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?
 
I think the way to do it, realistically, and this is in fact the socialist in me speaking, is do micro-communes on the same principle as some of the micro-lending projects where a group of people go in together.

For example?

Get a group of maybe 10 single men with RVs who all have jobs and who aren't non-functional with mental illness or drugs, but who are too poor to rent a standard house. Buy a vacant lot. Build a small bathhouse (not the gay kind) with toilets and showers and a laundry.

Split the deed to the lot 10 ways between the 10 residents.

Make the people pay maybe ~400 a month into an HOA situation for utilities and taxes and give the residents some power to kick out anyone who isn't participating.

There would need to be some stipulation for transferring shares, but this I think is where the commune shit comes through.

The thing tumbles off the cliff into the sea, shit gets foreclosed on and the city gets the land back.

I feel like the ideal option is to give people some kind of stake in the game, where you owe something to the people around you, but they also owe you.

Shit, there are a lot of duck clubs that work on this model, and you know everyone there is armed.
The only problem is that I can imagine some Chink investors or BlackRock coming in and buying everybody out so they can put condos on the land. Anyplace that gets popular or gets appealing enough for rich lefties to escape to will get bought up and subdivided. People aren't made of stone. Some rich guy throws a suitcase of money at them, and they'll sell out in a heartbeat.
 
This problem again comes down to folks don't want to go to shelters because of the no-drug policies.
Or they share room with other crazies and if you are a woman they put in trannies if you complain you get kicked out . According to the homeless the most dangerous place is homeless shelter where you gonna get robbed and assaulted . Here is a novel idea , open camping grounds for homeless away from the city and put them there . Trailer parks used to do this . Was there drugs and domestics sure but it kept them away from normies and sidewalks .
 
Drugs. It’s about access to drugs.

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.

These are big misnomers, as someone who has been a cityfag (unfortunately) most of my life.

Other states give a one way bus ticket to Los Angeles, San Francisco, NYC, etc., and pats themselves on the back for not having a homeless issue. The only reason they don’t is because they ship them to bleeding heart liberal areas so then they can act the hero. It’s a never ending game of hot potato, except instead of foil around a delicious baked potato, it’s foil around heroin.
 
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.
This really stuck out to me. Poor artiste, it's beneath him to do real work. Any day now everyone's gonna know his name! Any day now. I like how they didn't elaborate on this, at all. Photography equipment is pretty expensive, glad the taxpayers are subsidizing his little hobby (drugs).

I struggle to understand how this article is supposed to make me feel bad.
 
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 almost like there are parallels between CA and CCP in terms of how they treat the homeless, as with how CA and CCP treat firearms. They both agree that those are bad.
 
These are big misnomers, as someone who has been a cityfag (unfortunately) most of my life.

Other states give a one way bus ticket to Los Angeles, San Francisco, NYC, etc., and pats themselves on the back for not having a homeless issue. The only reason they don’t is because they ship them to bleeding heart liberal areas so then they can act the hero. It’s a never ending game of hot potato, except instead of foil around a delicious baked potato, it’s foil around heroin.
And LA, SF, and NYC all reward homeless addicts. This would be less of a problem if we stopped treating homeless addicts like poowa widdwe victims uhve da capitawist system UwU and started forcing them to make a choice: get help and change or be a worthless bum who gets arrested all the time for doing drugs and misbehaving. Put these crazy homeless people in jail or commit them. Some people are never gonna get it and wiping their ass every single time they fuck up is a danger to the rest of society.
 
Here is a novel idea , open camping grounds for homeless away from the city and put them there

Here s what cities have.

People who have money you can beg from

People who have money you can steal from

People who have things you can steal.

People who have drugs you can buy.

having a homeless camp filled with people who have no money or drugs isnt gonna help them...at least from their end.
 
Fun fact: the junkies/crazies living in decrepit RVs don't actually own the RVs. There's a lot of "vanlord" shit where rich techie pajeets will buy up shitloads of old fucked up RVs off Craigslist or simply via word of mouth, then rent them to the junkies. The RVs don't run since the wiring was eaten by rats long ago. The legal titles to the RVs aren't even in the names of vanlord pajeets a lot of the time, the titles are in the names of people who died long ago. When the cops haul the RVs away and chase off the occupants, it's no loss for the vanlords. The RVs go to impound and when the licensed owners can't be found the RVs are sold to dismantlers.

San Francisco has been a landfill of two legged trash cans for a very long time. For decades smaller cities that didn't want to deal with these two legged rats would simply buy them bus tickets to SF. I remember when incorrigible teenagers whose families were fed up with their horseshit would be given bus tickets to SF for their 18th bdays.

