The Future of Van Life

[SLB_SA]

But advocating to help the more-truly homeless, fighting for dignified housing, just as with food & education,

as a fundamental right of citizenship,

will help address the underlying causes of the problem and prevent it escalating.

I completely agree on your statements above.  Addressing wealth inequality (and discrimination, bias, etc.) is critical to our long term survival as a nation founded on equality and freedom. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed ..."

 

[owl]

First year I lived in a van was 1972. The worries presented in this thread have always been. On the whole of it very little has ever been done to negatively impact this way of life and very little will ever be done. There is no difference in some one fulltiming in an rv and someone in a van. People from every economic level do both so that isn't the issue. The fact of more stories about nomads is purely because there are more social avenues that require content. Some communities try to control every aspect of their citizens lives thinking only they know what is good for people. There are entire countries that do this and some of their people do everything they can to leave. Having wheels solves a lot of the problems we often face. Discourteous neighbors, karaoke, bugs and of course winter.

 

[Dan 1]

Is the future of van life in trouble?

A couple of months ago, I never even heard of van life.  Once I found out about it, each day solidifies my desire to do it.  So, as someone with fresh eyes, as I do more and more research about the life, I can't help but notice some disturbing negative trends that keep popping up along with the good things.

I know van life comes with a stigma.  I'm new, not naive.  I can deal with the stigma.  And I realize that there's an underbelly of van life from folks who give it a bad name.  Got it.  What culture/way of life/belief system/etc., doesn't have those kinds of people making life difficult for the rest of the good folks?  So, I'm not talking about this side of things when I ask if the future of van life is in trouble.  

I'm seeing van life being spoken about more and more in the media.  Even the stories that appear positive still have a smear/judgment about them.  Combine that with legislation that makes it difficult to live the van life without having to be sly about it, as well as the need for 'stealth,' and then throw in the newer stories of places like Florida making it (or trying to make it) illegal to live off grid at all.  (Or grow food, catch rain water, etc.,)  Living in a vehicle full-time is basically illegally everywhere as it is.  

So, when you consider 1) the growing trend of people opting to live in their vehicles (for whatever their reason), 2) the increasing popularity of van life being in the news, and 3) the innumerable number of YouTube and other social media accounts that are basically advertising van life and drawing attention to it, do you think the future of van life is in danger of being specifically addressed and legislated, declaring it to be illegal and punishable?  

If so, how soon, and what steps are you taking to prepare yourself?
If not, why?  

Again, I'm not naive.  I know van life - and the stigma that goes with it - have been around for a very long time.  But the trend, and the attention it's getting, is increasing all the time.  Am I being paranoid or am I seeing the possible reality of the future of van life?  Sometimes it takes fresh eyes on a thing...  I'm not worried and I still intend on living in a van.  I'm just pointing out what I'm seeing and wondering if there's anything to it.  It also has me questioning whether or not it would be smarter to go into van life quietly, and staying completely off social media (as I already am).

Greetings, Jack. I'm new to this forum and have been going through all (but not "all" yet) the topic threads. I have been looking for topic posts that explore considerations and perspectives, that address a distant future scenario, that proposes actual cultural change. "Cultural Change" that would enable the United States to become a "Better" Nation. I understand that your topic post was more intended to discuss a more immediate future time for Our Nation, but I thought maybe I would go ahead and venture this little comment to see if you were open to more far reaching Ideas about the "Modern American Nomadism", that might become "Evolutionary Modern Nomadism", that would be an energizing part of the larger scope of New Tribalism? Should I share more about this here? Would You be interested in these kinds of Thoughts? Or would it be Better (since this is Your topic thread) to maybe open my own topic string about this subject?

There might be another topic thread in this forum that has already opened this subject. I just haven't found it yet. 

Anyway, I appreciate what you have asked here. It questions what might be the reality possibilities for "Modern Nomadism" in the next twenty, or so, years.

I do see the possibility of the predominate "rooted" American Social Constructs, negatively reacting to this "Freedom Trend". This just might be initial reaction, until they begin to see positive possibilities in it; such as how to profit from it, or, in other ways, benefit from it.

 

[Dan 1]

Thanks for your thoughtful response for my wellbeing, Moxadox.  I can tell you honestly that I'm not concerned, worried, scared, or even questioning whether or not I'm going to live the van life.  I'm living it regardless because that's how sure I am that it's the life for me!  :::insert world's most positive and excited emoji here:::

I posted this question purely from a curiosity/conversation standpoint because of what I've observed and I'm curious if others have noticed the same thing or not.  ???   Should we be concerned and thinking about it?
Is it inevitable?  Impossible?  Or do you think van life will eventually become a validated way of life?  

I can't speak for the east coast personally, but I do know of several east coast vandwellers on YouTube who are loving the urban van life.

Jack asks: "[font=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif]Or do you think van life will eventually become a validated way of life?" I can see where "Van Life" (Modern Nomadism) can become a very rewarding and beneficial "validated way of Life". But there is much to do to gain the strengths needed to get through the initial growth and reaction to this growth of this trend...that is becoming "Movement".[/font]

 

[Dan 1]

Meh, the experienced folks will always find a way. People have been vehicle-dwelling since the Model T Tin Can Camper Club, and they will continue to do so. Most of the troubles come from people who are quite frankly homeless and not really "vandwellers", and who bring most of their problems onto themselves. They will likely get swept out. Those of us who are actual nomads know how to keep under the radar and live unnoticed. We'll be just fine. And to be honest, we're just not enough of a nuisance that anybody will bother to expend the effort needed to find us. If we're not peeing in people's lawns, dumping our shit in the street, and panhandling everyone in sight, nobody cares if we are there. Out of sight, out of mind. People cannot object to our presence if they do not notice that we are there.

