
Car campers in beach parking lots - onetimemanytime
https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/national/living-on-pennies-with-a-million-dollar-view-how-car/article_edf4971c-045a-5265-b772-b857df180d4b.html
======
ChuckMcM
I talked with a guy living in a motorhome in Mountain View California, he
works for Google. He could certainly afford an apartment but said his payments
on the motorhome are about $600 a month, and an apartment close to Google
would be $2500 a month at least, so he feels like its a free $2000 a month to
save or spend. He's fortunate that Google also has nice showers, free food,
and laundry. Things he might otherwise have to find other options for.

I can't argue with the logic. It means $24,000 a year to apply toward student
loans or what have you isn't a bad deal. And he will eventually pay off the
motorhome giving him some security there.

Sadly, most people won't talk about their situation (I tried by walking down a
road and knocking on doors) I was hoping to get a sense of how many people
were living in motorhomes because they wanted to (like the guy I talked to)
and how many were there because they felt they had no choice. I don't have any
good ideas on how to get that information.

I did enough research to know that building a small lifestyle business out of
offering black/grey water pumping and garbage collection services for the
folks who were doing this by choice was probably viable. You would need a
couple of custom trucks[1] that were capable of being mobile RV dumping
stations and a business with sewer rights to dump (the City of Sunnyvale will
license a business to have an RV dumping station on site, so starting there
would work.) I think it would be a "pump and dump" scheme that would be both
good for the neighborhood and probably make enough money to employ a few
folks.

[1] To be full service you'd probably want a fresh water tank, a propane tank,
and a sewage collection tank. Then you could dump the grey/black tanks, refill
fresh water and refill propane. Personally I think it makes way more sense
than these companies that were sending trucks out to refill your gas tank.

~~~
rhacker
Actually a better business is to start having more RV parks in the SV. The
last 5 years has been record breaking sales history for RVs. Yet the rest of
the industry (RV parks specifically) isn't catching up. Most of the people
buying RVs are now surprised that no RV parks have availability. I've watched
for the past 5 years bay area periphery cities go from having tons of space
any time of the year, to being completely full all the time, no matter what
they do to their monthly price. It's kinda crazy.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Sort of, sort of not. I agree that it would be better to create more RV parks
but the zoning issues are pretty extreme in that most cities are not big fans
of RV parks for more historical reasons than actual ones. Sunnyvale, as a
city, has preserved its mobile home parks in an effort to keep housing more
affordable.

I have an inquiry out to a developer on the cost of building a 'multi-story'
RV park. Not trying to recreate the "stacks" here (if you're a Ready Player
One fan), but wondering if you could increase the available parking spots
while not consuming additional acreage. It has to be a better use than 'public
storage' buildings.

~~~
rhacker
These fifth wheels and class As can weigh up to 24000 pounds (even if they
where never legally allowed to). A moving object at that weight would make a
multi-story RV park an architecture/safety nightmare.

I'm talking about east-bay area that still has space. Not sunnyvale.

\- Just checked out the ready player one images - holy mother of guacamole.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I agree they are heavy, and even more heavy than the bus chassis they are
built on top of, but I see that as an engineering problem right? There are bus
depot parking structures where unused commercial buses are parked. And my
civil engineering friends are fond of saying that with enough steel and
concrete you can hold up anything :-). So as a mental exercise in scaling
density by going vertical, in my sketchbook using lot "sizes" that were
similar to a KOA RV campground as a baseline (about 30' x 60' per space), an 8
story parking complex on a 5 acre lot could hold 250+ spaces.

Ok, and the idea isn't even original, see this:
[https://99percentinvisible.org/article/mobile-home-
skyscrape...](https://99percentinvisible.org/article/mobile-home-skyscrapers-
elusive-dream-vertical-urban-trailer-parks/)

~~~
Kadin
It's certainly possible, but with a lot less steel and concrete you could just
build walls and have, you know, apartments. My guess is it's easier to find
investors for that, too.

The only reason I can imagine a multi-storey RV park making sense would be to
take advantage of some weird zoning quirk or something. But that's a lot of
money to throw at what's effectively a legal vulnerability that will probably
quickly be fixed.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I don't disagree, the changes that a multi-level RV park bring are a more
flexible pricing structure, a lower cost facilities budget, and perhaps a
lower cost maintenance load.

From a cash flow perspective I started with parking garages as a business
model. The typical 'monthly parking' type garage is a concrete and steel
affair with sprinklers and elevators as its biggest operational expense, a bit
more if you add an on-site office for an attendant to capture additional
revenue from special events.

All the space that requires maintenance in an apartment building that is 'non-
apartment' doesn't exist in an RV park. You don't repaint or re-carpet, you
don't send HVAC dollars on cooling or heating, Etc.

My assumption (and I'm open minded about missing things) are that using the
ratio of comparing of a traditional RV park to a one story apartment complex
is a valid way to estimate expenses and cash flow. Then to extrapolate by
adding additional layers to the RV park. There are also different tax
treatments but I suspect that if the difference there appears to exploitable
that it will be quickly changed.

The biggest complaint about RV parks are that they are RV parks and they are
an "eyesore". By enclosing the park you can improve the optics, and by
increasing the density you grow the ROI relative to an apartment by the cost
ratio. But is it a $5M project, a $10M project, or a $25M project that I don't
know yet. And while a casual polling of city folks about which would they
prefer, RV's parked on the street or parked in an externally attractive
structure set aside for them, polls favorably, it isn't clear that is enough
to get final approval.

