San Francisco bans homeless people from living in RVs - Where will they be pushed next?

San Francisco banned homeless people from living in RVs by adopting strict new parking limits the mayor says are necessary to keep sidewalks clear and prevent trash buildup.

The policy, which received final approval by San Francisco supervisors Tuesday, targets at least 400 recreational vehicles in the city of 800,000 people. The RVs serve as shelter for people who can’t afford housing, including immigrant families with kids.

Those who live in them say they’re a necessary option in an expensive city where affordable apartments are impossible to find. But Mayor Daniel Lurie and other supporters of the policy say motor homes are not suitable for long-term living and the city has a duty to both provide shelter to those in need and clean up the streets.

“We absolutely want to serve those families, those who are in crisis across San Francisco,” said Kunal Modi, who advises the mayor on health, homelessness and family services. “We feel the responsibility to help them get to a stable solution. And at the same time, we want to make sure that that stability is somewhere indoors and not exposed in the public roadway.”

Critics of the plan, however, say that it’s cruel to force people to give up their only home in exchange for a shot at traditional housing when there is not nearly enough units for all the people who need help; the mayor is only offering additional money to help 65 households.

Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, says city officials are woefully behind on establishing details of an accompanying permit program, which will exempt RV residents from parking limits so long as they are working with homeless outreach staff to find housing.

“I think that there’s going to be people who lose their RVs. I think there’s going to be people who are able to get into shelter, but at the expense” of people with higher needs, like those sleeping on a sidewalk, she said.

San Francisco, like other U.S. cities, has seen an explosion in recent years of people living out of vehicles and RVs as the cost of living has risen. Banning oversized vehicles is part of Lurie’s pledge to clean up San Francisco streets, and part of a growing trend to require homeless people to accept offers of shelter or risk arrest or tows.

Strict new rules​

On Tuesday, about three dozen people gathered outside City Hall and marched somberly through the building, hoping to influence supervisors to vote against the measure. But it cleared the Board of Supervisors with two of 11 supervisors voting “no.” Supervisors made no remarks.

The proposal sets a two-hour parking limit citywide for all RVs and oversized vehicles longer than 22 feet (7 meters) or higher than 7 feet (2 meters), regardless of whether they are being used as housing.

Under the accompanying permit program, RV residents registered with the city as of May are exempt from the parking limits. In exchange, they must accept the city’s offer of temporary or longer-term housing, and get rid of their RV when it’s time to move. The city has budgeted more than half a million dollars to buy RVs from residents at $175 per foot.

The permits will last for six months. People in RVs who arrive after May will not be eligible for the permit program and must abide by the two-hour rule, which makes it impossible for a family in an RV to live within city limits.

RV dwellers can’t afford rent​

Carlos Perez, 55, was among RV residents who told supervisors at a hearing this month that they could not afford the city’s high rents. Perez works full-time as a produce deliveryman and supports his brother, who lives with him and is unable to work due to a disability.

“We don’t do nothing wrong. We try to keep this street clean,” he said, as he showed his RV recently to an Associated Press journalist. “It’s not easy to be in a place like this.”

Yet, Perez also loves where he lives. The green-colored RV is decorated with a homey houseplant and has a sink and a tiny stove on which Carlos simmered a bean soup on a recent afternoon.

He’s lived in San Francisco for more than 30 years, roughly a decade of which has been in the RV in the working-class Bayview neighborhood. He can walk to work and it is close to the hospital where his brother receives dialysis multiple times a week.

Zach Bollinger started living in the vehicle a dozen years ago after realizing that no matter how hard he worked, he still struggled to pay rent.

Now he works as a ride-hail driver and pursues his love of photography. He parks near Lake Merced in the city near the Pacific Ocean and pays $35 every two to four weeks to properly dispose of waste and fill the vehicle with fresh water.

He says Lurie’s plan is shortsighted. There is not enough housing available and many prefer to live in an RV over staying at a shelter, which may have restrictive rules.

For Bollinger, who is able-bodied, maintains a clean space and has no dependents, moving to a shelter would be a step down, he says. Still, he expects to receive a permit.

“If housing were affordable, there is a very good chance I wouldn’t be out here,” he said.

