RV Group Suing City

“The City has never established that there is a special problem with RVs being parked [near] a park or a school, other than their being owned by poor people".

How about that it's illegal for ANY vehicle to be parked for longer than 72 hours in the same place on the street, or that it would inhibit street cleaning operations that reduce the amount of debris being introduced into creeks, or that they reduce the width of the travelled way thereby increasing the likelihood of vehicle conflicts on street now made narrower? Or, simply, no one likes looking at them?

So it is against the law for my poor self (trust me, I ain't rich) to leave a car parked for >72 hrs @ 1 spot on the streets, but somehow it is unconstitutional for RV's to be prohibited from doing the same? Aw, come on, give me a break already!
Maybe what the city needs to do is establish a campground for these folks to settle into & then just watch the whole scene get deterriorated over time as the lowliest of the dregs begin to set up camp & fight for resources.
Get ready for SB to roll ut the welcome mat once again because homeless incorporated has a new cause celebre: RV's :) henry

You’re scaring me now Henry. I totally agree with you. This RV parking thing has not been managed well. My bleeding heart understands that there are folks who have no place else to live. But they cannot just park their home anywhere. There is very little “free” space. Even State Parks cost 10 bucks just to spend the day (overnight will cost you more). We need a place for these people to park and we need to charge them something to deal with the mess they make and to police their weird conflicts. The City’s ordinance may not be perfect, but you have to regulate it somehow.

The city ordinance in question is not about the duration of RV parking on the street, but rather their size and location.

I hope that the city fights this lawsuit hard. Prior to this ordinance, where I live, the lower east side, near a school, was littered with these RVs and the trash the occupants leave, including human waste. I think it should be a citywide ordinance with space for a nighttime occupancy RV park provided: What about Earl Warren showgrounds?

And it wasn't only low income people, but others would come for the winter and run a powerline from their friends' house to the RV and stay for months. Right across the street from Franklin School! If a city has the right to zone for housing, surely it has the right to zone against on-street housing!

Basic question: does a city have the obligation to provide space for housing for everyone who wants to live there? Free space? I don't think so, especially if there is nearby land, the county, for instance, which could provide housing space. I don't think I can set up my tent anywhere, even if I am willing to pay for the tent spot.

@_large, here in Isla Vista we get some of those & I have seen the same effects you speak of. It is DISGUSTING!
It is a fact, none of us can just show up & pitch a tent anywhere w/out legal repercussions, ain't gonna happen.
The city has ZERO obligation to provide anything to the RVer's, but somehow, some way homeless incorporated will throw in OUR $0.02 worth into the equation.
I can just see it now, a special task force, more outreach programs, more resources, all on our $$$ because after all, we just keep it (the $$$ that is) coming.
There SHOULD be a legit lot for poor RVer's to camp, but there should be some criteria involved:
1) NO DRUGS OR ALCOHOL!
2) Must have employment.
3) RV must be registered.
4) A police presence will be there.
5) Rent will be charged to cover sanitation & services.
6) A regular site inspection will take place to assure civility.
7) NO WEAPONS!
8) Any $$$ from this program will undergo strict scrutiny.
9) RV's MUST BE IN OPERATIONAL ORDER.
10) ANY "TENANTS" NOT MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS/CRITERIA WILL BE SUBJECT TO A SPEEDY EVICTION FROM THE PREMISES!
This program would make residents accountable for their actions & the actions of those around them.
I know, I know, they're poor. So what?! The goal should be to create self-sufficiency, something homeless incorporated has yet to teach it's clients.
I have no problem w/ this approach, the ONLY problem I have is where the initial funding is going to come from & that would probably mean us :) henry

Hank's suggestion sounds a lot like a state park.

There are all kinds.

This applies to RV'ers and to people who live in their car and people who live in rented apartments and mansions.

I know some real nut jobs who have lots of real estate they hide out in and they would never make it outside of their citadels of wealth.
And I know of at least one RV resident, from out of state, who is making life miserable for other people who participate in the Safe Parking Program.

But we can't just get rid of people, either. In case you haven't checked, even the most discourteous RV'er is actually one of our fellow human beings. But, yeah, if they are dripping motor oil out in front of my house that I am paying a mortgage on it doesn't seem fair that they can just set up without meeting certain standards of conduct.

Wherein lies the rub.

I agree with Hank's general concept of behavioural standards and contribution to maintenance as well as putting some thought into what locations are and are not appropriate.

But another factor which seems to be overlooked is the raw quantitative factor: there is a certain population of "informal" housing situations, such as RV's, which do not generate a lot of adverse consequences. And there is a threshold at which the adverse consequences are too proximal to existing land uses and are thus fairly subject to regulation.

