Living in an RV can mean the difference between having a home on wheels and being homeless. Countless Americans have found the price of housing so far out of reach that they’ve taken to living in RVs.
At the same time, living in an RV can mean drawing the ire of local governments, as a pair of California vineyard owners have learned.
Employee and family, living in an RV on vineyard property
Michael and Kellie Ballard own a 60-acre winery in Santa Clara County. They call their place Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards. An operation that size isn’t something just two people can do comfortably, so the Ballards have employees.
One of them, their vineyard manager, Marcelino Martinez, lost the lease on his home. The Ballards feel that Marcelino is like family, so it wasn’t a stretch for them to tell him to move his fifth-wheel onto a quiet, back corner of Savannah-Chanelle.
When we say “quiet corner,” Marcelino’s fifth wheel isn’t visible from the road. No neighbors can see it from their properties. But somehow, county officials got wind that Marcelino and his family were living at the vineyard.
Get them out—or pay $1,000 a day
In 2019, Santa Clara County officials demanded the Ballards give the fifth-wheel dwellers the boot. It didn’t matter if the Martinez children would need to acclimate to new schools. No thought to Marcelino having to find—if he could—affordable housing. Get them out, or pay. Pay to the tune of $1,000 a day.
The Ballards saw a line drawn in the soil of the vineyard. “There was just no way in the world we were going to throw these people out on the street,” Michael Ballard told a reporter from CalMatters.
When the fines rose to more than $120,000 the Ballards did something. Rather than reach for the checkbook, they reached for the phone and got an attorney. The public interest law firm Institute for Justice, helped the Ballards file suit against the county.
Suit hinges on constitutional law
The basis of the Ballards’ suit hinges on constitutional law. The suit contends that Santa Clara County officials have violated the Eighth Amendment. That one prohibits “excessive fines.” The Ballards contend that $120,000+ in fines for what they describe as a harmless violation is indeed excessive.
They also argue that the county offends the 14th Amendment regarding due process. By demanding that the Martinez family be tossed out of their RV home, possibly making them homeless, is shockingly unconstitutional.
Just how it will all turn out in the courts remains to be seen. But the Ballards, standing up for their “family,” aren’t giving up.
Can you live on your own property in an RV? Learn more about that subject by clicking here.
##RVT1177b
I guess the county would rather have them on the street
Sounds consistent with the current administration.
On Randall Brinks recommendation, I signed up for The Institute of Justice reports/updates and have been amazed at all the good work the organization is doing to combat Government over-reach. What an outstanding organization the Institute for Justice is. Highly recommend looking into them if maintaining constitutional purity is in your nature. Good luck to the Ballard’s.
The issue is precedence. Sure this family could benefit from a break and leniency from the local government. But, how do you then stop the next more flagrant violation, another and yet another until RV’s are in every yard and on every street.
You allow one, you have to allow all. Sympathy here will just lead to lower standards, chaos and ignored laws.
If you have empathy for them, start a GoFundMe and contribute heavily so they can find a home. These situations exist all over the country so everyone can help at home without finding fault with other communities.
“You allow one, you have to allow all.” Are you serious? Do you not understand the difference in this situation? They work for the winery, and they were invited to stay there. They didn’t just show up and randomly park on the property.
Charlie, we had a ranch in our community that had “housing” for their employees. It was called “Mexican Camp”. Ranch hands and their families lived there. No power, no running water, just old travel trailers lined up with plywood windows. As a kid, I thought it was neat they got to camp every day. As an adult reflecting back, these “employees” were more indentured servants held in poverty by the ranch not “helped out of homelessness”.
To this day, I’m still angry how everyone turned a blind eye and commended this little ranch for their “humanity”. I hope this vineyard gets fined into non-existence for exploiting their worker who can’t earn enough to live right.
Have you investigated how much housing costs in Santa Clara county?
It’s expensive for sure. But I don’t think that’s the motivation for the property owner offering a place for his employee to stay. I read into it that the property owner wanted to keep a valued employee and his offering the employee a place to park his RV was a way of doing that.