City recently closed its only RV lot​

RV dwellers say San Francisco should open a safe parking lot where residents could empty trash and access electricity. But city officials shuttered an RV lot in April, saying it cost about $4 million a year to service three dozen large vehicles and it failed to transition people to more stable housing.

The mayor’s new proposal comes with more money for beefed-up RV parking enforcement — but also an additional $11 million, largely for a small number of households to move to subsidized housing for a few years.

Officials acknowledge that may not be sufficient to house all RV dwellers, but notes that the city also has hotel vouchers and other housing subsidies.

Erica Kisch, CEO of nonprofit Compass Family Services, which assists homeless families, says they do not support the punitive nature of the proposal but are grateful for the extra resources.

“It’s recognition that households should not be living in vehicles, that we need to do better for families, and for seniors and for anyone else who’s living in a vehicle,” she said. “San Francisco can do better, certainly.”

published on July 25, 2025 - 2:37 PM
Written by JANIE HAR and TERRY CHEA Associated Press


This is the longest game of musical chairs with these homeless folks, how about jail?
 
Well duh, how are you supposed to be visibly homeless for some fag's political clout when you're hiding in an RV?

(I didn't actually read any of that)
I think that Newsome and the rest of California is taking the CCPs strategy of saying "we have no homeless" by forcing them to hide out of the view of the public. No more camping in public places is a decent idea, them closing the only RV lot in the city is kind of based. This problem again comes down to folks don't want to go to shelters because of the no-drug policies.
 
“It’s not easy to be in a place like this.”
Then move, as you so flippantly offer as the "Solution" to every white red state person having difficulty paying cost-of-life expenses who had problems trying to afford staying in their home towns and have been reduced to couch-surfing or living out of a cheap motel.

If it's good enough for mayoghouls, it's good enough for rubber tramps.
 
Last edited:
Typical shitlib logic.

Homeless person, likely white, who managed to solve his pressing need himself with an RV? Lord no! Can’t have that!

Homeless addicts and illegals living on the streets or getting $200 a night room in hotels on taxpayers expense? FUCK YES MORE OF THAT!

There’s nothing more these faggots loathe than people finding some loophole and solving their problems themselves, with out the meddling of bureaucrats and politicians with their assorted graft.
 
What a shitty, biased article. You can see through their agenda so easily.

The RVs serve as shelter for people who can’t afford housing, including immigrant families with kids.
3rd sentence in. Appeal to emotion. "They serve as SHELTER, a basic human right! Foe people who CAN'T AFFORD IT, AND IMMIGRANTS! CHILDREN! Won't you think of the CH--oh wait, I'll use a more informal word--KIDS!"

Critics of the plan, however, say that it’s cruel to force people to give up their only home in exchange for a shot at traditional housing when there is not nearly enough units for

“I think that there’s going to be people who lose their RVs
"Force them to give up their RVs" "Lose their RVs"--how? Is the government confiscating them and forcing you to take their housing? No, you can just DRIVE AWAY, HOW IS THIS REAL, NIGGA, LIKE JUST TURN ON THE IGNITION, JUST PUT IT IN GEAR!

many prefer to live in an RV over staying at a shelter, which may have restrictive rules.
Translation: can't do my drugs in the shelter, can't bring in my shoplifted goods to fence.

There is ZERO reason they have to live in an expensive city, since they can literally drive anywhere else to get a job!

And of course, they profile two of the people who happens to not be a career criminal, fent/heroin/meth addict who had been arrested 30 times:

Carlos Perez, 55, was among RV residents who told supervisors at a hearing this month that they could not afford the city’s high rents. Perez works full-time as a produce deliveryman and supports his brother, who lives with him and is unable to work due to a disability.​


We don’t do nothing wrong. We try to keep this street clean

Yet, Perez also loves where he lives. The green-colored RV is decorated with a homey houseplant

Zach Bollinger started living in the vehicle a dozen years ago after realizing that no matter how hard he worked, he still struggled to pay rent.

Now he works as a ride-hail driver and pursues his love of photography. He parks near Lake Merced in the city near the Pacific Ocean and pays $35 every two to four weeks to properly dispose of waste and fill the vehicle with fresh water.
"You see, they are hard working, clean people! Good neighbors who have jobs and don't do drugs! Yes, of course the other 398 RVs are full of these people! Isn't the city evil? You agree now, right!"

