Do You Think The Govt. Will Eventually Try And Squeeze Out Boondocking Life?

[notsosure]

They just want you all to help them pay their mortgage. There are few decent places for one person.
If they can tell you to go in 30 days as a renter, you should be able to travel.

 

[jacqueg]

Ppl are talking about a 10 acre minimum to dwell on the parcel in your RV (in Arizona). Many parcels being sold are 1 acre, and the sales agent is talking about the buyer camping there. Do you know which it is? One acre or ten acres?
-crofter

You MUST check with the county where the acreage is. And the lot minimum may well be different in different parts of the county. One size is highly unlikely to fit all.

And BTW, most counties in the US will let you CAMP on rural land that you own, for a specified amount of time, typically no more than 60-90 days in any calendar year. So the sales agent may be telling the plain truth - it's just that the buyer is hearing something very different.

 

[Qxxx]

I'm posting this here, and hoping it will get buried. I just went online and finally completed the 2020 Census questionnaire, which was officially due on April 1 (all fool's day, gotcha!). I live in S&B when not traveling, and found the questions to be 100% intrusive, but I may be overly sensitive too. I cannot even image how this thing would go if I were a full-timer.

Famous last words: "We know who you are Bronze" (from the Mad Max movie), yer life is an open book...

 

[izifaddag]

In answer to the original question I say yes I do.
I can only make guesses why but it seems to me that society does not want people to live unconventional lives. The very economic system we live under is based on debt. The goal seems to be to drive people into debt. My bank gives me my credit score - like I care anymore. It gives me reasons for the score. One of the reasons is 'you don't have enough debt' or words to that effect.
Debt is a way to control. So somebody who lives free, owing no money, not being 'captured' by an employer, not boxed up in a condo / house / apartment is a threat.

A constant process of squeezing takes place. You can only stay for 5,7 or 14 days in even the remotest areas. Places where you are just a speck.
If a piece of land can be monetized then it is. A good example is the beaches in south Florida. They are boxed in by private land so you can't access that public beach. Forests, deserts and the mountains have been cleverly used to create revenue.

I am surprised Bigfoot isn't being charged rent!!

It is getting worse. 'Freedom' has become an industry. I ended my trucking career last year. Not a moment too soon. Now they charge to park for the night in a truck stop. Even in remote places. In 1995 that was extremely rare, now it is common.
It is rapidly turning into an art-form to find free places to park.
Oh well c'est la vie.

 

[Qxxx]

I see I fell in a hole when I said upper midwest. I should have just said "look at the map" for places with low covid rates.

 

[crofter]

Coconino and Cochise counties in AZ have no land restrictions for 1 acre lots. All the other counties are hit and miss, or require large swaths of land to be restriction free.
Never buy land  anywhere, without checking land use with the county first.

Good advice.  -c

 

[WayOutWest]

I do think that where large numbers of folks living in vehicles congregate, particularly in cities, there are  more restrictions coming.

And anyplace where privileges are abused, that invites restrictions and limitations.

I think it’s incumbent upon all of we roamers and wanderers, full or part time, to be respectful and aware of how what we do may impact others, and act accordingly.

[quote pid='470040' dateline='1570215224']

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I think you've hit the nail on the head with this reply. [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]If you observe how things go in the world at large, the general rule is that when too many people start doing something and cause problems, they could potentially cause problems for others.    More problems result in regulations.  When there are no problems, there's no need for more regulations.  [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=small][size=small][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Thus, we can all have some control over this issue, [/font][/size][/font][/size][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=small][size=small][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]by behaving impeccably in boondocking situations. 
[/font][/size][/font][/size]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Also, regulations tend to look back at the original purpose or intention of things. [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Public lands were originally intended for recreation, outdoors activities, camping.  They were not intended to provide permanent housing or homesteading for people.  People may keep within the letter of the law by moving their camp every 2 weeks as required, but in some situations, as [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]in high use areas[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif], I do see a problem if there are more "full time vehicle dwellers" boondocking in sites that would otherwise be more available for those coming for 1 or 2 days to camp while doing outdoor activities.  [/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=small][size=small][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I would predict that if there is any restriction or change in regulations, it would be done to address problems in some areas having become less available for vacationers, due to the number of people using the camping spots who are full-time vehicle dwellers.  The changes in regulations I'd expect would not be in eliminating the opportunity to boondock (as that would negatively impact the vacationers too ) but rather would be, I believe, in reducing the amount of time anyone could occupy one space or camp within a certain area.  Currently that amount of time is 2 weeks in most areas as far as I'm aware.  This might end up being reduced to 1 week or 3 or 4 days [/font][/size][/font][/size][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=small][size=small][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]if the area is high use [/font][/size][/font][/size][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=small][size=small][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]and authorities want to open up more space for vacationers. [/font][/size]

[/font][/size][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I do not see any problem with boondocking or need for regulations in areas that are not high use, such as areas that don't tend to attract vacationers, [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]except[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] for instances where a "negative situation" ends up being created...such as if a number of vehicle dwellers who are drug addicts begin living in a certain area, and cause some type of problem for the surrounding community, such as causing wildfires via carelessness, or engaging in crime and predation on a local town.  

