Berkeley, CA Criminalizes Overnight Parking

[hipsterreplacement]

I was never in favor of overnight parking bans. I became even less
in favor of them when I became at risk for homelessness.

Unless you have bad mental health issues, I don't think there's
anything about poverty that makes you have to be rude. Yes, there
are people who litter and dump. There are also housed people and/or wealthy people who do
this. Instead of addressing that directly, without regard to wealth,
the city has chosen to simply ban overnight parking.

To show what it's really about, the mayor seems to have ignored
Councilmember Kate Harrison's proposal to at least add an RV dump
station to his plan.

Berkeleyside tweets: Motion passes 6-3 (Davila, Robinson, Harrison
voted no). Enforces ban on RVs parking 2-5 a.m. and pursues a 14-day
permit system. Directs staff to explore program where private owners
can allow some RVs to park for months if they’re engaged in
homelessness services



I'm sure Berkeleyside will be writing a story to follow. The City Council tonight moved on to more regulation measures around poor (but not the rich) dumpers.

 

[Travelmonkey]

It is interesting that Berkeley is deciding to enforce parking restrictions when other cities in Bay Area are becoming more accommodating. Last year, Palo Alto and Mt. View, I believe, were exploring parking in churches. 3 day parking limits were being enforced (move a few hundred feet).

I think a big issue for all of these cities is there are no dump stations.

 

[hipsterreplacement]

As I understand it, they're allowing 14 day (with a permit, which I assume will have a fee). And, of course, they're suggesting that churches pony up their parking lots while one of the public speakers at the meeting tonight owns the building Pyramid Brewery is in and was complaining that there weren't enough free public parking spaces for his tenants (in addition to the Pyramid Brewery parking lot...). So businesses don't have to pay the cost of doing business by either providing their own private parking or marketing to people who don't need to park (pubtrans users, cyclists, walkers, scooter riders, etc), but the council members just assume that the churches will naturally offer their parking lots up. What a double standard.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

 . . . was complaining that there weren't enough free public parking spaces for his tenants (in addition to the Pyramid Brewery parking lot...). So businesses don't have to pay the cost of doing business . . .

Who do you think is paying for those 'free' parking spaces in front of homes and businesses?  Unless it is a State or Federal trunk highway, it is the property owners who bear the full cost of the road in front.  It is usually called out as part of your property tax bill.

I pay for the 80 ft of road in front of my S&B: $12,000 when it was put in 25 years ago and ~$450 a year to maintain (residential).  Plus, when the road was resurfaced two years ago I was charged $5000 (10 years @ 8% interest).

 

[WanderingRose]

Church parking lots won’t solve the lack of a place to empty sewage, tho providing one brings its own issues.

It is not uncommon for cities to offer a free dump site at their sewer/sanitation location, which wouldn’t seem to be a hugely complex thing to add.

But, adding this provides a service to RV’ers in general, and particularly the burgeoning population doing this full time due to want or need, where withholding it and banning overnight parking will force people to go elsewhere.

I wonder how this will be enforced? Arresting overnighters, putting them in jail or giving a notice to appear, towing vehicles?

 

[hipsterreplacement]

Who do you think is paying for those 'free' parking spaces in front of homes and businesses?  Unless it is a State or Federal trunk highway, it is the property owners who bear the full cost of the road in front.  It is usually called out as part of your property tax bill.

I pay for the 80 ft of road in front of my S&B: $12,000 when it was put in 25 years ago and ~$450 a year to maintain (residential).  Plus, when the road was resurfaced two years ago I was charged $5000 (10 years @ 8% interest).

No need to put "free" in scare quotes. I'm well aware "free" public parking is subsidized by public taxes. Property taxes are handled differently by different cities and written up differently when the property owner receives the bill. But property tax is not the only tax income cities have. And if it were tantamount to the property owner buying the property in front of their home or business, that wouldn't be public parking and the property owner could never be fined for breaking parking laws in front of their home/business. But it doesn't work that way. It's a public street, it's owned by the public. If the property owners there want to make it private, at least in my hometown there's a precedent of a street of rich people doing that. They now have to take care of all resurfacing and street services themselves. It's their street, they bought it. Or the commercial landlord here could do what is the cost of doing business - provide a private parking lot for their customers or court customers that don't take a car to get there.

 

[hipsterreplacement]

Yes, that's what's clear. They don't want to address the actual litter and dumping issues (and there are plenty of housed people who throw trash on the street and dump...they don't go after them with the laws already on the books), it's about banning an entire class of people, many of whom are poor.

If there isn't a great uproar about this, and it goes through as is, I expect enforcement to be very harsh for the first year or so until the city feels it is spending a disproportionate amount of its police and city staff time servicing the one or two districts in town where this is a more obvious issue. There may also be a lawsuit at some point, a la San Diego. But you're right that enforcement is always the tricky part of any law.

 

[hipsterreplacement]

Berkeleyside article is up: https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/03/01/berkeley-city-council-tells-rvs-to-hit-the-road

 

[WanderingRose]

It is a complicated issue.

I especially feel for those with no place else to go, also understand business and homeowners who don’t want RV’ers living on their streets.

It would seem providing a sewer hookup at local facilities would be a relatively simple way to ease some of the problem, but may also encourage more people to come.

 

[Stardust]

NIMBYism at its finest.  Coming up with yet another not-thought-through law is not going to deal with the root issues and all their many twists and turns. 
A much more visible problem in Berkeley and other East Bay cities than overnight rv-ers is the mountains of garbage around the many tent encampments, but I haven't seen this being addressed by the local city governments.  I would be happy to have some of my vehicle registration fees go towards trash collection if this could be done in a way that prevents the better-off from taking advantage. (I have seen furniture, appliances, and other household items in the garbage mountains that I am sure did not come from someone in the one of the tents.)
No easy solutions.  I will say that when I overnight (in my maintained, registered, and insured vehicle) in some place that is not a "legally designated camping spot," I will take care to leave it better than I found it and take no actions to intentionally annoy, misuse, or harm anyone or anything in the vicinity. (Except for mosquitoes or in self-defense.)