Santa Cruz YIMBY Calls for Safe Parking Programs instead of Towing RVs

Santa Cruz YIMBY sent an email to the Santa Cruz City Council on October 25, 2021, asking council members to reject the Oversize Vehicle Ordinance in its current form. We support elements of the ordinance including adding capacity to the safe parking program, establishing funding for vehicle repairs and registrations, and the proposed sewage dumping voucher program. We urge council to focus on keeping people safely housed in their RVs in the short term and supporting the creation of more housing options in the long term. Please read our letter below

—————

Dear Santa Cruz City Council,

Santa Cruz YIMBY seeks to build a community where our neighbors of all ages, cultures, and incomes, can make Santa Cruz County their home. In response to the ever-increasing cost of living, we advocate for more affordable housing to meet the needs of our growing population. Santa Cruz County has a staggering shortage of housing; it's devastating our workforce, causing homelessness to skyrocket, and exacerbating our climate crisis.

We write to respectfully oppose the Oversize Vehicle Ordinance as proposed by the council subcommittee, however Santa Cruz YIMBY supports the recommendations that commit the city to create additional safe parking program capacity within the city limits. Safe parking programs help provide the stability and support people need in their lives to plan for the future, to access resources, and ultimately, to become housed.

We also support the recommendation to establish funding for vehicle repairs and registrations. These are cost-effective, humane approaches to triaging a housing and shelter crisis that will reduce conflicts with housed neighbors and improve the quality of life of everyone in our community. While we also support the proposed sewage dumping voucher program, we note that there are no sewage dumping stations within the city limits of Santa Cruz. The closest sewage dumping location at the 76 gas station near Dominican Hospital cannot accommodate larger vehicles, and the sewage dumping station at New Brighton State Beach requires a credit card and park admission ($20) which does not seem compatible with the proposed voucher program. For these reasons we also encourage the city to implement the CACH recommendation of developing a sewage dumping station within the city limits.

As written, the Oversize Vehicle Ordinance provides no options for many people who live in their vehicles to legally park on public streets in the city limits. The practical effect of this ordinance will be an increase in the number of parking citations and towed vehicles, and a corresponding increase in the number of people sleeping in tents, alleys, and doorways when the city takes away the only meager shelter people have. We agree with the Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial Board when, on October 1, they wrote, “Towing vehicles parked on residential streets will just put more people on the streets, often in dangerous situations including unsanctioned camps, and further stress public health services, not to mention cops who already have their hands full dealing with the myriad problems of local homeless.”

We need our city to work to solve problems for our community, but this ordinance only makes solving those problems harder. According to a report by Police Chief Mills given at the last City Council meeting on this topic, the impound area at the Dimeo Lane facility is already at capacity with towed vehicles; not only is this policy needlessly cruel, and counter-productive, it’s also unworkable.

A Santa Cruz Sentinel article published on September 15th entitled, “Police amp up ticketing vehicles — shelter options scarce for Santa Cruz unhoused” highlights just how regressive enforcement-based ‘solutions’ to problematic vehicle dwelling can be. The reporter interviewed a man named Daniel, born and raised in Santa Cruz, who had been living in his vehicle on the streets of Santa Cruz after being displaced from the property where he lived in Boulder Creek during the CZU Complex fires. When his vehicle was towed during a city crackdown, he lost access to the work tools that were stored in his vehicle, and his means of dignified employment. Daniel is quoted as saying, “I do have everything to lose, I have no criminal record, I have no health issues but this is causing me to have some serious mental issues...From this point forward, I don’t know what to do. I’ve just been falling through the cracks ever since the fire.” Instead of making it illegal for our vehicle-dwelling unhoused neighbors like Daniel to remain in their vehicles, we need to be offering solutions that provide stability, and pathways towards permanent housing.

A news article published by Lookout on September 22nd, tells the story of 68-year old retired engineer Ron, who has been living in an RV since 2016 when he lost his home in Ben Lomond. “He bought an RV to live in, thinking it would be temporary, but even with a Section 8 housing voucher, he’s been unable to find affordable housing for years.” Many of the people who live in vehicles in our community are refugees from the housing crisis like Ron with deep roots in our community. Yet if our city implements the proposed Oversize Vehicle Ordinance, we will be criminalizing people like Ron who are victims of the housing crisis, displacing them from the community they have lived in for decades, forcing them into the elements as the winter rainy season begins, or causing them to compete for the extremely limited number of indoor shelter beds with the folks who don’t have the option of living in their RVs.

The long-term solution to housing insecurity and homelessness is more housing for everyone who needs it. Housing is a human right. The housing crisis is the foundational problem from which many of our most challenging issues stem. Housing is healthcare. Our city has a “Health In All Policies” mandate--this might as well be a “Housing In All Policies” mandate. As elected council members of a city in California, you in-fact wield significant power to address the housing shortage, because you have significant discretion over land-use in your jurisdiction. We note your record of failing to approve housing projects such as 101 Felix Street and 831 Water Street which would bring a significant number of new affordable homes to our city. 831 Water Street is a proposal that includes 140 affordable and moderate income homes, with 54 project based vouchers for people with disabilities, transition age youth, and veterans: many of those units could house people who will otherwise be filling our shelter beds or sleeping in their vehicles. By failing to approve these projects, you are contributing to our housing and homelessness crisis. You can plan for more affordable housing. In-fact, the state requires you to plan for more housing. You can be bold leaders by planning for and approving even more affordable housing than the state requires of you. You only need the will to do so.

Thank you,

Santa Cruz YIMBY Leads

Elizabeth Conlan

Henry Hooker

Kyle Kelley

Janine Roeth

Rafa Sonnenfeld