UPDATE: The SFMTA Board approved Mayor Breed’s crackdown on RVs used as shelter
San Francisco’s plan to enforce a citywide ban on RVs used as shelter faces significant legal, logistical and ethical hurdles, according to internal documents obtained by El Tecolote. Limited enforcement resources, a lack of towing capacity and understaffed outreach programs pose major obstacles.
Despite these concerns, Mayor London Breed and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) is pushing forward with the proposal, set for discussion at the October 1 board meeting.
Without clear solutions to the complex issue of vehicular homelessness, the city risks crafting a policy that functions less as a solution and more as a pressure tactic — pushing RV residents into more precarious forms of shelter or out of the city entirely.
Mayor’s proposed plan isn’t actually a citywide solution
The RV ban proposal, drafted by the SFMTA in collaboration with the Mayor’s office, would change parking rules for oversized vehicles like RVs and enable the transportation agency to tow vehicles if residents refuse shelter, in addition to receiving a $108 citation.
Though the plan is framed as a citywide response to the rise in RVs used as shelter, it limits Director of Transportation Jeffrey Tumlin’s authority to post overnight parking regulations only on specific streets, and can only act after submitting a report to justify the restriction in each area.
“[It’s] a pretty obvious and direct internal contradiction,” wrote SFMTA’s Policy Manager Hank Wilson in a comment on a draft report to the board on August 22. “If [Tumlin] can only post on the subset of streets that meet the criteria, then, by definition, it’s not a citywide ban.”
As drafted, the proposal would maintain the city’s block-by-block approach, but public hearings would no longer be required for each request to ban overnight RV parking on specific streets. This approach pushes RV residents from one street to another, worsening their living conditions while frustrating new residents and businesses in the neighborhoods they move to.
“We’re going to get a lot more calls about this from impacted neighborhoods,” wrote Wilson to his colleagues in an email, adding that neighbors are likely to say, “hey the Mayor says she’s cracking down, can we get a crackdown here?” or “hey your crackdown in other neighborhoods is leading to an uptick in RV parking in our part of town.”
Understaffing undermines enforcement
The final proposal submitted to the Board expands the responsibility for engaging with vehicle residents and offering shelter to all city outreach teams. Yet according to an internal document, staffing shortages at the Department of Homelessness (HSH), the Healthy Street Operations Center (HSOC), and the Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) are expected to limit the “speed of progress as engagement is required before any enforcement.” Additionally, there’s “limited” to “no staff” for all the required work to navigate people into permanent housing. Advocates have raised similar concerns.
“Unhoused people who live in their vehicular homes know that if they leave their homes in exchange for a shelter bed, they are more likely to end up on the streets again than in long term housing,” said Lukas Illa, an organizer with the Coalition on Homelessness, in a statement issued on September 20. “Who would give up a home for a tent?”
Understaffing and budget concerns also extend to the SFMTA’s sign shop, which is already strained with other duties and may not have the capacity to produce the signs needed for this citywide parking restriction.
San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) staffing shortages present an even more significant challenge. Under the proposal, SFPD would be the main agency tasked with enforcing parking rules and towing vehicles overnight, potentially diverting officers from other policing priorities.
Towing RVs across San Francisco remains difficult
Currently, about 50 miles of streets in San Francisco have oversize vehicle restrictions.
As legislated, parking infractions are not towable until streets are updated with new parking signs. Even then, vehicles can only be towed after HSH and related agencies offer shelter to residents living in them.
Another major hurdle is San Francisco’s limited capacity to store towed RVs, which could create logistical bottlenecks. Additionally, operable RVs may simply move to nearby unrestricted blocks, leaving the city to tow only mechanically inoperable vehicle homes.
Beyond these logistical challenges, the financial burden is yet another key obstacle. Towing RVs comes with a hefty price tag. The SFMTA estimated the cost of the entire effort would be $350,000 a year, yet internal data reveals this cost would cover towing only five RVs per month and posting 360 permanent signs throughout the city, among other installation services.
City staffers conflicted over enforcement
Internal communications reveal that key SFMTA staff are conflicted about the practical, ethical, and legal ramifications of the proposed legislation.
In the document, SFMTA staff said that Mayor Breed’s public messaging around offering shelter before towing could be practically “problematic.” If the intent is to prioritize shelter offers to get people off the street, SFMTA staff recommended that the Mayor “continue to push for more affordable housing without making [the current policy] towable and declaring it will be implemented citywide.”
As proposed, the legislation could also impact other oversized vehicles, such as vintage Airstreams, Sprinter vans, fishing boats, visitor campers and church shuttle buses that park overnight on restricted streets. “What is our proposed solution to this?” asked SFMTA Director of Streets Vyktoria Wise in a comment, referring to the oversize restrictions applied to all vehicles of that length. “We can’t just say yes, it will get towed. Are we standing up [for] a permit program? Are we exempting certain vehicles?”
In a comment, Wilson also expressed confusion around the proposed legislation: “Shouldn’t we just scrap [the current towing] policy, since we don’t know at this point how exactly we’re going to be doing towing of OVs/RVs?”
SFMTA staffers raised ethical concerns about towing vehicles overnight. This approach could “present challenges including optics,” read a note, as it raises doubts about whether alternative shelter can realistically be found at that time, potentially leading to backlash from homeless advocates. Prioritizing enforcement in neighborhoods that frequently submit complaints to 311 also sparked equity concerns among staff.
Notably, the restriction could affect Muni drivers and other city staff, some of whom are known to sleep in their vehicles.
RV ban faces a precarious road ahead
As San Francisco moves forward with its RV ban proposal, the city must address not only the practical challenges but also the legal concerns and ethical dilemmas raised by its own staff.
SFMTA staff pointed to legal risks, noting that other cities have faced lawsuits over similar RV bans. In Mountain View, a controversial plan to ban oversized vehicles from city streets resulted in a legal settlement after attorneys argued the rules were “designed to banish the city’s low-income populations.” As part of the negotiations, the city agreed to reserve certain streets for RVs to park.
In April, while searching for safe parking sites, SFMTA’s Planner Marie Hunter wrote in an email to colleagues that “the requests from residents, businesses and supervisors continue to conflict with people vehicularly housed.” She pointed out that a solution needed to be found. “We need to be able to direct people impacted to a safe location where they will have some time to be connected to resources.”
Hunter highlighted that despite “promising conversations” about potential sites, no concrete solutions have emerged, leaving staff to deal with public frustrations and mounting complaints. “Staff are asked to advance projects or address specific situations with considerable conflicts,” she wrote. “It really cannot continue.”
With the SFMTA set to review the legislation, the future of RV residents remains uncertain — and the balance between enforcing restrictions to prevent public camping and having compassion is still an unresolved debate.