~~~
pjeide
Put the RV parks underground and pump in fresh air and fiber-optic daylight.

------
djakjxnanjak
Our public policy often chooses to subsidize free parking by making large
chunks of land available for free use by automobiles.

Modern technology allows permanent structures to be much more space-efficient
for housing by building many stories high. However, the use of such technology
is often banned and structures are limited to one or two stories. Also, even
for one-story structures, rules often require eg. 6000 sqft of land to be used
for a 1500 sqft house. These rules all result in significant surplus land
wealth being required (or expensively rented) for people to obtain permanent
housing.

Is it any wonder that, faced with these constraints, people are choosing to
live in one-story homes on free land? Government policy is practically begging
for it.

~~~
lstodd
And this "technology" is banned for the right reasons.

It is demonstrably harmful to the enviroment, physical and mind health and the
society in general.

I'm all for this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtSf69vjrVM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtSf69vjrVM)

~~~
sankumsek
Do you have a source for that? Not disagreeing, but I'd be very interested in
reading up on how a high-rise might negatively impact my health seeing as I
live in one right now.

~~~
lstodd
Source? Hah. My life.

I lived most of it in the high-rises, and not slums at all. "Respectable
neighbourhoods".

I'm not talking about slums.

I pity the people who choose to live in those anthills.

I hate people who advocate to force other people to live in those.

I'm talking about overcrowding. Not enough private space, not enough public
space, not enough transport. And it's a death trap if something goes just
slightly wrong with the infrastructure. Have you witnessed shit fountains out
of you r toilet? I did. Have you seen what a gas explosion does to those? A
section or three just collapses, top to bottom, and everyone there is dead.
What if water mains gets cut off because the electricity cut off and so there
are no lifts? What if it's 15F outsite and the heaters die?

This is no way to live.

~~~
djakjxnanjak
Nobody is trying to force someone to live in a high-rise. If more people are
in high-rises, that leaves more room for everyone else who doesn’t live in
one.

------
HeWhoLurksLate
> _In December, Cheatham, her children and their father qualified for a three-
> bedroom, two-bathroom house in Mountain View._

> _The couple isn’t completely reconciled, but they came together to provide a
> roof — one that’s not welded to a chassis — over their children’s heads._

> _“We’re working things out,” said Cheatham, 37. “The most important thing is
> to have a stable place for our kids.”_

It's amazing to me to see / hear of parents, who _even after disagreeing badly
enough to divorce_ , are able to come together to care for their children.
It's hard for me to even fathom how much work and humility that would take.
That they were willing to talk to each other at all is, in its own right,
remarkable.

I have been fortunate enough to have always lived in a secure home, and I've
never needed to sleep in a car out of necessity- the only times I've _gone
camping_ are as a Boy Scout (okay, Scouts BSA member), when a warm shower was
only a day or two away. As for the policies: Cars are, besides being a little
awkward to sleep in, a lot more secure than a tent is (and more fireproof, to
boot). With the understanding that all it takes is one mistake for a poor
family to become an even poorer, homeless family, I feel like a lot of these
"parking overnight, or being homeless = vagrance = illegal = fines" laws can
be a little out of touch- they're generally written by college-educated
_politicians_ , many of whom have never had to do anything of the like, and
who don't understand that a $50 fine _when you can 't even pay rent_ is really
bad.

Why does it seem to be that we, at least in America, punish the poor for being
poor, instead of, or even at the same time that we try to help them up?

~~~
jethro_tell
>Why does it seem to be that we, at least in America, punish the poor for
being poor, instead of, or even at the same time that we try to help them up?

I think that's the natural consequence of having spent years pushing the idea
that being poor is a personal choice or a lack of character. Once you make the
connection that it's directly linked to a lack of character, you can be
punitive instead of providing a safety net, and punitive is much cheaper for
those of us with high moral character.

