San Francisco Mayor Proposes to Ban RVs from Long-Term Street Parking

Facing mounting pressure from residents, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie introduced a plan on Tuesday to ban large vehicles and RVs from parking for longer than two hours on city streets.

The proposal, which is part of his March “Breaking the Cycle” initiative, would subject unauthorized oversized vehicles to citations and towing if not moved within the new time limit.

“No child should grow up in San Francisco forced to live in a car,” Lurie said at a press conference on Tuesday. “And no parent should have to raise their children in those conditions.”

As part of the program, Lurie is proposing to devote nearly $13 million to enforcement, outreach and housing subsidies, with city workers offering residents living in large vehicles the chance to receive stable housing. Lurie also intends to offer RV dwellers a “vehicle buyback” incentive — essentially a cash offer to encourage residents to relinquish their large vehicles.

The move comes just six months after former Mayor London Breed’s own plan for banning RV street parking was reversed by the Board of Supervisors, due to mounting criticism from homeless advocates.

Breed’s plan would have allowed officials with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to tow vehicles if RV dwellers rejected the city’s offers of shelter or services. However, the End Poverty Tows Coalition successfully appealed.

Some members of that coalition are blasting Lurie’s current plan, while others say it has some merit, but lacks clarity about who specifically should be prioritized for rehousing.

Eleana Binder, the director of public policy at the GLIDE Center for Social Justice and a member of the coalition, said the most troubling part of the plan is the city’s estimate that it could provide funding to rehouse only 115 families, or roughly a quarter of the 437 households estimated to live in large vehicles citywide.

“The difference between 115 and 437 is concerning,” Binder said. “Those who are not immediately connected with housing subsidies will have some protection from the two-hour parking restrictions, but we’ll still be at risk of ticketing and towing for other violations.”

Lurie’s proposal includes some exceptions for residents actively awaiting their placement into housing; they’ll be eligible for a temporary permit that allows them to remain parked until they can relocate.

Binder said she believes this plan could make it harder for people who are already in the queue for housing to get the resources they need.

“Those folks might experience further bottlenecking in the system if the few resources that are available are dedicated only to families who are living in RVs,” Binder said.

But Binder said the coalition isn’t staunchly opposed to what Lurie has proposed so far. Still, she would like to see changes to the vehicle buyback program, which she said “needs to be actually adequate and a true recognition of the value of the vehicle.” The city did not immediately respond to a question about how much money would be offered for each vehicle.

Lukas Illa, a human rights organizer with the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness, however, called Lurie’s plan “draconian” and described the buyback program as “coercive in nature.”

“[It’s] being framed as a benevolent act, but with the threat of towing and impounding and scrapping of their vehicle if they refuse the ‘services’ they’re being offered,” he said.

On Tuesday, Lurie said his proposal has the support of five county supervisors, the majority needed for the board to approve his plan.

The board will likely take its first vote on the proposal in September, according to Emily Cohen, a spokesperson for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. The plan would also have to be approved as part of the city’s budget.

“Given those two steps, we anticipate that implementation will begin to roll out in the fall,” she said.