The other side of the summer
The popular image of San Francisco in 1967 is of music, flowers and good feeling. The social record is less comfortable. When tens of thousands of young people came to a district of a few thousand residents, the shortage of housing, food, sanitation and medical care became obvious within weeks. How many people actually arrived is uncertain, as forecasts of about 100,000 were widely repeated but exact counts do not exist. What contemporary reports agree on is that the numbers were far larger than the neighbourhood could handle.
Overcrowding and runaways
Housing was the first problem. Victorian flats designed for a family might hold a dozen people, with others sleeping on floors, in cars, in doorways or in Golden Gate Park. Rents rose as landlords realised the demand, and some long-time residents moved out. Sanitation, rubbish collection and basic safety were under strain.
Runaways were an especially serious concern. Teenagers, some as young as 14 or 15, arrived from other states, drawn by the song, the newspaper articles and word of mouth. Parents contacted police and newspapers looking for them. Without money or contacts, young runaways were vulnerable to theft, exploitation and coercion. Social workers and volunteers tried to help, and some young people were returned home, but there was no system adequate for the scale of the problem.
Hunger
Many arrivals had little money, and food was a daily difficulty. The Diggers organised daily meals in the Panhandle, serving stew and bread made from donated or scavenged ingredients to anyone who came. The meals were basic but significant, and they were often cited as one of the most important services of the summer. The Diggers took the view that food should be free, and they ran the operation as part of a broader protest against commercial society, but the practical result was that many people were fed who would otherwise not have eaten well. Digger free food was therefore both a political gesture and a real support. Supplies were irregular, and the quality and variety were limited.
Illness and drugs
Health problems multiplied. Crowded, unclean living conditions contributed to infections, and hepatitis was one of the illnesses reported in the district, in part because of shared needles and shared food and bedding. Sexually transmitted infections were another concern, and so were malnutrition, exposure and untreated injuries.
Drug use added to the risks. Marijuana and LSD were the drugs most associated with the Haight, but methamphetamine injection also spread, and a number of newer or more powerful substances circulated, sold on the street with uncertain content. Some people had panic reactions or confusion after taking drugs, often called bad trips. Others were harmed by adulterated or mis-sold substances. The circumstances of psychedelic experimentation in a stressed, overcrowded neighbourhood were very different from the idealised accounts offered by early advocates.
The Free Medical Clinic
The most lasting response was the Haight-Ashbury Free Medical Clinic, which opened in June 1967 under Dr. David Smith, with volunteer doctors, nurses and helpers. It offered treatment without charge and without judgement to patients who feared hospitals or police. Its early work dealt with infections, injuries and drug reactions, and its staff gained experience that later influenced addiction medicine and street-based health care. The clinic continued after the summer and still exists in a changed form, making it one of the more concrete legacies of the period.
Churches and officials
Responses came from several directions. Some local churches and clergy opened their buildings for meals, shelter and counselling, and religious volunteers worked alongside the Diggers and clinic staff. Others stayed distant or were openly critical.
City officials were divided. Mayor John Shelley and other city leaders expressed concern about public health and disorder, and the police department increased patrols and carried out drug arrests, while some officials favoured providing services to ease the problems. Health authorities were alarmed by reports of disease and overcrowding. The overall pattern was an official reaction to hippies that mixed worry, suspicion and limited practical help, with limited funding for new programmes. The city did not plan for the influx in the way the Council for the Summer of Love had urged.
What the strains show
These problems did not prove that the movement was a failure, but they showed the limits of improvised community care. Volunteers worked hard, and some services were impressive, yet the structure was too thin for a crowd of that size. Mass media coverage, by attracting still more visitors, increased the difficulty. By autumn, many original residents were exhausted, and some of them concluded that the scene had been overwhelmed by publicity.
For historians, the social side of the summer is a necessary corrective. It shows that the neighbourhood’s difficulties were real and visible at the time, and that people who cared about the community spent much of the summer trying to address them.