And then they interview the grifters who get huge salaries to spend grant money and donations while never fixing the problems:
Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness,
Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness (COH), where she’s spent the last 25 years presenting herself as an expert on the subject.
What are Friedenbach’s qualifications? She doesn’t really have any. Her vague résumé includes a lot of fundraising and, prior to COH, serving as director of the Hunger and Homeless Action Coalition of San Mateo County.
Her skill set, as thin as her résumé, touts “a long history of community organizing, working on a range of poverty-related issues including welfare rights, housing, homeless prevention, health care, disability, and human and civil rights.”
She comes from a wealthy family that owns almond farms, she owns a home, and her parents keep a condo in the city.
Friedenbach saw things differently, so she began taking over the program and molding it to meet her own agenda. “She didn’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg,” Carl said. “Jennifer wanted to be the middleman. Instead of having the money go back to cover the program’s expenses so that it wouldn’t fall on taxpayers, she wanted a piece of the pie. She didn’t want to be involved until she heard the ‘ka-ching, ka-ching!’”
Every time we try something new Jennifer puts up a roadblock because she wants to keep things the same. She runs the homeless industrial complex. If you’re able to write a letter for someone who just arrived on a Greyhound bus and get them taxpayer money, you’re the CEO. All the mayors and all the supervisors have listened to her and now they’re afraid to speak out against her. But if she was successful, we wouldn’t have this problem.
25 years of perpetuating homelessness, inviting more people to the city to live unhoused.

Erica Kisch, CEO of nonprofit Compass Family Services
Erica has been with Compass Family Services for 21 years. She initially directed the agency’s Compass Family Center shelter for eight years, before becoming executive director in 2002.
That was 21 years in 2016, so now 30 years. The grandchildren of the homeless people she hasn't helped in 30 years have now been born. This is all she's ever done:
She has also been a Licensed Clinical Social Worker since 1993.
She was so good at her job, these assholes paid for her to take 3 months off for free, enjoy life, and then go back to the grifting!
The O2 Sabbatical Award honors dedicated nonprofit executive directors in San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties with an essential three-month break for rest and renewal.

The O2 Sabbatical Award Includes:​

  • $50,000 toward the cost of the executive director’s three-month sabbatical
  • $15,000 in flexible funding to support staff professional development, as well as stipends for the interim leadership team in recognition of the additional responsibilities assumed in the executive director’s absence
  • 25 hours of coaching to help organizations prepare for the sabbatical, advise interim leadership teams during the executive director’s leave, provide support with re-entry, and achieve organizational development goals (e.g., greater shared leadership, succession planning)
Meanwhile, Erica plans to use this sabbatical to travel and spend time with her daughter. “I’m looking forward to helping her prepare for going off to college,” Erica says. “And maybe taking a few fun classes together. It’s something that both she and I will treasure.”
There are so many nonprofits in San Francisco, they award this to 5 or more people a year...9 in 2024! That's right, an organization that exists to give charity executive directors 3 months off spent $585,000 last year, plus overhead, on this!

None of this would exist if San Francisco fixed it's homeless and drug problem!!
 
Drugs. It’s about access to drugs.
Some of this is true, however, I'd like to point out something I researched once.

I was intrigued by the common complaint of piles of human shit being found in San Fran, which at the time reminded me of filthy pajeet street shitters. San Fran is a tech town and we all know the jeets are invading that industry en masse. I did some digging and found out there was a small surge in jeet immigration to San Fran around the time the street shitting began to increase.

Now I know many homeless people there do just shit whereever, its not all the jeets, but I've got to wonder if its learned behavior? Did they see a jeet street shitting and decide "why the hell keep trying to find an alley to shit in or a business that'll let me use their bathroom... fuck it."
 
Some of this is true, however, I'd like to point out something I researched once.

I was intrigued by the common complaint of piles of human shit being found in San Fran, which at the time reminded me of filthy pajeet street shitters. San Fran is a tech town and we all know the jeets are invading that industry en masse. I did some digging and found out there was a small surge in jeet immigration to San Fran around the time the street shitting began to increase.

