
Palo Alto bans vehicle dwelling - drwl
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=30521#.Uga4BbyErCY.twitter
======
smutticus
"We're attempting to take care of the needs of some of the neediest in our
community at the same time we're trying to take care of the safety of those
residents who live in this community"

I know I can get pretty fired up about zoning laws in the bay area but what a
pile of utter horse shit. It's not a community when only the rich get to live
in it. And the notion that this is a public safety issue is a complete lie.
Just like every other zoning issue in the bay area this is an issue about rich
jerks not wanting to see poor people. It's about exclusivity and segregation.
Don't want people living in cars, maybe you should allow affordable housing to
be built?

To all the residents of the bay area. Wake up and realize that the bay area
has grown in population and is now a dense urban environment. Build some dense
urban housing and stop pretending that everyone can live in a house with a
yard.

As an example check out Ordinance No. 4101 from Palo Alto's zoning code: "To
minimize the negative streetscape impact the construction of new two-story
homes could have on established one-story neighborhoods, the Council, on July
13, 1992, adopted the Single-Story Height Combining District (S) regulations.
The purpose of the ordinance was to preserve and maintain single-family living
areas of predominately single-story character. The maximum building height in
the "S" district is limited to 17 feet and a limit of one habitable floor. "

Basically, to protect the view we need to not have affordable housing. That's
the trade-off here. Density is ugly and we would rather pretend that we all
still live in the 1970's.

Or read this article: [http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/07/29/palo-alto-
mobile-ho...](http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/07/29/palo-alto-mobile-homes)

Not everyone in Palo Alto is a millionaire yet. But pretty soon they'll have
to be if they want to stay.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm particularly perplexed by the Libertarian Pacific Legal Group filing suit
to prevent the implementation of a high-density housing plan for the Bay Area:
[http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2013/08/06/lega...](http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2013/08/06/legal-
group-sues-to-stop-plan-bay-area.html?page=all)

~~~
NoPiece
What's perplexing about a libertarian group not wanting some regional agency
imposing a housing plan on a city that doesn't want it?

~~~
anigbrowl
The Libertarian Group is in Sacramento, and is trying to use State
environmental law to prevent the local governments in the Bay area from
cooperating on a plan to build high-density housing.

I'm not sure which 'city' you're referring to here, as PLC isn't representing
any particular city, and Sacramento (where they're based) isn't part of the
Bay Area, not that that makes a huge difference legally speaking.

~~~
Shivetya
They are not the only group going after this development. Many smaller cities
in the affected area also raised issues but their hands are tied. Even the
Occupy movement doesn't like the PLC. Developer groups are against it in many
areas as they have stated time and time again, high density housing of the
type required is the domain of the wealthy and will not serve the purpose the
PLC claims to address.

It should not get a free pass because it sounds good. It takes away the
ability of local government to determine what best use the land has under
their domain. It tells builders what they have to build. It tells owners what
they have to rent/sell for. It an attempt at one size fits all for an
incredibly varied landscape.

Let alone, the OP who brought up this groups complaint fails to address how
the PLC would even begin to help the homeless in their cars. The PLC certainly
isn't about fixing that.

If people want to fix the homeless issue they are going to have to look away
from city governments, across the country they are going out of their way to
hide the homeless, drive them into the subs. The reason is simple, they don't
have the money to deal with it and they don't see any benefit in keeping these
people in town. The very party that runs most cities across the country, the
very party that claims it wants to help the poor, only wants to do so provided
they don't have to see them or live with them

~~~
anigbrowl
_Even the Occupy movement doesn 't like the PLC._

The Occupy movement doesn't like anything except the sound of its own voice,
which is why their internal meetings require 90% majorities to decide
anything. Even semi-anarchist unions like the IWW don't impose such unworkable
restrictions on their internal governance.

