A thoughtful article about RV parking bans in San Francisco

“…property buys protection; the rest of us are disposable”

from this letter to the editor by Mike Little.

title

[title] San Francisco is about to outlaw my survival with its ban on RV parking

Clickbaity title but the editor likely chose it. The phrase does not occur in the the text.

the letter

by enacting strict new limits on recreational vehicle parking, San Francisco’s leaders aren’t “managing” a housing crisis. They’re manufacturing one.

I think that’s generally correct. People who want or need to live in housing that others approve of are banned from doing so by the state.¹

By essentially making my RV illegal before offering a single legal place to go, City Hall is telling me — and 1,400 others like me living in vehicles — to disappear.

Yes, because that will make the Karens stop calling the police dept and elected officials.

the vehicle they want gone is the only thing keeping me from sleeping in a tent again.

A tent is less psychologically threatening to Karens because they can’t imagine themselves living in one. An RV with domestic amenities presents uncomfortable questions about one’s own consumer lifestyle

Homeowners get stability. We get citations and tow trucks. In San Francisco, property buys protection; the rest of us are disposable.

For better or worse, America is pay-to-play. Unless you are a member of a protected group then money is the only ticket to relative safety.

Which makes me think: should the unhoused be a protected group? I’m not a fan of legislating such things in general, but if we are going to be SJW then the unhoused seem to be likely candidates for protection.

Mayor Daniel Lurie and other politicians love to pair “compassion” with “accountability,” as if repeating both words makes them compatible. But here’s the truth: You can’t claim compassion while voting to make survival illegal. That’s not accountability, it’s displacement with better PR. If that’s compassion, it’s the kind you measure with a tow truck.

Compassion + Accountability seems like a worthy goal. But it’s asymmetric – accountability can be enforced but compassion cannot.

Perhaps the biggest complaint I hear about RV encampments is that they’re dirty. That’s certainly true — but it’s also fixable.

Karens don’t really want unhoused RV folk to be clean; they would prefer them to be dirty so it can be used as leverage for removal. “Dirty” is an epithet long used by xenophobes of all types.

Seattle opened legal dump stations, and the problem disappeared.

Right. If Karens cared about cleanliness they would advocate for dump stations and trash receptacles.

A safe-parking site with water, power and waste disposal costs a fraction of building new housing.

They aren’t concerned about housing. They are concerned (or pretend to be concerned) about housing that people with money would like to buy.

Treat RV living as part of the housing strategy — not the endgame, but a step away from the street.

Agreed.

Until San Francisco can house everyone, taking away the only stability people have isn’t a policy. It’s cruelty dressed up as governance.

After a few adult beverages the Libertarian in me might rant that governance is inherently cruel:

1. the State, not the state of California. People with guns. ↩