~~~
klank
> and punitive is much cheaper for those of us with high moral character.

I didn't understand this assertion. Could you expand on it a bit?

~~~
binarysolo
The commenter is just being sarcastic. It's easier to penalize others and
self-justify than to care and help others.

~~~
some1else
[https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/sefSmiley.htm](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/sefSmiley.htm)
:-)

~~~
imtringued
I propose a technological solution to this problem: HN needs a sarcasm
checkbox on each comment.

~~~
jessaustin
Yes that will really help those of us who can't read English.

------
envoked
I had a stint of about six months when I lived in a camper and worked full-
time as an engineer. I was amazed at the kinds of places I could get away with
staying for free (coast in oregon, ski resorts, national forests). I would
drive around public lands looking for LTE on verizon/AT&T and then post up for
days.

It wasn't without its precarity. Sometimes I'd get woken up by sheriffs at
2AM, have mechanical issues, and generally struggled to conform and relate to
friends and coworkers. Also, sleeping in SF was terrible. Buses waking you up
at 2am, and after meeting others living living in their vans on Division due
to hardship, I couldn't help but feel guilty and privileged in my solar
paneled, cassette toiled equipped, expedition vehicle. People would joke that
I was gentrifying the streets.

Eventually I sold it and moved on. Worthwhile experience though.

------
breatheoften
I rented one of those expensive Ocean Beach ocean-view houses right by the
parking lot they are talking about for a few months once. I've also lived out
of a van in San Diego for some range of years (I used to do Oceanographic
research and traveled 3-5 months a year). I quite literally have lived both
sides of this story -- although I never once stayed in the parking lot in
question in my van. I honestly can't imagine why anyone would want to stay in
a van in that parking lot -- it is much too exposed and intrusive both in
terms of the outside world coming in and in your inside world going out. It
would also be very annoying to comply with the parking requirements ...

I think regulation to provide a path to legality for people to van dwell
should happen but it should also take into account the needs of the
communities and home-dwellers in an area. I never parked overnight in
residential areas -- it seems to me a strange van parked overnight in a
neighborhood could easily impact somebody who lived nearby, especially if they
saw someone climbing in or out. Making someone nervous when they go for a walk
in their own neighborhood is more than high enough cost to be worth avoiding.

The reality though is that there is a _lot_ of space in a most American cities
that _nobody uses at night_ -- and its often not far from desirable places to
be. Opening up small pockets of space sufficiently close to desirable
locations for legal and safe use by van dwellers, in conjunction with other
regulatory approaches (special vehicle registration, possibly even innovation
via things like ODBC-gps appliances to allow local municipalities to collect
van-dwelling taxes) could really curtail the negative effects residents
experience while also enabling people the freedom to pursue the lifestyles
they are already pursuing ...

Its possible to do all of (1) limit impact of van dwellers on communities (2)
make van dwelling safer and more convenient (3) keep costs of van-dwelling
lower than traditional housing and viable for people on a range of incomes

~~~
pjeide
OBD-II :)

~~~
breatheoften
That's the one! I really hope that ODBC is not introduced as a required part
of vehicle safety regulations!

------
jasoncartwright
Here it is on the wayback machine for EU users getting a 451 error.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20190322180054/https://www.baker...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190322180054/https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/national/living-
on-pennies-with-a-million-dollar-view-how-
car/article_edf4971c-045a-5265-b772-b857df180d4b.html)

~~~
isostatic
So either

    
    
      1) They are targetting EU users and serving to EU users and thus the block is pointless
      2) They aren't targetting EU users and thus the block is pointless

~~~
tzs
Or (1) they aren't sure if they would count as targeting EU users, because the
rules are fuzzy and might be interpreted differently by each country's
regulators, and (2) they don't have any need to target EU users since their
content, and their monetization, is mostly of interest to non-EU users.

In that situation, there are two cautious ways to proceed.

One approach is to assume that you might be targeting EU users and so comply
with GDPR. Even if you aren't doing anything with data that would make
compliance hard, this is somewhat annoying because GDPR requires that you have
a representative _in_ the Union as a point of contact for users and
regulators.

The other approach is to make a good faith effort to block EU users.

If you have little or no income directly or indirectly from EU users, the
second approach has a lot to recommend it, especially until there is a good
body of regulatory rulings on what GDPR actually means.

------
homerhomer
I'm against live-in vehicles and this life-style choice. On paper it sounds
fine but in reality horrible for many reasons. For the most part, people in
this situation are in a challenging state and the least of their worries is
the environment around them. Is a mother of 2 living in a small RV who relies
on donations going to pay for disposal service?

