With San Francisco’s RV parking ban starting on Saturday, Nov. 1, RV dwellers who say they qualify for the city’s six-month extension are instead facing the prospect of being towed if they park on any city street for more than two hours, including overnight.
A survey conducted by the Department of Emergency Management, alongside the mayor’s office and other city agencies, in May identified 451 inhabited RVs parked on public streets within city limits. Those vehicles automatically qualify for a six-month grace period to continue parking in San Francisco while their owners find alternative housing.
But many say they were overlooked in that count, and are now struggling to claim their right to an extension. Even when they have subsequently won a permit, days before enforcement begins, the process has been maddening, they say, filled with contradictory advice, changing rules, and sometimes multiple rejected applications.
“They want us to disappear,” said Gregory, an RV dweller who said he wasn’t counted in the May survey, but has parked in the same spot on Masonic and Geary for two and a half years. He isn’t planning on staying in San Francisco if he can’t live in his RV. “I’m not giving up my RV,” he said. “They’re not taking it from me.”
RV dwellers like Gregory say they have submitted various forms of documentation to prove they were on city streets during the May count, proving they have parked in San Francisco for years: Recent photos of their RVs, parking citations, and tax documents, among others.
One RV dweller even submitted an article from the San Francisco Chronicle showing his name, printed next to a photo of him positioned in front of his RV.
But such attempts have been rejected. Dozens could now be at risk of having their homes towed.
As of Oct. 21, the city has considered 88 appeals from RV dwellers who say they were missed in the May survey count, according to the mayor’s office. About 40 percent of those have been rejected. It is unclear how many people are affected because a single RV dweller can submit multiple appeals.
Like Aris, who on Wednesday was trying to claim his extension for the fourth time.
Aris, who spoke to Mission Local through a Spanish interpreter, was one of a group of more than 10 RV dwellers at the corner of 15th and Potrero streets in the Mission District on Wednesday evening, at a popular parking place for people living in their vehicles.
City outreach workers had set up tables to help the RV dwellers fill out permits. They have held over a dozen events, with 26 planned, doling out free pizza and answering questions about the fast-approaching ban in the past month.
On Wednesday, a line quickly formed.
Aris should meet the qualifications for a permit — he’s lived in his vehicle in San Francisco since 2019, and said he was there during the May survey count. But there’s a catch: He sold the RV he was living in at the time and bought a new one three weeks ago. This makes it difficult for Aris to prove his residency.
“We’ve been circling the wagon on this for a while now,” said an outreach worker when Aris asked her what he could do. “We have a desire to figure out how to make it work with the parameters that we’re trying to set.” Aris was told to return with more evidence. Or he could request an administrative hearing to dispute the count.
He is now considering moving in with his adult son, who also lives in an RV.
City officials assert the survey count was “extensive,” covering not only popular parking spots for those living in their vehicles in San Francisco, but every inch of the city.
“We have been working to create a policy that puts families on a path to permanent housing and delivers clean, safe streets for residents and visitors across the city,” said a spokesperson for the mayor’s office, in a statement. “As we continue listening to those directly affected, we’re making real-time adjustments to deliver results with compassion and accountability.”
Even if people were missed, homeless outreach workers assured RV dwellers that appealing the count would be “easy.”
That has not always been the case. Some RV occupants are illiterate or non-native English speakers. Others struggle with mental health or substance abuse. Gathering the proper documents to apply for city permits can be difficult, but more so for these individuals.
Richard, for example, has parked in San Francisco since 1994 and was also missed in the survey count. But that’s no problem, he said: He believed he did not need a permit.
After learning about the RV ban from turning on the news, he soon began the application process, until he heard from a friend that all he needed was a disabled placard to avoid the ban. But that’s incorrect, having a disabled placard does not exempt an RV user from the parking ban.
When asked if he was interested in still applying for a permit, Richard responded that he had no need for it. “That’s my permit,” he said, referring to his placard. “I’m safe.”
Then there is the AI chatbot. Earlier this month, the city rolled out an artificial intelligence tool meant to answer questions from RV dwellers about the upcoming ban and, among other things, help them appeal an unfavorable decision and get an extension permit.
Mission Local found that the chatbot was confusing and at times contradictory.
The rules of the permit process were also altered at least three times weeks before enforcement is set to begin, and became more restrictive. Among other things, that made relying on the AI chatbot to answer questions difficult — the rules were changing before RV dwellers’ eyes, and the AI was struggling to keep up.
Still, some have been lucky, relatively. Raymundo, who immigrated to San Francisco from Mexico City over a decade ago, was not listed in the May survey count, even though he said he has parked in an RV he shares with his mother by Lake Merced for years. At $610 a month paid towards monthly installments he said, it’s much cheaper than renting a room.
But he found one piece of eligible evidence after a week of searching: a local mechanic’s receipt for maintenance he had done on his vehicle in March, within the mandated five month period. It’s a lucky break, he said — he usually doesn’t have maintenance done in the city, and hadn’t been ticketed during the period when he’d need documentation as he’s learned to be careful about street sweeping and other rules.
“If you don’t get parking tickets, you would think you would see that as a good thing,” said Zach Bollinger, who has lived in his RV for nearly a decade and was, himself, counted in the May survey count. “But if you don’t have them, now you’re out of luck.”
Bollinger has been helping other RV users, like Aris, with finding the right documentation for their permit application. In the first few weeks before the rules were changed “they were accepting everything,” said Bollinger. But recently, it’s become more difficult.
For Armando Bravo Martinez, whom Mission Local profiled earlier this year, it also took four tries, and the help of a chatbot, before he was deemed eligible for a permit.
He submitted “mountains” of evidence that were rejected, including a parking ticket dated from last year and a note from an outreach worker stating he lived in his vehicle, he said, before he finally found a parking ticket dated between January and May.
That was the only ticket he received during that time period, he said. “If I hadn’t gotten that ticket,” said Martinez. “I don’t know what I would do.” Though Martinez is on a list for a low-income apartment, he says, with hundreds of others vying for the same apartment, it’s unlikely he will find housing in time — like Gregory, he is also considering moving outside of the city.
Hans Ege Wenger, an aid worker and homeless advocate, has also stepped in to help. Along with city outreach workers, who have been doorknocking on RVs five days a week, Wenger has also gone door to door since the parking ban was signed into law in July. Wenger said some RV dwellers, many of whom are Spanish speakers, have expressed confusion.
“Some people don’t know that the permits are even a thing,” said Wenger. He said he spoke to a family parked just two blocks away from an info session hosted by the city who wasn’t aware of the ban at all. And had heard nothing of the city’s outreach. “The city just expected them to show up.”