Denver new laws against over-nighting stealth

[tx2sturgis]

doesnt denver still ban certain breeds of dogs? yeah screw denver.

Many years ago the City of Denver in its infinite wisdom made it technically illegal to ride a motorcycle thru Denver, even on the interstate passing thru, with ANY aftermarket mufflers. Even if they were quiet, they had to have an imprinted DOT stamp IN the metal.

This was their response to so-called 'noisy motorcycles'...

But rather than pass and enforce a noise ordinance against loud aftermarket mufflers on cars or any vehicle, loud thumping stereos in teenagers vehicles, and other nuisances, they targeted motorcycles ONLY.

You cant do this, for several reasons, and I think the law eventually went into un-enforceable status.

 

[user 37446]

I deleted two posts. Let's keep it civil, no senseless bickering.

Thanks. This thread was really going downhill.

 

[Vagabound]

I'm really not sure what this thread's about anymore, or what can and can't be posted in it. However, I'm going to take a shot and continue the conversation that Richard started about the definition of homeless as it does seem applicable in this case.

Of the three links provided I was able to open the first one and the third one. Second one had an error. In any case, they both seem to mention vehicles within the definition of homeless. That brought an interesting thought to mind. 

It seems that it doesn't matter at all what kind of vehicle. In other words, if you're living in a old Chevy Impala or you're living in a $500,000 Custom RV, according to those definitions, you're homeless.

I also had a question about the definition of the word fixed, as in fixed residence. I'm sure lawyers could argue about that and make a lot of money in the process, but I'm wondering if they meant fixed as in it doesn't change, or fixed as in it has a concrete foundation?

How do others read that?

Tom

 

[tx2sturgis]

In any case, they both seem to mention vehicles within the definition of homeless.

One of the articles used the word 'car'...

So is a van a 'car'? How about a pickup truck with a camper shell? Is that a 'car'?

My full-sized cargo van is not a car, but a smaller passenger minivan might be called that.

The other article used the phrase 'abandoned building or vehicle'.

If you own it and drive it and keep it legally registered and insured, it is certainly not 'abandoned'.

I'm fairly certain that any vehicle with the word 'RV' or 'Recreational Vehicle' on the license plate or title would not be confused with a 'car'..legally or otherwise...

And to clarify, my comments about the motorcycle muffler laws was to illustrate that the city government of Denver seems to believe it can do what it wants, when it wants, no matter if it's legal or not.

 

[Richard]

I'm really not sure what this thread's about anymore, or what can and can't be posted in it. However, I'm going to take a shot and continue the conversation that Richard started about the definition of homeless as it does seem applicable in this case.

Of the three links provided I was able to open the first one and the third one. Second one had an error. In any case, they both seem to mention vehicles within the definition of homeless. That brought an interesting thought to mind. 

It seems that it doesn't matter at all what kind of vehicle. In other words, if you're living in a old Chevy Impala or you're living in a $500,000 Custom RV, according to those definitions, you're homeless.

I also had a question about the definition of the word fixed, as in fixed residence. I'm sure lawyers could argue about that and make a lot of money in the process, but I'm wondering if they meant fixed as in it doesn't change, or fixed as in it has a concrete foundation?

How do others read that?

Tom

My apologies for the 2nd link failure, Tom. I found that page cached here: https://webcache.googleusercontent....finition-legal.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

If that link doesn't work, here's the text (bolded emphasis mine):

Legal Definition of Homelessness

According to section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)), the term “homeless children and youths”—

(A) means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence...; and

(B) includes—

(i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement;

(ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings;

(iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and

(iv) migratory children who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii).

Children and youth are considered homeless if they fit both part A and any one of the subparts of part B of the definition above.

That cached page elaborates "fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence" as follows:

What is the Meaning of Fixed, Regular, and Adequate Nighttime Residence?

Fixed nighttime residence: Stationary, permanent, and not subject to change.

Regular nighttime residence: Used on a predictable, routine, or consistent basis.

Adequate nighttime residence: Sufficient for meeting both the physical and psychological needs typically met in home environments.

