Quick Take
County supervisors delayed a vote on a planned new ordinance that would allow tow companies to immediately destroy abandoned and inoperable vehicles after the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter raising a series of legal concerns with the proposed law.
Santa Cruz County supervisors have temporarily hit pause on a proposed ordinance that would let tow operators immediately demolish abandoned vehicles after a civil rights organization accused the measure of being illegal.
“We have serious concerns about the proposed ordinance, its legality, and its impact on unhoused people,” American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney John Do wrote in an email to Lookout.
Under current rules, sheriff’s deputies have the authority to determine if a car on public property has been abandoned, is inoperable, or if an oversized recreational vehicle is illegally parked. If they do, they can put a notice on the vehicle warning the owner that it will be towed in 10 days.
But tow companies have had trouble finding enough space to hold the vehicles for the 15 days required under the county’s current rules, meaning many vehicles are never actually towed. To attempt to remedy the situation, District 1 County Supervisor Manu Koenig proposed an ordinance in August that would allow tow companies skip the 15-day holding period and demolish the vehicles they tow right away.
In a letter sent to the board of supervisors on Oct. 20, the ACLU wrote that the ordinance may violate the California Vehicle Code, which allows authorities to tow vehicles from public property. According to the organization, public property is land owned by the government for public use, such as parks and buildings. But it doesn’t include public roadways, like local streets, the ACLU said.
The civil liberties group also said that while authorities are legally allowed to tow vehicles without a prior notice for the reasons outlined in the county’s proposed ordinance, the new law doesn’t give people enough advanced warning to be able to retrieve their vehicles before their property is destroyed. The organization argues that authorities must still store the property long enough after towing so owners can reclaim their vehicles, many of which serve as living spaces for unhoused residents.
The ACLU added that the ordinance stretches the definition of “inoperable vehicle” by including those “not currently registered for operation,” which it argues could open the door for a vehicle to be towed and demolished simply because its registration is not current.
While the civil rights organization declined to say whether it would sue the county to try to stop the ordinance from taking effect, ACLU staff attorney Do said in an email that the group will “closely track how the county proceeds.”
District 3 County Supervisor Justin Cummings was the lone “no” vote during the ordinance’s first reading on Oct. 7, citing unclear rules around which vehicles could be subject to the new law — for example, he said he worried that a person who parks their car on the street and leaves for an extended vacation could possibly come back to find it towed. He said that since local jurisdictions typically are not allowed to demolish vehicles immediately upon towing, it was possible the ordinance would run into legal issues: “This confirms that there may be some merit to that thought.”
Cummings said the board of supervisors needs more clarity around the towing and storage laws before updating its abandoned vehicle ordinance. He added that a discussion about expanding safe parking for RVs should be handled separately. Koenig initially said his office considered pairing the ordinance with a safe parking program like the one the City of Santa Cruz operates.
“Safe parking for oversized vehicles is different from abandoned and inoperable vehicles,” Cummings said. “So, for me, it’s separating out those conversations and figuring out what we are able to do legally.”
The county’s legal counsel will investigate the ACLU’s arguments and come back to the supervisors with a recommendation at a future date. County counsel did not return Lookout’s request for comment by publication time, and there is no specific date that the board expects to revisit the ordinance.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.