[/font]By way of example: I read an account by a traveler, that he navigated a rough dirt road up to a hot springs on public land just outside of Death Valley National park.  There, he encountered a group of aggressive, openly hostile people, who threatened and harassed him and basically were trying to tell him to GTFO.  It was clear to me reading the account, that these people had taken over this area of public land and were trying to establish it as their own homestead, and chase off "intruders."  This kind of problem of course is magnified in terms of danger, when those appropriating the public land are trying to engage in crime on the site, such as illegal cannabis grows or other drug activity. 
This is one of the problems inherent in the notion of public land.  It's actually a problem that is increasingly arising both in true "public lands" in wild areas, as well as simply in "public spaces" in urban areas, such as the sidewalk we walk down in a city.  

In cities, we have seen, in some areas of some cities, openly hostile and aggressive people, such as drug dealers or addicts in tents,  "taking over the sidewalk" and engaging in threatening or intimidating behavior towards those simply walking by.  Too often, city leaders fail to address this problem.  
A similar thing can occur in remote areas of public land, even though it's less likely there, as the "bad people" don't tend to have as many resources and knowledge to do boondocking.  But at times they do end up on public lands.  Hopefully with a report to the BLM ranger or National Forest ranger, people who try to seize public lands for themselves and chase off the public, will be themselves chased off in short order.  
If enough of these kinds of problems occur in one area, such as around a hot springs, it's quite possible that authorities will totally close that area to all camping.  
 


[/quote]

 

[WayOutWest]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]In fact, as it's been my experience that (a) I have more trouble finding a spot to camp near a really nice destination on public lands such as a hot springs or lake or river, (b) I encounter more noise and sometimes obnoxious people in such popular, really nice destinations, thus, for these reasons my preferred boondocking destinations are near [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]nothing interesting at all![/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]!  [/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]  I find that if you pick a spot that has virtually no appeal to the "average Joe", you're much more likely to be able to find peace and quiet and solitude, which are what really hold all the appeal to me!! [/font]

 

[gslanm]

I would think it's unconstitutional to mandate that someone can't be homeless, and truth be told, being in a vehicle with a quasi-home is far safer for society, and far more humane for the poor so I would pray the courts strike down any attempt to ban homelessness with dignity which is what this is for some. It's definitely cruel beyond belief to do so.

That said, I agree with one of the posters above. This is all about debt and control. Police don't patrol areas for this kind of thing because they think a crime is being committed, they do so because their bosses and society at large do not want any unconventional living or "free use" of the system. They want every resident to pay into the system no matter if they can or not, and if they can't they will just harass them to no end and demand they debt-up to do so. Don't get me wrong some cops are really kind and don't try to make a bad situation worse, but many are not kind. Additionally, I remember Walmart founders said they slept in their car or other billionaires while going to school so it's not like this has no precedent for even the most successful who did this trying to "get ahead".

This might be slightly off topic but I always thought the homeless situation could be cured far more by erecting actual housing (not projects and possibly those "box containers) with the vast budgets the waste every year on administration and essentially a system that siphons away money by not curing the problem. It's a giant exploitation industry. They take billions in taxpayer money to create admin jobs and launder out money instead of actually building the homeless small houses that work and so forth.

Either way, I would hope courts preserve the obvious lawful right to be "homeless" in a car or on the street or anywhere that is within the bounds of other rights to exist. Obviously I don't think living in a car that is decently furnished "homeless" but let's be honest here for many they would be homeless if that option was meddled with.

 

[highdesertranger]

"Public lands were originally intended for recreation, outdoors activities, camping"

I am sorry but this is simply not true. leisure activities like those described simply did not exist. back then it was survival not recreation. the government was trying to get the public land developed into mines, ranches, farms, and cities. to say they wanted people to go camping is just not the case.

highdesertranger

 

[WayOutWest]

I would think it's unconstitutional to mandate that someone can't be homeless, and truth be told, being in a vehicle with a quasi-home is far safer for society, and far more humane for the poor so I would pray the courts strike down any attempt to ban homelessness with dignity which is what this is for some. It's definitely cruel beyond belief to do so.

