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.
I don't have any idea what percentage of RVs fall into which camp, I just know that the bad ones are very visible.
The answer isn’t motorhomes or tents, it’s better political leadership and a healthier less likely to fall into homelessness middle class.
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”?
Still, the California building code 709b discusses sleeping and alludeds so a definition for bedroom, so going in that direction, in order to be not living in a tent, a person would need to have their own access to a legal bedroom, as defined by the building code. There is a $20k fine if people are sleeping in, eg, the twitter offices, which was not zoned for that.
Gatekeeping that someone must have enough money and/or privilege to buy real-estate to your liking is part of the illiberal snobbiness.