42% of Cities Ban Sleeping in Vehicles

[pseudo_mccoy]

Source.

This related article is specific to vehicle dwellers.

I'm fine with the current situation. What gives me pause for concern is if there's a trend of increasingly aggressive legislation against living in a vehicle. Is this the case?

Makes me glad I went the stealth route.

 

[user 423]

I have had very little trouble sleeping in my van at many Walmarts across the U.S.

 

[pseudo_mccoy]

Glad to hear it. That's the impression I get from most folks. And personally, I haven't ever been hassled in the short time I've been van dwelling.

Just wondering if anyone thinks there's been an increase in restrictions.

 

[caseyc]

That article has been reported on in the recent past. Yes, it's true that more cities are banning people from living in their vehicles. I'm guessing it will get worse before things get better.

From what I can tell, cities are particularly extra interested in banning "over-sized" vehicles that fit a certain height and length criteria. That pretty much means any Class A or Class C RV vehicle due to their extra size.

When I was first searching for a van, I thought maybe I made a mistake in not getting a taller hightop model. But now I'm actually glad I got a low top vehicle instead, because that means city officials don't consider my vehicle an "oversized RV", which it isn't anyway. Plus my van is standard length instead of extended, so that also is in my favor.

For those who have a Class A or Class C RV and do city dwelling, I feel bad for you. It's only going to get harder and harder to park in city streets.

I feel that with all the "bad press" from RV dwellers being in the news in a negative light, that can't help but to spill over to affect me as well. Makes my life that much harder too. So far I've been dealing with it and making it work.

 

[vagari]

It's legal in Los Angeles now - Maybe?
"In a decision hailed as a human rights victory by homeless-rights activists, a federal court struck down a decades-old Los Angeles law prohibiting the use of vehicles as residences."
"In the case, Desertrain vs. City of Los Angeles, three judges on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a lower court ruling that upheld the ban. Dating back to 1983, the ban wasn’t enforced until 2010"
http://calwatchdog.com/2014/06/27/now-legal-to-sleep-in-your-car-in-l-a/

Interesting to read the actual decision.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/06/19/11-56957.pdf

I wonder how this applies to other cities within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

[pseudo_mccoy]

Sorry for the repost. And thanks, caseyc, for your take on it. I really wanted a high top as well, but hearing that from you makes me even more thankful for what I have.

---

Thanks for the links, vagari. That's good news. I like the part where the ruling says, the anti-vehicle dwelling law "opens the door to discriminatory enforcement against the homeless and the poor."

Makes me think of the story's top comment on reddit...

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
-Anatole France

 

[user 423]

It's legal in Los Angeles now - Maybe?

It may be technically but I'm sure they will find all kinds of things to cite folks for to discourage the practice.

 

[caseyc]

As for the city that struck down that law (Los Angeles?), I seem to recall reading the reason it was deemed unconstitutional was because it was too vague in language. The original language was so ambiguous as to make anyone a potential criminal at any point in time. I seem to recall the city in question will re-write the ordinance to be much more specific in order to hold up in court. However, cities that have very exacting language banning "habitating" in a vehicle during certain hours of PM to AM will better stand up to scrutiny in court.

---

You're welcome. I'm also glad I didn't get a van (or Class B RV) that is obviously a self-contained recreational vehicle that could be lived in. I imagine that city officials recognize which types of vehicles are specifically built for "habitation". When you see a vehicle that has all types of outlets for gray/black water pipes, fans and vents for propane stove, fridge, etc, that just pretty much screams out "LOOK INSIDE! van dweller here!! " The only "outlet" my van has is the freakin door for pumping gas! My van simply looks like a "conversion van" from back in the 1990s when it used to be popular prior to the advent of SUVs and pickup trucks. One day when I'm retired and no longer working, I can then entertain myself with the idea of having a fully self contained Class B RV, such as a RoadTrek. When retired, I'll be more on the road as opposed to trying to stealth boondock in the city. But for now, stealth is more important, and the ability to park "easily" (relatively speaking) overrides many other factors...for me at least.

