- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
City Ordinance Committee Denies Plan to Crack Down on RV Parking
To the relief of advocates of a growing number of indigent people living in RVs, the Santa Barbara ordinance committee on Tuesday rejected a proposal from the Public Works Department granting it more authority to crack down on RV parking where the department considers the practice problematic.
However, committee members — all three of them Santa Barbara City Council members — said they would like to see a watered-down version of the proposal restrict the parking of RVs near schools, parks and recreational facilities.
The amended proposal could come before the committee as soon as next week and, if passed, could land shortly after on the agenda of the full seven-member City Council.
Two of three committee members — Das Williams and Grant House — were unmoved, saying the Public Works Department seemed to be overreaching by asking for the power to unilaterally decide which streets need to be cleared.
“I do think there is a problem, and I do want to give staff a tool to deal with that problem,” Williams said. “But to have this ordinance without any criteria is a blank check, and I’m not about to give a blank check to further criminalize poverty in this city.”
Council member Dale Francisco supported the staff’s proposal.
“This ordinance seems to me to be a very simple thing,” he said. “There is obviously a huge problem affecting neighborhoods and businesses and schools. This ordinance seems to me to be very precisely targeted; very simple and straightforward.”
Tuesday’s meeting drew passionate speakers from RV dwellers, as well as from employees of businesses who have felt threatened by the seedy behavior they described on the part of some RV inhabitants.
Nancy McCrady, a local advocate for the homeless, said people in RVs have been unfairly maligned.
“I see people in their RVs cleaning up their neighborhoods with bags,” said McCrady, who said she had to live in an RV for 24 years. “People are really, really trying their best. It’s really hard, because there’s a waiting list for housing. … There’s no room anywhere. The shelters are all full. … So what are you going to do with people, throw them out in the bushes again?”
Brian Gannon, an employee of a business on the 500 block of East Montecito Street, said employees have had unpleasant run-ins with some of the nearby RV dwellers.
“I myself witnessed urine and feces dumped in the bushes,” he said. “And I think in retaliation of us reporting this to the police, we’ve had fecal matter thrown at the walls of our business.”
Gannon added that a young man was once thrown through a company window. “I myself have witnessed drug use, drug dealing actually taking place right at our doorsteps,” he said.
Also in attendance was Santa Barbara schools Superintendent Brian Sarvis, who came to ask the committee to keep parked RVs away from schools.
“We would like to have you specifically ban parking for RVs within 100 feet of schools,” he said. “Many of the dangers are frankly unknown, but no parent should be needlessly worried because of the cluster of RVs around the playground of a school.”
Another speaker was Gary Linker, executive director of the nonprofit group New Beginnings, which attracted national media attention for its successful “Safe Parking” program allowing people to sleep in their vehicles in certain parking lots around town.
Linker said his lots serve about 70 people and are full, but he is working to expand.
“We do have a 20- to 25-person waiting list, and we have had to turn people away,” he said. “There are people in the streets who do want to be in our program, but we can’t find a place to put them.”
He added that the organization is in the process of looking to open an RV park.
“We’re trying to find a location that could have an eight- to 10-trailer park that people could stay in before they’re going into housing,” he said. “It would be another enticement for people to be on the list to go into housing.”
On Tuesday, House criticized the proposed ordinance for its vagueness, noting, for example, its failure to define what constitutes an excessive number of RVs on a city block.
“What’s the number? Is it two, three, five RVs in a neighborhood?” he said. “What if they are not causing a problem?”
Although Francisco disagreed with Williams and House, he voted with them, saying their request to have the proposal brought back in weaker form was “better than nothing.”
“But we had a perfectly good ordinance in front of us that would have solved a lot more problems,” he said.
Write to rkuznia@noozhawk.com.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 11.11.08 @ 07:10 PM
one more time, Das Williams and Grant House seem unmoved and oblivious or worse yet poised to act in spite of concerns by neighbors, businesspeople and others in our community. The nuisances, threats, public health and other risks posed by the proliferation of RVs throughout town must be dealt with.
» on 11.11.08 @ 08:35 PM
Waiting list for housing an excuse? what waiting list? I just checked Craigslist for rooms for rent and there are 80 listings on Tuesday alone!! (this doesn’t include the hundreds of listings in other categories or on recent days) If rent is too expensive, check the thousands of other cities in Ca or other States. Isn’t this the advantage of having wheels on your home; to be able to move?
