The Future of Van Life

[lenny flank]

Meh, I'm just not seeing the communist repression. (shrug)

 

[Jack]

Actually it is an extra feature put in place by finance companies to enforce paying the note on time.

They are supposed to wait and only disable the vehicle when it is stationary in a safe location, but of course sh1t happens.

Those sort of loans usually also forbid leaving the state.

Exactly.  There have been media stories about it happening to folks driving down the freeway.  Still, the fact that it's possible is what should concern us.  To rely on their "good intentions" to use the power properly is, well, naive.

 

[Dingfelder]

It's also why I wonder if I'm considering all I could be when it comes to choosing a place of permanent residence.  Out of state plates are basically a dead giveaway.  It could come to the point (again, at some time in the future) when vandwellers might have to keep to their "home state" to go undetected for longer. 

Many cities and towns see citations as revenue rather than as true law enforcement.  I read an article a couple years ago about a whole town that had sprung up around a speed trap, basically, and in which virtually all the citizens were highly-paid LEO and court officers.  They were eventually fined or something by the state, if I recall correctly, but it didn't slow them down.  They still had the force of law behind their revenue-hunting because they WERE the law.

Most speed traps aren't nearly that bad, and I don't think it likely to apply to tourist-centered economies which can't afford to alienate their visitors, but there are plenty of speed traps across the country which can seriously delay your trip at best, and fine you catastrophically for minor violations at worst.  Out of state plates are a huge draw for ticketing authorities, who can round up lots of cash that way without angering their local communities.  It's smart to obey traffic laws everywhere, even to drive quite conservatively, but even moreso when your license plate is a beacon to everyone, and, to some, a sign that it's open season on you.  

Not just from cops either, but also from the locals.

 

[John61CT]

To rely on their "good intentions" to use the power properly is, well, naive.

When the wealthy benefit and the victims are poor, the US legal system requires a lot of public indignation to put well-enforced protections in place, and they usually only remain effective for a short time, until people get complacent again. Look at the EPA.

Naive is not really the word IMO.

 

[John61CT]

The fact that living off-grid is under the radar, as well as other things that were once thought "normal," such as organic gardening at home, rainwater catching, homeschooling, etc., should cause us to at least consider the very real possibility of it.

People are still doing those things, but in many circles they have never been normal.

The Feds aren't going to get involved either way unless things get extreme.

I think any moves toward organizing to protect our "rights" before that point is counter productive, the less visible we are to mainstream S&B wage slaves the better.

 

[travelaround]

The fact that living off-grid is under the radar, as well as other things that were once thought "normal," such as organic gardening at home, rainwater catching, homeschooling, etc., should cause us to at least consider the very real possibility of it.

Let's talk about that homeschooling. It may have started in the 1970's in an "under the radar" kind of way, but homeschoolers organized and pushed for homeschool-friendly laws. I know, I homeschooled 2 of my children in California. There are separate homeschool organizations in every state, plus a Christian organization, HSLDA, will get involved legally in any state where a member resides. They have lawyers working for them. Members do not have to be Christians. Perhaps we need something like that for nomads.

Because of all these efforts, homeschooling is very well-known today - no longer under the radar. The states with restrictive homeschooling laws are known, as well as those that have very few restrictions on homeschoolers. Homeschool families can choose either to stay in their normal state of residence or move to one with homeschool laws they want to live with.

Anyhow, to change the topic just slightly... you've been asking about the future for van dwelling. Yes, it could be that legislation might forbid it in some states, but an all-out fascist effort to force us into s&b dwellings is unlikely, especially with so many homeless people sleeping on sidewalks. They should be happy we sleep in a van and drive away quickly, rather than camp on public sidewalks.

