Why Governments Dont Like Full Time RVers, Vandwellers & People Living In Cars -

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

AreWeLostYet

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
Why Governments Dont Like Full Time RVers, Vandwellers & People Living In Cars - YouTube

 
I've seen some of the things he's talking about. Even at a smaller level. The closest Walmart to where I am used to allow RVs to park there, but now they don't allow overnight parking and the part of the parking lot where the RVs used to park has been converted to a gas station.
 
I still don't get the "camping" in a parking lot thing umbilical cord ? need to be in a noisy environment? Is it too quiet in the woods?
 
Most people living in vans and trailers have never actually been camping.

Most parts of the country don't have free camping in wilderness areas.

Most poor dwellers aren't set up for boondocking wrt water and waste.
 
wagoneer said:
I still don't get the "camping" in a parking lot thing umbilical cord ? need to be in a noisy environment? Is it too quiet in the woods?


I spent my entire youth backpacking--I lived just a few miles from the Appalachian trail. So i am quite comfortable being in the woods for a long time.

But nearly all of my vandwelling is urban. Part of that is because I need steady wifi to do my job on the road, and it's  a lot easier to get wifi in the city than it is out in the sticks. Part of it is because the things in like to see are science museums, historical places, zoos, and such--and those things are in the city.

As for Walmart lots specifically, they have always been my go-to place to urban camp, because they give easy and free access to the things I need--a safe place to park, a bathroom, wifi, food and water, and easy access to the bus stops that i use to get around in whatever city I am visiting.

As for "why city governments don't like urban campers", there's no need to speculate or theorize--they always make it excruciatingly plain and clear every time they do it. In every newspaper article or TV news story about "city outlaws vehicle living" or "vehicle-camper arrested", you will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, find something like "neighbors said Joe Blow had parked his derelict vehicle in front of their house for eight months, dumping trash in the street, panhandling passersby, and defecating in the flower beds". ALWAYS. Every time.

THAT is why people object to vehicle  dwellers.

Sadly, it is always a tiny handful of shitheads who have to wreck things for everyone else by being a dolt. But alas, we all end up paying the price for their shitheadedness.
 
Those "neighbors said Joe Blow had [fill in the blank]" protests are a fig leaf, perhaps even subconsciously.  They are the way homeowners (and to a lesser degree business owners) frame their complaints to the city.  And the way the city frames the law, and the way the PD frames enforcement.   IMO to understand the actual underlying motivations, see:


  • Fischel's Homevoter Hypothesis (2005) - economic motivation
  • Haidt's the Righteous Mind (2012) - emotional motivation amplifying the above, particularly regarding purity and authority foundations.  This also explains why the loudest anti-nomads and NIMBYs generally come from one side of the p*******l flock.
 
My takeaway is that bad 'dweller behavior can speed up the passing of restrictive codes, but even exemplary 'dweller behavior is unlikely to keep it away.  The homeowners want what they want and the city will give it to them, at least while they can.
 
Or as folks usually call it, "research". Both of those books were expansions of the authors' peer-reviewed articles.

If you object to the framing argument, review what homeowners, city councils, and LEOs actually say in these contexts. Council meetings are well-covered by journalists, and the players are directly quoted.
 
Just like attitudes toward Roma / Gypsy/Traveller in the UK and Europe

even if perfectly behaved

A transient population

"free" to come and go rather than locked into the stationary local social peer controls and power hierarchy

not slaves to their employer and mortgage like the usual s&b culture

is OF COURSE viewed at best with suspicion, more often as a threat and scapegoat
 
Your honor let the record show that the species is well versed in bigotry and prejudice dating back centuries, and though remedies have surfaced the trait still remains.
 
Walmarts are not so secure. My first visit to one got my waste valves played with.
 
I've been in Walmarts all over the country. Never had any trouble at any of them.
 
Not so much conspiracy theory any more. It's just the law since 911. They don't like people being able to live under the radar and I sometimes wonder when they'll get around to states and companies that enable faux addresses. Imagine how hard it would be to find someone who's a threat that has no real address and can move anywhere at anytime they choose.
 
lenny flank said:
I spent my entire youth backpacking--I lived just a few miles from the Appalachian trail. So i am quite comfortable being in the woods for a long time.

But nearly all of my vandwelling is urban. Part of that is because I need steady wifi to do my job on the road, and it's  a lot easier to get wifi in the city than it is out in the sticks. Part of it is because the things in like to see are science museums, historical places, zoos, and such--and those things are in the city.

As for Walmart lots specifically, they have always been my go-to place to urban camp, because they give easy and free access to the things I need--a safe place to park, a bathroom, wifi, food and water, and easy access to the bus stops that i use to get around in whatever city I am visiting.

As for "why city governments don't like urban campers", there's no need to speculate or theorize--they always make it excruciatingly plain and clear every time they do it. In every newspaper article or TV news story about "city outlaws vehicle living" or "vehicle-camper arrested", you will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, find something like "neighbors said Joe Blow had parked his derelict vehicle in front of their house for eight months, dumping trash in the street, panhandling passersby, and defecating in the flower beds". ALWAYS. Every time.

THAT is why people object to vehicle  dwellers.

Sadly, it is always a tiny handful of shitheads who have to wreck things for everyone else by being a dolt. But alas, we all end up paying the price for their shitheadedness.
So very well said !!! thank you!!
 
John61CT said:

Shades of the Third Reich. 

There were bands of youth in Germany during the rise of Nazism who lived a nomadic life partly to avoid being drafted. Partly for practical reasons (they didn't want to die) partly for ideological reasons (they didn't want to die for a cause they opposed.) Many seem to have been anarchists. Others communists. Some opposed Nazism for religious or moral reasons. Mostly they tried to avoid capture by the Gestapo and being forcibly inducted or sent to a "camp." Some conducted insurgency strikes against the Nazi military or power structure. The Edelweiss Pirates are an example. Like the Gypsies, who faced being sent straight to death camps, the Pirates moved around which the Nazis would not tolerate. They demanded every person identified and easily locatable to be put at the Reich's disposal as they saw fit. And of course they too could site numerous threats and terrorist acts to justify these attitudes and actions.
 
lenny flank said:
Meh, I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories.

You don't need to be concerned with subscribing to conspiracy theories. You need to be concerned with conspiracy theories that subscribe to you.
 
Top