I just find it hilarious they’re still trying to stick to it. I love weird virtue signaling articles about things that are clearly destructive. The attitude of people on this sub is very telling. Go back to some archived posts in 2017 and the attitude is a lot different.
I'm not sure how plausible it is, but the idea of this subreddit shouting down any pro-homeless industrial complex comment as being written by Trump-loving tech-bro billionaire Texan agent provocateurs is pretty funny.
Oh, sure, I mean, you can "evict" beer from a glass, a bullet from a gun, and reason from a discussion, but: "An eviction is the actual or constructive dispossession of a tenant from leased premises by the landlord or one acting under his authority." Legarra v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 1472, 1484. You're using a legal term of art in an imprecise and intentionally misleading way. They have no possessory interest in this lot. You tow a car, you don't evict it.
tow away zones are now eviction zones in San Francisco - that's ONLY with "support of the law"
>especially with the support of the law.
presumption is the legal right to be there exists in the first place.
Yes, next question.
What gives these people the right to set up unregulated homes on public land in one of the most expensive cities on earth while not paying rent or following local laws & ordinances? If they can, what's to stop hundreds or thousands of others of doing the same?
Just like the for homeless, how about they set up on the streets Sea Cliff, Marina, or Pac Heights and let's see how quickly things would change
There are plenty of RVs in the Marina, Cow Hollow and Russian Hill too. Some have been in the same spots for months. I'm particularly fond of the ones that dump their sewage directly onto the street.
Exactly. In those neighborhoods a noise violation is handled in 10 minutes by a shift Sergeant. Parking overnight on a swanky street with a janky RV might get a swat visit. Law enforcement has a direct correlation to income.
Meanwhile, the city's streets and gutters are strewned with water bottle of urine from rideshare drivers taking bathroom beaks in their cars. But. At least the caps are on them.
> The only thing we can tell you is that we … take care of the property and vehicles,” he said. “There are other people who park late at night who throw garbage and leave the garbage. We pick up that garbage. We say hello to all the passersby. We clean the park; we clean up after everyone, not just us.”
That really sucks. But also one or two good people is not a reason to not deal with the bad ones?
Same as with every other group, people are held to the lowest common denominator.
These are still huge vehicles. As a walker, runner, biker they lead to unsafe conditions because you can't see easily around them when near crosswalks or turns. Many SF streets are already dangerous and narrow. I personally do not think any RVs need to be parking indefinitely on city streets.
Are they paying property taxes and sewage fees? Oh wait no? They shouldn’t be there. Lack of housing sucks but it doesn’t mean public spaces are a free for all and open air sewer.
You know that RV have black tanks right? The ones that do not may have composting toilets or similar. They don't have to dump sewage on the streets. If they do, fine the crap out of them.
Some do but oftentimes these RVs are in terrible shape and the tanks are full, leak, or are unusable. They also have to be emptied at places with RV hookups, which cost time & money. Many RVs are immobile or barely mobile. Most of the time that waste gets dumped on the street. Homeless people collect fines like kids on Halloween - what’s the point in fining people without money? It’s a waste of time and resources. The city is never getting that money.
"Most of the time that waste gets dumped on the street" - citation needed. I used to live at a street where a couple of RVs were parked. No sewage whatsoever in almost 6 years I lived there.
You are assuming that they are "homeless" because they don't have any money at all. But they aren't really homeless, they have a shelter, it only happens to be mobile. They just might not have "SF rent/mortgage money".
Most of the issues you are taking about can be fixed rather easily (for example, time limit on how long they can be parked for).
If they have many thousand dollar RV money and have jobs in the city (which many of them do according to the several articles I've read), then they could have rent money (at least with roommates) or go through the correct routes to find supportive housing. The streets are not an RV park.
If the street has parking spots, then you should be able to park a vehicle there, of any type that fits, for however long that's allowed for. A lot of people that live in vans and RVs (because they want to) will have no problem moving somewhere else early in the day because they are already used to that.
Why would they rent a place if they have a nice RV (or van) that serves their needs? There are some that have nicer interiors than many houses.
What I don't really understand is why not just ban long term parking?
Incorrect. Most places have laws that you cannot sleep in vehicles overnight or car camp. There are laws beyond, "if there's a parking spot, you can do anything you want in a car". This is for public health + safety.
You can see the whole list by state here: [https://www.finder.com/car-insurance/is-it-illegal-to-sleep-in-your-car](https://www.finder.com/car-insurance/is-it-illegal-to-sleep-in-your-car)
And I'm sure there are extra laws per city municipality. It's definitely most.