As long as we make it acceptable to live on our streets, people will. With the amendment to the ordinance the city was seeking a way to solve the problem without having to be discriminating of the people inside the Rvs. Personally i think they should go farther than the whole Nimby attitude,expressed by schools and different business areas and have a spine to make it “not in anyone’s backyard” effectively banning RVs from camping anywhere at night, and require permits administered through the Public Works department for day parking (required by all, not just the mobile homeless, but the rich RV travelers that pass through town) It was already solved a couple years ago but got overturned by technical details about bickering over the signs used; saying that they didn’t give adequate notice. The wing nut social justice lawyers squeezed the system to their advantage; meanwhile the population of people living on our SB streets have increased greatly! How is it that we have laws against where adult clubs can be located, yet we can not discriminate against unwanted plight of street people?
» on 11.11.08 @ 09:18 PM
How about we make this issue a metaphor for trick or treating? You have to WORK to get ahead in this world. They want me to give them my money and home that I work hard for while they relax in their RV.
So a tick or treater comes to my house and I say, OK, give me all but 2 or 3 pieces of your candy for all those poor people who couldn’t make it out last night.
Freakin liberals. Take Take and take some more. This is the town of survival. You can’t earn enough to live here? oh bummer. Go to Santa Maria or Lompoc. or Santa Ana. Liberals, go home. but dont come to my house.
» on 11.12.08 @ 04:39 AM
Thank goodness for the good sense of Das Williams and Grant House. Das’ quote sums it up, “I’m not about to give a blank check to further criminalize poverty in this city.” There are already laws against littering, dumping waste, drug use and gangs. Go after the real crimes. Being poor shouldn’t be a crime but often it seems that people in Santa Barbara think it is. And too often the police and government target and abuse the poor.
» on 11.12.08 @ 05:36 AM
...for once again ignoring the pleas of local small businessowners, hard-working renters and homeowners, and City Police and Public Works. As a woman who sometimes has to walk in or around these RVs, let me tell you how unsafe I feel. Try it sometime dressed as a woman. See how kind and sweet these guys are. Criminalize poverty??? Hello——RV dwellers aren’t necessarily victims of “poverty”. Often, they could rent rooms or apartments for near or less the same cost they spend on their RV, gas, dog food, “medical” marijuana, booze, etc. Again, check it out for yourself. Or better yet, we will encourage the RV dwellers to park on upper Chapala, alongside your abode. Funny, you had much more compassion for your constituents who did not want street cleaning signs to blight their sidewalks, then you are those of us less fortunate who do not want to navigate the filth, blight and harassment of those who choose to live in vehicles. Shame. On YOU
» on 11.12.08 @ 06:39 AM
The waiting list referred to is for free or subsidized housing. On top of the many, many free food and walk-in facilities we have in Santa Barbara to serve the ubiquitous and ill defined “homeless” population, this vagrant sub-culture of “street people” wants even more.
The criminal conduct referred to by those who must deal with it regularly on our streets is not poverty as Mr. Williams sarcastically injects into the discussion. The criminal conduct is littering, vandalism, drunkeness, drug dealing, disturbing the peace, assault, robbery even murder, and including various forms of theft, panhandling, violations of many other crimes including City and County ordinances. (not counting vehicle code violations and the illegal and unsafe condition of many of these vehicles).
Do you suppose Williams and House have already forgotten the women killed by the “homeless” drunk driver piloting his camper/home while under the influence. She was killed recently while jogging on Las Positas road to prepare for a marathon. It wasn’t “poverty” that klilled her Mr. House and Mr. Williams!
The bleeding heart socialists are unable to distiguish between the truly needy looking for temporary assistance, which we all sympathize with and are happy to help. On the other hand, there are the lazy listless characters that prefer a life style in the street with drugs and drunkeness, impromptu street or campsite parties and panhandling and begging wherever the picking seems good. They heed no rules, or “shine-off” rules which they feel they are free to break or perhaps even make up their own, like retaliating against anyone that complains.
