what % of the population would have to become van dwellers before it became illegal?

[ChileSauceCritic]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]I'm still not a fulltime van dweller but I've been pimping out my camper trailer in case my property taxes get to the point I could not afford my house anymore so I could sell my house before I lost it to tax foreclosure.[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]Anyway I was reading a poll where only 7% said they would [/font][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]NEVER[/font][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,] live in a van(though I imagine some of that 7% would live in an RV) and 72% would trade their home for vanlife at least temporally to pay down their debt. I still believe it's still a minority who would want to live in a van OR RV full time indefinitely (I'm guessing 10-15%) most polls and studies are showing that the majority of people are open to it at least long enough to get on their feet if they hit hard times or were trying to save up a nest egg.[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,][img=16x16]https://www.city-data.com/forum/images/statusicon/wol_error.gif[/img][/font][/SIZE]
[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1668$sx1043$s.[/font][/font]
[img=900x562]https://www.move.org/app/uploads/2020/10/MOV_Van-Life_1.1-main.png[/img]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]With the cost of housing going up faster than salaries and the growing number of young people either waiting longer to marry and have kids or planning never to have kids in the first place for many millennials it's a choice of living in an overpriced apartment and not being able to afford to do anything fun or living in a van that's just as nice or nicer than an efficiency apartment in their price range and being able to go out, and do fun things and keep more money in their pocket at the same time.[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,][img=16x16]https://www.city-data.com/forum/images/statusicon/wol_error.gif[/img][/font][/SIZE]
[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 930$sx509$s.[/font][/font]
[img=900x492]https://tinyhousedesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/The-Future-of-Van-Life-Chart-1.jpg[/img]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]And now for the reason for this thread, the fastest growing segment of the VanDwelling community are middle class, childless, remote workers who earn 40k-60k a year, particularly single middleclass women 35-55 and DINK's (duel income no kids) 25-55. The people government don't want living in their vans, campers & RV's as it's hard to collect tax's and water bill's from those people and they often register and license their vehicles in the least expensive and restrictive states even if they spend most of their time in or near major cities in states with high tax's.[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]if the trend continues to grow at it's current rate I'm imaging city councilmen and state legislators will start to cry fowl when they get the reports back from the bean counters. but if the cost of living continues to go up the number of people with homes on wheels will go up and eventually become a sizable subculture to where everyone has at least one friend or family member who lives in a van, camper or RV full time .[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]So how many people would have to choose this life before governments attempt to make it outright illegal?[/font]

 

[Sofisintown]

And how would we know?
For the time being, van duelers are a very small minority, half out of need, and half out of necessity.
And generally, an annoyance to miscellaneous nimbys, so don't expect the government to rush to their rescue.

 

[gizmotron]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]So how many people would have to choose this life before governments attempt to make it outright illegal?[/font]

They won't try to make it illegal. They will try to suck it back in and make money off of it. There are already urban locations where safe zones for car dwellers are provided in locked up spaces at night. These are for the homeless in vehicles and are provided at the largess of sympathetic people that see the need. It's an answer to tents on the street. They lock up at 10:00 at night and nobody in or out.  It works. It's the tribe getting the OK. It happened before during the Dust Bowl. Just look what the LTVA's did for Quartzite. That town is rolling in money.  Money drives every cause. You show a place there's money to be made and they just might figure this out.

 

[eDJ_]

I think this cartoon sums up those who would make remote working Van Nomads outlaws.


[img=702x694]http://djsaan.homestead.com/Patriotic_Billionaires.jpg[/img]

 

[gizmotron]

I think this cartoon sums up those who would make remote working Van Nomads outlaws.

It's simplistic to divide culture and blame those that risk going into business and hire people on the result of other forces wanting more and taking it by mandate. Where is the comic strip for that? There was this guy that came along and discovered balance. He discovered that if you take the right amount away from people you could get the most possible in return for the effort. We are living in a time where taking more to satisfy needs is considered the smartest way to go. So everyone will be expected to do with less. And blaming it all on a small percentage of earners is also satisfactory, even if it is self destructive. All my life I have watched local governments use a basic principle, "not in my backyard."