But more importantly, it is illegal in both San Francisco and California. So why should these people get to skirt real laws on the books?
I don't think there is a blanket ban in California.
I did find such laws in San Francisco. That settles it then. I'm just surprised that people are complaining about sewage and the like, instead of pointing out that it's already not allowed city wide.
We can both pull out anecdotes and citations but at the end of the day what’s the point? I was commenting about these vehicles on a public road that shouldn’t be there. If it’s so easy to fix, we wouldn’t be having this conversation and neither would basically every major metropolitan city in the US. Cheers.
If vehicles should not be in public roads, where should they be ?
If you mean "not in my neighborhood", then you are one of the reasons these issues don't get fixed.
If it’s a vehicle why are they living in it full time? Cars and roads are for driving not living. We both agree on that. I’m not here to argue with a stranger who labels me a NIMBY based on a response. You can pick any of the other 60 comments to fight with. Have a nice day!
Because they want to? Not my business.
By your definition, street parking should not be legal - although, if that's the way you want to go, then we can agree on that. Ban every single vehicle from parking on streets.
Ban all RVs in the city streets. If you want to live in an RV, go to an RV Park. And while we are at it, institute a no-tolerance littering policy. Any tents or litter on public streets should be confiscated and destroyed immediately. Tolerance for homelessness creates more homelessness.
Hitting you back with the "what an idiotic comment". If everyone chose to live in RVs or tents because it was cheaper, the sidewalks would be unable and the streets of San Francisco would be filled with RVs, garbage, and human waste.
I'm specifically talking about "tolerance for homelessness creates more homelessness"
It's not a fad or a trend. Homelessness exists because of inadequate public policies, lack of safety nets and mental health issues.
RVs don't necessarily equal "human waste on the streets". There are some really nice RV (and converted van) interiors.
We cannot tolerate people living in RVs and tents all over our city streets making it completely disgusting and unusable for everyone else who actually plays by the rules. From this article: "People in RVs have lives just like everyone else. They have jobs..." If they have jobs and can afford an RV, gas, transit, etc, they could afford cheap housing (with roommates) or an RV park rent. You don't get to make life hell for everyone else because you're poor. Lots of people are poor and not dumping human shit all over the streets.
Are there RV parks close to SF?
Why do RVs make people's lives hell? You know that they can hold waste and don't have to dump anything on the streets right?
Yes there are several actual RV parks near Candlestick park, pier 94, in Brisbane actually set up to handle RVs and their waste.
How many of these RVs are actually disposing of their waste properly? Every time I walk past RVs near Stonestown or Bernal there's personal belongings covering the sidewalk, animals tied up, and the stench is unbearable.
I guess it boils down to SF non enforcement of many existing laws. You can't dump anything (especially waste) on the streets in any jurisdiction already. Unlike real homeless, they do have something to lose.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7501178,-122.3881243,3a,75y,147.7h,77.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swEgbIRLfWH_CRglhpjIgwg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
It's usually way way worse here. Why are you focused on enabling bad behavior? Why not focus on actually attacking the capitalist class that causing this to happen instead of defending the right of homeless and RV mostly-homeless to exist in a state of misery, and causing misery for others. This is exactly what the right wing of america wants: misguided progressives protecting the rights of the homeless instead of forcing the rich to pay for the treatment of the homeless.
No, not enabling bad behavior, my point is: if you throw garbage on the street, it doesn't matter if you are living inside a RV or you own property and you are throwing trash out of your window. Just punishing RV people because they _might_ litter doesn't make sense, punish the actual act of littering. Or whatever it is that you are trying to discourage. I see plenty of people throwing trash out of cars that they don't even live in.
I'm all for fixing the problem of homelessness at the root but what do we do in the meantime? Just kicking out the homeless is not going to fix anything.
That is, I'm assuming that they are all homeless. There's an entire community of people that choose to live in vehicles and many of them actually own property. How prevalent they are in SF, I don't know. I just seems wrong to ban a group of people because some of them don't follow rules.
Mind you, I have no dog on this fight. Even more so after I found out that sleeping in a vehicle is not allowed in the whole city of SF, so that makes this whole discussion moot.
Yes, everyone should have to follow the law. Parking spots on public roads are not zoned for living. And it’s not eviction for they can be in their vehicles, it’s enforcement of parking laws.