Do you suppose Williams and House have already forgotten the millions that were spent and continue to be spent to provide or enable these “homeless” street people like the Casa Esperanza shelter over on Cacique street. At the time, we were told that was going to solve the problem of these street dwelling characters even though many folks spoke out against it at public hearings (even existing “homeless” people living here at the time spoke out). They rightfully pointed out that such a walk-in shelter would just attract and enable more of these permanent “homeless” vagrants to Santa Barbara!
There are more and more of these permanent “homeless” reposing on the streets of Santa Barbara and spilling over into the unincorporated areas because of the naive’ ideas of politically correct and ignorant politicians like Williams and House who cannot distinguish between those truly in need of a temporary helping hand and those enjoying the “American Riviera” by camping on the streets at everyone elses expense.
These are the new “progressive” democratic politicians who are blind to the real world and dwell in the politically popular utopia where one can be proud of being “homeless” and stand up and claim one’s “entitlements” from everyone else!
» on 11.12.08 @ 07:36 AM
This was a prime example of Das Williams and Grant House doing nothing for the people who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes to the City and siding with homeless folks who most likely contribute nothing, but problems in our neighborhoods. Obviously not all homeless are the problem, but the ones who do all those despicable things discussed at the meetings need to be moved someplace else.
How does doing nothing that help them, or us? Das and Grant indicated they would create an RV Free area around schools, but that was the most obvious fix it was laughable. Thank you very little.
If you pay taxes, own a business or a home, Das and Grant are not looking out for you. They are looking out for the person sleeping, pooping, peeing in the street or doing drugs or breaking into your car. Their quest to stop the characterizations of criminalization ends up netting to a zero solution for all. Less than zero for anyone who wants to take pride in a beautiful, safe Santa Barbara.
» on 11.12.08 @ 07:43 AM
Lets give the homeless RV people a map with the home addresses of Mayor Blum and the City Council as see how they like the RV’s in their neighborhoods. Do you think that Das would like to see someone taking a dump on his front lawn?
» on 11.12.08 @ 07:50 AM
And more will come. We are making it too easy, there has to be a code that allows no overnight parking on the streets anywhere in the county
My neighborhood sees the same RV’s moving from one side of the street to the other.We know many are occupied at night. Do all these people have ties to Santa Barbara or do they just want to come and winter here?
There are many communities that are much more affordable where these “homeless” might be able to rent an apartment or a little house. I am tired of the moochers and will not help these lazy people. I will always support organizations like the Salvation Army, as the people there really are looking for change. Shame on you Das for ingoring your tax paying citizens.
» on 11.12.08 @ 08:14 AM
Now we better understand the Grimm Brothers.
They had ogres living under bridges.
We have “RV dwellers” living on our streets.
Facts and evidence are unneeded when our children and our women are at risk.
Run them out of town.
Who has a torch I can light?
» on 11.12.08 @ 08:15 AM
I once heard a saying that went something like this: If you want a clean river, require each city to put its intake pipe DOWNSTREAM from its effluent pipe.
Regarding the RV problem, we should encourage RVs to park near the homes of our public officials. If public officials have to experience the consequences of RV parking they may be more sensitive to the need to control it for all of us.
» on 11.12.08 @ 08:18 AM
Now we better understand the Grimm Brothers.
They had ogres living under bridges.
We have “RV dwellers” living on our streets.
Facts and evidence are unneeded when our children and our women are at risk.
Run them out of town.
Who has a torch I can light?
» on 11.12.08 @ 08:24 AM
I am so glad the City is understanding of the plight of the homeless. The problem has grown, not because people want to be homeless, but because our government has acted in ways that make it very difficult to find jobs and stay in more appropriate living facilities. We need to find ways to house people rather than punish them for being unable to afford decent housing.
» on 11.12.08 @ 09:07 AM
It seems like what the SB City Council is doing is subsidizing a free place to live for RV/car dwellers. Basic economic theory says if you subsidize something, you will get MORE of it.
Unless you plan to overrule a law of economics, if you agree with the city council on this, you are taking the stand (and putting out the word nationwide) that some people can live for FREE in Santa Barbara. And there will be more and more people living in cars, RVs, vans, etc. And we’ll never have enough parking lots, roads, etc because there will be an endless supply of people. AGain, because you are subsidizing the behavior.
