The San Mateo City Council agreed to start cracking down on individuals who refuse to accept housing and support services while continuing to live in their recreational vehicles.
Instead, the San Mateo Police Department relies on a homeless outreach team that visits RV dwellers and tries to connect individuals and families to services that could help them secure housing.
But after mounting complaints of their increased presence in areas such as Amphlett Boulevard and Railroad Avenue, the current City Council decided to prioritize a reevaluation of its relaxed approach. The outreach team estimates there are roughly 50 RV dwellers in the city weekly.
During a meeting June 16, councilmembers agreed to ensure police officers have established contact and discussed services at least twice before issuing a citation, which most likely would not exceed $100 for the first violation and up to $500 for multiple.
But City Manager Alex Khojikian also noted that punitive measures would only be taken toward those who refuse to accept services, specifically via entering the county’s coordinated care system, which helps link homeless individuals to short- and long-term housing solutions. Services could include case management or entering short-term, transitional housing. It would remain up to law enforcement and the homeless outreach team to determine whether an individual is engaging with the county’s services.
“You have to be willing to receive the services from the county of San Mateo to work your way into permanent housing specifically,” Khojikian said. “We’re going to allow them to stay where they’re at as long as they're willing to get into the county program and work with our [homeless outreach team].”
Recommended for you
Most RV dwellers decline offers to stay at navigation centers, or short-term housing shelters, David Johnson, homeless outreach coordinator with the San Mateo Police Department, said. In some cases, they do not view themselves as homeless, he previously said.
“We have the issue that a lot of the people living in RVs are very reluctant to give up that private space to go to a congregate shelter,” Johnson said during the meeting.
For those who do decide to accept short-term housing, Khojikian said the city is also looking into a payment program that would temporarily help store an individuals’ vehicle or items, however, details have not been finalized.
Other cities throughout the Bay Area have also looked into ways to crack down on RV and vehicle dwelling, such as San Francisco and San Jose. The approach has become more commonplace over the past year at the national and state levels as well. Last year’s U.S. Supreme Court case Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson allowed jurisdictions to crack down on homeless encampment policies, and Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order encouraging more encampment enforcement.
“There is a reason people are living in their RVs, and giving out fines are costly, and we want to make sure we are making their lives better and putting them in a safer environment,” Councilmember Danielle Cwirko-Godycki said.
The city plans to implement a 45-day grace period before starting enforcement.
This is a good example how San Mateo Democrats keep faltering.
They always seem to like Private Car Storage and fight for the right of drivers, but then when the wasteful Private Car Storage turns into an "affordable housing space" then they balk.
And yes, where is the RV campground San Mateo could be offering?
Redwood City had a very successful RV campground on a space that is supposed to become a waterfront park. Of course no one can complain that the waterfront park hasn't happened when it is used for RV dwellers instead. But then they replaced it with a parking lot for a local dealership.
So again the city managed to turn the plans for a waterfront park into a dealership's private car lot. They always manage to favor car-centric infrastructure and probably used various "development" grants to do it.
Of course there's a reason people are living in RVs!! No property taxes or other huge taxes, no Recology bills, no water or PG&E bills. But....also, it's a depreciating asset. So no benefits of homeownership and that property appreciation potential. There's freedom to move. Where's the mention of the city providing a large lot somewhere for people to park with hookups, showers, laundry at reasonable fees as was previously suggested in many forums.?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
This is a good example how San Mateo Democrats keep faltering.
They always seem to like Private Car Storage and fight for the right of drivers, but then when the wasteful Private Car Storage turns into an "affordable housing space" then they balk.
And yes, where is the RV campground San Mateo could be offering?
Redwood City had a very successful RV campground on a space that is supposed to become a waterfront park. Of course no one can complain that the waterfront park hasn't happened when it is used for RV dwellers instead. But then they replaced it with a parking lot for a local dealership.
So again the city managed to turn the plans for a waterfront park into a dealership's private car lot. They always manage to favor car-centric infrastructure and probably used various "development" grants to do it.
Of course there's a reason people are living in RVs!! No property taxes or other huge taxes, no Recology bills, no water or PG&E bills. But....also, it's a depreciating asset. So no benefits of homeownership and that property appreciation potential. There's freedom to move. Where's the mention of the city providing a large lot somewhere for people to park with hookups, showers, laundry at reasonable fees as was previously suggested in many forums.?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.