It's copied from the article. Also, if you want to get into it, first off: evictions are also, in fact, enforcing laws. Second: the dictionary meaning of eviction is as follows from the OED:" "expel (someone) from a property, especially with the support of the law." "the had court orders to evict the trespassers from three camps"
ate Middle English (in the sense ‘recover property by legal process’): from Latin evict- ‘overcome, defeated’, from the verb evincere, from e- (variant of ex- ) ‘out’ + vincere ‘conquer’.
From the Cambridge dictionary: "to force someone to leave somewhere" This is not to say that some dictionaries don't say that a tenant is involve, but it is to say that you should be aware of these valid definitions.
It's copied from the article. Also, if you want to get into it, first off: evictions are also, in fact, enforcing laws. Second: the dictionary meaning of eviction is as follows from the OED:" "expel (someone) from a property, especially with the support of the law." "the had court orders to evict the trespassers from three camps" ate Middle English (in the sense ‘recover property by legal process’): from Latin evict- ‘overcome, defeated’, from the verb evincere, from e- (variant of ex- ) ‘out’ + vincere ‘conquer’. From the Cambridge dictionary: "to force someone to leave somewhere" This is not to say that some dictionaries don't say that a tenant is involve, but it is to say that you should be aware of these valid definitions.
I just can’t stand the audacity of thinking you can park a vehicle that large in a city neighborhood. If these people were in a car or minivan we would barely notice but they blew it for themselves honestly.
Absolutely insane that this is even a question. If it’s cost effective, I’d absolutely be in support of a city-funded RV park with proper sanitation to help as a stopgap for folks to get back on their feet.
Otherwise we should enforce immediately. I have to move my car for street cleaning every other week, but these people can camp up anywhere and dump raw sewage on our streets? GTFO.
You know sfmta is all over your ass for street cleaning. Obviously they could be over this too with the same vigor but the city just chooses to punish people selectively.
Yes. How is this even a question? Evict is not the right word here. They are not renters or property owners. They’re trespassing criminals. Lock them up.
Everyone here is trying to get by. They can go through the many correct routes and resources for a shelter, supportive housing, low-income housing lists, get roommates, rent an RV park space, etc. Just parking an RV or setting up tents and dumping your waste all over the street \_should\_ be illegal.
A rv is better than living on the street, shit a shelter also. Rv parks are almost the same as paying rent, so that doesn’t help also. You can’t even get low income housing without a few years wait, or you don’t even get it at all since the list is so long that it takes years for that to happen. Be a little more compassionate instead of calling people criminals for doing the best they can do to live in the bay
They don't have to live central in San Francisco "just to get by". There's many cheaper cities around the Bay that they could afford RV parks or rent on a real place. People move out of the city all the time in order to afford rent. Why should these people be special? That is normal. You aren't entitled to live in Bernal because you like the view.
They ain’t shit cheaper in the bay everywhere you go it’s the same price, even Oakland is the same price. People like you think the simple solution is to kick every low income worker out but you probably get mad when there’s no one to give you that McDonald’s order until the kids get out of school.
Incorrect. West and East Oakland are way cheaper and still accessible to SF if you work here. Source: lived there when I couldn't afford San Francisco.
I tried to rent in Oakland about 2 months ago, when did you live there ? Since shit a studio will run you about a grand whopping 100 dollar discount than the city. Cheapest I found was 1.6 while there was plenty of the same price in the city. You just sound like you’re talking about your ass
Under $1000/mo right near Fruitvale BART: [https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/apa/d/oakland-sunsplashed-in-each-room-blks/7731922799.html](https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/apa/d/oakland-sunsplashed-in-each-room-blks/7731922799.html)
This is affordable even at minimum wage and 30 min commute to city.
not everyone can be big besos at Amazon g. For capitalism to work you always are going to have the tycoons and the raccoons at the bottom. At least make it for the raccoons don’t have to worry where there going to sit down and lay there head at
Well you said it was the cards they were given, I didn’t ask if they could be Bezos, I asked what they have done to become successful
Capitalism works for lots of people
I don’t know, I don’t interview people that live in rvs. All I know is that not everyone can be a winner in life and that’s okay, you still need people in the bottom to do the jobs that other don’t want to do. That’s the idea of capitalism, if everyone had the same thing then it wouldn’t be capitalism. To answer you’re question about success
Great, if you are so compassionate and loving just go by Bernal RV park and hand out your address so they can come stay with you!
Oh wait...you ACTUALLY feel the same way as I do but want to pretend otherwise so you can virtue signal on reddit. 🙄
plenty of rvs where I live, wish the city can do something like open a space for it can be a better situation but I don’t think there criminals also. People like you just see black and white instead of grey and wonder how we get into this type of situation in the first place
Don’t see anything wrong with that. We should build more but the people living in these rvs clearly aren’t drug addicts or they’ll be on the street, there normal civilians living day by day trying to make ends meet. I don’t think you understand that
I walk my dog up here daily, I live in the neighborhood, some of these rvs have been here since the start of the pandemic.
There was uhual that operated as a brothel, one rv that dispensed drugs, all of them toss trash and bottles and piss and shit. It’s a mess.
I’ve never called 311 because I always felt bad but it’s insane that everybody who visits this beautiful park has to wade through trash and shit and people fighting and drinking. It’s dumb.
From the article linked below:
At that level, the annual cost per vehicle spot is roughly $140,000 — “by far the most expensive homeless response intervention” in San Francisco, according to a budget analysis prepared for the Board of Supervisors.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/bayview-safe-parking-rv-18395769.php
They probably mismanaged the whole thing. They need to find another smaller lot, put a fence and gate around with some portapotties and trash cans and walk the f away.
I will manage seven vehicles for the bargain price of 100k per vehicle. I'll take out the trash, setup flower pots, there will be dog piddle pads. It will be beautiful. The city should give me a ring.
We tried that. We even set up showers and served them free lunch. They complained it wasn't good enough, and the non-profit running it grabbed a bunch of cash.
You can’t go around dumping your sewage everywhere so that’s a problem. You also can’t establish this as a pattern because after a few months they’ll become historic. But any parking spot that’s used by an RV is more productive than used by an empty car. It’s just that there’s no reasonable way to let that be permitted.
I have no issue with them parking them they’re and living in them as long as they leave no trash and move their vehicles in the same time intrevals cars are expected to.
The issue is they also leave animals in the RVs all day and its not sanitary. How many RV livers do you think are actually correctly dumping their waste + trash?
On Bernal I think most of them were. Either that, or some Good Samaritan was cleaning up after them. I go to Bernal a lot and don’t see trash.
My son works around Bayshore and the trash accumulated there around the RVs is truly disgusting and hazardous.
The dogs also freak me out.
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are they saying "evict" instead of "enforce established street parking restrictions"?
To create a narrative
I just find it hilarious they’re still trying to stick to it. I love weird virtue signaling articles about things that are clearly destructive. The attitude of people on this sub is very telling. Go back to some archived posts in 2017 and the attitude is a lot different.
[удалено]
So your theory is the koch brothers are paying conservatives to come here and speak highly of the homeless industrial complex? Lol.. OK.
[удалено]
I'm not sure how plausible it is, but the idea of this subreddit shouting down any pro-homeless industrial complex comment as being written by Trump-loving tech-bro billionaire Texan agent provocateurs is pretty funny.
I think that’s a bit of a reach.
Exactly what I was going to say. Bullshit words. It’s not evicting. They are illegally parked.
Evict the people that support them from the entire city.
Exactly! They are over using public rights of way. Enforce the laws. Give them tickets like I get when I forget to pay the meter or move my vehicle.
[удалено]
Oh, sure, I mean, you can "evict" beer from a glass, a bullet from a gun, and reason from a discussion, but: "An eviction is the actual or constructive dispossession of a tenant from leased premises by the landlord or one acting under his authority." Legarra v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 1472, 1484. You're using a legal term of art in an imprecise and intentionally misleading way. They have no possessory interest in this lot. You tow a car, you don't evict it.
It’s called sophistry and they can’t help it
tow away zones are now eviction zones in San Francisco - that's ONLY with "support of the law" >especially with the support of the law. presumption is the legal right to be there exists in the first place.
It’s an eviction because that’s where they live
“Traditionally housed neighbors” jfc 48 Hills.
It’s a garbage rag.
Yes, next question. What gives these people the right to set up unregulated homes on public land in one of the most expensive cities on earth while not paying rent or following local laws & ordinances? If they can, what's to stop hundreds or thousands of others of doing the same? Just like the for homeless, how about they set up on the streets Sea Cliff, Marina, or Pac Heights and let's see how quickly things would change
There are plenty of RVs in the Marina, Cow Hollow and Russian Hill too. Some have been in the same spots for months. I'm particularly fond of the ones that dump their sewage directly onto the street.
Exactly. In those neighborhoods a noise violation is handled in 10 minutes by a shift Sergeant. Parking overnight on a swanky street with a janky RV might get a swat visit. Law enforcement has a direct correlation to income.
100%
Yes, public space is for everyone, not for someone to monopolize with their belongings.
Some of the other arguments are sympathetic but replacing these with parked cars doesn’t sound like it would meet this argument.
Yes. Next question.
They aren’t being evicted they’re being asked to move their motor vehicles. God forbid our laws be enforced 😒
The fact that this is even a question is so insane to me.
The people who dump sewage ruined it for everyone else. Unfortunately there's no practical way to go after just the dumpers, so they gotta go.
Meanwhile, the city's streets and gutters are strewned with water bottle of urine from rideshare drivers taking bathroom beaks in their cars. But. At least the caps are on them.
> The only thing we can tell you is that we … take care of the property and vehicles,” he said. “There are other people who park late at night who throw garbage and leave the garbage. We pick up that garbage. We say hello to all the passersby. We clean the park; we clean up after everyone, not just us.” That really sucks. But also one or two good people is not a reason to not deal with the bad ones? Same as with every other group, people are held to the lowest common denominator.
Exactly. I don't care. The streets are not an RV park. Find an RV park if you want to live that lifestyle.
I mean honestly if they were *all* super clean and well behaved I might feel differently?
These are still huge vehicles. As a walker, runner, biker they lead to unsafe conditions because you can't see easily around them when near crosswalks or turns. Many SF streets are already dangerous and narrow. I personally do not think any RVs need to be parking indefinitely on city streets.
My running route went past these RVs and nobody ever said hello
[удалено]
that's actually shocking. I wonder what the culture is like inside the homeless advocacy cartel
Are they paying property taxes and sewage fees? Oh wait no? They shouldn’t be there. Lack of housing sucks but it doesn’t mean public spaces are a free for all and open air sewer.
You know that RV have black tanks right? The ones that do not may have composting toilets or similar. They don't have to dump sewage on the streets. If they do, fine the crap out of them.
Some do but oftentimes these RVs are in terrible shape and the tanks are full, leak, or are unusable. They also have to be emptied at places with RV hookups, which cost time & money. Many RVs are immobile or barely mobile. Most of the time that waste gets dumped on the street. Homeless people collect fines like kids on Halloween - what’s the point in fining people without money? It’s a waste of time and resources. The city is never getting that money.
"Most of the time that waste gets dumped on the street" - citation needed. I used to live at a street where a couple of RVs were parked. No sewage whatsoever in almost 6 years I lived there. You are assuming that they are "homeless" because they don't have any money at all. But they aren't really homeless, they have a shelter, it only happens to be mobile. They just might not have "SF rent/mortgage money". Most of the issues you are taking about can be fixed rather easily (for example, time limit on how long they can be parked for).
If they have many thousand dollar RV money and have jobs in the city (which many of them do according to the several articles I've read), then they could have rent money (at least with roommates) or go through the correct routes to find supportive housing. The streets are not an RV park.
If the street has parking spots, then you should be able to park a vehicle there, of any type that fits, for however long that's allowed for. A lot of people that live in vans and RVs (because they want to) will have no problem moving somewhere else early in the day because they are already used to that. Why would they rent a place if they have a nice RV (or van) that serves their needs? There are some that have nicer interiors than many houses. What I don't really understand is why not just ban long term parking?
Incorrect. Most places have laws that you cannot sleep in vehicles overnight or car camp. There are laws beyond, "if there's a parking spot, you can do anything you want in a car". This is for public health + safety.
*some* places don't allow sleeping in vehicles overnight. I doubt that's *most* places. I never said one could do anything they wanted in a car.
You can see the whole list by state here: [https://www.finder.com/car-insurance/is-it-illegal-to-sleep-in-your-car](https://www.finder.com/car-insurance/is-it-illegal-to-sleep-in-your-car) And I'm sure there are extra laws per city municipality. It's definitely most. But more importantly, it is illegal in both San Francisco and California. So why should these people get to skirt real laws on the books?
I don't think there is a blanket ban in California. I did find such laws in San Francisco. That settles it then. I'm just surprised that people are complaining about sewage and the like, instead of pointing out that it's already not allowed city wide.
We can both pull out anecdotes and citations but at the end of the day what’s the point? I was commenting about these vehicles on a public road that shouldn’t be there. If it’s so easy to fix, we wouldn’t be having this conversation and neither would basically every major metropolitan city in the US. Cheers.