What must be considered in all this is the value of a person's dream. A lot of people put a lot of stock in owning their own homes. It has been the "American Dream" for the past century at least.  The government allowed the financial world permission to sell bundled junk to unsuspecting buyers as mortgage investments by rating these financial instruments valuable while at the same time allowing the controllers to sell substandard versions of these individual mortgages in the form of adjustable interest rate loans backed by the ever increasing value of collateral. The problem was that people could just walk away if times became tough. The bundles of mortgages became way less valuable and more risky than what the regulators said they were worth. In other words those that job it was to watch this stuff began to lie to people putting money into higher rated investments. This included pension funds that invested in them and liked it very much as it went on the way up. It was a failing of the government that has successfully blamed it on the lenders. There is a very small group of people that place the value of things and sit in the power to control it all. Their job is to rate the value of the financial investments. They sold out for personal greed instead of integrity and doing their jobs. When it blew up they blamed it all on the people that trusted them. Some people to this day still think it was the lenders fault. Many have no idea that government forced the lenders to make these predatory loans in the first place. The government also allowed the regulators to continue lying. Everybody has their own idea about the American Dream. For some that know they are in a position to be trusted that dream is to get as much as you can from others and heck with them if there are consequences. But if you get caught make sure that you can blame it all on someone else.

So we have that to deal with along with "not in my backyard." The trick might be for Nomads to band together and purchase unregulated land. If we were to build our own towns and base the taxes on the needs of people that like what they see in their backyards then only a higher government can say no. I watched a town spring up in the middle of nowhere. But it was based on privately owned land developed into a housing development. The trick might be to create a new model where land investors welcome the ownership of parcels set aside for vehicle residential occupation. I've seen dream communities pop up in places where the building regulations where intentionally modified to benefit the new community. You can see it now in the form of RV parks. We have the LTVA locations on government land in the southwest. Land can be repurposed to fit what people want and need. It just takes the willpower to do it. At least an LTVA in cooler summer climate next to a town willing to take in the millions of dollars that will flock there way seasonally should be allocated somewhere ideal.

 

[rvwandering]

Please be careful with this thread and do not allow it to drift into political bickering.

 

[tx2sturgis]

There will always be a 'critical mass' of 'worker bees' needed to produce the 'honey' for all the 'consumers' of the honey.

If too many worker bees decide to fly around aimlessly and maybe stay in a small box in the forest or buzz around near the desert or the seashore taking in the sights and making youtube videos, there will not be enough honey, and the consumers of honey will NOT be pleased.

If you are a worker bee under age 55, keep toiling away, young worker bees. While over 55, you are free to be put out to pasture. 

Says me. I DO like me some honey.

 

[gizmotron]

Please be careful with this thread and do not allow it to drift into political bickering.

Yes. This is a very touchy subject and effects everyone that might live or want to live in a vehicle. For me it's economical based. So I think it will need an economical solution. You can purchase land but others can prevent you from using it. Perhaps an economical model where a Vehicle Park or Boondocking Park is a business model that a few principalities might actually embrace. If I could stay in a place for $5 per night and I would never have to worry about the knock at the door that would be worth it to me. It could be just outside the edge of any town that I want to work near.

All it would take is zoning approvals. It would just have a dump station and a few outhouses and trash collection. It would have a fresh water supply. Basically it would be for off grid boondocking. It could be like the dispersed camping done on BLM land only it would be a month to month place too.  All RV Parks offer water and electric and some with full hookups. This would be different, and less expensive. It's so simple. If the government won't do it then the business world can think about it.

 

[gizmotron]

If you are a worker bee under age 55, keep toiling away, young worker bees. While over 55, you are free to be put out to pasture. 

Says me. I DO like me some honey.

HAHAHA! LOL

 

[Tony's Dream]

I agree, they will not make it illegal. They will find a way to tax it like a house which would be more than regualr vehicle taxes. Tax it to the point it might push some people back into their homes or apartments.

Six months to go and I will be on the road.

 

[GoingMobile]

The rising numbers are concerning. It is already illegal to live in a vehicle in many municipalities, who have been pushed to create ordinances, mostly by people at the extreme edge, who are living in ramshackle RVs, emptying waste tanks, and trash onto the streets, and often with the same drug and mental health issues as the homeless population.