I'm not sure what this 'PLC' you're referring to is. I'm talking about Plan
Bay Area, which was put together by the Association of Bay Area Governments,
an umbrella group of the 9 Bay Area county governments. It's not some external
agency imposing its mandate on local governments, it _is_ the local
governments.

~~~
NoPiece
It is more complicated than that. There are state mandated housing
requirements that are imposed through ABAG. They are going to tell you how
much housing your town MUST build regardless of what the citizens or city
council of the town want.

~~~
anigbrowl
Actually they're state-mandated environmental requirements, from SB 375 which
s designed to reduce the output of greenhouse gasses. Stuff that people
ultimately voted for (indirectly, via the election of representatives to our
republican form of government) and have not so far seen fit to overturn via
ballot initiative.

I am not too big a fan of planning, but then I am not too big a fan of sprawl
either. The fact is that ABAG is a local organization and the Plan Bay Area
initiative is an attempt to coordinate planning activities between the local
governments that they have voluntarily entered into.

So, some people don't like it. Not everybody gets everything they want in a
polity. People like myself who don't care for sprawl had to accept the fact
that we were in the minority on many past planning decisions too.

~~~
NoPiece
You've changed the argument from "I don't understand why libertarians might be
opposed to ABAG requirements" to "I support ABAG requirements because I don't
like sprawl." Whether people "ultimately" voted for it is as irrelevant as
saying people ultimately voted for Obama and therefore libertarians should
support war in Afghanistan. ABAG takes local control of housing away from city
governments. It is less accountable to residents than city government. Of
course a libertarian wouldn't want local control of development superseded by
regional, or state, or federal mandates.

And if you don't like sprawl, you shouldn't be forcing Palo Alto, Menlo Park,
Mountain View, Burlingame, etc. to increase density, you should look for
density in downtown San Jose and San Francisco, and try to get people to move
from the suburbs back to urban centers.

~~~
anigbrowl
Well I'm trying to respond to things other people have said which also
broadened the scope, and I still don't understand the basis of the Pacific
Legal Foundation's suit. As for complaining that ABAG takes control of housing
away from city governments, you seem indifferent to the fact that ABAG is an
association _of_ local governments. The various counties around the Bay Area
(with whom city governments already had to deal) are entirely within their
rights to work together, and frankly it seems a good deal more efficient to
coordinate some things through a medium like ABAG than to come up with 9
separate plans that take no account of each other and would result in 9
separate bureaucracies to administrate them and so on.

Downtown SF and SJ are already quite dense, and while I'm in favor of them
getting more dense your notion that smaller cities lying along the
280/Caltrain corridor are some sort o rustic havens doesn't make sense. As I
said earlier, if you really want to get away from it all it would make a lot
more sense to go to Half Moon Bay or even Portola Valley, whereas Palo Alto is
situated along 3 major transit arteries (101, 280, and Caltrain). I'm sure
you've lived in Palo Alto a while and don't like to see it change, but look at
a map; all the coast around the Bay is dense and you're sitting in between 2
cities with populations of around a million that are only about 45 miles
apart. I'm _not_ particularly sold on the ABAG plan, but I am quite in favor
of working together and having a plan instead of just muddling along
pretending the various counties around here don't impact each other.

------
ics
> At the same time, the council heard from numerous residents of the nearby
> Greenmeadow neighborhood who pointed to the growing homeless population at
> Cubberley Community Center and said they no longer feel safe near their
> homes.

I never cease to be amazed at how illogical and inhumane some people's though
processes can be, especially in aggregate. People living out of their cars
makes you feel unsafe? Better ban that activity! How about investing in a
couple ways to get them off the street and into a home, so that they can move
_on /up_? Rather than seeing them all as a destitute scourge waiting to pray
on the unsuspecting, which is more likely to happen when you _deliberately_
make their lives worse.

~~~
anigbrowl
Did you read the rest of the article, where they covered specific reasons for
why some local residents felt unsafe?

~~~
SwellJoe
This law won't alter the fundamental situation. There are people who cannot
afford homes. Forcing them to hide their now illegal sleeping arrangements is
not going to make them disappear or make the problems that come with a
thoroughly disenfranchised population disappear.

