In Palo Alto, the California Department of Transportation’s El Camino Real paving project, which although allowed for increased bike safety, had the unintended consequence of displacing many of its long-time RV dwellers.
The issue of unhoused residents is not limited to the Bay Area, though: In Aug. 2024, the Southern California city of Norwalk banned homeless shelters and low-income housing projects, and only a year later did the state of California force the city to back down.
San Jose, Palo Alto and Norwalk serve as just a few of the visible city responses to homelessness and RV displacement. Governments all around the country are doubling down on restrictions and bans while others are undoing them, displaying that efforts are uncoordinated and messy.
Homelessness is largely a human-centered issue, but discussions of the topic are generally watered down to talks of policy, politics and economics. People who live in vehicles are a special case — their uncertain position in the eyes of the government and the people make them all the more downplayed in discourse.
Operations Manager of Martha’s Kitchen Trish Garcia, whose organization serves food-insecure community members, witnesses this silencing firsthand.
“People that work in nonprofits (in other cities) say, ‘The city won’t listen to us. They’re not hearing us. They don’t care, they’re just bussing people to different cities,’” she said. “At least the city of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara allow us to have a voice for them. They can’t really go out and get that voice themselves, but they can come to us and allow us to (represent them), and they listen when we talk.”
On Aug. 25, the Palo Alto City Council’s Policy and Services Committee held its first public hearing on RV parking complaints following a recent spike in homeowner-reported issues. The hearing came after resident pushback in neighborhoods where the number of parked RVs have increased on residential streets, including East Charleston Road. Some major complaints included hindered sidewalks, improper waste disposal, safety concerns and overuse of public parking.
According to Policy and Services Committee Councilmember and City Councilman George Lu, a number of residents and RV-populated street-side businesses have highlighted similar, persistent dissent.
“I think the most challenging and important ones are about public health and access, where RVs might impede a bike lane or dump sewage into the streets, and those are obviously deeply problematic,” he said.
Still, varying arguments both for and against RV restrictions have been raised by city residents.
“A lot of complaints (are) from people across the city who pass by or are just visiting or trying to park,” Lu said. “I think we’ve also heard some support from across the city as well, though support is something to (identify) because there’s no one single support message for RVs. It’s usually pretty nuanced and conditional.”
Lu anticipates mixed reactions from both the communities of RV residents and the housed on the actions being taken and how fast they are being made.
“I would just ask for patience, because this is a societal problem,” he said. “We can’t just ban it from our city or we make it worse for everyone else. We need to come together and think about a broader solution. This issue is analogous to climate change or really a whole range of political issues, where I think it’s irresponsible if we rush into the solution that some people in the community do want.”
Much of Palo Alto’s plans are informed by nearby cities’ experiences implementing various solutions. However, Lu has yet to find an ideal example.
“I think successes are hard to find (in other cities), unfortunately, and I think it’s still early on in understanding what cities are doing recently for RV homelessness,” he said. “How to actually handle this at scale is a new problem — there’s some promising things, but no clear successes yet.”
The local regulations on RVs generally lean in the direction of bans. For example, Menlo Park earlier this year banned all RVs throughout the city except a three-mile stretch along which they can park. San Francisco has also begun banning RVs, though incrementally and with buyback programs.
“I think it’s good that we have a lot of examples to learn from,” Lu said. “I think it is tough, though, that the recent trend is to ban RVs, and when that happens, that just reduces the options for everyone else. If every city and every community takes some of the load, we might be able to handle it. If every city bans RVs, then the RVs will potentially have nowhere to go and be less safe or transition into street homelessness.”
City Manager Ed Shikada estimates that the number of RV dwellers in Palo Alto has doubled since 2023. Palo Alto’s goal for a long-term solution to RV overpopulation, therefore, is to transition as many RV residents as possible into permanent housing. Currently, there are several housing options in Palo Alto — some at a low fee and others completely for free.
The first major strategy the city is implementing is the construction of new interim housing units, such as the Homekey Palo Alto shelter on San Antonio Road. This housing development — constructed in partnership with homelessness nonprofit organization LifeMoves — will include supportive services and offer temporary 88 housing units with showers and restrooms for families.
“I think (Homekey) can make a pretty big impact,” Shikada said. “If we assume we’re in the couple-hundred RV range, 88 transitional units is pretty good. We won’t be able to fill all 88 transitional units with just folks from Palo Alto — I understand that the county will also place some people in there, but if we can incentivize people to accept the interim housing, I think it can make a pretty good dent.”
Mobile homes and interim housing projects like Homekey help reduce the effects of homelessness, but they also highlight how limited and fragile the available options can be for those seeking residence. Even families who find space in such units often face overcrowding, unstable tenancy and long waits for permanent housing, according to junior Richard de la Garza, who attends the Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Church.
“I know two people (who attend the church) who live in mobile homes, smaller than an apartment,” he said. “They have over six people in each household. It’s compact, but you see that larger family dynamic.”
Along with the church, de la Garza works to foster an inclusive group of people who do their part in helping the displaced.
“The goal of the mass — the goal of the church — is to create a sense of community without judgment,” he said. “The church does that beautifully, offering food after every service every Sunday, (with) lots of social gatherings, picnics and barbecues.”
Furthermore, the city is taking action to mitigate the effects of RVs that will remain on the streets despite additional affordable housing. Although the recent trend in the Bay Area has been to ban RVs, Palo Alto is not looking to place a strict block on RV street parking overnight.
“We are looking at providing mobile sanitation services, like pumping for sewage and things like that, though we’re not sure how successful those efforts would be,” Lu said. “We are also looking at parking restrictions, but the details really matter here. Right now, we aren’t looking at banning all RVs across the city overnight. We are looking at whether we can provide designated areas for RVs to park, preferably in a safe parking lot with resources, or, in the worst case, potentially on specific streets.”
The unhousing question has further been exacerbated by recent developments at the federal level. In July, President Donald Trump, in his “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” executive order, crippled harm reduction programs that aided the medical care of the homeless. His order included cutting federal funds from a range of public health initiatives, disproportionately impacting cities with large unhoused populations.
Nonprofit organizations have specifically taken a hit.
“We’ve run into a lot of financial issues due to the federal government taking away a lot of funding, and so that’s putting a strain on everybody,” Garcia said. “So now we’re going to the local government, like the city of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara. Funding is stretched, and everybody’s feeling it. The funding is not there, the staffing is not there and I don’t think — unless the city can find more money — we’re going to be able to cure the crisis.”
Additionally, Garcia underscores the drawbacks of spending county funding on the construction of more temporary homes rather than investing in mental health resources. According to the National Institute of Health, it is estimated that 76.2% of homeless individuals have a current mental disorder, with the most common diagnoses being alcohol use disorders, drug use disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders and major depression.
“(In RV encampments, there are) a lot of people with mental health issues, and even if they were put into affordable housing, they might not be able to sustain that, because they’ve got underlying issues that need to be worked out,” she said. “I think that the city should spend more money on fighting the mental health deterioration that’s going on in our county and cities and spend more money on rehab so that when they get these people mentally healthy, they can get them physically healthy, and then they’ll be able to become productive members of society.”
De la Garza encourages those who are affected by the issue to keep an open mind and see all perspectives before passing judgment.
“An empathetic voice is a necessity, especially if you’re complaining from a place where you don’t understand their viewpoint,” he said. “Whatever conditions you live in, they’re definitely not the same as the next person. It’s not as simple as ‘make more money’. To be complained about and treated as if you shouldn’t be here, it’s quite hard (for homeless people). What I would say to them is, ‘Try not to give up.’ Place your hopes in something that can offer you something back in return.”