If the numbers were increased by a factor of ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, sooner or later there would be qualitatively different situation evolving. So some kind of disincentive to an endless influx of miscreant, misanthropic and irresponsible new RV users is in order, and is consistent with the principles of the Democratic Party which is dedicated to preserving the integrity of neighborhoods particularly for working people who are more likely to experience the environmental impact associated with transient occupancy of motor vehicles.

Murillo has made it very clear that she is quite sensitive to such matters, as has Falcone, in her case, perhaps to excess. Similarly, Schwartz is also aware of the need for balanced and sensitive handling of issues of this nature - there is no need to resort to the Frankensteinian excesses of Francisco-esque rhetoric.

In any case, Joe Allen is tilting at windmills, and this lawsuit is likely to go nowhere. No need to get all worked up over this, it is a purely legal exercise and frankly I am baffled that an attorney of Joe's stature is associating his name with such a far fetched brief.

Blaming the lawyer (Joe Allen) is not really an effective argument or rebuttal.

If you are upset at a land developer or builder, do you blame Amerikaner who represents the builder applicant, or do you blame Chytilo who represents the nearby property owner or environmental organization?

A lot of well heeled travelers riding in million dollar Prevost coaches will not be showing up anytime soon in SB because there isn't really a place for them here.Those people and their coaches are out there on the highway every day of the year looking for good places to stay and play,shop,etc.they go to other cities.

"The city ordinance in question is not about the duration of RV parking on the street, but rather their size and location."

If I recall, the city ordinance does not allow overnight parking for RV's south of 101 downtown, and apparently also has regulations regarding proximity to schools and churches. This is an overnight restriction, not a 72 hour restriction.

If this Ordinance is kicked out, the city will fill up with RVs. Property owners want to rule. When you have property, you can park on your own property. This is the democracy thing again. One man one vote. That is why Obama thinks he can get the illegal alien vote. No, the property owners own Santa Barbara. Not the tourists.

Comentor: "the property owners own Santa Barbara. Not the tourists."

Good points in your post, but here's where I have to add the following: the RVer's being spoken of here aren't "tourists" in any way, shape or form.
They're "homeless" living out of their RV's wanting a free place to camp.
I know my plan listed above sounds like a state beach (HAHAHA! got a laugh from that in a good way, thanks 4WS!), but if the "homeless" want a place to "camp" legally, then there are rules they must abide by, just like property owners & the average renter do :) henry

sbdude: No one wants to look at you, so you should be illegal. hank: you're the lowliest of the dregs, so we don't want you here. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Nimby doesn't seem to work well, in SB or anywhere else. A lot of us think crooked cops are more objectionable than beater RV's. A lot of us think the city's use of imminent domain to destroy local businesses in order to build a mall consisting of national chain stores, in order protect SB's "small town" atmosphere, according the Sustainable SB website (using redevelopment money to remove the "blight" of small businesses) is more objectionable than unsightly RV's. A lot of us think that spending a larger and larger percent of our tax dollars on cops and eliminating other residents employment to do so is more objectionable than RV's. Some of us find self-righteous,morally superior critics of the homeless more objectionable than homeless people.
We're not going to see fewer older RV's in the near future, given the current economy, and hostility towards them or their owners sure isn't going to improve the situation.
SBPD's practice in issuing RV parking citations is discriminatory against low-income people - I've seen many newer, expensive RV's, converted full-size buses, etc., parked for months in residential neighborhoods without being ticketed, and many of the same parked in driveways that are used as permanent housing, also illegal.
Santa Barbara lost the Homes on Wheels lawsuit because the city's RV parking signs were in violation of California law, and this court decision includes the legal point that traffic control signs, including parking signs, are state law and that local municipalities don't have the legal authority to use signs that don't conform to state law. SBPD is still ignoring state law with respect to No Parking signs, and also ignoring the Homes on Wheels decision. It seems likely that, regardless of city finances, city leaders will continue to budget the cost of the city's defense against lawsuits claiming civil rights violations against residents through reductions in services to residents.
Santa Monica's attitude towards the homeless (I'm guessing that the people represented in this lawsuit are RV residents, usually referred to as homeless in SB) is an attempt to solve problems, rather than to hate people into non-existence. In SB we have a problem with some RV dwellers dumping sewage, which isn't tolerable. We also have homeless people who have no access to restrooms urinating in public, etc. Santa Monica's solution was to build public restrooms with showers, our solution is to arrest people for urinating in public. Maybe if someone is arrested 20 times for this (@ ? $$$) they'll change their behavior and no longer need to urinate?

14noscams: "hank: you're the lowliest of the dregs, so we don't want you here."

What's this we noise White man, you got a mouse in your pocket? HAHAHA! :) henry