Paying someone for a dedicated parking space (#vanlife) in Berkeley

mpech wrote:

yeah, I would charge at least $300/month. That's only $10/day. It would be barely worth it for me because 

a)  person would be blocking my driveway
b) possibility of pissing off the neighbors
c) would probably have to be done below the table-- problems if tenant refuses to leave, is generally annoying/disrespectful, etc...Essentially the potential downside for the homeowner can be pretty big compared to relatively small economic upside.

at the end of the day, the bay area needs more RV parks. I think it is a reasonable short-term solution for part of the housing crunch.

I think (c) is a great concern since I know CA has some odd laws that tenants can exploit against their effective landlord--not sure how the laws apply to those in vehicles. Thanks for the input

El Camino Real in Palo Alto starting at Stanford stadium and heading southbound is MILES of camper vans, van lifers, etc. Some are even up on blocks. Look on google earth. The city seems to not give a shit... housing crisis and all that. Tho I realize its a long commute to Bezerkley.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/11/14/behind-the-rvs-lining-el-camino-palo-altos-affordable-housing-crisis/

Perhaps try reaching out to the college's housing facebook page.  You may need a .edu email or something to show youre a student, I may be wrong though.  I know a  lot of kids in school would be stoked to have someone take the rent down a bit.  Somewhere did it in my town and they just paid $100 a month plus utilities. 

Kevin Crum wrote: Perhaps try reaching out to the college's housing facebook page.  You may need a .edu email or something to show youre a student, I may be wrong though.  I know a  lot of kids in school would be stoked to have someone take the rent down a bit.  Somewhere did it in my town and they just paid $100 a month plus utilities. 

Good idea Kevin. I've still got my berkeley email. It's funny though how most parking spaces only fit small-medium cars and are specifically not for trucks/vans haha; I'm sure I can find something though!

Loads of vans live down by 880/Peralta college just south of Lake Merritt. There or just across the bridge from Alameda on the Oakland side.

Karsten Walker wrote: Loads of vans live down by 880/Peralta college just south of Lake Merritt. There or just across the bridge from Alameda on the Oakland side.

Where do you live Karsten? I'll recommend that he parks his van in front of your house.... 

(sorry for the rude reply-- it's just that I live in that area, and the number of vans/RVs is getting out of control. The last thing we need is to encourage people capable of paying rent but wanting to live #vanlife to join in on the problem...)

I'd agree, but they're going to do it anyways so I'd rather they go where that is already common and the police/city do not give a shit then in another area.

Edit: I live a few minutes from this spot. It's been problematic there since I was in high school in the early 2000's.

i just saw a blog post about #vanlifeonthecheap.  you can get a custom roll out drawer starting at $13500.  LOLZ.....

TBH I doubt you want to park near the people living in their vans in oakland, I mean, not that they are all shady, but certainly some are. The van people who park outside my apt (actually not the bay area but basically the same kind of place) always leave a bunch of trash when they leave, they burned any goodwill I might have had doing that.

Sean Anderson wrote:

 you've been living in your ambulance for a decade now, no?

I wouldn't park it in a CA city given they basically legalized grand theft (due to Prop 47, voted on by progressive geniuses)

It's almost as if criminals like free stuff with zero consequences. Like picking fruit from a tree

Trad Man wrote:

I wouldn't park it in a CA city given they basically legalized grand theft (due to Prop 47, voted on by progressive geniuses)

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/06/10/car-break-ins-robberies-on-the-rise-in-san-francisco/
https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2018/sf-car-breakins/

It's almost as if criminals like free stuff with zero consequences. Like picking fruit from a tree

Neither of those links say a word about prop 47 (whatever that is) or those horrible progressives. 

Marc801 C wrote:

Neither of those links say a word about prop 47 (whatever that is) or those horrible progressives. 

While they dont mention Prop 47, they do mention a change in state law that makes it a misdemeanor if you are caught with stolen goods with a value that does not exceed $950. I haven't looked into Prop 47 (Nor do I care about what terrible ideas politicians come up with in CA as long as they stay there), so I can't confirm that this is the applicable law.

Trad Man wrote:

I wouldn't park it in a CA city given they basically legalized grand theft (due to Prop 47, voted on by progressive geniuses)

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/06/10/car-break-ins-robberies-on-the-rise-in-san-francisco/
https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2018/sf-car-breakins/

It's almost as if criminals like free stuff with zero consequences. Like picking fruit from a tree

It's funny, I've met a few people like tradman-- people who reflexively blame prop 47 any time a crime occurs. They want harsh sentencing for every crime, and don't care about whether it is an actually effective policy.

Some statistics on prison system in california;
1) the state pays $64K/year/prisoner
2) 7% of the state budget is for prisons
3) huge increases in the prison population lead to over-crowding, which the court system deemed a violation of the 8th amendment. This required the state to deal with the over-crowding, either by more facilities or fewer prisoners.

mpech wrote:

It's funny, I've met a few people like tradman-- people who reflexively blame prop 47 any time a crime occurs. They want harsh sentencing for every crime, and don't care about whether it is an actually effective policy.