I live in Portland, a city that used to known for being a clean city. In the
last 8 years we have had a large increase of car live-in residents and
homeless population. I would not call Portland a clean city anymore. In-fact
it's far from it. Homeless make up about 3% of the population, but according
to a recent article they make up half of the arrests. Personally I've had car
camping people outside of my house and we've been afraid of retaliation for
call them in and try not to make contact.

I understand that these people have nowhere to go, but cities should create a
homeless car shelter of sorts or some other solution other than just hoping
for the best of people living on the edge.

2011 article on how clean Portland is(was) -
[http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/308068](http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/308068)

RV issue in Portland -[https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/portland-
neighbors-fe...](https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/portland-neighbors-
fed-up-with-abandoned-rvs/431476525) Homeless issue
-[https://katu.com/news/local/neighbors-say-theyre-getting-
now...](https://katu.com/news/local/neighbors-say-theyre-getting-nowhere-with-
city-on-homeless-camp-cleanup) Half of the Police arrests are Homeless -
[https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2018/07/portland_mayor_t...](https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2018/07/portland_mayor_ted_wheeler.html)

~~~
save_ferris
This comes off as super NIMBYish.

The rise of this lifestyle is a direct result of rising inequality in our
society. Yeah, that mother of 2 living in a vehicle probably has way bigger
problems than paying for disposal service. But people utilizing services they
can't pay for is what concerns you, not the fact that so many people are in
such dire financial straits that living in a car makes economic sense.

~~~
throwawaysea
Use of the word "NIMBY", which is clearly a pejorative, is not an argument. I
don't see why that diminishes the parent comment at all.

The rise of this lifestyle is a direct result of people feeling entitled. Take
the musician in the article ("Lily"). She's trying to make a career in indie
rock, playing local gigs. That can't be your full-time job unless you are
exceptionally talented, to a degree where others value your
creation/contributions enough to pay you a lot for it. This takes more than
just musical talent - it requires experience, marketing, networking, business,
and other skills. And it is of course, a highly-competitive line of work -
after all, who wouldn't want their work to also be their passion.

Lily lived in Nashville before, which is a lot more affordable than California
cities like San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc. San Diego is a full
55% pricier than Nashville
([https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/moving-cost-
of-...](https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/moving-cost-of-living-
calculator.aspx)). So in effect, Lily made a conscious choice to move to a
pricier area without having a plan for how to live there. A responsible way of
making that move would be to work for a few years in Nashville, build up
savings, identify jobs in your destination that pay enough, and then make the
move.

What gives Lily the right to expect she'd be accommodated in whatever city she
moves to? If her work is not producing enough earning to pay for housing
locally, it is because her work is not valued by society to a great enough
extent to live in a very desirable (and thus expensive) area. I don't think
the local community is obligated to provide lower-cost housing (either through
subsidy or greater supply) to enable her choices, which squarely fall under
the realm of "personal responsibility".

------
driverdan
I've been living in a shuttle bus I converted for almost two years. I'm
fortunate enough for it to be a choice, many aren't as fortunate. I'm better
equipped than an RV, hot and cold water, toilet, shower, 1600W of solar, AC,
standing desk workstation.

I'm very respectful of others. I never park overnight in front of a house and
don't like parking in one street spot for more than 12h. I often pick up trash
in the area I park.

For those who complain about us, keep in mind there is a minority of assholes
in every population. Don't judge everyone by the assholes.

Feel free to ask me anything.

~~~
hawkesnest
It seems like most van conversions are optimized to be inconspicuous. It's no
schoolie, but a shuttle bus is certainly more eye-catching than an Econoline.
Do you have issues blending in or getting additional (unwanted) attention?

~~~
driverdan
My bus is very obvious. In general it hasn't been a problem. I had someone
complain once when I was parked somewhere I shouldn't have been but didn't
know.

------
newnewpdro
It's great that this law has been struck down as unconstitutional.

I've slept in my car numerous times along the PCH in the past, and in SoCal
it's particularly irritating how much CHP harrasses folks just trying to get
some shut-eye on a road trip.

I've had CHP wake me at 3AM then force me to drive half asleep down a winding
cliff-top road I had pulled over specifically to avoid driving sleepily down.

But I fully expect there to be new laws introduced to prevent these streets
from becoming trailer parks. The judge already criticized the vagueness,
they'll just get more specific targeting persistent occupancies.

The concern for sanitation is very legitimate. Especially for folks in cars
and vans, there's no holding tank infrastructure in these vehicles. A person
spending a day somewhere in a car with no public restrooms nearby is either
urinating in a bottle or on the ground. And if in a bottle, the bottle is very
likely getting emptied on the ground nearby.