Sorry for the repost. And thanks, caseyc, for your take on it. I really wanted a high top as well, but hearing that from you makes me even more thankful for what I have.

 

[vagari]

There were two reasons the laws was deemed unconstitutionally vague
1. It fails to provide adequate notice of the conduct it criminalizes
2. It promotes arbitrary enforcement that targets the homeless

"For many homeless persons, their automobile may be their last major possession — the means by which they can look for work and seek social services. The City of Los Angeles has many options at its disposal to alleviate the plight and suffering of its homeless citizens. Selectively preventing the homeless and the poor from using their vehicles for activities many other citizens also conduct in their cars should not be one of those options."

 

[jeanontheroad]

People, there are good reasons for these laws. You might not want to admit it, but for every one of you who is responsible about his bathroom habits and his trash, who leaves other people's stuff alone, who makes sure he does not take up valuable parking in front of businesses, who is mentally healthy, there is someone else who will take a dump in someone's parking lot and leaves his trash all over the street, who will take anything he can walk off with, who will leave his vehicle in front of businesses so customers can't use the spaces, and who is mentally unstable and possibly dangerous. Cities can't afford to assign every van dweller his own personal cop to babysit him. So, they pass laws that get rid of the whole group.

 

[vagari]

I agree jeanontheroad, but lets punish the lawbreakers not the innocent. When I walk around town I see trash from fast food joints everywhere all over people's lawns. Should we close down all fast food joints because some people liter or go after the people who actually do liter?

 

[HarmonicaBruce]

People, there are good reasons for these laws.

I lived and worked in Washington, DC from 2000 - 2002. Within blocks of the white house there are homeless living on park benches, in store fronts, and on the side walks. There were a lot of them. Tell me why there aren't laws against that? If there are, why aren't they enforced? Maybe because the homeless / van less don't have anything valuable for the cops to confiscate (i.e. steal)?

 

[pseudo_mccoy]

Maybe because the homeless / van less don't have anything valuable for the cops to confiscate (i.e. steal)?

From the article I referenced earlier...

"“Eighteen percent of cities now ban sleeping in public and 42 percent of cities ban sleeping in vehicles.”

This confused me. Why is it more acceptable to be on the street than in your vehicle? Sadly, you may have found an answer.

 

[jeanontheroad]

If I recall, cities have already lost several court cases regarding homeless people sleeping on the streets. The court cases are just beginning regarding sleeping in vehicles.

 

[mockturtle]

Cities. Who needs them?!

 

[Zil]

I agree jeanontheroad, but lets punish the lawbreakers not the innocent. When I walk around town I see trash from fast food joints everywhere all over people's lawns. Should we close down all fast food joints because some people liter or go after the people who actually do liter?

My friend lived across from a McD. (He was there first.) Every morning he would gather a bag of cast off wrappers and half eaten rolls and dump them on Mcd's counter.
I haven't had many encounters sleeping in my various vans, I guess because I'm traveling. here today, gone tomorrow.

 

[jeanontheroad]

McD really should not allow itself to become a public nuisance.

On the other hand, we have a friend who owned a shop in a strip mall. He was beaten and robbed twice. He thinks one of them had spent a couple nights in a vehicle in his parking lot, watching him come and go. He's a small, non-aggressive man. They didn't have to put him in the hospital to get the money.

 

[vagari]

My friend lived across from a McD. (He was there first.) Every morning he would gather a bag of cast off wrappers and half eaten rolls and dump them on Mcd's counter.

Is McD at fault for simply selling food or is it the people who actually liter?

 

[Zil]

Credit to Mcd. They did switch to mostly biodegradable packaging.

 

[jeanontheroad]

McD could provide ample, convenient trash receptacles that are emptied regularly. The 2 by our old house do not. They could have an employee police the parking lot once or twice a day so that litter does not blow to the neighbors' property. They could put up low fences or plant hedges that would catch windblown litter. They will never stop all their customers from littering. But they can make an effort to be a good neighbor.