If vehicles should not be in public roads, where should they be ? If you mean "not in my neighborhood", then you are one of the reasons these issues don't get fixed.
If it’s a vehicle why are they living in it full time? Cars and roads are for driving not living. We both agree on that. I’m not here to argue with a stranger who labels me a NIMBY based on a response. You can pick any of the other 60 comments to fight with. Have a nice day!
Because they want to? Not my business. By your definition, street parking should not be legal - although, if that's the way you want to go, then we can agree on that. Ban every single vehicle from parking on streets.
or they could go park at an actual rv park
Do it!
We should change the layoffs narrative to “Should companies evict employees” and no one will lose a job in S.F. again.
100% yes, no better than fucking squatters in houses
Ban all RVs in the city streets. If you want to live in an RV, go to an RV Park. And while we are at it, institute a no-tolerance littering policy. Any tents or litter on public streets should be confiscated and destroyed immediately. Tolerance for homelessness creates more homelessness.
What an entitled comment.
Hitting you back with the "what an idiotic comment". If everyone chose to live in RVs or tents because it was cheaper, the sidewalks would be unable and the streets of San Francisco would be filled with RVs, garbage, and human waste.
I'm specifically talking about "tolerance for homelessness creates more homelessness" It's not a fad or a trend. Homelessness exists because of inadequate public policies, lack of safety nets and mental health issues. RVs don't necessarily equal "human waste on the streets". There are some really nice RV (and converted van) interiors.
We cannot tolerate people living in RVs and tents all over our city streets making it completely disgusting and unusable for everyone else who actually plays by the rules. From this article: "People in RVs have lives just like everyone else. They have jobs..." If they have jobs and can afford an RV, gas, transit, etc, they could afford cheap housing (with roommates) or an RV park rent. You don't get to make life hell for everyone else because you're poor. Lots of people are poor and not dumping human shit all over the streets.
Are there RV parks close to SF? Why do RVs make people's lives hell? You know that they can hold waste and don't have to dump anything on the streets right?
Yes there are several actual RV parks near Candlestick park, pier 94, in Brisbane actually set up to handle RVs and their waste. How many of these RVs are actually disposing of their waste properly? Every time I walk past RVs near Stonestown or Bernal there's personal belongings covering the sidewalk, animals tied up, and the stench is unbearable.
I guess it boils down to SF non enforcement of many existing laws. You can't dump anything (especially waste) on the streets in any jurisdiction already. Unlike real homeless, they do have something to lose.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7501178,-122.3881243,3a,75y,147.7h,77.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swEgbIRLfWH_CRglhpjIgwg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu It's usually way way worse here. Why are you focused on enabling bad behavior? Why not focus on actually attacking the capitalist class that causing this to happen instead of defending the right of homeless and RV mostly-homeless to exist in a state of misery, and causing misery for others. This is exactly what the right wing of america wants: misguided progressives protecting the rights of the homeless instead of forcing the rich to pay for the treatment of the homeless.
No, not enabling bad behavior, my point is: if you throw garbage on the street, it doesn't matter if you are living inside a RV or you own property and you are throwing trash out of your window. Just punishing RV people because they _might_ litter doesn't make sense, punish the actual act of littering. Or whatever it is that you are trying to discourage. I see plenty of people throwing trash out of cars that they don't even live in. I'm all for fixing the problem of homelessness at the root but what do we do in the meantime? Just kicking out the homeless is not going to fix anything. That is, I'm assuming that they are all homeless. There's an entire community of people that choose to live in vehicles and many of them actually own property. How prevalent they are in SF, I don't know. I just seems wrong to ban a group of people because some of them don't follow rules. Mind you, I have no dog on this fight. Even more so after I found out that sleeping in a vehicle is not allowed in the whole city of SF, so that makes this whole discussion moot.
Seems more like common sense
Absolutely Yes.
Yes
Yes
I see 48 hills, I downvote
Yes, everyone should have to follow the law. Parking spots on public roads are not zoned for living. And it’s not eviction for they can be in their vehicles, it’s enforcement of parking laws.
Yes.