Even people in RVs and campers have fairly limited holding capacity. It
doesn't take much laziness to exhaust the capacity and regress into the same
pattern of a car/van-dweller. Not to mention those systems are failure-prone
and often neglected because who wants to do maintenance on a sewage system?

------
wiseleo
It's amazing how little I truly need. I haven't paid rent since 2015 by
choice. I can afford it, but see no reason to. I went to a camping store and
bought the most comfortable air sleeping pad and other gear. My 4" thick
sleeping pad is more comfortable than my bed. My total spend was less than
$500.

While working on my software, I make money as a field engineer. I drive to my
next client and just park nearby overnight. To the rest of the world, my
minivan looks like any other parked vehicle. It's not an RV, so it's
completely invisible. There are no signs I am there after I convert the
interior into sleep mode. Since I have no commute, I don't waste fuel or time
in rush hour traffic.

You would never know I do this unless I told you. :)

I met many others like me, usually by fixing their car.

~~~
saagarjha
Where do eat and bathe?

~~~
wiseleo
Gym membership to 24hour fitness. I have another $20/mo membership for Planet
Fitness, for its massage chairs and in case I am in a state like Arizona
without 24, but 24 is everywhere in California. 2 years for $650 at Costco.
That's 2000+ options nationwide. Do a workout, go for a swim at 24 and chill
in a massage chair at PF while my equipment recharges. :)

Eat? Wherever. I have plenty of money.

------
IronWolve
Van Life is becoming super popular, not just for the homeless, but for a
generation of people who want to live on a limited income and travel. Theres
people building out buses/vans and living in california, working tech, banking
their money to retire early. About 20 years ago, I was working at ATT and we
had contractors living in their travel trailers parked in the work parking lot
at our datacenters, so its not a new occurance.

The big thing I found interesting was the lawsuit angle that it discrimination
for disabled homeless, that living in a tent is legal, but living in an RV is
illegal. RV's and Tents are spreading all around major cities, its getting
quite bad up here in Seattle, tourists are mentioning it all the time, its
visibile from the highways.

~~~
ip26
_Van Life is becoming super popular_

I'm as intrigued as the next outdoors-loving fellow, but is it actually "super
popular"? Do that many people, proportionately, take up van life? I suspect in
the big picture it's still extremely niche, especially if you drill down to
just people who are voluntary van dwellers.

~~~
creeble
Yes,mit's getting pretty popular.

I read Nomadland by Jessica Bruder earlier this year. A significant number of
baby-boomers have taken to the road, often because of a lack of retirement
funds.

Having gotten a travel trailer 18 mos ago and travelled a bit in CAlifornia,
it's amazing what you see when your eyes are tuned to it a bit.

------
throwawaysea
This whole camping trend, whether on beaches or in parks or on other public
property, makes no sense to me. Society is built on the expectation of
protected property (reserved for certain uses), enforcement of laws (such as
litter laws), and earning of privileges (rather than feeling entitled to live
wherever one wants). I don't think it is fair that law-abiding residents who
pay taxes and have worked to earn those pricey homes can have their public
amenities, which are meant for day-use, instead crowded-up by transient
residents. It just defies common sense.

In Seattle, we see the effects of similar permissive laws all around us.
Property crime has gone up significantly alongside our recent lax enforcement
of littering laws and due to the allowance of "urban camping". We have induced
a large homeless population from elsewhere due to our permissiveness - even
from cities immediately next door ([https://q13fox.com/2019/02/26/did-federal-
way-bus-its-homele...](https://q13fox.com/2019/02/26/did-federal-way-bus-its-
homeless-to-seattle/)). The rise of RVs taking up parking spaces is another
problem - it is essentially freeloading off of spaces meant for use by
residents of that neighborhood and for temporary day-use. And of course, these
RVs are a blight - they are often in shoddy condition, they make the
neighborhood look less safe, and they leave trash all around them (or worse,
sewage runoff). Many have needles around them and are clearly used to deal
drugs. With burglaries happening often, I can't tell you how anxiety-inducing
it can be to have someone pitch a tent on the sidewalk in front of your home,
camping there all day everyday, watching all residents' movements, etc. This
city used to be beautiful and it is trended towards a trashy Mad Max like
situation.

