Santa Cruz County plan to demolish abandoned, oversized vehicles stalls amid homeless concerns

When a Santa Cruz County sheriff’s deputy determines that a car on public property has been abandoned, or that an oversized recreational vehicle is illegally parked, they slap on a big, bright orange sticker to alert the owner the car will be towed in 10 days. The vehicles, county policy says, present a hazard to “public health, safety and welfare.” 

Yet, the tow truck rarely arrives. 

County lawmakers and officials from the sheriff’s office say the companies that tow the vehicles view the work as a net loss. They are required to hold the cars and RVs for more than two weeks, taking up expensive real estate in their lots. During that time, they say it’s not uncommon for vehicle owners to try to break in to reclaim their rides, creating undesired risk. 

This reality has effectively neutered the county’s effort to clear abandoned cars and move long-parked RVs. On Tuesday, in an attempt to reinforce this area of local anti-blight policies, District 1 Supervisor Manu Koenig proposed allowing tow companies to skip the holding period and immediately disassemble the cars they tow, minimizing the risk of break-ins and opening up more space within the company’s lot. 

However, the plan immediately met loud resistance from homeless advocates. These RVs and oversized vehicles, commonly seen as blight, are often owned and occupied by vulnerable residents who are otherwise houseless. Advocates said that allowing a tow truck company to immediately demolish a person’s last shelter places an unconscionable burden on already vulnerable people. 

After tense public pushback and skepticism from some supervisors, lawmakers effectively tabled Koenig’s idea. However, the board expects to return with a reworked proposal, and acknowledged the need to get tow companies to participate in the county’s effort to clear the vehicles. 

Alicia Kuhl, the president of the Santa Cruz Homeless Union, said that when she was homeless, she lived on county streets in a registered and insured RV. 

“And it was labeled as abandoned several times by the police and by the sheriff’s office,” Kuhl told the supervisors on Tuesday. “If my RV were to be towed and demolished when I were homeless, you’d have been putting a family of five, three children, on the streets to be unsafe.” 

Jasmeen Miah, a local activist, said the ordinance would unnecessarily burden the homeless community. 

“The actual humane thing to do is to let people survive however they need to,” Miah said. “We’re supposed to be a sanctuary county in terms of immigrants and LGBTQ+. How does that not extend to our neighbors who reside outside? How can we be a sanctuary to some but not all?” 

Lt. Nick Baldrige, who works in the sheriff’s community policing division, told Lookout “the goal isn’t to tow the vehicle,” but that the real threat of a tow incentivizes the owners of the vehicles to engage with the sheriff’s office to find a solution. As it stands, he said, people living in illegally parked RVs — which haven’t moved at least 1,000 feet within a 72-hour period — know the tow truck isn’t coming and thus ignore attempts at enforcement. Koenig referred to one instance where a vehicle was cited more than 100 times. 

Undersheriff Jacob Ainsworth told Lookout that, when deputies find someone living in an illegally parked vehicle, the sheriff’s office still tags the car for removal but doesn’t hold fast to the 10-day timeline. Instead, it prioritizes working to connect the people inside with social services. Ainsworth pointed to a small family that’s housed in an RV parked, partially on cinderblocks, near Davenport. His team, he said, has been working for several weeks to connect the family with more stable housing. 

“We’re trying to resolve an issue, not create a second issue by getting rid of someone’s RV,” Ainsworth said. 

Koenig said his office had considered pairing the ordinance with a safe parking program, similar to the City of Santa Cruz’s, which offers a legal place for people living in RVs to park overnight. However, Koenig claimed the city’s program was unsuccessful, as it had attracted mostly tourists rather than homeless residents. Because of this trend, he said, the city was reducing the number of spaces it offered. 

Then, Gaven Hussey, who manages the city’s program, called in to say Koenig was stretching the truth. 

“The safe parking program has not been used by recreational users,” Hussey said. “The lots that support our safe parking program are specifically used overnight by participants in the program.” 

Hussey confirmed Koenig’s claim that the city was reducing the number of spaces in its safe parking program, but said it was because those spaces are located in Lot 4, where construction was set to begin on the city’s mixed-use downtown library/affordable housing project.  

“We are not closing lots due to user participation,” Hussey said. 

The supervisors voted to bring back a heavily amended version of the ordinance in the future, which could be as early as the next meeting on Sept. 9. Supervisors said they wanted to see the policy outline an outreach program for people living in their vehicles, as well as distinguish a difference for abandoned cars, inoperable RVs and oversized vehicles that house people. As the ordinance was written, it defined all vehicles in the same way.  

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.