Yes. This is the way it has been. But the paradigm is rapidly changing. And some of the "Homeless" can be "strengthened" into Good Modern Nomads. Many of those, that are now "Homeless", "had their nose to the grindstone" and didn't see what was coming.

 

[Dan 1]

Lenny, what you explained is probably the most important reason for staying stealthy.

Yes. I agree. And when We can't stay "stealthy", for what ever reason, We should try to happily show the "City Builders" that We contribute well to their prosperity.

"Stealth" can be returned to and all the Nomads don't have to "come out" of their secret places, at the same time.

 

[Dan 1]

Some of the posts I'm reading are how about things are right now.   Right now, we have the freedom to roam and be undisturbed as long as we're being respectful and lawful about parking, picking up after ourselves, etc.,

What I'm talking about is the possible future.  There are more stories being done about vandwelling, especially given the tiny house trend.  There is more exposure, especially on social media.  There's even a new TV show about RVers living full time in their RVs.  I know this and I haven't owned a TV since the 90's.  (And I don't watch any streaming services like Roku or NetFlix.)

So, when I consider the future of van life, it's not so much from a public, or community, standpoint, but from a governmental one.  The federal government may not officially have the power to legislate it, but an overreaching government beyond its constitutional powers is hardly unheard of.  Local governments are "pressured" by federal and state governments.  Non-elected judges, after all, create/veto laws all the time, based on their own whims, even defying presidential orders.  Legislation against vandwelling isn't so far-fetched.  

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.

Question: What should We and could We, do to not stimulate Federal Government intervention, in the "Modern Nomadism"?

 

[Dan 1]

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.

Go "rebuild" instead of "new".

 

[Dan 1]

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!

"... create nomad organizations..." Hmmmm. Tribes maybe? We already have "RTR's" and "Caravans" that seem to be developing a semblance of "permanence". 

 

[Elbear1]

Pretty much every societal ill could be solved by encouraging and helping nomadism and minimal living. We have enormous amounts of land going unused. We could make non-owned land lots people can use seasonally. Grow food, have a shed or 2, and come and go seasonally tax free, mortgage free. The college/job issues, the debt issue, labor issues, climate issues, homeless issues.

 

[Qxxx]

I think if you check, you'll see that Jack has not posted in a year, and Moxadox unfortunately passed on in January. Just FYI.

 

[Dan 1]

Pretty much every societal ill could be solved by encouraging and helping nomadism and minimal living. We have enormous amounts of land going unused. We could make non-owned land lots people can use seasonally. Grow food, have a shed or 2, and come and go seasonally tax free, mortgage free. The college/job issues, the debt issue, labor issues, climate issues, homeless issues.

A Good Post, this. It begins to explore the ways that Nomadism can have a positive effect on the "entrenched" cultural design...which, I very much agree, is permeated with "societal ills". 


If We did build "sheds" on the Free Lands, I hope they will be hidden underground.

 

[bullfrog]

About time you guys caught on, Bob figured this out years ago and could use some help.

 

[Dan 1]

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.

"[font=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif]The NIMBY philosophy..." Please forgive my ignorance, but what is "Nimby Philosophy"?[/font]

 

[Dan 1]

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.

I have never understood the objection to "Rain Water Collection".

 

[B and C]

From wikipedia: "NIMBY (an acronym for the phrase "Not In My Back Yard"),[1][2] or Nimby,[3] is a characterization of opposition by residents to a proposed development in their local area. It carries the connotation that such residents are only opposing the development because it is close to them and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away. The residents are often called Nimbys, and their viewpoint is called Nimbyism."

Google is your friend

 

[Dan 1]

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.

"[font=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif]People who collect rainwater are viewed as people who are taking it right off the top, without the normal process of allocations and sharing.[/font]" Thank you for this explanation of this issue, "lenny flank".

Question: Is the collected Rain Water needed immediately...perhaps for drinking, bathing and cleaning?

Question: Might it be better to limit the occupancy numbers of Individuals and the capacity of Rain Water Collection apparatus to fulfill the above needs? Rather than outright prohibition of this process?

One objection to this Rain Water Collection process, from a "Nomadic" perspective might be that it is visible on the Land.

Question: Could Rain Water Collection Apparatus, be installed underground...out of sight?

 

[highdesertranger]

Dan, have you ever heard the term,

"whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting" Mark Twain

in the arid west you would understand.

highdesertranger

 

[highdesertranger]

it would be far better to limit the number of people period.

don't ask me how I have know idea.

overpopulation is the number one environmental issue. without overpopulation 99% of all the environmental problems go away. this is one of my main pet peeves with environmental groups, they don't mention this because it's unpopular. cute animals bring in more dollars then the straight facts.

sorry to be a buzz killer.

highdesertranger

 

[Dan 1]

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


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.

"[font=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif]Correlation is not causation[/font]" Thank you, "Dingfelder", for this important observation. I will remember it.

As for "[font=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif]Well, everybody pretty much has no gripes with whatever works best for them regardless of how it works for others,..." When someone does something for themselves (basically a desirable trait0 and this action is resented by someone else, who feels they are being, in some way, imposed upon, then well intended and self disciplined exchange of viewpoint should begin. The goal here would be to construct a Balance between the two viewpoints that works for both Individuals. There should be a witnessing of this discussion and possible arbitration, if the opposed viewpoints cannot achieve a mutually satisfactory compromise. 

If the issue is one viewpoint opposing "several viewpoints", then the matter should be dealt with (always seeking a positive mutually agreeable solution) by all concerned in a social, or Tribal context. This process would promote Enlightened and Positive Evolution of the Group.

I see a basic Moral Premise in all of this, in which the Individuals concerned all make some kind of sacrifice for the well being of the group. That way this thing goes from "take" to "Give and Take".[/font]