I don't agree with arguments that this is due to cost of housing or supply
issues. This is due to people feeling entitled. If one can't afford to live in
some area, then they should consider finding a different area to live in, or a
different line of work that enables them to live in that area. No one is
entitled to live wherever they want, doing whatever job they want (e.g. the
musician quoted in the article), at whatever wages they are able to earn in
that job. That's simply not tenable. There are plenty of affordable places in
America where people can make a living and thrive. And yes, it may require
that you look outside of the most-desirable locations, or that you do work
that isn't your "passion", but that type of compromise is simply a part of
life.

~~~
kelp
I have a lot of sympathy for your argument that this problem is making it
worse for everyone. I live in SOMA in San Francisco and regularly encounter
many of the issues you describe. It makes the quality of living worse for the
whole neighborhood, and I do think it is in part caused by very lax rules
about what is acceptable in public spaces.

That said, I think you under-estimate how hard it is for someone to move once
they are experiencing homelessness. I doubt the majority of people in this
situation are doing to to pursue a music career...

This isn't about entitlement.

If your only option is to live in a van, your day to day existence is going to
be very stress-full trying to scratch out enough income for your basic needs,
and parking tickets, impound, etc could put you into an even worse spot that
you can't recover from.

The idea that you should just up and move to a cheaper place to live sounds
reasonable on the surface. But imagine all you have is that Van, you don't
have enough money for any major repairs, let alone hundreds of dollars in gas
to get to some cheaper place. You don't have a network there, and you don't
know your way around, so what are your job prospects?

The reality is that when you're living this close to the edge, you're only
thinking day to day, because you're always one problem away from ending up in
an even worse situation. Packing up and going some place cheaper is far from a
viable option.

Finally, most people who are now homeless in an area were previously housed in
that area, so they probably know people there. They may also have some kind of
public benefit, and have some clue about how to navigate that system. Packing
up and leaving, especially to another state, starts them back at zero.

------
wil421
Why are some of these people staying in California? These people have cars and
jobs. Why would they stay in a place they can’t afford to live? There are
plenty of places in the US that have lower costs of living or better services
for the impoverished and disabled.

Not to mention the mother was going to college for acting while her 3 kids
were living in a cockroach and bugbed infested car. Talk about priorities,
there are plenty of majors people can take that actually have the prospect of
a positive income.

------
lesdeuxmagots
I lived in a van I converted for about 18 months, purely by choice. I had been
living in luxury high rises in SF for many years before , excepting the 6
months I spent living in a house in South Bay while converting the van, and
afterwards in on campus housing when I went back to graduate school
afterwards.

My van was nicer than may of the places one could rent around the bay area.
Oak floors, oak countertops, modern high end sink and faucet, designer light
switches, high gloss push open cabinets (with electromagnetic locks when in
motion).

I did it because I wanted to build something and I had the time to do it
nights and weekends while working. There's nothing like learning multiple
disciplines from woodworking to electrical, from insulation to plumbing, and
applying it all to create something physical and comprehensive.

I parked mostly in my company parking lot during the weekdays. On the
weekends, I parked in the Mission, where many others in vans did as well. In
SF, it was clear that I was abusing a public good, but couldn't easily find a
way around it. I would have happily paid for a monthly parking spot if there
was one around the area, but there was no monthly surface parking available in
the area.

I don't think van life is an answer to the untenable housing situation in
california. It's a niche lifestyle, unsuitable and undesirable for most.
However, I do think we need to get over this obsession with space. Space
efficiency is something so entirely foreign to most Americans. Having excess
space is culturally desired and fetishized. This is a cultural phenomenon, not
necessarily good or bad. In a less densely populated region, having extra
space is not a luxury. However, when space is so sparse, I do think we could,
as a culture, benefit from a shift towards loving space efficiency more.

------
momentmaker
There is whole subculture for this: #vanlife

It's rather interesting. I had considered this lifestyle too. Freedom to roam.
Digital nomad.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/vandwellers/](https://www.reddit.com/r/vandwellers/)

------
therubberduckie
>(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

Looks like someone forgot to proofread.

~~~
mikepurvis
Looks like it's a story that came in from a wire service, particularly since
the writer and story are both from San Diego, but this is an LA publication.

I guess that's the risk of just mindlessly hooking up your CMS to someone
else's feed.

(Yup, there are lots of other hits for this exact story published elsewhere;
other publications seem to have done a better job filtering out these notes to
the editor:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22to+leave+its+usual+spot+i...](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22to+leave+its+usual+spot+in+a+public+parking+lot+beside+the+sand+dunes+of+Ocean+Beach%22))

~~~
ascorbic
This seems to be the original. It even has a picture!
[https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-
safety/sd-m...](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/sd-me-
living-and-parking-at-the-beach-20190317-story.html)

~~~
Jaruzel
Another 451 anti-EU block. ^sigh^

Here's the wayback link for us poor Europeans:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20190322191045/https://www.sandi...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190322191045/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-
safety/sd-me-living-and-parking-at-the-beach-20190317-story.html)

~~~
disgruntledphd2
I read about the status code this week, but this is the first time I've seen
one in the wild.

------
ascorbic
Could the link be changed to the original article?
[https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-
safety/sd-m...](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/sd-me-
living-and-parking-at-the-beach-20190317-story.html)

------
travbrack
Really disappointed there aren't any pictures

~~~
IshKebab
They aren't just going to give a million dollar view away for nothing!

