Hallowed Ground, Empty Lots: Churches and SF's Housing Crisis

San Francisco doesn’t have a land problem. It has a land use problem.

Think about third places—the spots that aren’t home or work but somewhere in between, where we connect, recharge, and bond. Walk around San Francisco, and you notice something weird: big parcels, low-rise buildings, corner lots in prime neighborhoods that silently feel … paused. We get numb to how spaces are used, and a meaningful chunk belongs to religious institutions. Most of it is tax-exempt. As it should be. But here’s the catch: taxpayers are covering the load so these buildings can avoid taxes. Maybe that load should come with covenants—or at least metrics. Why so underutilized? Why not?

Foregone Revenue 

Citywide, property tax exemptions total over $10 billion in assessed value. Religious properties are a meaningful slice (though no one really tracks it). A $10 million parcel could generate $100,000+ in taxes. Exempt? $0. Gone. Poof.

Taxes aside, the bigger effect is utility. Exemption isn’t about who owns the property—it’s about how it’s used. Worship space? Exempt. Offices, education, community programs? Usually exempt. Market-rate apartments or retail? Taxed. On paper, neat. In practice? Mostly self-reporting.

Once Exempt, Always Exempt 

Organizations describe their use and maintain status. The San Francisco Assessor-Recorder can audit, but there’s basically no public data. No audit rates. No “we checked 12% and found issues in 3%.” Nothing. The system runs on good faith. Once exempt, properties tends to…stay that way.

Now layer that onto a housing shortage. San Francisco has ~400,000 units and needs more. Every parcel counts. Paying taxes? Pressure to build, sell, redevelop. Exempt? Pressure disappears. Nothing dramatic happens. No villain. Properties just…sit.

To be clear, this isn’t inherently bad. Religious institutions provide incredible, real value: spiritual pause, community space, social services, stability. Some are quietly doing work the city would otherwise fund: food programs, shelters, counseling, recovery programs. Glide Memorial Church feeds hundreds of thousands, hosts mental health and addiction recovery services, and provides housing support. Cathedral Shelter in Chicago combines housing, rehab, and job placement. Tens of thousands of churches nationwide run similar programs. Capacity exists. The missing piece? Policy alignment.

Glide Impact Report

Yes, In God’s Backyard (YIGBY) 

These institutions are stable property owners. If you want housing—or public health, rehab, and recovery—without relying solely on private developers, look here.

Instead of removing exemptions (not happening, and shouldn't), a better approach:

• Require basic reporting so we know how the property is actually used

• Conduct light check-ins so “religious use” doesn’t quietly drift

• Make housing, recovery, and public health programs automatically count as exempt use, otherwise, share a plan

  
  

Affordable or mixed-income housing? Qualifies. Addiction recovery, mental health, transitional housing? Qualifies. Cleanly. No gray area.

The funny thing: the system already allows this. It just isn’t expected. There’s no incentive to align exempt properties with urgent city needs.

Right now, the policy says: hold property, don’t pay taxes.

It could just as easily say: hold property—and help solve the city’s biggest problems: housing, public health, recovery - proactively.

We’re already seeing glimpses elsewhere. California’s “YIGBY” laws let churches build affordable housing by right. Glide and Cathedral Shelter prove churches can run recovery programs at scale. Celebrate Recovery and Global Teen Challenge show religious institutions can serve as public health infrastructure nationwide. The pieces exist. The examples exist. The need is real.

San Francisco doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel. It just has to connect the dots: exemption → property → housing + recovery + public health → accountability → continued exemption.

Same property. Same exemption. Much fairer utility.