Hence, Santa Barbara will always have this “problem” for eternity because there is no solution for it. If you keep subsidizing free housing, more people will come, leading to the need for more space, and so on.
» on 11.12.08 @ 09:11 AM
Time to vote out Das Williams and his idiotic comments. We need to address this problem of vagrants who live, drink and abuse passersby. Das needs to take a walk downtown in the evening along with the other council members. Maybe they would get a clue. Stop over near the streets that abut the train tracks near Garden and Anacapa and see all of the R/V’s, the stench, etc. If it is too expensive to live here, then maybe it is time to move on.
» on 11.12.08 @ 10:00 AM
Good job Grant House and Das Williams you are always thinking on your job for people. People must remeber that everyone is unique. Poor people should not have to be crimilized and homeless people deserve fair treatment. Santa Barbara is a nice town and has always had homeless people and beggars, But begging is not a sin. Since Our lovely city has been bomarded by greetty investors and selfish people our whole city has suffered from high rents and foreclosers. Not all people who are homeless are criminals. We must look at each situation and come up with a humane approach to solve the problems. Grant House and Das Williams stand strong with Americas intergrity and Cultur values and Laws. Do not create ingonorant ordindiances. We must remember not to pass the buck. We must also learn to call the police if you see the illegal activity. We must tell our Top dog of education to keep on worrying about our broken down educational system that needs repair.
» on 11.12.08 @ 12:29 PM
The problem with this ordinance is that it prohibited RV overnight (or any?) (what is “excessive”?) parking on certain city streets, in certain areas. Had that broad rule passed on to the Council and then passed, it would have been challenged immediately and shot down, most likely.
Had it passed and been in effect, all that would have been accomplished would have been a move of RVs to other streets and then other streets. It would also have given Public Works effective police power—- and if there is to be police power, I want it to be handled by the police.
What should be done is a narrowly drawn ordinance, specifying no overnight parking within a reasonable (500’? but certainly more than 100’) distance of school or youth facilities. And there should be enforcement of the existing laws, even though that undoubtedly is difficult. And then to prevent further ghettos of RVs a rule throughout the city that no more than two may be parked overnight in a block, subject to ticketing.
If people on the upper east or wherever don’t want any signs on the public streets and street poles, our streets, not just theirs, then they can instead choose to have RVs parked.
Thank you, Grant, for your thoughtful comments. And thanks, especially, to Gary Linker for actively working to solve the homeless situation.
» on 11.12.08 @ 01:08 PM
Wow! When Grant runs for re-election, I’m sure he can count on the votes of the homeless, the Rv dwellers and the indigent—like those in front of MacKenzie Park, next to Santa Barbara Junior High and the Armory. Question is, who else will vote for him? Residents of neighborhoods he once claimed to represent? I guess the RV dwellers don’t park up on the Riviera, so their presence is no bother to him. And Das has completely lost touch since he’s been so busy trying to get Hannah-Beth elected. Their attitude is far beyond bleeding heart. It’s just ridiculous that apparently all streets are ok for living on except where signed. Shouldn’t it be just the opposite?
» on 11.12.08 @ 01:36 PM
I’m pretty liberal and I am for furthering the cause if it is a just cause. No one is trying make poverty illegal. In fact most of the “homeless RV dwellers” like the people on the street are there by choice. For whatever reason, they
cannot conform to society norms or just choose the nomadic life. Do you think I love to work, love to pay taxes, pay utilities, fill out lease applications while landlords pour over my personal credit and make judgments on my worthiness? No, none of this is fun or easy.
The truth of the matter is that there are a lot of homeless in SB. I’ve lived all over the US and seen many homeless, but non as “in your face” as those in SB. And I’ve never been threatened by a homeless person until moving to SB. In my first 6 months of living in SB I’ve been in TWO confrontations with homeless people. The first was a guy who started yelling at me then threw down his groceries and raised his fists at me all because I would not give him any attention while I was on the cell phone. He said he was “tired of everyone treating him like that.” The second was a guy that flipped out because I hit the car horn (accidently, because it was a tight turn) near the parking space that he was resting in. He jumped up, began yelling about “everyone honking at him,” and then slammed my car door on me when I began to explain it was an accident. Was it horrible? No, but he did jam my wrist pretty bad. The funny part is that both instances occurred at Ralph’s Grocery downtown. And Ralph’s is a pretty nice, upstanding store. Believe me, I’m not a threatening person at 150lbs and 5’-7”. Nor do I have the demeanor that screams “pick on me because I’m a jerk.” And, I must admit that Ralph’s is probably the last place I would expect to have a confrontation with a homeless person. Can you imagine what some other places in SB must be like?