------
veryworried
I don't need to live in a van, but I _have_ thought about building out a van
that I could drive around the country to different cities and then leave there
and fly home. This way, if I ever wanted to fly out to that city on a whim I'd
already have a place to stay. Might even be useful to have two such vehicles
on opposite ends of the country.

I'd probably keep some cameras hooked up so I could drop in and see what's
going on around the van remotely, and maybe a server I could ssh into and run
some commands for the vehicle.

Only question is finding suitable places to park it that don't require a long
commitment.

~~~
newnewpdro
I think anywhere you could park a vehicle unattended for extended periods
without fees/fines you could probably afford to buy a small plot of
undeveloped land in cash instead. Then just build some small utility
structures on your properties, they'll be more comfortable than a vehicle (and
you could park vehicles on them if desired, without concerns for tickets).

It's a far better investment IMHO, and as the years go by you may find
yourself slowly adding infrastructure and before you know it you have multiple
small off-grid homes.

Also keep in mind a small shed requires a lot less maintenance than an
automobile to serve its purpose. Leaving automobiles unused for months or
years tends to break them. A shed needs a coat of paint or shingles replaced
occasionally (corrugated metal roofs last > 50 years).

------
jedberg
Even back in 1999, rents were already high in the are compared to the rest of
country. When I got my first job, rents for a 1br place were about $1,000/mo
near Emeryville, where my job was. But it turns out boat payments were only
about $525/mo. I did serious research and almost bought a boat, until I found
out you aren't allowed to sleep on your boat in the dock without a special
permit, and the waitlist for that permit was 10 years.

I supposed I could have floated out in the Bay every night, but I suspect that
would have made my costs go up significantly from the extra maintenance and
fuel.

But the point is, California seems to be very against alternate forms of
housing, and this isn't a new thing.

------
joe_the_user
It seems like an organized approach to homelessness that allowed vehicle
camping but put systematic restrictions on it could be fairly effective. There
could even be something like a "white list" where people could apply for a
camping permit and have it revoked for bad behavior.

Of course, you could also allow camps on private property with provisions to
meet basic health and conditions.

Both these measures would undermine the scarcity of housing itself, which goes
against the interests of both landlords and homeowners. So I doubt either will
happen soon.

~~~
scythe
People living in cars isn't so bad if they run on electricity. But having
people heating their "homes" with a size-optimized ICE burning gasoline is
terrible for air quality. Car engines aren't designed to be heaters.

I had imagined at one point having parking garages constructed for this very
purpose to be used as homeless shelters.

~~~
joe_the_user
Obviously, if you were allowing camping in a regulated fashion, you would want
to require motorhomes designed for the purpose of camping. These usually have
propane furnaces.

There would be quite a few considerations. I would pretty say that these
hypothetically could be worked but in reality those who just didn't want this
at all would object and the situation could never happen in modern reality.

------
mirimir
For EU users:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20190322233025/https://www.baker...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190322233025/https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/national/living-
on-pennies-with-a-million-dollar-view-how-
car/article_edf4971c-045a-5265-b772-b857df180d4b.html)

------
ReinholdNiebuhr
Just an idea that popped up. One could probably develop a couchsurfing/airbnd
style app so to speak where people with rvs/motorhomes could find rental spots
to go hook up for the night. That probably wouldn't do much for people short
on money, but it could be helpful for people traveling around the country and
finding that RV parks have no vacancy. Just a thought.

~~~
envoked
Not a super hip site but boondockerswelcome.com has been around for a while.
It seems mostly targeted toward the boomer/florida snowbird crowd.

~~~
ReinholdNiebuhr
Neat. Thanks for sharing. If you look at airbnd, vrbo was around before just
wasnt marketed the same way. So there probably is room for an additional
competitor etc. Especially if done right.

------
mikeryan
Living in Berkeley/Oakland area I'm torn on this one we have a growing problem
with tent encampments (in SF too) I don't know if this is anything but a
cosmetic solution but its an interesting tact allowing people to overnight in
vehicles.

