City Takes Baby Steps to Push Out Homeless Vehicle Dwellers
A new ordinance aims to move along people living in their vehicles on the streets of San Francisco by limiting RV parking to a maximum of 2 hours. When counted in May, the city had 437 RVs being used as housing, and no sanctioned parking spaces after the closure of the last safe parking site in March. Large vehicles (over 22 feet in length or 7 feet in height) in violation of this ban may be fined, ticketed, or towed.
With inadequate resources allocated toward housing these San Franciscans in one of the country’s least affordable housing markets, the unspoken expectation seems to be that these people will simply drive away.
Obvious Drawbacks
While other California towns like Santa Cruz and San Diego have already implemented similar bans to keep unsightly RVs from blocking the seaside views of coastal mansions, those people don’t simply disappear when their way of life is criminalized. In fact, they may become even more visible to rich NIMBY residents as they are forced out of the only shelter they had access to and onto the streets.
“They are basically forcing people out of RVs, and what this means is that we lose an alternative to being on the streets, so more folks on the streets,” said Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco.
Unconcerned with these long-term knock-on effects, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie was pleased with the decision, giving a statement that hit all the spaces on the bingo card:
“Our families in San Francisco deserve better than the RV homelessness we’ve seen on our streets for years. Those in vehicles deserve better options for raising their kids, and those just trying to walk down the street deserve safety and cleanliness. I am proud to stand with the Board of Supervisors today to pass a plan that will finally give all of our families what they deserve. With compassion and accountability, we will give those living in vehicles a better option and deliver safe and clean streets for our communities.”
Rapid Rehousing?
The city has set aside funding for a rapid rehousing subsidy program that will assist people who are relinquishing their vehicles in finding alternate housing. The program has secured $8.2 million of funding for the next two to three years of operation, and will provide 65 slots. Again, there are more than 400 RVs in the city of San Francisco that are being used as a primary shelter. That amount of money divided up between them for 3 years would be not only enough to rent a private RV site, but a full market-rate apartment.
There is also a small RV buyback program to which $525,000 has been allotted in the city budget. That’s not going to go very far compared to the $8.2 million that will help up to 65 people for maybe 3 years. The buyback program is modeled on a similar program that was successful in Berkeley, but it remains to be seen whether the numbers will add up as well in San Francisco.
Jennifer Wolch, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, noted that “for someone to be willing to give up their RV,” the compensation they received “would have to be something that’s not tenuous and not short-term.” This is both common sense and also borne out by research.
It is undoubtedly a hard sell to convince someone to give up their home, their vehicle, and the only thing sheltering themselves and all of their earthly possessions, for a paltry buyback price and a chance at one of 65 spots that will maybe cover you for the next 3 years.
Rapid Relocation
Without enough permanent housing to go around, the likely result of this ban will be those with operable vehicles moving on to nearby towns and cities, which are already starting to panic. Those with inoperable vehicles may choose to accept the city’s buyback offer or remain in place until they are eventually fined and towed.
This ban is likely to have a ripple effect that will see more and more bans in neighboring cities, until eventually homeless people are pushed out of everywhere, and even housed RVers won’t be able to enjoy an overly leisurely picnic without worrying about their motorhome being towed. One would think that that possibility might give NIMBYs pause, but we’ve already proven time and time again that we’re perfectly willing to give up our own rights and privileges as long as it means that poor people won’t get anything for free.
Jumping Through Exemption Hoops
The RV ban still dangles a bit of a carrot for those who want to try and jump through the necessary hoops to get it. There exists a theoretical exemption that would allow certain vehicles to ignore the 2-hour limit for a renewable 6-month period. This is essentially an exemption to be used while you are waiting to be placed into housing. In order to be granted the exemption, you must agree to be placed by the city into permanent or non-congregate interim housing whenever it becomes available and to give up your RV at that time, be fully compliant with waste disposal rules, and obey other “good neighbor” rules as required.
This exemption can only be granted to members of that group of 437 RVs that were counted before the ban went into effect. It will not be available to any new arrivals. Myrna Melgar, the sponsor of this law in the city’s board of supervisors, explains that the exclusion was intentional:
“We also needed to make sure that going forward, this is not an option for folks who are falling into homelessness — to just rent an RV or get an RV and then park it in the public right-of-way — because that creates a whole bunch of problems for the rest of us,” Melgar said.
Because, of course, what people in imminent danger of becoming homeless really need is fewer options.