That said, I agree with one of the posters above. This is all about debt and control. Police don't patrol areas for this kind of thing because they think a crime is being committed, they do so because their bosses and society at large do not want any unconventional living or "free use" of the system. They want every resident to pay into the system no matter if they can or not, and if they can't they will just harass them to no end and demand they debt-up to do so. Don't get me wrong some cops are really kind and don't try to make a bad situation worse, but many are not kind. Additionally, I remember Walmart founders said they slept in their car or other billionaires while going to school so it's not like this has no precedent for even the most successful who did this trying to "get ahead".

This might be slightly off topic but I always thought the homeless situation could be cured far more by erecting actual housing (not projects and possibly those "box containers) with the vast budgets the waste every year on administration and essentially a system that siphons away money by not curing the problem. It's a giant exploitation industry. They take billions in taxpayer money to create admin jobs and launder out money instead of actually building the homeless small houses that work and so forth.

Either way, I would hope courts preserve the obvious lawful right to be "homeless" in a car or on the street or anywhere that is within the bounds of other rights to exist. Obviously I don't think living in a car that is decently furnished "homeless" but let's be honest here for many they would be homeless if that option was meddled with.

I totally agree that the homeless situation could be fixed, and easily fixed, by constructing low-cost housing, rather than waste billions on the matter the way that's being done now.  It's really fraud and crime the way govts are now wasting $ on homelessness, while the problem just gets worse. Actually I think that a great way to "cure" the problem fits right into the orientation of those on this forum, as people here have discovered a super way to live for little cost, in ways that do not create the kind of nuisance or problems that we see with large scale homelessness in cities.  Setting up more areas for people to live in their vehicles in rural areas, ( albeit near businesses selling necessities) such as those many of you boondock in, would be very helpful.  

However, fixing homelessness in this or any other way does require distinguishing between those who simply need some financial help or ways to lower their cost of living, such as many of you on this forum, versus those who have more serious problems that create big obstacles in their day to day functioning, such as serious mental illness or drug addiction.  

It certainly is unconstitutional to criminalize the state of being homeless, that has been established with the Martin vs. Boise court decision.  I doubt there will be any move to criminalize living in vehicles or take away people's right to do that.  I've observed the politics on this issue and have seen rights of vehicle dwellers expand over time, rather than be reduced.  For instance, in Washington, I can't recall if it was Seattle or elsewhere in the state, a court ruled it was illegal to tow a vehicle of someone who lived in the vehicle, as that was their home.  

Yet it's not clear what direction things will take in the future, as more people are pushed into homelessness or vehicle dwelling.  Again I think that it would be smartest to set up large vehicle dwelling sites -- such as Quartzite, but more "official", with facilities on-site such as showers, toilets, and some service providers --- so that everyone has a "place to go" if they need to live in their vehicle and can't figure out where to do that.  This would cost so much less than building expensive housing, in expensive areas, which is the foolish direction I see too many cities going. 
 
I don't think regular folk/taxpayers are in general upset about people finding out ways to live for free, as much as they are upset to hear that they are being expected to pay high costs for others to live for free.  I've observed a lot of discussions on this, and the trend I see is like this: "I don't care if someone's living in their vehicle out in places meant for that like BLM land, but I don't want to be forced to contribute taxes to pay for a brand new $500k apartment for each and every homeless person who comes along expecting to be handed one."  The basic idea sentiment I observe is that people who can't pay their own way should be allowed a place to live, but not be given very expensive "freebies".

 

[WayOutWest]

"Public lands were originally intended for recreation, outdoors activities, camping"

I am sorry but this is simply not true.  leisure activities like those described simply did not exist.  back then it was survival not recreation.  the government was trying to get the public land developed into mines,  ranches,  farms,  and cities.  to say they wanted people to go camping is just not the case.

highdesertranger

Okay I may not be correct in the sense of the very first intention of the creation of public lands.  What I was getting at though was more the more recent intention/purpose. I think it's clear that govt is not now trying to get public lands developed into ranches, farms, cities.  Perhaps mining claims are still allowed, but other privatizing of these public lands goes against the whole meaning of the term "public."  Eg take a look at this assessment of the purpose of public lands  https://www.rei.com/blog/hike/your-guide-to-understanding-public-lands

My basic point is that public lands are no longer "public" if someone has grabbed/appropriated them for private use, either in whole or part.  

Residing on public land therefore works to the extent that it's temporary and does not establish any permanent claim.  
Homesteading was once allowed in the nation, but ended in its last outpost in Alaska, in 1986.  
What distinguishes "temporary" from "permanent" is open to debate but it's also open to regulation when problems arise.