The only thing this accomplishes is putting more of the burden on the poorest
people in the community. Now, those people who formerly had a reasonably safe
place to park overnight to sleep will have to find a new place to sleep every
night. They won't be able to build any sort of community bonds with their
neighbors, develop a routine (that might be necessary for recovery from
addiction, or getting a job, or getting a kid to school every day, or any
number of things that requires one to know where you're going to be sleeping
each night).

I've been among the wealthy mobile homeless for five years now (I live in a
motor home, and traveled almost non-stop for four years; lately I travel only
~3 months out of the year, but will return to traveling more as I recover from
some personal grief that's led me to need some stable friendships and a
predictable life for a while). I've met a whole lot of folks who live in their
vehicle, whether it's an old motorhome, a van, or even a car, including in
Palo Alto (where I parked for three weeks while visiting friends). This kind
of law criminalizes people who shouldn't be criminalized, and it makes crime
part of the daily lives of people who are just trying to get by.

The problem here is that this is using a violent solution to a community
problem. When you ask for a law to be made against an activity someone does,
you're using violence and imprisonment to get your way. That's what the state
is: Legalized violence. Is it right to find someone so far down on their luck
that they are living in a _car_ , and respond by sending men with guns to fine
them or arrest them?

Because that's what this means. The poorest people in Palo Alto will now be
subject to being ticketed or arrested for _sleeping_. Not because they want to
hurt anyone, but because they have no where else to sleep.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm not trying to represent the council's POV. I'm just asking if the opster
above read the article, because s/he didn't address some of the specific
things in it that seemed relevant.

 _That 's what the state is: Legalized violence._

No, that's one model of the state suggested by one influential sociologist. I
am sick to the back teeth of this trope being trotted out as if it were a
fact. All it tells me is that you have an axe to grind.

 _sending men with guns to fine them or arrest them_

Perhaps you should try a country without mass gun ownership then. I quite like
that British and Irish cops don't carry guns as a matter of course, but then
that's got something to do with the much lower rate of gun ownership. If you
like the 2nd amendment, and I guess that you do, it's unreasonable to demand
that the police don't wear guns, and to suggest that the mere carrying of guns
mean they're violent by definition.

~~~
SwellJoe
"If you like the 2nd amendment, and I guess that you do"

How about if I remove the mention of guns? "sending men to fine them or arrest
them". This still seems violent to me. Fines lead to warrants...I know several
homeless folks who are always at risk of arrest because they have bench
warrants from unpaid tickets for sleeping (in Austin, sleeping pretty much
anywhere other than an apartment/hotel/house is illegal). Taking away
someone's freedom is a violent act (obviously no one is going to jail
voluntarily...it's only the threat of violence that makes them choose jail).

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm just always surprised when people
don't see the obvious. Kidnapping is a crime...only the state can get away
with it, through overwhelming force.

I don't really care to get into a gun rights debate, so I apologize for
bringing it into the conversation. It was a cheap tactic on my part, to make
the violence of police more visceral to someone who might not have seen police
violence in person before. Thank you for making me aware that I did it.

------
minor_nitwit
Rather than creating laws against the poor, perhaps the millionaires of Palo
Alto should try to do something to fix the problem.

~~~
gfodor
Nice false dilemma

~~~
chill1
> Nice false dilemma

I think you meant "false dichotomy" [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy)

~~~
cbr
Your link begins "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, ...)".

Both are standard terms for the same thing.

------
guylhem
As the measure clearly shows, the homeless interest were the #1 concern for
those who voted in favor.

That's sure, as in "We need to protect them people from themselves".
Unfortunately, it may not be enough. "think of the homeless" \- you must help
them even more than that!

So what about an even more audacious proposal: confiscate the vehicle in
exchange of a free sleeping bag and 2 month of food stamp - because you want
to make sure them people are sleeping and eating properly, even if it requires
some coercion to discourage them of their bad behaviour.