Great question! Aloha Trailer and RV Park is 11 miles away and charge ~$1,400 a month plus electricity for FHU. There’s other parks nearby at similar rates as well.
Haggling fines of a thousand a day does nothing to actually help Marcelino’s housing status without taking funds from his future pay potential.
With that being so painfully obvious, I’ll rhetorically ask whose interests do folks think the Ballards are actually serving even if they get the fines reduced to half?
The Ballards are trying to exploit the law and using their employee as the pawn. They’re not the first but we surely don’t need to cheer them on…
Respects
Vince S, while I appreciate your view/experience, this is NOT the same situation. Why do you think they are exploiting their worker? As I see it, they were kind enough to offer their employee a place to stay. The employee and his family was certainly NOT exploited or forced to stay. This is an entirely different situation than homeless camps being set up on someone’s property without the property owners approval..
Charlie, the ranch I referred was “kind enough” to provide a place for their workers but they were not “kind enough” to pay them enough to afford better.
Nobody “forced” them to stay, they just didn’t pay enough to afford to move.
As with so many other indentured workers, Marcelino who once afforded a lease now relies on the “charity” of his employer.
This guy isn’t just an unskilled grape picker, he’s their vineyard manager. And after 4 months from losing his lease, he can’t afford another place, he can only afford to put his family on the back corner of the property.
Do the furthest corners of your place have hook-ups?
If it quacks like a duck….
Safe travels
Look up “precedence” (legal definition) and see if there is an exception for an invited guest. How many would you like to see camping on an employers property near you?
Sympathy/empathy = erosion of standards and laws.
Also, if that employer is risking $1,000.00 a day fine, it would be cheaper to pay his employee more so he could afford a proper residence for his family.
It wouldn’t take much to change the ordinance to something more reasonable – minimum property size, out of sight of roadway or screening, utilities, annual inspection for fire safety and health, etc. That would answer the “allow one, allow all” argument. But that would require some imagination and flexibility on the part of the governing class.
You are right Bill. But, how long would it take for another situation where THAT “reasonable” ordinance was ignored or challanged. Would these people like more regulations, improvements and inspections?
And California has a housing crisis yet they make it very difficult to solve that “crisis”.
The streets of big cities in CA are packed with junker RV’s and get to stay, here is an out of the way 5th wheel in good shape and they have to move ?
There may be a requirement for a septic system or connection to sewage lines which was not mentioned in the article. And what are the requirements for Harvest Hosts having RV’s on their properties?
Thank you, Russ and Tina! 🙂 I guess the vineyard owners could have opened their home to their manager and his family. Must have lacked room. Seems an egregious over-reach. But, checked and CANNOT legally live in an RV on ones own property in Hamilton County (Chattanooga), Tennessee. We did it for 8 months 7 years ago without asking, but also being well out of sight from the nearest road. Is legal in Meigs County, an adjacent, contiguous county. Have a great day and safe travels! 🙂
Ironic coming from a state so well known for homelessness.
If Mr. Martinez was in the U.S. illegally, he’d be welcomed to stay here in a 4-Star, or better, hotel on the taxpayers dime. What a system!
$1000/day is an absurd scare tactic by the county. They’d better settle quickly or they’ll be the ones paying attorneys that much trying to defend that amount as reasonable all the way to the Supreme Court!
I am a BoonDockers Welcome host in Biloxi MS. The city threatened me with $5000 fine and/or up to one year in jail if I allowed anyone to stay overnight in a camper on my two-acre property. No friends, no relatives that are passing through, no BW guest, no anyone! Sleeping in an RV violates their “Guest House” ordnance. To me, this is a “Taking” of my land and the right to use my land as I see fit. Isn’t there a 4th amendment? I wish the IFJ could help me. I miss being a host. If you agree that this is not right, please let the mayor know that you are boycotting Biloxi at: mayor@biloxi.ms.
Government overreach is at an all time high… do you really ‘own’ anything anymore…???