PL: When I realized that my mama didn't have much time left on the mortal coil I started making preps. Saved up, bought the land for the Fort, saved up some more, bought an old toy hauler RV, then built a home inside of it. Technically illegal but I live WAY fucking up in the hills so nobody gives a flying fuck. And I did this on a $1100/mo tugboat, admittedly with mama paying for some of the renovations. Oh yeah, mental illness here too but no dope except for what the psych prescribes which works way better than street dope. But a fair number of in your face homeless are just the type of people who were born broken and who are driven by narcissism to broadcast their crazy and addiction to everyone surrounding them. "Some men you just can't reach."
 
I think the way to do it, realistically, and this is in fact the socialist in me speaking, is do micro-communes on the same principle as some of the micro-lending projects where a group of people go in together.

For example?

Get a group of maybe 10 single men with RVs who all have jobs and who aren't non-functional with mental illness or drugs, but who are too poor to rent a standard house. Buy a vacant lot. Build a small bathhouse (not the gay kind) with toilets and showers and a laundry.

Split the deed to the lot 10 ways between the 10 residents.

Make the people pay maybe ~400 a month into an HOA situation for utilities and taxes and give the residents some power to kick out anyone who isn't participating.

There would need to be some stipulation for transferring shares, but this I think is where the commune shit comes through.

The thing tumbles off the cliff into the sea, shit gets foreclosed on and the city gets the land back.

I feel like the ideal option is to give people some kind of stake in the game, where you owe something to the people around you, but they also owe you.

Shit, there are a lot of duck clubs that work on this model, and you know everyone there is armed.
Yeah but the other cost of that 4 million doesn't happen then .

Some middleman related to somebody doesn't get paid highly to be an ineffective NGO.

And then there's whatever opportunity cost the city would like to claim like but if we turn this into 3million each condos we loose X theoretical tax revenue and the land sale profits

Remember liberal and conservative governments are both basically the same and don't give any fucks about actual solutions and will do everything possible to prevent anyone else from implementing one
 
Can't have a homeless problem if you eliminate the homeless problem.

1753623699838.webp
 
These are big misnomers, as someone who has been a cityfag (unfortunately) most of my life.

Other states give a one way bus ticket to Los Angeles, San Francisco, NYC, etc., and pats themselves on the back for not having a homeless issue. The only reason they don’t is because they ship them to bleeding heart liberal areas so then they can act the hero. It’s a never ending game of hot potato, except instead of foil around a delicious baked potato, it’s foil around heroin.

Not to powerlevel, but I have had people close to me go through the downward spiral of addiction and homelessness: it is the drugs. They ask to be bussed to these cities because that is where drugs are available.

Of course, it is a self reinforcing cycle, more drugs —>more homeless —> more city services for the homeless —> more homeless —> more drugs.

But it is the drugs.

I even know one person who inherited a whole ass house in a small town. They tried living there for a bit, but ended up selling the house to live on the street in Big Liberal City. Why? They couldn’t get drugs easily enough in the small town.

IT IS THE DRUGS.

PS: did the person who sold their inherited house use the money to rent or buy a place in Big City? NO! Why not? Because they saw every cent going toward rent as a cent taken away from their drug budget. Better to sleep on the streets and have $$$$ extra a month to blow on drugs. Because if you can be high 24/7, you don’t need a roof over your head. You do not care if you are cold or hungry or dirty or uncomfortable.
 
The thing that nags me about drugs: the USA is pretty much the only country on the entire fucking planet that has this sort of drug problem. Sure, a lot of places have garden variety drunks who drink cheap local booze all the time, but only the US has this horrendous problem with heavy duty chemical soup drugs that essentially lobotomize people and turn them into zombies who then fill the cities and rob people for drug money and wander around looking like survivors of the type of post-apocalypse imagined in bottom barrel SyFy Channel movies. The entire spectrum of society is constantly high, from trust fund twats to street niggers who are third or fourth generation of their lifestyle. Western Europe is around US levels of wealth and possibly beyond in a few cases like western Germany, Switzerland, and the Low Countries, but they don't have problems beyond alcohol and weed. Why do Americans have the need to be high on shit that would burn a hole through a 1948 Oldsmobile's fender in an hour? What the actual fuck is going on?
 
This means that sleeping in an RV gets you considered homeless.

Can't wait to see all the RV vloggers seethe about this.
LOL, I once read an article about a working class mulatto bitch who got obsessed with #vanlife Youtubers and decided to try it out herself. She wound up living in one of these RV dead zones alongside the skitzos and tweekers and begging for change. Apparently she missed the part about the vanlife crowd having very large trust funds and generous billionaire parents.
 
Back