Palo Alto to Consider Ordinance to Ban Living in Vehicles

Written by Rachel Stober

The population whose car is their closest claim to a roof over their heads might see even that option disappear as Palo Alto considers an ordinance that would make the city the last in the Peninsula to prohibit living in vehicles.

“A lot of people might not like it, but I think it’s the right answer for our community at this time,” Councilman Larry Klein said.

The City of Palo Alto Policy and Services Committee met Tuesday evening to hear recommendations from staff before voting 3-0 to recommend the ordinance to the City Council in August.

The policy would ban human habitation defined as, “the use of a vehicle for a dwelling space,” including, but not limited to, sleeping, eating or resting. The ordinance, which would go into full effect in January after 60 days of outreach and 30 days of warnings, would be enforced solely on a complaint basis and employ the judicial system only as a last resort.

As the recent economic winter has left many in the cold, the City reported an increase in the number of people living in their vehicles and a growing number complaints from residents, particularly surrounding the apparent de facto homeless shelter developing at Cubberley Community Center. Staff members and police reported seeing up to 30 people in a given night sleeping on campus, many in parked cars.

“I think anyone that could see the situation at Cubberley today would say we have a problem,” City Manager Jim Keene said. “It’s not a homeless shelter, it’s not designed to be a homeless shelter, it’s barely a community center.”

Municipal efforts to battle this phenomenon through legislation began in 2011 when a similar ordinance was scheduled to be brought before the City Council, but a communal outcry from residents and advocates led the City Manager to remove the item from the agenda and refer it to the Policy and Services Committee for further exploration and community outreach.

Over the past two years, city staff has worked ultimately unsuccessfully with the community, particularly faith-based organizations, to come up with an alternative.

“This is really the result of a two-year plus conversation of whether or not we could strike the right balance between [serving those] living without a home environment and also having a degree of regulation in streets and neighborhoods when we have complaints,” Klein said.  “[We] can’t support endless discussion without a resolution.”

Many of the people filling City Council chambers Tuesday seemed to disagree, condemning the ordinance and voicing concern and outrage about skyrocketing rents, the lack of other options for vehicle-dwellers, sufficient existing laws, a perceived lack of compassion in the ordinance, and the eventual criminalization of being poor in the Silicon Valley. Opposers called the policy elitist, punitive, and even “evil” and “un-American.”

“It’s a privilege to live in Palo Alto and I appreciate that, you know? If very other city in this county has an ordinance, then where are they going to go if we pass one?” Palo Alto resident Joel Wolfberg said.

Although the City reported receiving numerous complaints from residents in support of such an ordinance, only two of the 25 members of the public who spoke stood behind it, briefly stating their support and noting concern for their children before quietly returning to their seats, standing out in the crowd. Many also spoke about the range of people who live in vehicles who don't pose a threat to anyone, from families to veterans to people working at Facebook.

“Many homeless people do not feel safe on on these streets or in homeless shelters; sometimes their car is their final refuge, especially for women or children. So what are we going to do with the children? What are we going to do with the families?” Geoff Browning, United Campus Christian Ministry (UCCM) Campus Minister at Stanford University, said.

The committee surely recognized a homeless problem and the further efforts necessary to address it, but maintained that this ordinance should not be measured as an attempt at such a broader solution.

“We do need a regional solution to this problem, even a national solution,” Klein said “[But] Palo Alto is not the answer.”