The RV Ordinance Isn’t Compassion — It’s a Step Backward
Nevada County is full of people who care deeply about this place. We look out for one another. When a neighbor’s fence falls down in a storm, we show up. When someone’s barn roof leaks, a pickup truck full of tools appears before sunrise. We solve problems together.
And we are all aware of our current housing struggle. People who grew up here are being priced out. Seniors can’t keep up with rising costs. Young working families are being pushed toward Sacramento or Reno. Nobody denies that something needs to change.
But the proposed RV Dwelling Ordinance is not the solution. It does not fix housing. It does not make living here more affordable. It does not give people stability. What it does is normalize survival living and call it housing policy.
We deserve better than that—and so do the people most impacted by this crisis.
Let’s talk plainly. RVs are not houses. They were never meant to be. They are made for camping trips, seasonal travel, vacation weekends, and temporary stays. Their insulation is thin. Their electrical systems are light-duty. Their roofs are not built for our winters. Their materials are flammable. Their plumbing systems were never designed for year-round use.
No ordinance changes those physical facts.
And yet the County is proposing to classify RVs as long-term dwellings in rural neighborhoods, provided owners go through a stack of permits, upgrades, inspections, and renewals every two years. On paper, this may look orderly. In real life, it’s a program built on assumptions that simply do not reflect reality on the ground.
The RV ordinance will harm people in our community. Already, 17,000 plaintiffs who lived in FEMA trailers after Hurricane Katrina have alleged damaging health consequences, from respiratory problems to dozens of deaths and cancer cases, in a federal class-action lawsuit naming 64 trailermakers and the federal government. Many of the plaintiffs were drawn from the roughly 350,000 people who unsuccessfully filed claims against the Army Corps of Engineers over the levee breaches that flooded New Orleans. Living in a trailer is detrimental to the health of our neighbors and not a long-term solution to homelessness.
Consider the fire danger. We live in one of the most wildfire-prone regions in the state. Fire districts are already stretched thin. Many rural roads are narrow, steep, and difficult to evacuate under best conditions. RV siding ignites easily. Propane tanks rupture. Embers can take a unit in minutes.
Approving more combustible dwellings in forested zones isn’t compassionate. It’s risky.
And then there’s the winter problem. Anyone who has lived above 3,000 feet knows what snow load means: heavy, wet, crushing weight. RVs cannot handle that load. The County knows this—they included a requirement for engineered snow shelters or “ramadas” to protect RV roofs. That means if someone wants to live in an RV in our climate, they have to build a building to protect the RV.
If you need to build a building to make your “housing unit” safe, that “housing unit” is not safe.
Now let’s look at cost—because this ordinance is being marketed as an “affordable housing solution.”
To legally live in an RV under this ordinance, a homeowner will have to:
Upgrade water infrastructure or well systems
Expand septic capacity or install new wastewater solutions
Install dedicated electrical systems
Prepare stabilized building pads
Pay permit and inspection fees every two years
And again—at many elevations—construct a snow-rated shelter structure
Anyone who can afford all of that can absolutely afford a small permanent home, cottage, modular home, or an owner-built Title 25 unit.
This ordinance does not lower housing costs. It shifts them into a different form, and in doing so, creates an illusion of affordability while locking vulnerable people into unstable shelter.
This ordinance will directly affect the people already struggling the most—seniors on fixed incomes, low-income families, young adults trying to remain in the community they love. These are the people who will be told, “Here, now you have a home,” when what they actually have is a vehicle—one storm, one fire, one mechanical failure away from displacement.
That is not dignity. That is not stability. And it is not a reflection of who we are as a county.
If we truly want to support the people who live here, we should be focusing on:
Streamlined, lower-cost small home building options
Pre-approved building plans
Fee reductions for full-time resident construction
Title 25 owner-built rural cabins and cottages
Modular and factory-built home legalization without red tape
These are real, permanent, rooted solutions—ones that build equity, generational stability, and pride of place.
Nevada County should not respond to the housing crisis by lowering the standard of what we call a home. We should respond by making it easier to build real homes.
We can do this. But it starts by being honest about what this ordinance really is—and what it is not.
For the safety, well-being, and dignity of our residents, I urge the Nevada County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to vote NO on ORD25-1.
Nevada County is worth protecting. And our people deserve housing that is worthy of calling home.