Democracy works when we do.
Tuesday evening, we proved that when we, the people, show up and speak up – respectfully and reasonably – we can win.
After civil and open discussion with the citizens attending the Penn Valley MAC (Municipal Advisory Council), the MAC members voted 6-0 (one absent) to recommend approval of the draft Alternative/RV Housing Ordinance (RV Ordinance) to county Supervisor Sue Hoek.
The RV Ordinance would allow people to live legally full-time in trailers and RVs on private property in unincorporated areas of Nevada County.
ordinance support
As written, the RV Ordinance only permits RVs on parcels of three acres or larger. Only one RV per parcel is allowed. Additionally, RVs can only be placed on a property that already has a single-family residence (or one under construction).
Unlike the two previous public hearings on the RV Ordinance (Grass Valley and South County MAC), most of the people who spoke Tuesday evening supported the RV Ordinance.
In keeping with their reputation for being polite, persistent and relentlessly reasonable, supporters of the No Place To Go Project spoke with quiet passion and compassion for the people who would be housed under this innovative housing-reform initiative.
The No Place To Go Project is the grassroots sponsor of the RV Ordinance.
The RV Ordinance is designed to provide first- or last-resort housing for local residents – students, single-parent families, low-wage workers, freelance creatives (artists, writers, musicians, actors, etc.), people transitioning out of homelessness, and people trying to avoid homelessness, including disabled, aging and others on fixed incomes.
Additionally, the RV Ordinance would enable friends and family members – adult children, grandparents, relatives and in-laws – to live close by independently and inexpensively.
Many of these people are currently unhoused, living in cars, couch-surfing with family or friends, subsisting in tents – or already living illegally in RVs & trailers.
opposition
The dominant theme among ordinance skeptics was a perceived failure of county Code Compliance to enforce existing law. They used that as a pretext for not approving the ordinance, but Planning Director Brian Foss, Housing Director Tyler Barrington and MAC Chair Douglas Moon indicated that their problem with Code Compliance was not “relevant” to the value assessment of the RV Ordinance.
Another objection was the recurring misperception that hordes of homeless people in rundown RVs would invade the county. This is simply not true.
According to the California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness (CASPEH) from the University of California, San Francisco, 75% of homeless people stay in the county in which they became homeless. As a boots-on-the-ground activist for much of the last 15 years, I can also attest that homeless people do not move.
When homeless people do move, it’s to be with family or friends or to move for a new job. The RV Ordinance has been proposed to address the unmet, affordable-housing needs of people who already live here. It is not an invitation for homeless people to move here.
If approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Alternative/RV Housing Ordinance would establish Nevada County as a state leader in progressive mitigation of the rural homeless/housing crisis.
While the RV Ordinance is not a total solution to the crisis, it is the best and only option for providing affordable housing right here, right now. Quite literally, it’s instant housing without spending millions of dollars or building anything.
comeback
My expectations were basement level going into the Penn Valley MAC.
The much-anticipated first hearing at the Grass Valley Veterans Hall Sept. 9 had been a bust. Judging from last year’s experience and the outcome of the county survey on the RV Ordinance, supporters should have outnumbered opponents three to one. We barely held our own at one to one.
Then, Sept. 15, ten people spoke against only four in favor at the South County MAC near Lake of the Pines. The four were well-spoken, but the MAC members voted three to one to advise Supervisor Robb Tucker to vote No on the RV Ordinance when it comes before the Board of Supervisors.
So, to get a unanimous yes-vote from all six MAC members Tuesday evening felt like vindication and redemption.
What did we do differently? I think it was because we didn’t argue in favor of the RV Ordinance. We made a powerful and persuasive case for what the ordinance does: Provide desperately needed, legal housing for the innocent and hapless victims of our homeless/housing crisis.
Not only were they articulate, the supporters who spoke had street creds – business owner, teacher, mental health professional, property owner, long-term residents, lived experience advocate and a Realtor.
The Realtor, who is also a mother, distilled our case down to one word that lit up the room: “Hope.”
Sidetracked
The Alternative/RV Housing Ordinance has been on a fast track, scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors in early November. That got derailed at the end of the MAC meeting when Supervisor Hoek announced the Oct. 9 hearing before the Planning Commission has been postponed indefinitely.
Apparently, the Planning Commission is unable to pull together a quorum, Hoek told me. Because the RV Ordinance is such a hot-button issue, the county wants to have a full house of commissioners to consider the ordinance, she said.
On one hand, that’s understandable – but this unexpected delay set off alarm bells in my head and raised red flags. As a government reporter, I’ve seen deals like this go down before.
I’m trying not to be paranoid, suspicious. I need more information. For now, I’ll console myself with the Realtor’s four-letter word: “Hope.”
Tom Durkin is the executive director of the No Place To Go Project, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization using the creative arts to advocate social justice for low-income and homeless people. Donations are tax-deductible. Durkin may be contacted at tom@noplacetogoproject.com or www.noplacetogoproject.com.