Some statistics on prison system in california;
1) the state pays $64K/year/prisoner
2) 7% of the state budget is for prisons
3) huge increases in the prison population lead to over-crowding, which the court system deemed a violation of the 8th amendment. This required the state to deal with the over-crowding, either by more facilities or fewer prisoners.

I don't blame prop 47 for any time a crime occurs (I usually blame the criminal; something proponents of Prop 47 don't seem to want to). In fact violent crime around the country is down. However property crime is sharply up since the passage of prop 47 and it is very likely under-reported because who the hell would report a misdemeanor?! Instead people leave posters on lamp posts asking for their stuff back. It's laughable.

When asking the questions of why so many people are in prisons we should all avoid simplistic answers (although it doesn't seem you're even asking that question). Meanwhile the recidivism rate is only down (slightly) because cops don't bother arresting people for misdemeanors (or even chasing them down to ticket them). I guess when nothing is a crime those crime stats will really start to drop!

How about this: stop stealing shit. People who steal shit suck. Maybe we should bring back the pillory. 

Trad Man wrote:

 However property crime is sharply up since the passage of prop 47 

If you care about actual data-- from the public policy institute of california-- trends of property crime in california over time. Prop 47 passed in 2014. 

​http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

reboot wrote:

Can't let a country like El Salvador take over the US for having the highest incarceration rate in the world. #1, USA!!!

I'm sure we both know why that is, and it has little to do with thieves. Burglary only accounts for 4.8% of the US prison population:

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

mpech wrote:

If you care about actual data-- from the public policy institute of california-- trends of property crime in california over time. Prop 47 passed in 2014. 

http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Nice multi-varied analysis there. I'm sure that has nothing to do with AB 109 , SB 678, and Prop 57 which basically cooked the books by brushing prisoners under the carpet (moving them to county jails and giving early parole). 

Trad Man wrote:

I don't blame prop 47 for any time a crime occurs (I usually blame the criminal; something proponents of Prop 47 don't seem to want to). In fact violent crime around the country is down. However property crime is sharply up since the passage of prop 47 and it is very likely under-reported because who the hell would report a misdemeanor?! Instead people leave posters on lamp posts asking for their stuff back. It's laughable.

When asking the questions of why so many people are in prisons we should all avoid simplistic answers (although it doesn't seem you're even asking that question). Meanwhile the recidivism rate is only down (slightly) because cops don't bother arresting people for misdemeanors (or even chasing them down to ticket them). I guess when nothing is a crime those crime stats will really start to drop!

How about this: stop stealing shit. People who steal shit suck. Maybe we should bring back the pillory. 

I think everyone more or less blames criminals for property theft... the disagreement is over what the best course of action is-- you seem to think that harsher prison sentences (and public shaming) are the answer. I think that there is limited data to support that conclusion, that it is really expensive to imprison people, and that the courts literally ordered the state to reduce over-crowding.... If you love imprisoning people so much, you should be proposing tax increases to pay for more prisons. 

Trad Man wrote:

Nice multi-varied analysis there. I'm sure that has nothing to do with AB 109 , SB 678, and Prop 57 which basically cooked the books by brushing prisoners under the carpet (moving them to county jails and giving early parole). 

The graph shows the property crime rate-- it has nothing to do with the imprisonment rate.  It shows that, on a per capita basis, the property crime rate has been flat/decreasing from 2000-2016. It was in response to your claim that property crimes was exploding. I couldn't find data newer than 2016. 

mpech wrote:

The graph shows the property crime rate-- it has nothing to do with the imprisonment rate.  It shows that, on a per capita basis, the property crime rate has been flat/decreasing from 2000-2016. It was in response to your claim that property crimes was exploding. I couldn't find data newer than 2016. 

Sorry, misread it. Regardless, in the two years following Prop 47 property crime went up 9% (and again, only crimes reported. I wouldn't bother reporting a misdemeanor. What a waste of my and public time)

So...if it was down why legalize grand theft? According to many articles the CA prison population is aging. What was the impetus for this proposition? So far as I can see, it was just compassion for the thieves. 

If you want to reduce the crime rate you have to dissuade people from committing crimes. Dangling expensive items in front of people and telling them there are no consequences to taking them is going to have predictable results.

Edit: mpech, please don't misrepresent people's views (unless you're trying to get a job at Buzzfeed). I never said I was for harsher prison sentences. I don't see the "You're either for Prop 47 or you're for a high prison population" dichotomy, nor have I seen a single argument for Prop 47 in this thread. The problem is far more complex than simply "things be bad, bro. Maybe we should just abolish everything". There are some very dry, academic books on the subject chock-full of citations on this subject. If you're in Mammoth I'll give you a copy: