits until someone seeks help, believing that effective help is only possible when it is voluntary, not compelled. The result is what we see on our streets and sidewalks every day. As Powell argues in his Atlantic article, this approach has created a “zombie apocalypse.” Maybe it’s time to adjust to a more diversified approach, including being more assertive about treatment options.
I served on the board of Plymouth Housing from 2018 to 2021. I saw firsthand their work housing people and providing supportive services, and their willingness to offer some drug-free housing to those who wanted it. Maybe it’s time for the city government to fund more drug-free housing options instead of an almost exclusive focus on “low-barrier-to-entry housing first,” which allows continued drug use, often to the detriment of those who want to escape those temptations.
Let’s keep an eye on San Francisco. One thing is for sure: our West Coast neighbor 808 miles south of us is trying new approaches. They’ve broken out of the ideologically driven mindset that there’s only one way forward – the harm reduction theory of housing first. Maybe they will find that a range of approaches is better, including stronger nudges to treatment and arresting offenders who are causing the most harm.
Leave a Reply