From a Christian point of view (since you and I are both Christians) I will say, we are being called into van dwelling for a purpose, and when that purpose is complete, we'll be called elsewhere. Jesus will never let us down... He is watching over all our efforts. Perhaps one reason you're asking all these questions is that it is part of your purpose to create legal safeguards for nomads. In any case, the Bible says, "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Matthew 6:34 ... so my feeling is that I'll enjoy my van dwelling freedoms for now, and not worry about the future, because if something prevents me, I know God will have another plan for me. Not saying you shouldn't be concerned because like I said, maybe your purpose is to create nomad organizations similar to the homeschooling organizations that help and ensure safety for the lifestyle in each state. Really, a good idea!

 

[Dingfelder]

Meh, I think building codes, fire codes, and zoning regulations, are good things.

Fire codes, sure.  Zoning regulations can be used for either good or evil.  Regardless, I think someone should be able to live on their own land without building a house.

But that wouldn't count as a property improvement by which a raise in tax could be justified.

Which in itself is a curious concept.

 

[lenny flank]

I'd prefer not to have someone living in a tent or a hut shitting in a hole in their grass in the lawn next to mine.

I'm quite willing to bet that most people would feel the same way.

 

[travelaround]

Yes, zoning ordinances are necessary to give people a choice... either obey housing restrictions or buy property where there are fewer restrictions. I've been looking for acreage where I could just park or put up a yurt and that disqualifies many areas... but that's okay - I want the property where it is legal and accepted, and not where it would cause conflicts with neighbors. There are still plenty of places where off-grid living is accepted.

 

[Dingfelder]

Regarding increasing regulation, it is inevitable. "Nature abhors a vaccuum," so it will rush to fill it as people become more aware that such a thing as being a nomad might be even remotely common. Or increasingly appealing. The only reason there is even any room for such legislation to come to pass in the future is because people had no cause to think about it in the past.

There is a rising tide of legislation against tiny houses, which are quite a monetary commitment, not easily mobile, and still require paying land taxes like any other S&B. On average, I'd guess the net worth of people able to buy a tiny house, nestle it in somewhere, and pay the maintenance and upkeep on it is far higher than that of the average van dweller/nomad. But there is still a rush to legislation that is almost certain to increase as people continue to discover that having a tiny house -- AND MAYBE PARKING IT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD!!! is even a thing.

The NIMBY philosophy will apply to both and likely to van dwellers far more ... after all, the public perception of who lives in a van is very dismal compared to that of someone who can at least afford a small house and pay yearly land taxes on it. Legislation will be generated accordingly.

 

[Dingfelder]

I'd prefer not to have someone living in a tent or a hut shitting in a hole in their grass in the lawn next to mine.

I'm quite willing to bet that most people would feel the same way.

Depends, of course, on the zoning.  In a suburb, sure.

Rural?  Who would even know.

That the State wants to know, and prohibit, bothers me.

Then again, I don't believe it should be legal to forbid rainwater collection.  People are different and believe different things.

 

[Dingfelder]

Yes, zoning ordinances are necessary to give people a choice... either obey housing restrictions or buy property where there are fewer restrictions. I've been looking for acreage where I could just park or put up a yurt and that disqualifies many areas... but that's okay - I want the property where it is legal and accepted, and not where it would cause conflicts with neighbors. There are still plenty of places where off-grid living is accepted.

I like Rusty's RV channel for a lot of reasons, but one of them is that he discusses living within limitations without having to go whole hog on committing so much you might as well be living in a house anyway.  He has sewer and electric as required, and a permanent canopy over his trailer, pays very little to the authorities for his set-up, and comes and goes as he pleases, all on a very moderate income.

Of course, he has to live out in the Texas boonies to do it, but hey, there are likely other choices somewhere in the U.S. if you can't abide Texas.

 

[lenny flank]

Alas, the problem is that "shit" does not stay on someone's property. It goes down into the groundwater, which may extend for hundreds of miles, and effects everyone. Hence, the shit is regulated. I got no gripe with that.

As for rainwater, in many areas of the west there are enormous problems with water scarcity, and lots of big fights over access to water. People who collect rainwater are viewed as people who are taking it right off the top, without the normal process of allocations and sharing. Hence, the rainwater capture is regulated. I got no gripe with that either.

