In an overstuffed meeting room at the Palega Recreation Center in Portola, locals lashed out against city officials, furious at their failure to manage the arrival of dozens of RVs in the neighborhood.
Residents interjected and interrupted District 9 Supervisor Hillary Ronen, representatives from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, Department of Public Works, and the Bayview police station.
“We want to hear from you, we want to brainstorm,” said Carolyn Goossen, Supervisor Ronen’s chief of staff, at the start of meeting. She warned the audience that questions would be kept to one minute and answered in bulk at the end.
Ronen described the problem to jeers from the audience. The amplifier wasn’t powerful enough. “Can’t hear you back here!” yelled one attendee standing at the back of the room.
Working to maintain a measured cadence, Ronen described her success clearing out a tent encampment in the Mission. No one cared. The audience wanted to talk about the RV driver with Tennessee plates who dumps his waste on the street. They wanted to know if the police knew whether the vehicles were registered to sex offenders and drug dealers. They wanted answers to 311 calls.
Ronen eventually turned to the situation in Portola, where a number of RVs have relocated in the past few years.
“Quite frankly, it’s a nightmare,” she said. “I have an RV living outside my home.”
A peal of laughter echoed across the hot room as latecomers continued to arrive, scrambling for a snack of raisins, M&Ms, or pretzels as they squeezed into the after-work meeting.
“Let’s hear about our problems,” said another voice from the back
After a quick plug to support the Proposition C initiative that would tax the city’s biggest businesses to create a fund for homeless residents, Ronen ceded the floor to Andy Thornley, a senior analyst at the SFMTA.
“I’m already well convinced there is a disaster,” he said. “I get it.”
The crowd agreed. But tired of hearing rehearsed segments, Portola residents hungered for immediate action. Grunts and murmurs of acknowledgment spread across the room. So did impatience.
Throughout the meeting, locals and city officials played tug-of-war over basic questions: how to solve the problem now, and how to plan for the future.
Fed up with the RVs on their blocks, residents wanted something to be done — now. Ronen and others attempted to impress upon the audience the leaden pace of city bureaucracy –– and the genuine need for a long-term solution.
Between 20 and 30 RVs have taken up residence in the neighborhood, mostly concentrated in the University Mound area.
Thornley attempted to explain just why the short-term presents a host of issues. It is illegal to live in San Francisco in a vehicle, but the police struggle to enforce the laws. Living in a vehicle is a misdemeanor, not a felony, which complicates the process.
Then, there is the 72-hour rule: a frustration for many locals, and the subject of recurring debate and rage throughout the meeting. No vehicle can remain parked on a San Francisco street for more than 72 consecutive hours. But, here’s the rub: A driver only needs to move their vehicle 10 feet to “reset the clock.”
Many RV drivers take advantage of the loophole and move a few yards every few days, which is fully within the limits of the law. Thornley ran through several of the regulatory options that could work. “There are not many tools in our toolbox.” One potential tool, residential permit parking, he described as “kind of like a cannon to kill a fly.”
But some –– frustrated with what they see as the growth of a non-residential-tax-paying presence in the community –– see potential in that approach. “I would like, citywide, for recreational vehicles and commercial vehicles to seek those permits from the city and not extend the cost down to neighbors,” said Sandra LaFerrera.
Alan Maffei, a 56-year-old lifetime resident of the Bayview-Hunters Point and Portola districts, said the law is too lenient on motorhome owners and residents – and that Ronen has ignored complaints.
“We have motorhomes in the neighborhood that are not drivable,” he said. “It’s really infuriating that officers will drive past these situations and not address them.” The audience applauded as he continued. Looking straight at Ronen, he said, “We’re all here tonight so you don’t forget about our neighborhood.”
Part of the issue in Portola is that District 9 doesn’t have restrictions on oversized vehicle parking. Other districts — notably, wealthier areas in the western reaches of the city — do.
“Are there RVs in Pacific Heights?” asked Rory Ryan. “No!” the audience responded in chorus. “Are there RVs in Sea Cliff? Let’s see … Marina, how about Marina Green, are they parked there?” she asked, her voice louder at each interrogation.
“NO!” the audience responded, breaking out into affirmative chatter, satisfied with the recognition that their community had been saddled with a problem other districts had managed to shed.