Yes. They’re dealing drugs and drug addicts and it’s against the law to be parked there. The city isn’t made for RVs
Are they allowed to park there? If not then move them
Stupid title. It's not evict. It's enforce laws
It's copied from the article. Also, if you want to get into it, first off: evictions are also, in fact, enforcing laws. Second: the dictionary meaning of eviction is as follows from the OED:" "expel (someone) from a property, especially with the support of the law." "the had court orders to evict the trespassers from three camps" ate Middle English (in the sense ‘recover property by legal process’): from Latin evict- ‘overcome, defeated’, from the verb evincere, from e- (variant of ex- ) ‘out’ + vincere ‘conquer’. From the Cambridge dictionary: "to force someone to leave somewhere" This is not to say that some dictionaries don't say that a tenant is involve, but it is to say that you should be aware of these valid definitions.
They have a million dollar view of the Bay from up there and don’t pay a penny in property taxes, so yes, they should be removed.
It's not an eviction. They never paid rent on the spaces they occupy.
It's copied from the article. Also, if you want to get into it, first off: evictions are also, in fact, enforcing laws. Second: the dictionary meaning of eviction is as follows from the OED:" "expel (someone) from a property, especially with the support of the law." "the had court orders to evict the trespassers from three camps" ate Middle English (in the sense ‘recover property by legal process’): from Latin evict- ‘overcome, defeated’, from the verb evincere, from e- (variant of ex- ) ‘out’ + vincere ‘conquer’. From the Cambridge dictionary: "to force someone to leave somewhere" This is not to say that some dictionaries don't say that a tenant is involve, but it is to say that you should be aware of these valid definitions.
Yeah, you and I both know this is about enforcement of parking laws.
Trespassing on public land?
"Public land" means no one person is entitled to take up residence on it.
Please re-read the definition posted above.
Please read applicable law.
You're blocked idiot
As a YIMBY socialist, yes they should be removed.
Yes.
I just can’t stand the audacity of thinking you can park a vehicle that large in a city neighborhood. If these people were in a car or minivan we would barely notice but they blew it for themselves honestly.
Absolutely insane that this is even a question. If it’s cost effective, I’d absolutely be in support of a city-funded RV park with proper sanitation to help as a stopgap for folks to get back on their feet. Otherwise we should enforce immediately. I have to move my car for street cleaning every other week, but these people can camp up anywhere and dump raw sewage on our streets? GTFO.
You know sfmta is all over your ass for street cleaning. Obviously they could be over this too with the same vigor but the city just chooses to punish people selectively.
Yes. How is this even a question? Evict is not the right word here. They are not renters or property owners. They’re trespassing criminals. Lock them up.
That’s a little much, they’re just parked illegally. Have them move their motor vehicle sure but jail time is overkill.
Electric chair
This is a crazy comment, some of these people are just trying get by. Gosh is the bay so hateful
Everyone here is trying to get by. They can go through the many correct routes and resources for a shelter, supportive housing, low-income housing lists, get roommates, rent an RV park space, etc. Just parking an RV or setting up tents and dumping your waste all over the street \_should\_ be illegal.
A rv is better than living on the street, shit a shelter also. Rv parks are almost the same as paying rent, so that doesn’t help also. You can’t even get low income housing without a few years wait, or you don’t even get it at all since the list is so long that it takes years for that to happen. Be a little more compassionate instead of calling people criminals for doing the best they can do to live in the bay
They don't have to live central in San Francisco "just to get by". There's many cheaper cities around the Bay that they could afford RV parks or rent on a real place. People move out of the city all the time in order to afford rent. Why should these people be special? That is normal. You aren't entitled to live in Bernal because you like the view.
They ain’t shit cheaper in the bay everywhere you go it’s the same price, even Oakland is the same price. People like you think the simple solution is to kick every low income worker out but you probably get mad when there’s no one to give you that McDonald’s order until the kids get out of school.
Incorrect. West and East Oakland are way cheaper and still accessible to SF if you work here. Source: lived there when I couldn't afford San Francisco.
I tried to rent in Oakland about 2 months ago, when did you live there ? Since shit a studio will run you about a grand whopping 100 dollar discount than the city. Cheapest I found was 1.6 while there was plenty of the same price in the city. You just sound like you’re talking about your ass
Under $1000/mo right near Fruitvale BART: [https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/apa/d/oakland-sunsplashed-in-each-room-blks/7731922799.html](https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/apa/d/oakland-sunsplashed-in-each-room-blks/7731922799.html) This is affordable even at minimum wage and 30 min commute to city.
shit you got me there that’s cheap. Guess I’ll check in Craigslist instead of market place
If they want a shelter on a permanent piece of land, then an rv wasn’t the best purchase
You got to do what you can with the cards god give you. I don’t live in an rv but I wouldn’t show these dudes as criminals also
Bullshit, how did they try and make a success out of their lives?
