Zoning Police and NIMBYs Want To Keep People Homeless
Vineyard owners face $120,000 in fines for letting an employee and his family live on their 60-acre property without a permit.

Cities that want to hide homelessness can criminalize sleeping in public. They can even jail repeat offenders. The Supreme Court upheld these measures in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson on June 28, 2024.
Grants Pass, Oregon, the city at the center of the decision, is not the only one testing how far it can go to address homelessness without violating the Constitution. Other jurisdictions have their own ways of keeping the housing problem out of sight.
The police cracked down on jaywalking near a downtown homeless shelter in Salt Lake City, Utah. Code enforcers targeted a business owner after he rescued campers from freezing weather in Akron, Ohio. And officers arrested a grandmother for serving hot meals at a public park in Bullhead City, Arizona.
Public planners will do almost anything to push away the problem once it exists. What they fail to consider is that they can address homelessness before it happens simply by getting out of the way and letting people find solutions to the crisis using private funds on private land.
Far too often, local officials do the opposite, using restrictive zoning laws. They talk about the need for affordable housing but do everything they can to block it.
Michael and Kellie Ballard are experiencing the obstruction in Santa Clara County, California. The couple owns the Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards, a historic winery nestled in an out-of-the-way spot on a 60-acre site.
Looking to help their vineyard manager, a long-time employee, the Ballards allowed him and his family to move a trailer onto the property in 2013 when housing costs threatened to push the family out of the area. Since then, the Ballards have provided a safe, free location for the family to live without harming anyone. The trailer is not even visible from the highway or neighboring properties.
Everything was fine for years until an anonymous complaint led to a county inspection. The zoning police, unconcerned about the human toll, gave the Ballards an ultimatum: Evict the family or pay daily fines.
The Ballards refused to kick the Martinez family out. Instead, they spent years and tens of thousands of dollars in permitting costs for a new, compliant home. All the while, their fines grew to a staggering $120,000.
That's a six-figure penalty for finding a private solution to a public problem. Without the Ballards, the Martinez family would have been forced to abandon good jobs and good schools to move somewhere they could afford.
Talk about self-sabotage.
Our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, is helping the Ballards fight back. But this is just one case among many. The zoning police are relentless.
Police showed up on Robert Calacal's doorstep the day after he allowed Chasidy Decker to move into her tiny house on wheels, which she parked behind a side yard fence on his property in Meridian, Idaho. The city told Decker the vehicle could stay where it was, but she could not live in it.
The zoning police will not even let people break ground on affordable housing in Calhoun County, Georgia. One charity, Tiny House Hand Up, submitted plans in 2021 for a community of southern-style cottages that would be 540 to 600 square feet each.
Calhoun County blocked the project for no other reason than size. Public planners enforce a minimum square footage to keep out the "riff raff," as supporters of the policy admitted during one hearing.
Elsewhere, the zoning police dictate whether homeowners may construct small add-ons or run quiet businesses in their garages or living rooms.
The results are often catastrophic. Zoning makes it more difficult to construct housing, earn income, or use property for any needs in between. And the problem has gotten worse over the past 100 years, as the Supreme Court and lower courts sign off on the top-down control.
These onerous restrictions make little sense, especially at a time when half of U.S. homeowners and renters are struggling with skyrocketing housing costs.
Only the most desperate of these individuals will end up on the streets—hopefully not looking for a place to sleep in Grants Pass. But everyone can benefit from zoning justice, the freedom to use property without unreasonable interference.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I would like more details, but it does sound like the primary case here is one of excessive code enforcement. The rest range from understandable to dickish policing. Unfortunately, I don't trust their reporting and don't agree with their stances or goals. Structural issues are overall a small part of homelessness issues (though companies like Blackrock inflating housing costs by buying up residences is a huge issue.) Homelessness is largely a problem of people who can't/won't take responsibility for themselves abusing public spaces and violating property rights (not to mention outright criminality.)
People pretending that homelessness is primarily caused by not shoving shitty apartments into every nice space aren't interested in solving the problem and lack basic honesty.
The stories in this article are certainly awful and egregious. And housing supply is a problem. But neither of those things is really the main issue when it comes to street homeless who are almost all mentally ill addicts.
People should be able to use their own property as they see fit and build whatever kind of housing they want.
Nimbys and Yimbys can all fuck off. Mobys (mind your own business) are the neighbors I want.
Nobody wants drug addicted bums around their house or on their street.
How dare that old granny feed some homeless people!
Now if she was selling fent, she would have been fine.
Just remember, elections have consequences.
If you have selfish, ignorant voters, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant politicians.
When every west coast city and town looks like Oakland, the leftists will celebrate a new chapter in liberalism.
Myorcass needs to spend a few decades in prison.
"They can even jail repeat offenders."
Where shelter, food, and healthcare are provided.
Just not seeing a problem there.
A lot of people value constantly being high over eventual home ownership/rentership. Other people are too mentally ill to take care of themselves in any situation. For most other people it’s a lamentable but transitory situation.
Not saying it’s ok how shitty government induced cost of living is right now, but you can still work your way out of it. I work with a guy who recently got out of jail and was on the street. But he found Jordan Peterson, started cleaning his room and making his bed every day, and went from sleeping in a rented truck behind the Walmart to getting a rented place with roommates in about 3 or 4 months.
Free Markets aren't going to solve homelessness. Almost by definition, the homeless don't have enough money to participate in a free market, and even if they did, most don't have the mental faculties to make the sorts of rational decisions that actors in a free market are supposed to make.
If society believes that it needs to mitigate homelessness, then society is going to have to accept government intervention and spending.
Me too. Me too. I’m ‘poor’. Send the government out to ‘armed-theft’ on my behalf.
The homeless will never LEARN to be an asset to society until there is motivation to be an asset to society. Subsidizing incompetence will get more incompetence. Sure there a few exceptions but we’re literally Trillions away from that marker. It should be localized charity anyways where there is 1-on-1 making sure the incompetent aren't just in it for the 'armed-theft'.
Besides; How many end up homeless due to the ‘armed-theft’ from the beginning. People need to come to terms that ‘armed-theft’ is a net negative. For every ‘poor’ you STEAL for it puts one more person closer to being poor/homeless because they got robbed. ‘Guns’ don’t make sh*t.
Those who are the most incompetent become politicians and other government worker bees.
All you need to participate in the market is the ability and willingness to work. Of course many homeless don't have that either.
Some good people have trouble finding housing. In Humboldt county about 75% of the 'unhoused' are drug addicts who trash any temporary housing and are the frequent cause of burning structures. About 15 % might be mentally ill, and about a tenth are just down on their luck.
"the Martinez family would have been forced to abandon good jobs and good schools to move somewhere they could afford."
Oh, you mean like everyone ever in human history has had to do? What a horror.
Do you even pretend to be libertarian anymore? Suddenly the free market is no longer viable because mentally ill drug addicts and criminals can't set up tent camps in my neighborhood that I labored to pay for. If taxation is theft, then WTF is that?