The point is that there seems to be a widening problem between those who work very hard to live in a safe, small town like Santa Barbara and those who prefer to live “under the radar.” If this problem is not nipped in the butt quickly then there will be more confrontations, and less people to invest in the quality lifestyle that SB offers.
There needs to be a constructive management of RV’s around the city. But like everything, it’s neither black or white. For instance, when there is a event going on the local officials are going to have to use their judgment and be more lenient on the mass of RV’s coming in town to support the community and it’s tourism. Unfortunately, the way our legal system is set up it doesn’t allow for such “on the spot” judgments.
Finally, if SB cannot afford to support the homeless, or our weather is too good to encourage the homeless to get off the street, then they need to go to another community where they can be properly looked after and supported by the local government. End of story.
» on 11.12.08 @ 02:50 PM
I’ve lived in 10 different cities accross the US and never seen as many homeless as here nor have I seen them as well treated as here. D’ya think there might be a correlation? I notice that one of the homeless families interviewed in the media came here to live in their RV because they were evicted in Ventura. So is SB to be the destination for homeless from wherever? How many of these folks are actually down-on-their-luck residents of SB and how many are “imports”. Compassion is one thing; economic and social stupidity is another. As someone said in this blog, keep raising homeless care and the numbers will continue to rise.
» on 11.12.08 @ 04:56 PM
maybe if williams and House had rv parked on their street or in front of their house they would feel differently. Anyone who deals with this problem know how bad it is.
» on 11.12.08 @ 06:29 PM
Interesting comments and surprising amount of hostility to the RV dwellers who, literally, are not homeless since their homes are their RVs. What they lack is an RV park ... except most all of Santa Barbara is that park. Like the rest of us, they like to cluster together and why not provide a park with rules like the state parks, x amount of time and then move on?
Those of us struggling to keep their jobs and or housing in this financial climate are not likely to feel sympathetic to those having endless free parking.
What are Goleta’s rules? What are Carpinteria’s rules? Is it only SB with the south coast problem?
I oppose any new law that targets or allows targeting of certain streets since all that will do is move the problem to other streets, forcing other people to either put up with the problems or troop into City Hall and complain. What was at the Ord. Comm. on Tuesday was not “a perfectly good ordinance”. The city can do better.
Interesting suggestion that the RVers should park in front of council members’ homes—but only Schneider and she reportedly with tall hedges in front, lives in a likely RV spot. The rest live in the upper east or Riviera (House) or Mesa (Falcone) or W. Mesa area (Blum).
» on 11.13.08 @ 08:01 PM
This is a blog, not a dissertation post. Some of you are writing too much, Mr. Don’t Blame it on the Liberals.
OK back to the show.. if the majority of people want an ordinance, let them have it. I would love to see what many of you have stated about parking RVs in front of the council members’ homes. You hear that stuff all the time, but no one ever does it. That would be a treat.
Solution. RVers must pay a monthly parking fee, say $1,500, the cost of the average rent. I’ll let the rest of you work out the details.
More Local News »
Phil Wyatt Builds High-Tech Company with Low-Key Approach
Wyatt Technology's founder and CEO serves as a steady guide for his staff in pinpointing a niche in laser-based instruments
Santa Barbara Airbus Picks Up and Moves to New Location
The company will have more legroom at its new home on Technology Way in Goleta
Residents Get Look at Master Plan for Santa Barbara
An open house kicks off a public-comment period designed to help shape the future of the city
Ninth Circuit Court to Rehear Goleta Rent-Control Case
The appeal on 'regulatory taking' could determine the constitutionality of the city's ordinance
Bob Wilcher: Guaranteed Weight Loss
Eat 500 fewer calories and exercise for one hour each day and enjoy the results
Weather: Fair 50.0º
Search Noozhawk »
