I’m a Van Lifer. Here’s Why San Francisco’s RV Ban Goes Too Far

San Francisco just passed a controversial new measure that limits RV parking to two hours on city streets. The law, which takes effect in the fall of 2025, will impact over 400 individuals currently residing in RVs. The campers have become a problem and an eyesore for the city, and Mayor Daniel Lurie vowed to clean up the streets.

According to the Associated Press, to ease the impact, the city allocated over $11 million to help 65 households transition to temporary subsidized housing. Additionally, a six-month permit program is available, exempting current registered RV residents from parking limits if they participate in housing transition programs. The city will also purchase RVs at a rate of $175 per foot.

This measure does two things wrong: It fails to address the housing affordability problem in San Francisco, and it punishes people visiting the city in an RV.

The RV Ban Doesn’t Solve The Housing Affordability Crisis

San Francisco and the Bay Area have had a housing crisis for years. This is the reason why I first lived in a Toyota Prius back in 2015, and gave up my apartment once again in 2016 when I was laid-off from my job at KGO radio. I understand just how challenging it is to live and work in San Francisco, and why so many people are forced to live in cars and RVs. The city consistently ranks among the nation’s most expensive, where even middle-income earners struggle. For lower-income families, seniors, and single workers, securing affordable housing is nearly impossible.

The RV ban in San Francisco isn’t solving the housing crisis at all. People living in RVs won’t miraculously be able to afford rent. Instead, they will most likely move their campers to different parts of the Bay Area, such as Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond or the Peninsula. San Francisco is allocating money to help only 64 residents move into housing, which is a far cry from what’s necessary given the hundreds of RVs parked on city streets.

Yes, Some RVers Are Part of the Problem—But That’s Not the Whole Story

To be fair, there’s another side to this conversation that I can’t ignore.

While I understand the need for people to live in RVs and vehicles due to the affordability crisis in cities across the country, I can’t condone the actions of many full-time urban RV-dwellers. I’ve driven down many streets in both San Francisco, the East Bay, and Portland, Oregon, and see unkempt RVs with tarps and gigantic holes and piles of trash and garbage. No wonder these cities feel compelled to clean up the streets since so many RVers show such blatant disregard for their free parking spots.

I believe people who want to park and live for free on city streets should create an exemplary example. They should maintain their RVs, keep them drivable, and properly dispose of trash. Nobody who pays for rent or a mortgage, or property taxes, wants to look at this type of eyesore.

That frustration is valid. But we need to separate those abusing the system from those trying their best to live cleanly and responsibly.

Of course, there are full-time RVers and van lifers who try to stay clean and respectful. Carlos Perez, who’s lived in his RV in San Francisco’s Bayview neighborhood for over a decade, exemplifies the responsible RV dweller. According to AP, Perez works full-time, cares for his disabled brother who requires regular dialysis, and maintains his RV meticulously.

Similarly, Zach, another RV dweller interviewed by AP, works as a ride-hail driver and photographer. Living in his RV near Lake Merced, Zach regularly pays for waste disposal and freshwater refills. For him, RV living offers autonomy and dignity compared to shelters with restrictive rules.

And then there’s a whole other group of RVers—those of us who are visitors, travelers, and part-time nomads. This ban impacts us too, even though we’re not the ones causing the problems city officials are pointing to.

San Francisco Should Emulate Europe’s Take on Campers

Other cities around the world have figured out more balanced, sustainable approaches. During our travels in Europe by camper, we often happily paid $10–$15 per night for a safe, legal place to park—complete with electrical hookups, fresh water, and access to clean bathrooms.

We live the van life in a 22’ Sprinter van that’s about 9’ tall, and enjoy stopping in San Francisco on our way through California. We have family located within the city limits, and we park on city streets to enjoy restaurants, shops, and bars.

The two-hour parking limit for vehicles over 22’ in length or over 7 feet in height will negatively impact us and other RVers who are passing through. Parking for a Sprinter van is already hard enough in this jam-packed city, and this makes it even worse.

Instead of promoting RV tourism by offering paid parking areas and camping areas for RVs, San Francisco is effectively shutting down this sector of tourism. RVers and van lifers with jobs and money could offer a revenue boost for the city’s tourist attractions if the city provided safe parking areas, much like you see in major cities throughout Europe.

Many RVers in San Francisco, who are impacted by this new ban, work full-time jobs but cannot afford the astronomical rents. They should be able to pay small parking fees at secure facilities, like those seen in Europe. This would also help keep garbage at bay, as people would have a place to easily dispose of their trash.

A Smarter, More Compassionate Path Forward

San Francisco has every right to want clean streets and functional neighborhoods—but banning RVs across the board is the wrong approach. It punishes the poor, discourages RV tourism, and does little to address the deeper issue: housing insecurity.

Instead of pushing people out, the city should look toward practical, compassionate solutions, like low-cost, regulated RV parking with trash services, restrooms, and enforcement of basic standards. These kinds of facilities already work in Europe, and they could work here too.

As a van lifer who loves visiting San Francisco, I want to see this city thrive, for residents, travelers, and everyone in between. But that can’t happen if we continue to criminalize poverty while ignoring its root causes.