Now I know many homeless people there do just shit whereever, its not all the jeets, but I've got to wonder if its learned behavior? Did they see a jeet street shitting and decide "why the hell keep trying to find an alley to shit in or a business that'll let me use their bathroom... fuck it."
Junkies have been shitting everywhere since forever. Dope (fentanyl, heroin, whatever) makes you constipated. When it wears off, you get the shits like crazy. They talk about this a lot in the movie Trainspotting.
 
It's always the money, but with ICE doing it's job, some illegals hold on to the "sanctuary city" hope that a smaller government will protect them from the Federal government.
More like in these sanctuary states, it is very easy to get residency and the gibs that come with it and laws that protect vagrancy. Weather tends to be OK most of the year and they otherwise couldn't afford it.
 
Misc fun fact, when the Beatles visited the Philippines, the Marcos Dictatorship at the time would do everything they can to keep the band from seeing the poor and downtrodden in the area. They also made sure to plan their routes too so they only see the nice side of the 3rd world dictatorship.

This is some Potemkin village type shit. Seen New York do it, along with LA during important political events just to save face. This used to be the golden state. California is effectively a 3rd world shithole masquerading as a US state.
 
The RVs serve as shelter for people who can’t afford housing, including immigrant families with kids.
They are not supposed to be homes. Letting people live in them wherever they want which will always cause clusters that produce trash and sewage is not a solution to a problem it is just a new problem. Also maybe ICE should take a run through there...
 
Why do homeless people all need to live in one of 6 major cities? Go anywhere else.
Because these major cities enable their behaviour. I go to 12 step meetings and sometimes guys come in broken, high, drunk, a mess, and homeless. They say they need help, so my group directs them to halfway houses, detoxes, rehabs, programs, and offer peer support. We try to get them off the drugs, off the booze, off the street, and we try to get them back into regular life where they have to work, pay bills, and be productive members of society.

Support structures exist to actually help these people, but that's not what addicts want - and a huge portion of these people are addicts. They want needles, drugs, money, free food, and the ability to continue their destructive behaviors, which is what major left-wing cities provide.
 
The city has budgeted more than half a million dollars to buy RVs from residents at $175 per foot.
Fuck, no. What a ripoff. Also, never forget to pay your car bill first, kids! It's the most important bill, above rent and utilities.
ETA-
Why do homeless people all need to live in one of 6 major cities? Go anywhere else.
Easy Alaccess to bus systems, healthcare, and jobs drugs.
 
Mayor Willie Brown to ask why he believed San Francisco couldn’t make a dent in its catastrophic homeless problem, Brown was succinct: “It is not designed to be solved. It is designed to be perpetuated. It is to treat the problem, not solve it.”

Good thing he didn't teach Kamela how to be succinct all those years he was plowing her.

but that's not what addicts want - and a huge portion of these people are addicts. They want needles, drugs, money, free food, and the ability to continue their destructive behaviors, which is what major left-wing cities provide.
1753552118010.webp

The addicts agree with you.

Fuck, no. What a ripoff. Also, never forget to pay your car bill first, kids! It's the most important bill, above rent and utilities.
ETA-

Easy Alaccess to bus systems, healthcare, and jobs drugs.
Is that $175 per linear foot? So, a 25-foot-long RV (axle to axle, again IDK how they are measuring this) would be $4,375, which would be taxable income? $4k for a broke down junker isn't terrible for a normal person looking to get rid of the trash heap, but this is their literal home.
 
Last edited:
Because these major cities enable their behaviour. I go to 12 step meetings and sometimes guys come in broken, high, drunk, a mess, and homeless. They say they need help, so my group directs them to halfway houses, detoxes, rehabs, programs, and offer peer support. We try to get them off the drugs, off the booze, off the street, and we try to get them back into regular life where they have to work, pay bills, and be productive members of society.

Support structures exist to actually help these people, but that's not what addicts want - and a huge portion of these people are addicts. They want needles, drugs, money, free food, and the ability to continue their destructive behaviors, which is what major left-wing cities provide.
Yeah, that is what the heart of the problem is with homeless people. A lot of them enjoy the lifestyle for a variety of reasons. They don't want to actually work or have responsibilities. Some of it is drugs, some mental illness, but some of them just like living out on the street as a lifestyle choice.
 
Back