This of course represents a small extreme segment of people living in vehicles. But that is the segment driving most legislation, mostly at the municipal level.

People who have means, retirement, S.S., pension, or a remote work income are a different category but subject to the laws passed to deal with the problems caused by the first category. In addition as the second group is trying to follow the rules for the most part, registering and insuring vehicles, disposing of trash and waste properly, paying appropriate taxes, etc. they run into the problems of not having a fixed location residence and address. This represents lost income to municipalities whose services they may use. If we could fairly make adjustments in this area, could we avoid some of the problems? But I don't think this group has much potential to have any political influence in conversations about this. They are Nomads without roots in communities to be taken seriously. I don't know, can anyone think of ways for the "Nomad Community" to become part of the conversation in a constructive way and create a perception of doing our fair share in providing for good community conditions in places we frequent?

It is hard enough in small out of the way communities to be accepted and valued. I moved to a small town in Mississippi for a job 10 years ago. Paid rent, have a good job, eat out, support local businesses, pay local taxes, but I still feel like an outsider. My perspective as an outsider is not very highly valued in local political discussion. My family has not lived there for multiple generations as the locals have. So my opinion doesn't count for much unless I can attach some economic gain to the well being of the community to it.

So I conclude that developing ways to provide benefit to places, probably economic, is the key to being accepted and not harassed. But this can easily create a situation where affordability, a key feature of mobile living for most could erode.

In a capitalist county such as the U.S. the profit motive is primary, anything that could provide something for the many without someone making a strong profit will be considered socialism, which has been strongly demonized as a concept, regardless of the realities.

I don't think the numbers are strong enough, but I wonder if it would be possible to establish a Nomad Political Lobbying Organization? That could help create a positive narrative, encourage responsible behaviors, and solutions that could link Nomads more positively to communities, hopefully to be welcomed, seen as contributing, to break the perception of "takers" freeloaders" or of creating problems for municipalities and their tax paying residents.

It is probably more practical for each individual to solve these issues for themselves in their own way, but I can't help but wonder with numbers rising if there is some point where collective action to create a narrative, agreed upon good practices, and provide workable solutions to avoid prohibitive solutions may be possible?

 

[flying kurbmaster]

it is already illegal.

 

[Sofisintown]

I wonder if it would be possible to establish a Nomad Political Lobbying Organization?

Hahahaha
Yeah, we need a political lobby. Maybe a Union too. With reps and a president. We will pay them monthly from the nomad collection basket!

I think you got the whole nomad thing backwards buddy...

 

[gizmotron]

I just got a notion. Quartzite is a gathering of vehicle dwellers that chase the warm sun in winter. Most that go there don't do it for making money. They bring that with them and they spend money. It's not the same group as those living in old trashed out broke down RV's and dumping their tanks on the streets. In the hot months everyone clears out.

What we need is a place that is cold as it can be in the winter and clears out the travelers that come with means. It's the summer equivalent of Quartzite in the north. It makes one town a bunch of money during the summer months. We just need to figure out a way to get the BLM to put a northern, high altitude location focused on creating a summer LTVA cluster in high cooler places. That sounds way easier to get done. There's already a success model for it. Anyone know of places like that for making a LTVA cluster?

 

[Ripper238]

Some reason I don't quite believe that poll. 

But its enviable people will become more transient due to financial and environmental reasons. We already see it with people trying to get away from the high tax states and devastation in certain areas. And where there are people, government will tax and restrict them.

 

[ChileSauceCritic]

...I don't think the numbers are strong enough, but I wonder if it would be possible to establish a Nomad Political Lobbying Organization? That could help create a positive narrative, encourage responsible behaviors, and solutions that could link Nomads more positively to communities, hopefully to be welcomed, seen as contributing, to break the perception of "takers" freeloaders" or of creating problems for municipalities and their tax paying residents.

It is probably more practical for each individual to solve these issues for themselves in their own way, but I can't help but wonder with numbers rising if there is some point where collective action to create a narrative, agreed upon good practices, and provide workable solutions to avoid prohibitive solutions may be possible?