I think many of us who choose a mobile lifestyle could make a strong case that our choice is both 'regular' and 'adequate' in all the ways that matter to us. It's the 'fixed' part that I imagine poses the greatest challenge to being seen as a lawfully legitimate manner of existence.

Mobile dwellers establish domicile by declaration and intent rather than by majority physical presence. And, many of us understand that 'domicile' doesn't necessarily imply 'residence'. With enough time and money, a legal team might prevail in making that distinction within the body of the law but, for now, it seems to me that we who choose a mobile lifestyle are unfortunately caught in the dragnet of overgeneralization within the letter of the law.

We are 'residence-less' by choice. The powers that be have, apparently, decided that the best way to define 'homeless' is to equate it with 'residence-less', regardless whether one's residence-less status is an undesired consequence of circumstance or a competent free-will choice.

My take on the mention of 'car' is that it may be better than 'vehicle' because it perhaps (?) allows for 'van', 'truck', 'bus', 'motor home', 'travel trailer', etc., but it does single out folks like Suanne who choose a Prius as their vehicle of choice. Other potentially troublesome language for me, includes the mention of 'public space' (which I imagine is meant to refer to sidewalks and park benches rather than public lands but that ambiguity could work against us) and of "similar settings".

 

[tx2sturgis]

Richard, that entire article is focused on 'Children and Youths'...


So for most of us here, it will rarely apply...

But it might complicate things for parents who choose to take kiddos with them full-timing.

 

[Richard]

Richard, that entire article is focused on 'Children and Youths'...

Brian, that article is one of three  that I offered (in this comment) for consideration of how the law defines 'homeless'. Yes, that article names children and youth, but the criteria in that article isn't exclusive to children and youth. For example, compare the initial statements from both the 'children and youth' article and the Cornell source:

According to section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)), the term “homeless children and youths”—

(A) means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence

--from https://webcache.googleusercontent....finition-legal.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

with

For purposes of this chapter, the terms “homeless”, “homeless individual”, and “homeless person” means

(1) an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence

--from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/11302

As you can see, the criteria of a 'fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence' isn't exclusive to 'children and youth'. Same goes for my emphasis of the car, public spaces, and similar settings:

(iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings

--from https://webcache.googleusercontent....finition-legal.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

and

(2) an individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground

--from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/11302

With that in mind, your conclusion following is incorrect:

So for most of us here, it will rarely apply...

In fact, the criteria that I emphasized in bold from the 'children and youth' source, practically speaking, does apply to most of us here

 

[lenny flank]

The legal definitions don't matter diddley. All that matters is who the city aims the law at, and who they enforce it against. I very very much doubt they've ever arrested anyone in a $400,000 Class A for being "homeless".

My adopted hometown of St Pete FL gives a good example of this: they have a city ordinance making it illegal to "recline" in a city park. Technically, that means all those wealthy vacationers who are sunbathing in the park every day, are breaking the law. but of course NONE of them ever get arrested--the law is aimed and enforced solely against homeless people who try to sleep in the park. (And nobody wrangles over what the legal definition of "homeless" is--they know who their targets are and so do we.)

 

[tx2sturgis]

Brian, that article is one of three  that I offered


With that in mind, your conclusion following is incorrect:


In fact, the criteria that I emphasized in bold from the 'children and youth' source, practically speaking, does apply to most of us here

Yes, I addressed the other two articles in my previous post, and once the final article's link was fixed, then I addressed that one.

My conclusion about the final article stands, since the word 'individual' is used in reference to the words 'children and youth' in the previous passage.

I do agree in a general sense that the laws are sometimes vague and could be applied by a cop on scene, or a courtroom, with very selective enforcement.

Much like most of our laws, it's not WHAT you know, its WHO you know.

 

[Vagabound]

This forum not being a court of law, I think it was nice of Richard to provide multiple references for us to compare and contrast, only for the general purpose of getting an idea of what the legal meaning of homeless is. The most likely applicable definition is going to be the one that most of these have in common.

Thanks, Richard.

Tom

 

[frater secessus]

Stealth has always been about not following potential rules?

Maybe.  I think stealthers come in two flavors:

1. stealthy to avoid prosecution for breaking the law <-- I do not support this, except in cases of willfully bad law / civil disobedience
2. stealthy to avoid harrassment for lawful-but-deprecated activities <-- I support this

 

[user 37446]

Hi,

I just spent 2+ hours (thanks to free wifi at McD's) trying to find a single, federal definition of Homelessness. There appear to be 3, of which the HUD has one, the McKinney-Vento is another, and the third is based on Federal Appeals court (9th Circuit) in their case with LA when the court overturned LA's attempts to curb people living in vehicles.

The broadest was the attempt by LA, which criminalized all dwellers caught residing in a vehicle, but that's gone now. Next broadest is McKinney-Vento, (applies to everyone, not just youth) where the language that trips dwellers up has to do with vehicles not being either a fixed or permanent place of habitation. Third is HUD, who uses the term "cars" which people here have already argued about.

The problem is that individual cities are making their own definitions. Seattle has been trying to decide who is homeless, and a soon to be announced court decision (state court) will help clarify theirs, but the Seattle Times 2017 article said no matter which way it goes it will be appealed. The Seattle decision was started by police ticketing and having towed a vehicle owned by a man (who lived in his truck), and was parked on a city street. He didn't move the truck for 17 days (he claimed it was broken down) and thus was in violation of the "moving every 72 hours" rule. (Many cities use the 72 hour rule). If he had simply been able to move it, no issue, the police even gave him several extra days to move it before they towed it.

So as long as you keep moving (if you are an urban dweller), you should be ok, unless you park in an obviously marked area.

What I'm finding is the definition of "homeless" is arbitrary (duhh), and will likely be applied to individuals who appear to have little or no means to pay for a residence. That's why the $500K Prevost buses don't get cited... If you can prove that you are simply a "traveler", by means of the "Real ID" drivers license with a fixed and permanent residence, and you can show the means to support yourself, then you likely won't be considered homeless. 

If you are skirting the Real ID act or if pressed, cannot show that you truly have a fixed and permanent residence or the means to support yourself, then the onus is on you. The problem is that fighting the system, for the weeks or months it may likely take, could easily cause you to actually become homeless, ie. having no resources to bail yourself out.

From LAWeekly.com (7-29-2014, after the 9th Circuit decision):
[font=serif12, serif]"Indeed, while most people living in cars are technically [/font][font=serif12, serif]homeless[/font][font=serif12, serif], not all of them are [/font][font=serif12, serif]jobless[/font][font=serif12, serif]. With rent skyrocketing in L.A., a car offers an affordable roof overhead, with the added advantage of mobility. In some cases, groups of vehicle dwellers develop their own communities, exchanging tips on where to find gyms with showers, convenience stores to microwave food, and libraries where kids can do homework."[/font]

[font=serif12, serif]And lower down, "[size=medium][font=serif12, serif]Some areas of the city have instated oversized-vehicle laws, which restrict parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. for vehicles taller than 7 feet or longer than 22 feet — meaning trailers and RVs. But vehicular dwellers have already adapted, Ryavec says, choosing smaller cars with camper tops that meet the size requirements.".[/font][/font][/size]. End of quote

[font=serif12, serif][size=medium][font=serif12, serif]It appears that the fight between homeless advocates and cities will continue to cycle, with temporary victories on each side until the other side finds a way around the previous loss. Kinda like the arms race.[/font][/font][/size]

[font=serif12, serif][size=medium][font=serif12, serif]So what does this all mean? Plan on having issues with the authorities at some time in your journey as long as you are an urban dweller, parking (stealthing or not) on city streets or private property without permission. Whether its is LA, San Diego, Venice (CA), Portland, Seattle, in Florida, every major city or tourist area is struggling with this issue.[/font][/font][/size]

 

[tx2sturgis]

What I'm finding is the definition of "homeless" is arbitrary (duhh), and will likely be applied to individuals who appear to have little or no means to pay for a residence. That's why the $500K Prevost buses don't get cited... If you can prove that you are simply a "traveler", by means of the "Real ID" drivers license with a fixed and permanent residence, and you can show the means to support yourself, then you likely won't be considered homeless. 

If you are skirting the Real ID act or if pressed, cannot show that you truly have a fixed and permanent residence or the means to support yourself, then the onus is on you. The problem is that fighting the system, for the weeks or months it may likely take, could easily cause you to actually become homeless, ie. having no resources to bail yourself out.

Thank you so much for researching and posting this.

We really need a new term for 'homeless'. I dont know what that term would be, maybe, 'destitute', 'endgame', 'hopeless', 'dead-ender'....I dont know what the word would or should be. But it should not discriminate against someone who is not living in a 'sticks and bricks' home.

In my industry, there are a LOT of truck drivers who for one reason or another, put everything in storage, sell their home, or vacate their apartment, and switch to full time over-the-road status. They are far from 'homeless' although they are 'houseless'.

They can make a lot of money doing this and why pay for a house or apartment when they are never there? Its very common and not frowned upon by the industry or the government. They will usually use a family member for the permanent legal 'address' or maybe use the address of the terminal they work out of.

I wonder if someone, somewhere, could create a similar nomad 'home base'. Not the same as a mail drop or PO box, it would be an actual piece of land, with say, dozens (or hundreds) of concrete pads, carports, and maybe small storage sheds for full timers to actually have a physical home base, where they can park the van, the car, or the RV.

These could be 'leased' or rented on a time share basis...reducing the cost to the renter, and increasing the revenue to the land owner. Think: 1234 Route 10, space 21, Anytown, USA.

They would pay a small monthly fee, use the address for legal purposes, and actually be able to physically drive to the site and park there for a week to establish residence if needed.

Ok...shoot holes in the idea...I know...not practical or whatever....

 

[Ballenxj]

I wonder if someone, somewhere, could create a similar nomad 'home base'. Not the same as a mail drop or PO box, it would be an actual piece of land, with say, dozens (or hundreds) of concrete pads, carports, and maybe small storage sheds for full timers to actually have a physical home base, where they can park the van, the car, or the RV.

These could be 'leased' or rented on a time share basis...reducing the cost to the renter, and increasing the revenue to the land owner. Think: 1234 Route 10, space 21, Anytown, USA.

They would pay a small monthly fee, use the address for legal purposes, and actually be able to physically drive to the site and park there for a week to establish residence if needed.

Ok...shoot holes in the idea...I know...not practical or whatever....

Actually, I think this is a good idea, and similar has been posted elsewhere on this forum under the title of Land I believe?
The logistics of it all would have to be worked out though. For starters, you would need a caretaker of some sort, a mail sorting operation for receiving and forwarding. Communication would be important. I think it could work.

 

[tx2sturgis]

Actually, I think this is a good idea, and similar has been posted elsewhere on this forum under the title of Land I believe?
The logistics of it all would have to be worked out though. For starters, you would need a caretaker of some sort, a mail sorting operation for receiving and forwarding. Communication would be important. I think it could work.

I had seen that one, but got the impression it was more of a...almost a 'commune' type of place. Lots of people living there at one time.

What I think might work is a place that is NOT for living for any length of time, just to park when passing thru.

Limit stays to 1 week, with no hookups, no nice trees or grass, no tables, so that it is obvious that its not for staying camped for more than a short time.

This would make it available to others on the timeshare and not a place to 'homestead' or 'squat'...although I can see where someone might take advantage of the situation.

In the lease it could stipulate that you are entitled to say, 2 weeks of physical access during any calendar year, but you can use the address on your legal documents year round.

What would people pay for this? $20 a month maybe?

If the owner of the place had only 200 people paying, thats not a bad income!

 

[Ballenxj]

I had seen that one, but got the impression it was more of a...almost a 'commune' type of place. Lots of people living there at one time.

What I think might work is a place that is NOT for living for any length of time, just to park when passing thru.