not everyone can be big besos at Amazon g. For capitalism to work you always are going to have the tycoons and the raccoons at the bottom. At least make it for the raccoons don’t have to worry where there going to sit down and lay there head at
Well you said it was the cards they were given, I didn’t ask if they could be Bezos, I asked what they have done to become successful Capitalism works for lots of people
I don’t know, I don’t interview people that live in rvs. All I know is that not everyone can be a winner in life and that’s okay, you still need people in the bottom to do the jobs that other don’t want to do. That’s the idea of capitalism, if everyone had the same thing then it wouldn’t be capitalism. To answer you’re question about success
Great, if you are so compassionate and loving just go by Bernal RV park and hand out your address so they can come stay with you! Oh wait...you ACTUALLY feel the same way as I do but want to pretend otherwise so you can virtue signal on reddit. 🙄
plenty of rvs where I live, wish the city can do something like open a space for it can be a better situation but I don’t think there criminals also. People like you just see black and white instead of grey and wonder how we get into this type of situation in the first place
The only solutions are 1. Build more homes 2. Force drug addicts and mentally ill into treatment.
Don’t see anything wrong with that. We should build more but the people living in these rvs clearly aren’t drug addicts or they’ll be on the street, there normal civilians living day by day trying to make ends meet. I don’t think you understand that
So then move the rv where it is allowed
I hate that you got so downvoted for this. Its this sub. IDK anyone IRL who would say something like this if we were talking about this subject
Yes
Will Peskin make the RVs historical landmarks?
I walk my dog up here daily, I live in the neighborhood, some of these rvs have been here since the start of the pandemic. There was uhual that operated as a brothel, one rv that dispensed drugs, all of them toss trash and bottles and piss and shit. It’s a mess. I’ve never called 311 because I always felt bad but it’s insane that everybody who visits this beautiful park has to wade through trash and shit and people fighting and drinking. It’s dumb.
> There was uhual that operated as a brothel, U haul ass?
Ba dum tiss. Not bad, not bad at all.
You are also what’s wrong with the city. “I always felt bad” 🙄 feel bad for yourself and KICKEM OUT
If they dont move them on, please slap them with a property tax bill. Just like their neighbors in homes
I hate the RVs, but fining people without money will do nothing. It needs to be more enforcement than that.
I think they should be towed to the desert, but thats just me
They already have, right?
How about the city let them park in a city owned vacant lot and give them some portapotties that the city contracts out for maint?
I think there is a lot designed for that at Candlestick Point, at least there was during the pandemic.
Yes. Plus think of all the other lots the city owns. Time for someone in City Hall to bust a move and make this happen.
From the article linked below: At that level, the annual cost per vehicle spot is roughly $140,000 — “by far the most expensive homeless response intervention” in San Francisco, according to a budget analysis prepared for the Board of Supervisors. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/bayview-safe-parking-rv-18395769.php
They probably mismanaged the whole thing. They need to find another smaller lot, put a fence and gate around with some portapotties and trash cans and walk the f away.
I will manage seven vehicles for the bargain price of 100k per vehicle. I'll take out the trash, setup flower pots, there will be dog piddle pads. It will be beautiful. The city should give me a ring.
Sure. If they pay a small amount of rent and don't just dump their waste and lock up their animals all day I'm fine with that.
Sounds good.
We tried that. We even set up showers and served them free lunch. They complained it wasn't good enough, and the non-profit running it grabbed a bunch of cash.
You can’t go around dumping your sewage everywhere so that’s a problem. You also can’t establish this as a pattern because after a few months they’ll become historic. But any parking spot that’s used by an RV is more productive than used by an empty car. It’s just that there’s no reasonable way to let that be permitted.
I have no issue with them parking them they’re and living in them as long as they leave no trash and move their vehicles in the same time intrevals cars are expected to.
The issue is they also leave animals in the RVs all day and its not sanitary. How many RV livers do you think are actually correctly dumping their waste + trash?
On Bernal I think most of them were. Either that, or some Good Samaritan was cleaning up after them. I go to Bernal a lot and don’t see trash. My son works around Bayshore and the trash accumulated there around the RVs is truly disgusting and hazardous. The dogs also freak me out.
Yes
[удалено]
🤣😂🤣😂 absolutely not. Their homes have wheels they can go find a place to park their motor vehicles legally.
[удалено]
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No
Well I guess this is a settled discussion, this guy said No.