 Problem with that is it would create a cast system among nomads as it would create a clear difference in the eyes of the general public between "[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]People who have means, retirement, S.S., pension, or a remote work income" and every other vandweller many of whom act [/font]responsibly[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] but will get lumped in with the meth heads and stereotypes most people think of simply because their van [/font]isn't sparkly[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] and new. hell some campgrounds already [/font]discriminate[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] based of whether you are in an RV or van.   [/font]

 

[BelgianPup]

I wonder if it would be possible to create a non-profit campground with the basics included: toilets, dump station, water, maybe some solar for charging phones, etc? Maybe (when possible) some of the prospective residents could help with the build if they had the skills, and they could collect credits, to be used for living there in the future.

Another thing I've wondered about is a similar type of place (or the other half of the place above), consisting of some TRUE tiny homes. All I see these days are 3,500 sqft homes, most of the space not really used because they're created to impress. Other places (Oregon, I think) are creating tiny houses, designed to cost as much as possible, for homeless people. Stupid, IMHO.

How about a cluster of small, SIMPLE tiny homes, designed like homemade trailers, rather than to impress people you don't know or care about? Basic design: sleeping area, living area with a kitchen in the corner, toilet and shower (no tub), storage.

There seem to be two major things that raise the price unnecessarily for small housing:

1. Poor design, overly complicated; insistence on creating with the most walls and hallways (unused spaces).

2. Profit greed. There is an RV campground not far from me that costs $1,000 to $1,350 per month, more than 3 times my mortgage pymt. Parking is quite tight.

 

[GoingMobile]

 Problem with that is it would create a cast system among nomads as it would create a clear difference in the eyes of the general public between "[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]People who have means, retirement, S.S., pension, or a remote work income" and every other vandweller many of whom act [/font]responsibly[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] but will get lumped in with the meth heads and stereotypes most people think of simply because their van [/font]isn't sparkly[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] and new. hell some campgrounds already [/font]discriminate[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] based of whether you are in an RV or van.   [/font]

Yeah, I would guess you're right about that. Being poor or even just humble is not accepted most places. A lot of gray area that gets lost when you start to look at public perception and municipal regulation. But I still think some type of promotion of a positive image could help. I'm an artist and would love to go wild painting my van, but every time I do something like that the police seem to become overly interested in what I'm doing. I have a motorcycle helmet I painted but every time I've worn it I've been pulled over and given a sobriety check.

 

[gizmotron]

Minimums. I dreamed of the tiny houses back in the 70's. I thought it was a great idea. So I went to the county building department and they informed me that there are minimums that restrict construction. They do it to protect other people's property values. They do it to keep revenue from property taxes up. Yet they still allow RV parks in city limits. I don't know what taxes RV parks if any, for long yearly occupancy for instance. I do know to avoid paying them they must kick out transients before 6 months occurs. There are transient laws.

Some of these minimums have been on the books for more than 70 years. Here is a common example: 1,000sqft minimum. Bathroom must be at least 50sqft. Kitchen must be at least 80sqft. There must be at least one independent sleeping area, some counties require two. Then there are state laws and the national electric code too. Then each state is different on who can do specialized work like plumbing, sheet metal, and electric. Some require an engineer to sign off on a perk tested septic system design. There's even a principality in the state of Washington that requires a one year waiting period with an environmental impact study. All this is good for you. Sure it is.

I was watching one of Bob's videos and he talks about how the ranchers sold their lands to the federal government and then lease it back from them real cheap in order to avoid property taxes. What about acquiring a use lease for boondocking and installing a solar powered sewer system and well for a centralized dumping station and operating it like an LTVA seasonally. All it would take is the government giving individuals a use permit. All that would be needed is wide open land and a town near by that could handle seasonal needs. If we could get a town to take on the nomads of summer at high altitude in some wonderful area then this would mean that we would not have to bring in the feds to do it all. We just need a town that wants it and a government that would approve it. Bob knows this stuff in trying to get places for events like the RTR.

 

[BelgianPup]

People have to have SOME kind of income source, even to live in a van. If some of them don't, where do you think they will get the money to buy food, gas, TP and vehicle repairs? It comes down to begging or stealing, doesn't it?

There isn't any kind of planned place for people without money. The closest thing that exists are... the city homeless camps, very dangerous places to be. The majority of these people DO NOT want or intend to play by nomal rules, the booze and the drugs are their top priority.