~~~
onetimemanytime
sucks for your property value. No one with a $million home wants a camp near
it, lets be honest. The govt can move the hot potatoes around until someone
gets stuck with it. I wonder what this does for crime rates?

~~~
seem_2211
Well maybe if the people with their million dollar homes let some more housing
be built in the general area (shock & horror) there wouldn't be this problem.

This is largely a self inflicted problem that California has caused for
itself.

------
newshorts
my wife and i ran the numbers on living out of a van in Silicon Valley but
found with a gym membership and the temptation to eat out all the time, we
probably wouldn’t save as much as we thought. Van life is tempting though, the
thought of saving an extra 24k per year sounds like the right path to eventual
home ownership (obviously not anywhere near the valley).

------
akerro
> 451: Unavailable due to legal reasons

> We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country
> belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which
> enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access
> cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact
> webmaster@bakersfield.com or call (661) 395-7500.

Another reason to support article 11, 13 or 17.

~~~
ucaetano
How could those possibly solve the problem? They won't remove the cost of
complying with GDPR.

[Edit: sorry, I didn't get the sarcasm :) ]

~~~
akerro
It was sarcasm, all 3 articles once implemented on EU scale will make web even
worse than GDPR made it.

~~~
blunte
Only when the politicians have a low enough average age that they actually use
computers themselves (and find out how unusable the web is already) will they
possible revise or eliminate the restrictions.

One big problem with tech regulation right now, particular that which involves
the internet, is that the old farts making the rules are barely skilled enough
to send emails. Not only do they have no concept of how they're ruining
things, but they don't have to suffer the consequences.

Imagine if every time they changed the channel on their TV, they had to stop
and drive a cursor to _somewhere_ on the screen to find the correct button to
press to get past the popup and watch the channel they were hoping to watch.

~~~
ucaetano
Yep, there is a divide between the old people in power who know economics,
markets and regulation but have no idea how "technology" works, and the young
voters who understand the technology, but without an understanding of how the
economics work.

~~~
blunte
I think you're much too generous. You can look at political decisions in most
countries and see that politicians don't, on average, understand economics.
For that matter, a great many economic theories (which are often presented as
facts) don't hold up when tested.

In summary, economics is hard. But making something (internet/web)
increasingly unusable is just pure ignorance.

~~~
ucaetano
> I think you're much too generous.

Oh, definitely! Those in power don't understand that much of economics, and
those voting don't really understand that much of technology.

------
simonebrunozzi
Tried to visit the site from Europe:

451: Unavailable due to legal reasons We recognize you are attempting to
access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area
(EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues,
contact webmaster@bakersfield.com or call (661) 395-7500.

~~~
RoadieRoller
[https://web.archive.org/web/20190322182840/https://www.baker...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190322182840/https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/national/living-
on-pennies-with-a-million-dollar-view-how-
car/article_edf4971c-045a-5265-b772-b857df180d4b.html)

~~~
HenryBemis
I respect their (bakersfield.com) right to piss all over the regulation of 500
million people, and respectfully decide to ignore them and equally blacklist
them.

GDOR is the mitigating effor after years of abusing Safe Harbor both by state
agents as well as from private companies. Instead of fixing their deal, they
prefer to black list EU? Seriously?

Go .... yourself, and I am returning the favor of black listing you 'dear'
bakersfield.com. I know that this is not the first site to do this, but to
give us this really shitty behaviour is just plain rude and arrogant.

~~~
wildrhythms
Can you blame them? EU traffic probably accounts for a tiny fraction of their
overall traffic. Rather than pay their (probably minuscule) engineering team
to fix it, bakersfield.com probably ran the numbers are realized it would cost
much less to just not serve traffic to the EU.

I'm sure this is hugely annoying and unexpected for EU visitors, but you gotta
understand that you are not obligated to use their website, and the website is
not obligated to serve its content to you.

~~~
DanBC
They don't need to do anything, they're not covered by GDPR.

It's a shame they're losing traffic because they chose to believe people
spreading lies and misinformation.

------
jordache
until you have to take a dump...

------
_ZeD_

        451: Unavailable due to legal reasons
    
        We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging
        to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the
        General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be
        granted at this time. For any issues, contact webmaster@bakersfield.com
        or call (661) 395-7500.
    
    

fuck you.

------
ryandrake
> “If you allow people to sleep in their vehicles, you will eventually have
> open camping all along our view corridors“

Reminds me of the whole Vinod Khosla drama up in NorCal [1]. Seems like
muscling in on access to a beautiful view / beach and trying to gatekeep it is
a common pastime for more than one wealthy Californian.

1: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/technology/california-
bea...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/technology/california-beach-access-
khosla.html)

~~~
ip26
It's terribly phrased, but shanty towns present a host of problems no matter
where they are.