“My bet is if they parked there,” continued Ryan, “they would be gone in a day.”
Dustin Novo, a firefighter at Station 43 in Portola, is among the many residents who think the fix is that simple: install the same signs that prohibit parking for oversized vehicles in the tonier neighborhoods. “Everything else is just talk,” he said.
Ronen said she agrees with her constituents that it is inappropriate to have RVs parked in residential neighborhoods –– and is likewise tired of how other districts relocate their issues to southeast San Francisco. “I’m sick of our neighborhood having to take the brunt,” she said, beginning to express clear frustration.
Many residents worry that, meetings aside, it’s all talk with no substance. Richard Cairo is a resident and local letter carrier. He was among the constituents who pushed to convene a community forum in the first place. “No one wants these mystery neighbors living outside our houses,” he said. “Our kids are out there.”
Ronen remained resistant to a strategy that adds Portola to the list of places RV-dwellers cannot go. For one, it doesn’t actually solve the problem of RVs and homelessness. It just relocates the people living in RVs to another district, she said.
Some Portola residents would be fine with this. “Try Brisbane!” resident Rick Perez yelled as Ronen offered the explanation.
But the youngest audience member to speak up, Theodore Randolph, tried to remind his neighbors that they are dealing with people –– and that the issue extends beyond the immediate inconvenience of RVs in the area.
“We’ve been dealing with homeless encampments my whole life and they’ve only been getting worse and worse,” he said. “We need more places for those people to go so they can have proper homes.”
Gotta pressure those “undesirables”; hopefully you aren’t undesirable sometday.
https://boondockplan.wordpress.com/haters/
vote out all incumbents
If the RV campers can ignore the existing law against no camping in a vehicle at night can I ignore my property taxes? How about I just pay a little when I feel like it?
The court just ruled that SFMTA is illegally towing vehicles and put a stop to the practice until they come up with a new process. There is nothing the supervisors or SFMTA can do about the law that limits their actions.
Ronen is so utterly useless.
I applaud Hillary Ronen for standing up for the most vulnerable members of our society, even in the face of so much hostility.
The city and state make it too difficult to build housing, especially supportive and affordable housing, and it has many vacant lots or underutilized lots where we could have had housing. As a result of the artificial shortage of housing, these RVs are now people’s homes. It’s cruel to take away someone’s home without providing a better alternative.
In addition to being morally wrong, cruelty is against the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. I forget who brought it up, I guess Thornley, but this year the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that cities can’t forbid people from sleeping outside if they don’t have enough shelters, and in San Diego there’s a lawsuit against the law banning living in RVs; so far the judge has issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing that law.
It is a cruel hoax bringing marginal income/skilled people to the most expensive city in the US for political gain. I am appalled at this persistent behavior. SF politicians must hate SF to do this & manipulate everyone that can advance their careers. They should be stopped & held accountable for this human cruelty & public disservice.
None of the politicians live in neighborhoods experiencing the serous problems you face. Therefore, they won’t fight to clean the mess up. The left’s sjw are responsible in great part for the decline of our cities and neighborhoods, especially great cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles. Too bad we Americans didn’t see this sooner. Now, we will all pay the very harmful price.
I agree with the observations/experience of SFO Mission. The encampments just move around, as do the hoardedRV’s that stink of human excrement over on Harrison and 18th. I pass them every day.
It’s very frustrating that every time residents bring up these quality of life issues, some homelessness activist tries to silence everyone by reminding them that there’s a homelessness crisis in San Francisco, and therefore the opinions or needs of anyone who is already housed essentially don’t/shouldn’t matter. No one ever considers that maybe this city can’t accommodate everyone who wants to live here, and that it shouldn’t be expected to. And housing advocates who show up to these community meetings are so often basically there to tell housed people that their needs don’t matter in the greater scheme of things, and they should put up with any indignity and just be thankful they’re not living on the street.
This form of gaslighting wouldn’t be entertained by most other communities in this country. But San Franciscans are a predominantly liberal lot, and we’re used to being guilted into feeling bad about what we have. But why should everyone be forced to suffer as much as the most miserable among us, in order to prove ourselves as not barbaric? That is masochism, and it doesn’t help anyone.