The basic problem with "I can do whatever I want, so there", is that everyone's actions also effect everyone else, often in ways that are not readily apparent. Hence, what we do is regulated, so we do not have a war of each against all. We call that "civilization". I got no gripe with that.

 

[Dingfelder]

Well, everybody pretty much has no gripes with whatever works best for them regardless of how it works for others, so no news there.

The basic problem with "I can do whatever I want, so there", is that everyone's actions also effect everyone else, often in ways that are not readily apparent. Hence, what we do is regulated

Correlation is not causation. I don't think "hence" in the above instance means what you think it does. Or at least it wasn't well expressed.

 

[travelaround]

there are likely other choices somewhere in the U.S. if you can't abide Texas.

Where I lived in the middle of a forest in Northern California, there were a lot of people living off the grid, legally.

 

[lenny flank]

Well, everybody pretty much has no gripes with whatever works best for them regardless of how it works for others, so no news there.

I think that's what I just said. 

Sadly, that is the problem with most "I can do whatever I want, so there" outlooks--they're all gung-ho about THEIR "rights!!", but they don't give a shit (literally, in the case of housing regulations) about everyone ELSE's rights.

PS--I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories about the big bad NWO government. Sorry.

 

[rvwandering]

You're worrying too much Jack. I don't believe the future of van life is in trouble although I do concede that much more attention has been paid to it recently. However, there have always been nomadic people in the US. Most fly under the radar which is pretty easy to do. 40 years ago we vandwelled for a year and met many nomads - a family with a converted bus, farm workers, two young couples from NYC, and a professional photographer, among others. We were a little surprised at the time because we thought we were choosing something that was a bit radical. :-D

This time around we've been on the road for 25 years. Very little has changed in that time. The internet has made the most difference but mostly to the good. We've made good friends and found great places to camp because of social media. A few boondocking spots have become too well known and crowded but there are so many other places that it's not a real worry. Some Walmarts don't allow overnight parking but even most of them will allow you to stay if you do not make a nuisance of yourself.

My feeling is that many of the new van dwellers and YouTubers will not last long. They're chasing a dream and will find out quickly that it's not as easy as it seems.

 

[Dingfelder]

Where I lived in the middle of a forest in Northern California, there were a lot of people living off the grid, legally.

That's a great thing, and I hope it can continue.

Not only because for some it is a choice, but at least as importantly -- for some people it is not, and it appears to me likely that, as jobs become ever fewer and pay ever less, with fewer benefits or health & safety regulations, the number of those people is likely to increase.

 

[Dingfelder]

I think that's what I just said. 

Sadly, that is the problem with most "I can do whatever I want, so there" outlooks--they're all gung-ho about THEIR "rights!!", but they don't give a shit (literally, in the case of housing regulations) about everyone ELSE's rights.

PS--I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories about the big bad NWO government.  Sorry.

Me neither.

The post of yours which we're going back and forth over lacked granularity.  Flat statements don't elucidate much.  For instance, must rainwater collection necessarily be an all-or-nothing proposition?  Is it possible instead that there is such a thing as a fair allotment?  

And is it necessarily so that legislation is always particularly just, fair or useful?  Beyond question or eventual reexamination?  Certainly it should not be beyond those.  Not in a democracy anyway, or anywhere that open discussion or free-thinking is not anathema.

 

[lenny flank]

My feeling is that many of the new van dwellers and YouTubers will not last long. They're chasing a dream and will find out quickly that it's not as easy as it seems.

Yep. Many of them are teens who think they are being rebelliousy and edgy. Others have stars in their eyes and envision a free and easy life of chocolate fountains and unicorns.

The blunt reality is that vanlife is mostly boring. We have to do the same dull day-to-day drudgery of everyday life that everyone else has to do--we have to make a living, we have to do laundry, we have to cook dinner, we have to wash up, but we have to do all that in a space that is smaller than the average prison cell. "Glamorous" is not the word I would use for it.