Thread by @shayshinecastle

The next issue is overnight parking rules. Friend is asking that council not vote until after next week's homelessness discussion, since the recommended change makes it harder for ppl living in RVs and campers.

Presentation here: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_3C_A…

Recent muni court ruling found B.R.C. 7-6-24(b) “unconstitutionally vague” bc it didn’t specify that trailers and/or campers parked on city streets had to be moved every 24 hours. They could still technically stay on the street by moving a few feet or to a different spot.

The ordinance is being rewritten to clarify that RVs, trailers, etc. cannot be parked for more than 48 consecutive hours on any city street; 72 hr exemption ppl providing service (landscape trailers, etc.) and with special permit from the city for certain things.

The rule is intended to prevent use of public ROW as storage, but bc ppl live in RVs and campers (also illegal under other city rules) it will mean that once they get ticketed for being somewhere, they can't just move a few feet or streets away and be OK.

Weaver q: Does this apply to towed RVs or self-driving?
Sandra Llanes, city attorney: It's both.

Weaver: We're pretty jammed up on schedule going forward the next couple of months. Very long meeting on the 21, and special meeting on the 28. "Delay here... I'm not sure when we'd pick it back up."

Young asks if we can look at both ordinances (ones that prohibit living in vehicles and overnight parking) and then include them both in the homelessness discussion?

Friend OK with that. So council will go ahead and vote tonight on this.

Llanes: Parking enforcement receives many complaints about overnight parking. It's an ongoing problem.

She summarized the recent case which led to the court ruling: The guy who was charged would just move his trailer a few feet every day. He argued, successfully, that the law didn't prohibit that. Court said the time limits were too vague to provide a clear reading.

Kudos to that guy. Fight the power!

But even though you won that battle, you lose this war since council is just gonna change the law.

I love when ppl find loopholes to silly laws. Not important ones that let them screw ppl over. But who is this guy hurting with his trailer? Since it's likely not a great harm, I will celebrate him.

Friend: If I live in an apartment complex, where can I legally park an RV or camper or trailer for 72 hrs?
Llanes: On the direct street frontage for the apartment complex

Kinda dumb q from Friend: Do all apartment complexes have ample parking?

I assume she has a point.

Here is it: Did we run this through our equity tool? Are we fairly certain it wouldn't have negative impacts on certain groups?

Llanes: Current ordinance doesn't allow any parking for 24 hrs+ So this isn't a real change.

Friend: I understand that. While we retooling it, I think we'd want to make sure it's equitable.
No, Llanes says. We're just addressing the municipal court's ruling.

Public hearing: Actually 4 speakers! Surprisingly.

OK, only 3. One dropped out.
Looking at the names, they're going to be concerned about equity and homelessness.

Riley Mancuso: This is in fact a law that is so discriminatory who are living in vehicles bc they can't afford housing, that it's almost specifically targeting them.

He's reading from ACLU, who threatened to sue Mountain View, Calif. over their parking laws.

"Think about how the laws you're passing, even when they don't explicitly have to do with race and class, in fact have to do with race, class, disability ... some of the most vulnerable ppl in your city," Mancuso says.

Again, there are other laws that forbid living in vehicles. But it's probably harder to prove that someone is *living* in something than it is to prove that it is illegally parked.

Darren O'Connor seconds that: We have an equity tool that is apparently not being used.

Other issues with the law: It prohibits "grandma and grandpa" from visiting and parking their RV on any city street. "This law is exclusionary to anyone who would come and vacation here with a motor home or fifth-wheel unless they have a place to park it on family property."

Sean Collins: Staff language is misleading. It makes it seem like a routine cleanup, but it's an expansion of police powers. At a time when we're asking to defund police and fund social services.

Also asks to use for the equity tool to be applied. "Not everyone has a driveway to move their RV to."

Since staff says it's not *supposed* to deal with ppl living in their cars, Collins says, make it only apply to commercial vehicles.

The change means you can't park on any city street. We'd effectively be forcing ppl out of the city, Collins says, and Boulder has a long history of exporting its housing problems to the L towns, Broomfield, etc.

Our fourth speaker IS here.

Jennifer Sundt: This ordinance is discriminatory to blue collar, working-class ppl who are most likely to own a trailer for work purposes. This sends a clear message that we don't want these ppl living here.

Reminds me that I read just today (again) about when Boulder banned "noxious" industries that effectively pushed out working-class people of color.

Joseph: I understand the concerns, but I understand the need to protect homeowners and people coming in and out of their neighborhoods.

Mentions protecting kids.

Which is .... odd. Is she implying that ppl who live in RVs or campers (poor people, in other words) are more criminally inclined?

Or people with work trailers?

Carr: The intent is not to run ppl out of neighborhoods. The challenge we have is ppl running biz out of their vehicles and parking it in front of their homes.

The complaints I've most seen deal with commercial vehicles. So we could limit it to those.

Carr: It's somewhat unusual to have an ordinance that has come to council this many times have this level of debate. But it's your ordinance: you can change it. Don't pass it if you're not comfortable.

But it's not intended to be discriminatory and I don't believe it's applied discriminatorily, Carr says.

Apparently ppl who are social distancing are moving into their campers, Swetlik says. That's a reasonable use.

Either way, he's opposed to including RVs.

"It still doesn't feel like we've hit the nail on the head with this one yet," Swetlik says.

Cris Jones making some clarification: Overnight parking is handled by parking team. It's mostly complaint based. If the complaint is about someone living in a vehicle, police handle it.

Young made a suggestion but I didn't track. I think it's to consider changes next week.

"I'd like to make sure it isn't being discriminatory," Young says, "but I can't tell right now."

Friend: I'm still concerned about the equity of someone who is wealthy and has a driveway that can fit 8 cars, and someone who has a trailer for a landscape biz and doesn't have a driveway. I can't leave it on the street if I wanted to take a week off.

Llanes: The idea is it goes into a storage area bc it's a business, and it's in a residential neighborhood.

Friend: I get it, but it seems like it will hit working-class people more.

Jones: The allowance for a permit does create an opportunity to make it legal. It would just have some charge.

And maybe discourage non-residents (immigrants) from applying, if they don't want to deal with the gov't.

He didn't say that last part; that was my thought.

Weaver: You can't park a personal vehicles on the street for 72 hours either. So this isn't that out of line with what we do already.

His larger point is: If we want to consider parking equity, let's do it all at once.

He references chalking of vehicles, which I was pretty sure a court struck down... ? Maybe not in our jurisdiction.

He and everyone else keeps talking about intent. Which just makes me chuckle, bc that's his major criticism of me. He thinks I judge people's INTENT too much, when you can never know it.

Alright then. Let's focus on EFFECT.

If the EFFECT of a law is discriminatory, its INTENT is irrelevant.

Which was a major point in the equity resolution Boulder passed.

Young moves to pass the ordinance change.
Wallach seconds.

Weaver: For
Yates: For
Young: For
Friend: Against
Joseph: For
Nagle: For
Swetlik: Against
Wallach: For

So it passes 6-2.

That's it for this one. Muni update and performance reviews left to do.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.