There’s a happy medium to be found, one in which the city does more, works harder to enforce existing laws and codes, and neighborhoods aren’t left to fend for themselves against chronic lawbreakers, drug users, those who defecate on the streets, who aggressive and violent. It seems like an easy fix: If the owner of an RV can’t demonstrate that it is a working vehicle by driving it around the block, the vehicle should be towed. If the owner of the RV can’t demonstrate that they have a home other than the rv, then it can be easily presumed that the RV is illegally being used as a full-time residence, which is against San Francisco law. In that case, the rv owner should be given directions to the nearest legal RV park and be given a few hours to leave town with their vehicle, after which the vehicle can be towed.
Just because there are people who genuinely need help in this city and have no other options, doesn’t mean that we should therefore put up with every scofflaw at the terrible inconvenience and possible health endangerment of everyone else. Our city’s leaders need to get that message before they’re voted out of office!
Thank you . The new voice at Mission Local listens, writes well and learns that the Portola is not the Mission.
Now, if Hilary could do the same, we’d be on the way to a solution.
SFMTA Directors need to do their job. It is SFMTA’s responsibility to manage street parking in a manner that improves neighborhood parking access, enhances neighborhood quality of life, improves safety, discourages long-term on-street vehicle storage in order to improve the use of the public right of way & the usable parking supply. Parking policies “strive” to have consistent parking regulations across the city. “This consistency is prioritized over other factors”. (per SF City Charter, taken from SFMTA Polices for On-street Parking). Turfing prohibition of oversized vehicle parking to city Supervisors is inappropriate and it is not working. Guess what? SFMTA made this a problem. These vehicles were always prohibited until SFMTA changed long standing SF parking codes. They just want our tax money & do nothing. This department is too big & does not do its job. Ms. Mayor, split them up!
The homelessless problem seems to be getting worse, not better, at least in my part of the Mission. There are more people than ever sleeping in doorways, more drug addled zombies than ever walking around, and the streets do not feel safe at night. If I were Ronan, I would not tout this as a success.
Not just RVs… occupied and unoccupied recreational vehicles, commercial trucks and vans, boats, multiple decrepit vehicles. It’s legal to park just about anything for 72 hours on city streets, unless restricted. Then neighbors have to complain after 72 hours. Call 311. SFMTA will come out in 2 days to post a 72 hour order to move the vehicle. That’s eight days, unless street sweeping intervenes and the owner/occupant moves their vehicle. How crazy is that?
People park their commercial vehicles for the weekend. Hop in their personal cars (that they used to occupy the space while working), and head home.
Residents park their RVs in the area, then park their cars on the sidewalks because there isn’t enough parking. More and more garages are being converted to living space. We are being forced to walk in the street.
No wonder everyone parks on the sidewalks in front of their houses in residential areas like the Portola and the Excelsior these days. And this makes our neighborhoods more dangerous for pedestrians. We’re getting mugged. Raw sewage is being dumped on our streets and sewage drains. People are parking on our parks and using the parks as latrines.
We need a permit system for the Bay Area. Provide affordable public space for occupied RVs, with hookups, showers and bathrooms, and garbage services, and get these campers off city streets. Issue permits and parking regulations for commercial vehicles. Limit parking of boats to a reasonable period of time by permit!
The Portola should secede from SF. I’m serious. Separated from the rest of the City by freeways, a big park and Mansell street, it seems like the City has a who cares attitude. Our big issues are nickel and dime to the City. In some ways I like that. I would rather that Rec and Park keep their greedy fingers off of McLaren. I kind of like the ruins of the greenhouses, a fragment of yesteryear forever home to birds, bugs and the occasional coyote. So if Portola was on its own, maybe our little issues could be addressed quicker, with less Please help us and more thank you, but we got this.
I might as well have 311 on speed dial, and schedule a regular evening report call, given the volume of items, including encampments, that need to be reported, and or re-reported due to lack of activity. Its RIDICULOUS that as a resident, I’m doing the work of the city!
Success in clearing out escapements in the Mission? I reported 3 ridding my bike to work and 2 more at different location on my way home yesterday. It is premature to call clearing of encampments a success. There are also lots of RV Parked on Harrison and Bryant creating trash everywhere.