I want to comment on last week’s Board of Supervisors meeting (May 5, 2009) on the subject of no longer allowing permanent residents to live in RV units in commercial resort areas.

It seems to me the board wisely concluded that it is not in anyone’s best interest to simply evict these residents. A compromise (or at least a slow approach) is to everyone’s benefit. Park owner Nikki Tavares made it clear that seasonal and weekend tourist traffic will not bring in enough money to support her park. The philosophy “clear it, and they will come” alone will not bring in more tourist trade and may simply result in some of the parks going belly up.

Let me correct a figure that I perhaps did not make clear at the meeting. Calculating one person per RV living on a disability pension brings in $2.46 million income to the county – people who spend their entire check here and do not drive to Santa Rosa or order from L.L. Bean online. The actual figure is higher (larger incomes, and often two incomes to a unit). This has to be compared to the sporadic income generated during fishing season and weekends.

I’m hoping the county can find a way to augment the taxes that finance increased code enforcement. Permits could be required for month-to-month residencies, making up for lost “transient” taxes for overnight stays. (Increased supervision would result in attrition by tenants who are not respectful of the park or other tenants.) The county could also take back inspections of mobile homes and RVs from the HCD and ask for the money the HCD would have paid state workers for this service; this would additionally bring back to the county revenue for issuing Certificates of Occupancy for new mobile homes in parks. Raising sewer fees to full-time levels was also discussed.

Increased regulation and supervision was the trade-off when Sonoma County got involved in allowing long-term residents in Sonoma Grove to stay in their RVs. Since a large consideration in Lake County is lakefront property, perhaps the county could purchase or build an RV park in a less scenic environment as a relocation site (good management could run this at a profit for the county), or the county could encourage a private enterprise.

“Grandfathering” was brought up at the meeting, but unfortunately it was confused with the term “selective enforcement” (obviously a legal can of worms). Many people emphasized the need for “case by case” consideration. I suggest that “grandfathering” should be considered – starting from this point on. Supervisor Rob Brown astutely made the point that the county owes nothing to people from outside who hear that this is a cheap place to live and come here in the future.

If it is found appropriate in the future to exclude month-to-month rentals in some parks, then “grandfathered residents” (based on number of years’ residency) should be allowed at least 90 days to relocate. It should be remembered that neither the county nor the state government enforced zoning for many years (nonfeasance), and people who moved here did so in good faith. They didn’t know they were violating code. And, in fact, the county was happy to have their income. I have personally met residents in RV parks who have been here as long as eight years—law abiding, voting members of the community who should be accorded the same respect as other Lake County residents.

If RV residents are both long-term as well as government dependent (aged, blind or disabled), it is not enough to simply refer them to a helping agency. Disabled persons should not be displaced until or unless affordable housing is actually located for them.

Finally, I would like to point out that there is nothing inherently or morally wrong about living in an RV. In fact, the smaller footprint is probably good for the planet – and certainly worth considering as a possible solution for those with very low incomes or who are at risk of homelessness. The real issue is that the county is charged with the health and safety of RV occupants.

I thought the board came up with a pretty reasonable working strategy – that is, for the moment to focus only on issues of health, safety, and imminent danger; to consider rezoning commercial areas to “mixed residency” so as not to financially burden the park owners and allow some residents to stay in place or relocate to a different park; and to explore various ways of increasing county revenue so that the county can enforce improvements in resort parks and hotels.

Janis Paris lives in Spring Valley.