Limit stays to 1 week, with no hookups, no nice trees or grass, no tables, so that it is obvious that its not for staying camped for more than a short time.

This would make it available to others on the timeshare and not a place to 'homestead' or 'squat'...although I can see where someone might take advantage of the situation.

In the lease it could stipulate that you are entitled to say, 2 weeks of physical access during any calendar year, but you can use the address on your legal documents year round.

What would people pay for this? $20 a month maybe?

If the owner of the place had only 200 people paying, thats not a bad income!

Yes, you are right. That one was geared more toward communal. OK, you're going to force me to put my thinking cap on, Eh?
The stay for a week at a time is also good because some counties, and or states may require at least that to take up residency.
On the payment end, I think an annual or bi-annual option would work better. Folks traveling and having a good time may be prone to forgetting, and or don't want to be bothered once a month. A deposit to take care of unexpected expenses might also be in order. There would have to be power of attorney signed for opening important mail such as drivers license
renewal, vehicle registrations, summons, etc. Everybody will need to have a good contact number.
Power, water, and sewage must be considered, along with zoning.
The people in charge should be trustworthy, etc. A state should be picked that is more central to most of the travelers, but lenient enough in their rules, regulations, and laws. So far, Nevada has been best, but things are constantly changing.
Like I said, lot's of logistics to work out.
PS, I think this subject needs it's own thread.

 

[AmieW]

This is nothing. You should see the laws against the homeless in some cities in FL. Cops in St. Petersburg literally went onto private church land and slashed up tents with box cutters and tossed out everything of value these people owned. Here in my city, there used to be a gazebo in the downtown square, but the homeless hung out there, and the cops would watch. If one of them went to the bathroom and left their stuff, they would haul it off. They finally removed it. They removed benches from the waterfront park and Main Street in Sarasota, FL to keep homeless people from sleeping on them. It's illegal to even lean on a building downtown, which is absurd, since they have such a large senior population. There are very few WalMarts in FL that permit overnight parking, due to local ordinances against it, due to the large number of RVers that converge on the state every winter. In most cities, it's illegal to have someone living in an RV parked in someone's driveway or yard, so your friends can't even park overnight on your own private property.

Florida is a strange case, exactly because of the snowbirds that flood the state every winter, but it makes it very difficult for vandwellers too. They hide the BLM-type land under the Water Management Districts, but it is there, so look for it. There are quite a few state and national forests, too, but enforcement is strict.

 

[user 37446]

I haven't read the 71 page PDF yet but so far (page 5) this is a pretty good resource and accurate as of 2014. I'd recommend if you are vaguely interested in the topic, you check it out. Props to the original poster Matt71:

[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Matt71 

 
[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=small]Here is an interesting report from the National Law Center on Homelessness & poverty
http://www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place

There is a chart starting on page 47 that shows cities and states along with links to their ordinances related to homelessness which includes sleeping in vehicles.[/font][/size]

**********************

 

[user 37446]

That was a long read, the last 30 odd pages is a chart showing as many cities as they could show with all the various city ordinances or codes that criminalized homeless behaviors like sleeping, sitting, standing in public etc... Oh, sleeping in your automobile as well.

Want to visit the lovely tourist city of Virginia Beach, VA?  Don't sleep overnight in your vehicle: Here's their city code...Just one of the many in that chart.

Latest version.

• 
  It shall be unlawful and a Class 4 misdemeanor for any person to use an automobile for sleeping quarters, in lieu of hotel, tourist cabin, boardinghouse, rooming house or other similar accommodations, within the city.

[*]

[font='Proxima Nova Rg Regular', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A Class 4 misdemeanor is punishable by a fine of up to $250. (Va. Ann. Code § 18.2-11.)[/font]

 

[Vagabound]

I haven't read the 71 page PDF yet but so far (page 5) this is a pretty good resource and accurate as of 2014. I'd recommend if you are vaguely interested in the topic, you check it out. ...

I think I must have missed the link to the really large PDF. Where was it?

Tom