 

[bagabum]

I have read  the free life boondocking whether it is in a car, van or RV Government will at some time crack down completely on those of us that try and live free on the road by regulating and enforcing places to park and live??

Absolutely, some states already have. But not entirely in our lifetime. Abuse, waste and trash left everywhere, noise, complaints, unleashed dogs barking and running at wildlife, cigarette butts every where. It all works against this freedom.

 

[WayOutWest]

An interesting article about "the last free place in America" Slab City. https://roadtrippers.com/magazine/slab-city-california-desert/

Kind of odd ironies that now part of Slab City is privately owned, people are renting out Airbnbs there, and one guy is charging other people $125 a month to camp there.  Is the guy charging people to camp there, an owner of private land, or is he just exploiting the wild west in order to profiteer off of it?  I can't tell.

 

[Qxxx]

. Abuse, waste and trash left everywhere, noise, complaints, unleashed dogs barking and running at wildlife, cigarette butts every where.

Don't forget the empty beer cans and bullet holes in everything that can be shot at. However, I don't you'll find much of this is done by vandwellers, rather by people who live in the city and have no appreciation for the country. This has been hashed and rehashed in the other 90+ posts.

 

[Qxxx]

Kind of odd ironies that now part of Slab City is privately owned, people are renting out Airbnbs there, and one guy is charging other people $125 a month to camp there.  Is the guy charging people to camp there, an owner of private land, or is he just exploiting the wild west in order to profiteer off of it?  I can't tell.

Ehh, most of the visitors to SC come by putt-putt, that they rented for $50 an hour, from FOY Fountain of Youth Resort several miles to the north, and where they pay upwards to $125 a day to park their RVs and bathe in the hot baths. Let the SC people make a little money.

 

[tripper]

Public lands are getting trashed rapidly, it is getting worse every year. I really think it my get to the point where you have to check in with the BLM/Forest Service etc with your gps location and # of days stay so they know who is at what site. I would hate to have the govt know where I am all the time (with cell phone they probably do anyways) but the only way I can see for them to hold the trashers accountable is to have everyone online registered.

If they can't figure it out we will just see more and more places be day use only, pay sites, or off limits.

 

[WayOutWest]

Public lands are getting trashed rapidly, it is getting worse every year. I really think it my get to the point where you have to check in with the BLM/Forest Service etc with your gps location and # of days stay so they know who is at what site.  I would hate to have the govt know where I am all the time (with cell phone they probably do anyways) but the only way I can see for them to hold the trashers accountable is to have everyone online registered.

If they can't figure it out we will just see more and more places be day use only, pay sites, or off limits.

In the National forests in Southern California, they had set up a paid permit system, which really upset me.  They required you to pay for an "Adventure Pass" to use the national forests!  This was very inconvenient because there was nowhere to actually buy the pass in the area you were visiting.  You had to get it ahead of time in a sporting goods store or online.  Fortunately, that attempt to require people to pay just to use public land was ruled illegal.  https://www.latimes.com/opinion/opi...t-free-hike-pay-bathrooms-20140509-story.html  or read it here if you have no LA Times subscription:  http://archive.vn/9gOM3

Based on the ruling in this case, I would expect that the same court decision would apply to all federal lands that aren't national parks, or state lands that aren't state parks, and so I don't forsee people being charged just to be on the land.  But it is possible that camping could be prohibited outside of campgrounds in some public or federal lands: this prohibition already exists in areas where there have been problems.

 

[highdesertranger]

well the court did rule they couldn't charge for a pass, but the Forest Service ignored the ruling and were still writing tickets. the court ruled again no pass required and the forest service is still ignoring them and they are still writing tickets. get your pass here,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/angeles/passes-permits/recreation

highdesertranger

 

[jacqueg]

For instance, in Washington, I can't recall if it was Seattle or elsewhere in the state, a court ruled it was illegal to tow a vehicle of someone who lived in the vehicle, as that was their home.  

Not exactly.

If the vehicle is parked illegally, it can still be towed. In most of Seattle, you have to move your vehicle once in every 72 hours.

What the state court ruled is that the fee to recover a vehicle that a person is using as a residence cannot be so large that the owner can't afford to pay the fee.

This is due to a long-standing Washington state law that protects homeowners. https://www.seattlepi.com/homeless_...-homeless-in-cars-tickets-ruling-12729203.php 

I don't know whether other states have such laws.

The feds, in the form of the IRS, allow a person's primary residence to be an RV or a boat. But just as you can't build a home unless you comply with state/local laws, you can't park your home [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]unless you comply with state/local laws[/font] either.