We at the No Place To Go Project brought this RV Ordinance proposal to you to serve people who cannot find or afford housing. It’s not their fault they’re unhoused. It’s the fault of a society that is willing to tolerate people living in their cars, living on the ground and in other places not fit for human habitation.

We watched you celebrate a “compromise” March 10. You didn’t compromise with us. This is not your ordinance. It is the people of Nevada County’s ordinance. Your own 2025 survey revealed 72% of your constituents support allowing people to live in RVs and trailers, yet you appear to be more responsive to the minority opposition who have no actual stake in this other than their own self-informed self-interests and mostly imaginary fears.

The actual stakeholders – tenants and landlords – are not served by this ordinance.

While we understand you are bound by law to require certain health & safety  standards and other codes, you have imposed two entirely arbitrary and restrictive conditions that are dealbreakers for us:

• Two-year permit renewal and inspection with fees ranging up to $350.

• Only allowing people whose income is below 50% of the of the AMI (area median income) to live in RVs and trailers.

Led by the No Place To Go Project, a social justice nonprofit for unhoused, homeless and at-risk people, Nevada County citizens have rallied in peaceful, democratic support of housing for the people (tenants) by the people (property owners). We urge you to listen to your constituents.

Our intent was to make it easy to live in RVs on private property because they comprise the only truly affordable housing currently available – and because an estimated several thousand folks already live in them because that’s the only housing they could find or afford. It’s a proven solution for our homeless/housing crisis.

The problem with two-year renewal

Removes incentive for tenants to invest in property improvements that are a waste of time, effort and money if they’re at risk of being forced to move after two years.

Two-years is not enough time for low-income tenants to save enough money to afford other, more expensive living conditions, much less to save for a down payment on property or a house.

The possibility of having to move after two years imposes a psychological and financial hardship on already stressed-out residents.

There is no place to go that is comparably affordable or “better” than an RV. In fact, it is often more expensive and less desirable.

If a sunset must be imposed, it must not be an arbitrary date. It must be based on data-driven affordable housing availability.

It is highly unlikely that there will be enough available, affordable housing in two years.

Per an informed source, renewal inspections and fees every two years could cost tenant/landlord as much as $350.

There are absolutely no incentives to landlords or tenants to voluntarily seek a permit from the county. Many people will be willing to take the risk of living underground. Landlords would be free to be slumlords and exploit desperate tenants.

The problem with income restriction

To restrict to people below 50% of AMI (Area Median Income) eliminates the affordable opportunity to people who need to keep their housing costs low so they can, among other things:

• Pay off debt and build credit

• Save to buy property or a house

• Invest in their business, art, sport, charity

• Live within their means

• Pay for college or training

Making landlords demand proof of low income (less than 50% of Area Median Income) from tenants is a  burden on landlords and an invasion of privacy of tenants.

A modest increase in income could force tenants out of the only housing they can afford because rents are so high and scarce that they wouldn’t qualify for any form of housing. They could be forced into homelessness by making too much to live in a trailer but not enough to live anywhere else.

If the county or developers invested serious money into the construction of affordable housing, it might be reasonable to restrict tenants to those whose income is less than 50%.

This ordinance, however, does not require construction or investment by the county. As advocated by the No Place To Go Project, this ordinance should be open to anyone who wishes to live in an RV without income restrictions or periodic inspections.

The ordinance ignores reality

This ordinance will effectively discourage and prevent new RV housing. The people who will be most affected by the ordinance are those who are already living in RVs and who are the subject of a Code Compliance complaint. The ordinance completely ignores this reality.

Will people already in RVs be grandfathered in? Will they be given time to comply? Will they be given assistance? If tenants  must move because the property owner doesn’t want to – or can’t – comply with arbitrarily prohibitive restrictions, fees and inspections, will tenants be offered comparable, legal housing?

Reasons for the ordinance

This ordinance is not trying to change Nevada County culture. It’s trying to preserve it against gentrification. Many successful, long-term citizens started out in alternative housing. We are a rural county where this kind of low-income housing has long been the norm. The opposition wants to eliminate entry-level and last-resort housing. To be against this ordinance is to be against our cherished rural culture.

This isn’t an ordinance about housing. It’s about people. According to UC San Francisco, lack of affordable housing is the main cause of homelessness because of low wages and high rents. To be against this ordinance is to support the status quo of homelessness.

The county’s motto of Live, Work and Play in Nevada County rings hollow when there is no housing for low-wage and fixed income residents.

Some people become homeless because of addiction and mental disorders. Some people become addicts or mentally ill because of being homeless. Housing is health care.

We have a housing crisis. It may not be an emergency for you, but it’s a daily disaster for unhoused people. Allowing people to live in RVs & trailers is a right-here, right now mitigation. There is no other initiative out there that offers a better option as quickly and inexpensively. A three-year waiting list is not housing.

Living in an RV is not a “hardship.” Living in a car or a tent or your ex-husband’s couch (real-life incident) is a hardship.

This ordinance is for unhoused young people, students, emerging entrepreneurs, self-employed/freelance creatives, low-wage essential workers, single-parent & low-income families, elderly & disabled, and other at-risk folks.

This ordinance is not for chronically homeless street people who pose the risk of drugs, violence and property damage. We have a separate safe-camp plan to assist them in becoming housing ready.

This ordinance is for permanent housing, not Airbnbs. This is housing for locals, not tourists. Short-term rentals are disruptive to neighborhoods. We recommend minimum rental term of 90 days, not 30.

Because we have a housing crisis, we must redefine Alt/RV housing because that is the only near-term mitigation of this crisis.

With a simple redefinition of housing, RVs & trailers can be right-now housing for low-income people and could meet RHNA requirements – which are not being met now.

