S.F. cracked down on RV dwellers. A year later, many have left the city altogether.

Last July, reporters clustered together inside Mayor Daniel Lurie’s office as the mayor, flanked by city officials, announced a two-hour ban on large vehicles parked on San Francisco streets. At the time, about 500 vehicles housed adults and families who could not afford housing in the city.

“If you want to stay in your RV,” Lurie said, “you can do so outside of San Francisco.”

Fourteen months later, even many of those who gave up their RVs have had to leave the city.

Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing data shows that a third of those enrolled in a city housing program for RV dwellers have ended up outside of city limits.

As San Francisco’s rental market surges, in fact, more and more of those aided by the city with housing vouchers are living outside of San Francisco, sometimes as far away as San Jose.

An untracked number of other RV dwellers, those who were unable to obtain a temporary parking permit from the city or who dropped out of the city’s housing program, have left San Francisco on their own. Others remain illegally, attempting to fly under the radar of enforcement.

“I decided that [San Francisco] was not the best place to be,” said J.P., an RV dweller who declined to provide his last name for fear of retaliation for parking his vehicle illegally.

J.P. said he worried he would not be able to afford the single-room occupancy hotel he was offered once his rental voucher from the city expired, and dropped out of the city’s rehousing program. In July, once his temporary parking permit expired, he moved his vehicle to Palo Alto.  

Vouchers increasingly used outside of city limits

Mayor Lurie’s office last year offered those willing to give up or sell their vehicles a temporary, six-month parking permit, and help from the city finding housing.

Between November 2025 and September 2026, 345 adults and families were placed through the program. One third of them — 115 — landed outside of San Francisco city limits.

Most of those housed through the program, known as the Large Vehicle Refuge Permit Program, have used federally funded housing vouchers: The city placed about 80 percent of RV dwellers into apartments that way.

The vouchers, intended for adults and families experiencing homelessness, provide temporary rental assistance for up to two years, during which households at first pay just 30 percent of their income on rent. As the participants’ income grows and stabilizes, rental assistance tapers off.

By the time the assistance ends, voucher holders are expected, ideally, to afford rent on their own. 

Ora Prochovnik, director of litigation and policy at the Eviction Defense Collaborative, said that rental vouchers typically have a cap on rental assistance — a dollar amount that, though limited, is higher for a larger household. 

But as San Francisco rents soar due to the AI boom, “even if you have a high-paying voucher it will tap out, and you won’t be able to afford units in the city,” she said. 

Over the past five years, rapid rehousing vouchers had already been increasingly used outside of San Francisco County.

While in 2021, just 22 percent of voucher holders were housed outside of the city, by this year, that number has reached 58 percent, according to data from the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. 

Service providers and housing experts say that San Francisco’s tight housing supply and an increasingly unaffordable rental market mean that even with rental assistance, there are few apartments available. The lack of housing options has forced nonprofits and case managers contracted by the city to look elsewhere.  

‘The capacity is not there’

Unlike other nearby counties, including Santa Clara and San Mateo, San Francisco allows service providers to look up to two and a half hours outside of the county in search of housing for homeless residents receiving rental aid from the city. 

Deborah Bouk, a spokesperson for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, said that housing locations are based on preference.

“Households may prefer to live outside San Francisco for a variety of personal reasons,” said Bouk. “Generally, placements are within approximately 50 miles of San Francisco and in areas accessible by public transportation so providers can continue to provide appropriate support services.” 

But Steve Good, CEO of Five Keys, which runs the Bayshore Navigation Center shelter in Bayview and distributes vouchers to homeless clients, said finding housing outside of San Francisco is “just easier.” 

“The capacity is really not there,” said Good of affordable units in the city.

The housing options in the city that are available for extremely low-income people, said Good, are often limited to SROs in neighborhoods like the Tenderloin, with a high concentration of drug use. For homeless residents struggling with drug abuse, or for families with children, those options are often rejected.

“It’s a challenge,” said Good. “A lot of people don’t want an SRO on Sixth Street, but the further you go from those centers, the higher the rent gets.” 

J.P., the RV resident who moved to Palo Alto, said the city offered him an SRO apartment in the Tenderloin for seniors priced at $1,200 if he gave up his RV, but he declined the offer. 

J.P., 68, described the apartment as “small” and “dirty.” He said he would likely have to work two to three jobs to pay the rent after his voucher expired. Shortly after he learned his rental assistance would be temporary, he dropped out of the housing program and moved his RV to the peninsula.

Despite the long commute to his job at a smokeshop in San Francisco, keeping his RV, said J.P., was “the best thing I ever did.” 

For others, the move out of an RV and into an apartment, even one farther away from their job and access to familiar services, was a welcome change. 

After Edith Alcaraz lost her job during the pandemic, she exchanged her San Francisco apartment for a rented RV that she parked along Lake Merced, a once-crowded spot for RVs, given its quiet and secluded location in the city’s westside.

“It wasn’t the greatest,” said Alcaraz. “But at least I could pay rent.” 

Though in the years that followed Alcaraz was able to take on small jobs, her income was never enough to afford an apartment in San Francisco again. When she learned that the city could help her find housing, she was relieved. 

By the time she reached out to a case manager, she said, hers was one of the few vehicles left along the lake. 

Soon after, a case manager at Catholic Charities helped place her and her son in an apartment complex in Daly City — a location she said was close enough to her job in San Francisco. 

“Going from a 24-foot RV to an apartment is lovely,” said Alcaraz. But still, Alcaraz worries whether she will be able to afford her rent of $3,000 a month once her voucher expires. 

At the moment, she said, her income isn’t stable enough. “The two years are going to go by fast,” said Alcaraz. “Hopefully I will find another job so I will continue staying here, because we love it.”