A growing number of residents and elected officials are hoping to address an increasing number of recreational vehicles parked along areas like Amphlett Boulevard and Railroad Avenue.
While residents living out of RVs is not a new phenomenon in the city, David Johnson, homeless outreach coordinator with the San Mateo Police Department, said there has been an uptick in certain areas, however, it’s not always easy to tell since many move their vehicles frequently.
Johnson and Victoria Asfour are part of the city’s homeless outreach team that tries to connect individuals and families to services that could help them secure housing. While some are receptive to the offers, it can be particularly difficult to connect those living in RVs.
“Most don’t want our services, mainly because they don’t feel like they are homeless or they don’t prefer going to a shelter over their current situation,” Johnson said. “The ones who do accept our services are typically people who are local, and they just can’t afford housing. But it’s a very small percentage that does actively work with us.”
While the city does have some ordinances that regulate RV habitation — such as prohibiting sleeping in vehicles and removing vehicles parked in the same spot for extended periods of time — the city hasn’t been enforcing the regulations for several years.
But that could change in the near future. The lack of enforcement was discussed at a council meeting May 5, when the City Council supported an effort to prioritize a reevaluation of its current nonenforcement approach.
“There are ordinances on the books that do address RVs that we can enforce. We don’t enforce those now because that’s not been the city’s policy for the last several years,” Police Chief Ed Barberini said.
Mayor Rob Newsom suggested that heightened enforcement in cities to the north and south of San Mateo isn’t helping.
Recommended for you
“There’s been a big increase in RVs in San Mateo. … It’s significantly higher since San Francisco and San Jose have implemented bans and started doing enforcement against RVs,” Newsom said. “It’s something we want to make sure we are compassionate about, but also we don’t want to be on the receiving end of the fact that they’re enforcing laws that we also have but we’re not.”
But Junior, who didn’t provide his last name, was a San Mateo resident even before moving full time to his RV, which he has been living in for about two years. Even though he has a job working in landscaping and gardening, he still isn’t able to support himself like he used to.
“I lived in a house before this but [moved out] due to the rent situation,” he said in Spanish.
Johnson said he and Asfour are also in the process of evaluating a growing number of RVs that seem to be parked for storage purposes without anyone living in them full time.
“There are some cases where they’re just being stored there, but there are also people who live in multifamily units, who live in a large place and need a break to get away,” Johnson said.
In the meantime, they’re trying to inform as many RV dwellers as possible that just because enforcement isn’t happening now doesn’t mean it won’t happen soon.
“We just give general education and let people know there isn’t enforcement right now, but there is potential in the future that there could be … and we let them know it’s probably not the best idea to stay for a long period of time,” Johnson said.
Meanwhile, nearby, the City is proposing to spend $3M to rip out a bike lane next to schools to create 100 new parking spots. If the City enforced parking rules and implemented a parking permit program, as was promised to North Central several years ago, how many parking spots could be "created"?
Why are we spending millions on new parking when we aren't enforcing existing rules on RVs, commercial parking, and long-term storage for those with 5+ cars?
Lou - I agree with you and would like to address a humane solution to provide for professionally managed RV parking. The city of SF had large lot set up for this purpose at Candlestick but for a reason unknown to me, there were never enough takers so they shut it down. It cost them $80,000 per year per stall. That's government for you. I am certain that a private party can do this for far less with the provision that the RV owners pay a nominal fee. If we can house undocumented families we should also be able to accommodate our own.
May I offer the following based upon many years of observation and family involvement in this subject.
(1) Storage for RVs has become very expensive. ($75-800/month). How many people can afford that? Obviously, that expense can be eliminated if parking on the street.
(2) A percentage of the RV people are "commuters" and use them as commuter pads, staying there nights while working in this area, and going to homes elsewhere on days off.
(3) RV residents are a very diverse population, some staying in them while working 2-3 jobs, saving money to eventually buy a home. Good, clean, caring, smart people just trying to get ahead. As opposed to that, some people fit in less desirable categories.
(4) It has been suggested that the city provide a huge parking land development for these people. Low cost/rent, with dump stations, fresh water, electricity, etc. This would be cheaper than trying to build low-cost housing, which is well past the point of penciling out financially for all concerned in the real estate/building industry, Nor will low-cost rental housing happen.
I suspect this problem will only grow and get worse unless police enforcement is implemented, and city parking facilities as mentioned above are offered.
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!
(3) comments
Meanwhile, nearby, the City is proposing to spend $3M to rip out a bike lane next to schools to create 100 new parking spots. If the City enforced parking rules and implemented a parking permit program, as was promised to North Central several years ago, how many parking spots could be "created"?
Why are we spending millions on new parking when we aren't enforcing existing rules on RVs, commercial parking, and long-term storage for those with 5+ cars?
Lou - I agree with you and would like to address a humane solution to provide for professionally managed RV parking. The city of SF had large lot set up for this purpose at Candlestick but for a reason unknown to me, there were never enough takers so they shut it down. It cost them $80,000 per year per stall. That's government for you. I am certain that a private party can do this for far less with the provision that the RV owners pay a nominal fee. If we can house undocumented families we should also be able to accommodate our own.
May I offer the following based upon many years of observation and family involvement in this subject.
(1) Storage for RVs has become very expensive. ($75-800/month). How many people can afford that? Obviously, that expense can be eliminated if parking on the street.
(2) A percentage of the RV people are "commuters" and use them as commuter pads, staying there nights while working in this area, and going to homes elsewhere on days off.
(3) RV residents are a very diverse population, some staying in them while working 2-3 jobs, saving money to eventually buy a home. Good, clean, caring, smart people just trying to get ahead. As opposed to that, some people fit in less desirable categories.
(4) It has been suggested that the city provide a huge parking land development for these people. Low cost/rent, with dump stations, fresh water, electricity, etc. This would be cheaper than trying to build low-cost housing, which is well past the point of penciling out financially for all concerned in the real estate/building industry, Nor will low-cost rental housing happen.
I suspect this problem will only grow and get worse unless police enforcement is implemented, and city parking facilities as mentioned above are offered.
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.