Just because the state and regional housing authority don’t currently recognize RVs & trailers as housing doesn’t mean that can’t be changed in response to the immediate need to mitigate our housing crisis.

Even if RVs are not currently recognized under RHNA, legalizing RVs still would create safe, affordable dwelling units for unhoused people. The idea is to get people safely inside regardless of whether it qualifies as “housing” for statistical purposes.

Nevada County is not risking. It’s leading. We have the opportunity to show other counties and the state how to significantly impact the rural homeless/housing crisis. It’s not a total solution, but it is meaningful action.

RVs & trailers are just another form of ADU. They should not be treated any differently. The tiny homes on wheels ordinance has already established that.

RVs &trailers that are legal in trailer parks should be legal on private property if they meet the same or equivalent health & safety standards as a trailer park. RVs on private property must not be held to a higher standard than what is allowed in trailer/mobile home parks.

The RV Ordinance is a rural solution, not an urban one.

Property rights

Your property rights end at your property line. You do not own the view, and you do not have the right to dictate what your neighbor legally does on her property.

Many property owners feel it is their right to rent an RV responsibly on their property. The county should not deny that right. It should defend it.

Realtors are split on whether this ordinance threatens property value. Some feel it enhances it. They use it as a sales point.

A Nevada County Economic Resource Council meeting on housing revealed that about half the board members felt renting was the only way people could afford their property. (The other half felt low-income people should be shipped off to Marysville or Sacramento.)

The ordinance zoning excludes the majority of people in Alta Sierra, Lake Wildwood and Lake of the Pines. They should not be allowed to dictate what happens in other parts of the county.

Myths

RV owners will invade the county. As Supervisor Hall noted, Nevada County’s progressive actions on cannabis and homelessness have not resulted in outsider impact. This is confirmed by boots-on-the-ground experience from Hospitality House, SPIRIT and the No Place To Go Project.

RV and other alternative housing dwellers are “homeless.” No. They are specifically excluded from the point-in-time count.

Trailers are shelter, not homes. Hospitality House and other congregate living situations are shelter. Alt/RV housing are homes if they are single occupancy with kitchens, bathrooms and sleeping quarters.

State HCD and Regional Housing Authority do not accept RVs & trailers as homes. This is not true. Trailer parks are acceptable for long-term, permanent living. Nobody is forcing those residents to move, be inspected or saying they are not housed. The RV Ordinance governing private property residency meets or exceeds the same standards as trailer parks.

Including RVs on private property as housing is basically a matter of political will. Unhoused citizens are depending on you to do the right thing.

RV dwellers are, by implied definition, in need of county services. This is not true. Some people just need a place to live and to be left alone. It is patronizing and insulting to assume all RV dwellers are the same and must be ghettoized into a trailer park near county services. (Where? The former juvenile hall property?)

RV dwellers need to be “connected.” Some people do better living alone; congregate living is too stressful for them. We do not object to a trailer park close to services for those who need them, but a park is not an alternative to private property occupancies. A park would be an additional option, and that is not within the purview of this ordinance.

RVs are uninsurable. Not true for either RV owners or renters. Insurance is readily available from major carriers.

RVs on neighboring property raises insurance rates on nearby property. This is a specious argument. Nobody has offered proof beyond conjecture.

RV dwellers are low-class undesirables. This is pure prejudice based on fear, ignorance, classism and cherry-picked bad examples. When responsible, housing-ready people cannot find affordable housing because there is no affordable housing, it’s not their fault. Choosing to live in RVs & trailers because they have no other option does not automatically make them low-class people. There are plenty of trashy people living in houses – and many well-kept houses are only that way because the trashy owners pay low-wage workers to make them look good.

Legal intimidation

If supervisors allow themselves to be threatened by lawsuits, it’s an open admission to opponents that anything they don’t like can easily be stopped by threats of litigation.

Allowing the county to be intimidated by legal action is an admission of little faith in county legal counsel whose job it is to make ordinances legally defensible.

Many of the threats to the RV Ordinance at the March 10, 2026, hearing were clearly fear-mongering, like saying creating safe, affordable housing for low-income folks is “unconstitutional.”

Spurious, bad-faith lawsuits against the county should be countersued for legal costs and damages. The county must stand its ground against legal intimidation.

Final arguments

We don’t see any need for a pilot program. The need is housing now.

Our goal is for people to have the option to live in RVs indefinitely/permanently under common rental agreements for as long as the residents and property owners decide. Except for specific, due cause, they should not be subject to extended county interference, oversight, inspections or fees after initial permitting.

An unintended consequence of the revised ordinance is that the No Place To Go Project will not support the ordinance if two-year occupancy or other county-imposed income restrictions negatively  impact residents. While we would not advise anyone to break the law, we understand why landlords and tenants could believe they would be better off by not voluntarily complying with the law unless/until they are forced to comply by Code Compliance.

Nobody should be forced to move unless  equivalent or better housing at no significant increase in rent is available. Nobody should be forced into a congregate (trailer park or apartment house) living situation against their will and mental health.

Regardless of whether the ordinance is passed or rejected, we must consider a ballot initiative that enables Alt/ADUs, not prevents them. We will propose an Alt/ADU housing ordinance that is far more liberal (e.g., yurts, shipping containers) than the revised ordinance.

In summary, our intent has been to lead a peaceful grassroots effort to permit people to live in RVs and trailers. This ordinance effectively prevents that. Therefore, we do not support this revised ordinance without the elimination of the onerous two-year renewal/inspection and the arbitrary income restriction.

Respectfully,

Board of Directors
No Place To Go Project

Tom Durkin
Kathy Ferguson
Donn Harris
Jennifer Morrill