Well, that did not go as well as I hoped. The opponents to the Alternative/RV Housing Ordinance (“RV Ordinance”) slightly outnumbered and shouted down one supporter at the public workshop in the Grass Valley Veterans Hall Tuesday night.
The turnout was less than expected. Fewer than 100 people showed up. The supervisors’ chambers could have handled the citizens who attended, but the spaciousness of the seating arrangement in the Vets Hall probably lessened the tension between the two factions.
While many of the opponents offered some credible arguments and concerns against the RV Ordinance, a few clung to myths and ignored the reality of the RV Ordinance. The people who were the most passionate also tended to display the least knowledge and reason.
The most outlandish claim came from a man in back of the room who shouted that the RV Ordinance would encourage human trafficking.
The supporters of the RV Ordinance were more subdued but still passionate in their statements. Their speeches tended toward the “morality and fairness of making housing available to unhoused, low-income people so they can” feel like a human.”
One woman suggested that people who don’t like the idea of seeing a trailer in a neighbor’s yard should suck it up to just “give people a chance.”
Ordinance explained
The directors of Planning and Housing, Brian Foss and Tyler Barrington respectively, hosted the meeting Tuesday evening.
Barrington said the interest in the RV Ordinance was only eclipsed by the highly controversial Rise Gold attempt to reopen the Idaho-Maryland gold mine.
Foss described the highlights of the RV Ordinance, which he said were similar to the regulations passed in January of this year for tiny homes on wheels. Among the requirements of the draft RV Ordinance permitting an RV on private property were:
- RV must not have no more than 320 square feet interior space and no more than 400 sq ft total;
- One-time permits for Building and Environmental Health inspections;
- An Administrative Development Permit renewable every two years with a fee and inspection;
- Minimum rental term of not less than 30 days;
- No more than one occupied RV per parcel;
- Minimum parcel size of three or more acres in specified zones; and
- Parcel must have an existing single-family home or be under construction on the property.
As the leader of the No Place To Go Project, I offered a half-dozen suggested amendments to the RV Ordinance:
- Eliminate the two-year renewable Administrative Development Permit with an inspection and a fee in favor of a one-time fee and inspection;
- Reduce the three-acre restriction to one or more acres;
- Increase the minimum rental period from 30 to 90 days to ensure this housing goes to local residents, not tourists;-
- Permit the removal of wheels so tenants could become eligible for rental assistance through federal Housing Choice Vouchers (aka Section 8);
- Prohibit the movement of tiny homes on wheels and RVs & trailers during a wildfire evacuation;
- Add an incentive to register an RV with the county by offering a one-year amnesty for existing residential RVs to prove they are or can be brought into compliance – and to encourage new RV placements to be registered.
Facts and fallacies
While some opponents did bring up some legitimate concerns, others continued to ignore the explicit text of the RV Ordinance and perpetuate falsehoods.
One opponent stressed legitimate concerns about insurance and liability, but she erroneously claimed that RVs can’t be insured. That would be news to my insurance company that insured my trailer on private property for years.
A popular “solution” was to move people into ad hoc trailer parks but not taking into account the daunting difficulty of acquiring land, building the extensive and expensive infrastructure, and getting approval from the state because the county does not have the authority to create trailer parks.
Even though I explicitly proposed the prohibition of moving RVs during a wildfire emergency, opponents claimed the roads will be jammed up with RVs during a wildfire evacuation. This ignores the fact that well over 1,000 people already live in RVs on private property, and there have been no reports of RVs clogging up the roads in past evacuations.
Many of the opponents claimed lack of code enforcement of existing illegal trailer encampments as a reason not to approve the RV Ordinance. They ignored the fact that the RV Ordinance gives Code Compliance more powers to enforce compliance.
Despite the RV Ordinance restriction of one RV per parcel, opponents pointed to illegal encampments as a reason to reject the ordinance. Many extrapolated their personal negative experience to assume every trailer placement would damage the overall quality of life in the county.
One pervasive urban myth that opponents clung to was the idea that the RV Ordinance invites homeless people in decrepit, old trailers to invade the county. Ignoring the fact that houseless and homeless people already live here and that’s who the RV Ordinance will serve, there is no evidence that hordes of homeless people move anywhere.
The vast majority of people tend to stay in the communities where they became homeless. In the 15 years I’ve been working with our homeless, I’ve met very few people who don’t belong here.
supporters mia
The chances for the approval of the RV Ordinance were seriously damaged Tuesday evening by the extremely poor showing of supporters. By my count, 10 people (including me) spoke in favor of the RV Ordinance, 10 spoke in opposition, and two seemed ambivalent.
To their credit, the opponents were nowhere as hysterical and histrionic as the wildly inaccurate and hateful claims some made on social media. Not to their credit, they rudely shouted down one speaker and spoke over Barrington and Foss at several points during the evening.
The supporters, to their credit, were civil, respectful and on message. I just wish there were more of them. They emphasized compassion for people struggling to come out of homelessness and for people trying to stay out of homelessness.
At least two more public hearings are scheduled: Higgins Corner near Lake of the Pines on Sept. 15 and Penn Valley on Sept. 23. Times and locations have yet to be announced. The Planning Commission is expected to meet in October, and the RV Ordinance will come before the Board of Supervisors Nov. 4, according to county sources.
The disappointing lack of support Tuesday seriously hurt the RV Ordinance’s chances. Opponents will likely dominate the Higgins Corner and Penn Valley hearings.
Unless we can generate the overwhelming support we had last year at the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings, the ordinance we worked so hard get this year could go down in defeat.
The best thing supporters can do now, Planning Director Foss said, is to submit written comments to AltRVOrdinance@NevadaCountyCa.gov. So, people, if you believe in housing for the people by the people, write on!
Tom Durkin is the director of the new nonprofit No Place To Go Project (formerly Sierra Roots/No Place To Go Project). The Project is a creative social justice advocacy for low-income and homeless people. Donations are tax-deductible. He may be contacted at tom@noplacetogoproject.com or www.noplacetogoproject.com.
Editor’s note: We reached out to Nevada County regarding the two upcoming MAC meetings and here are the details:
Here are the logistics for the two upcoming Municipal Advisory Council meetings:
South County MAC Special Meeting:
- Date: 9/15/2025
- Time: 6:00pm – 8:00pm
- Location: Higgins Lions Community Center
- 22490 East Hacienda Drive Grass Valley, CA 95949
Penn Valley MAC Special Meeting
- Date: 9/23/2025
- Time: 6:00pm – 8:00pm
- Location: Penn Valley Fire Protection District Headquarters
- 10513 Spenceville Rd, Penn Valley, CA 95946
We are still finalizing the agendas for these meetings, but they should be posted 72 hours before in our agenda center:
Agenda Center • Nevada County, CA • CivicEngage