[mullen]

An RV is just a nicer tent, it is not a house. If people won't transition to housing, then they need to leave SF. If they can not afford SF, then they need to leave SF and live somewhere else where they can.

[autoexec]

When properly accommodated, it's a nicer tent with electricity, AC, and an actual bed, kitchen, and bathroom. With tents you get dangerous hotplates/camping stoves and people pissing and shitting in streets instead of toilets. Some people really prefer the mobility, but most would happily transition to housing as soon it is made affordable/available. There are more vacant homes in SF than homeless people, and foreign investors buy up huge amounts of residential property and leave them empty.

[tuckerman]

I think most people wouldn't mind (as much) clean, functioning RVs. The people living like that are likely getting swept up in the backlash against the broken/unsafe RVs that cause a lot of problems for neighbors. This is anecdotal for sure, but the RVs near my neighborhood in San Jose are really rough. Missing windows, full of trash/vermin, and don't seem to have working facilities.

I don't have any idea what percentage of RVs fall into which camp, I just know that the bad ones are very visible.

[mathgeek]

> If they can not afford SF, then they need to leave SF and live somewhere else where they can.

To clarify: you believe that the cheapest available housing today should be used to determine if someone is allowed to live in SF? If not, how are you quantifying “can afford SF”?

[fragmede]

"is not living in a tent or RV" seems like a fairly obvious bar for "can afford SF". Whether or not you support that is a different question, however.

[burnt-resistor]

Some people with money live full-time in RVs by choice.

Gatekeeping that someone must have enough money and/or privilege to buy real-estate to your liking is part of the illiberal snobbiness.