Of course, as you are good spirited and really care about their comfort, no
one will ever consider that this is just a way to frighten them to move to
another area and hide the problem under the rug.

Totally outrageous.

------
RexRollman
I really dislike it when things are outlawed for no other reaon than not being
liked. In my opinion, in order to outlaw an activity, you should have to show
that it is causing actual harm.

~~~
anigbrowl
Without endorsing the decision, there were some showings made: _But residents
who live near Cubberley had other concerns. Several pointed to recent
incidents, including one in which one homeless man beat another into
unconsciousness and another in which a homeless man threatened a police
officer._

~~~
ethanbond
I know a few kids that went to school and beat each other unconscious every
once in a while. In retrospect, I guess my town should've banned going to
school.

~~~
anigbrowl
The grandparent post said there should be some showings made of actual harm. I
pointed out that such showings were made, and said that I _don 't endorse the
decision_. Don't start an argument with me just because I referred the other
poster to something he overlooked in the article.

~~~
ethanbond
My comment wasn't to argue with you, just a comment on the situation. Sorry if
it seemed like I was calling you out.

~~~
anigbrowl
OK, sorry if I seemed prickly.

------
pcunite
This hurts ... I once had to spend the night in a car (one night) so I know
how it hurts emotionally.

I pay myself these days, but wonder about businesses that run off of greed.
What is happening in Bangladesh could very well come to our country unless we
begin to value our fellow man ... even the man that did not have that
_original_ great idea, or founded the company.

I understand that America was created by people who wanted to build something
useful for themselves _and_ others. Perhaps we should find a way to reinvest
in this country. Make jobs for our fellow man somehow. It is an unselfish idea
... we made it, they didn't. So, why care?

It would be cool if some young talent here could make a web service that
helped these people. We have plenty of photo sharing sites now ...

------
jurassic
This seems like a clear message to the houseless (!= homeless) population of
Palo Alto to GTFO. Sad, but can't say I'm surprised.

------
noarchy
On what basis can they even mandate such a ban? Is it based on the
government's ownership of roads? In that case, can you live in your car on
private property (parking lots, driveways, etc)? The article doesn't give
enough info.

~~~
michaelhoffman
The ordinance says:

> It is unlawful for any person to use, occupy, or permit the use or occupancy
> of, any vehicle for human habitation on or in any street, park, alley,
> public parking lot or other public way.

So it looks like there is no impediment to living in a vehicle on private
property.

~~~
batbomb
If that is the case then Menlo Park also has a de-facto ban because they don't
even allow you to park on most public ways over night.

------
rdixit
unchecked capitalism without a social safety net is a savage and brutish
failure

~~~
n3rdy
How does this have anything to do with capitalism?

The same politicians banning people from using the only shelter they have left
are the same politicians who prevent the same people from running their own
businesses by raising the barrier to entry artificially. Want to sell grilled
cheese sandwiches? Not in this politicians backyard (without business license
and permit that is).

~~~
kaonashi
> How does this have anything to do with capitalism?

Unemployment is a creation of Capitalism. Even in Feudal and slave societies,
people had homes and jobs.

------
lnanek2
I've spent months living down in the more affordable East Palo Alto working in
the region and Palo Alto always struck me as a bunch of rich snobs. So this
doesn't really surprise me.

I remember seeing a lot of people sleeping in the parks in Berkeley. One
friend and resident of a nearby house said the people had a right to stay
there. I also saw many at a local clinic. So at least Berkeley is still hip to
letting people be.

------
kenster07
Many of the comments presuppose that Palo Alto's city council is in a position
to do something about a truly macroeconomic problem, i.e. "instead of kicking
them out, why not provide them with jobs etc."

That being said, I don't agree with the council's decision. But the cultural
momentum that has carried them there is so far beyond them, and many of these
comments miss that point.

------
confluence
tldr: Rich people tell the poor to GTFO with the backing of the police looking
for more useless work to do.

Cue libertarian comments at government overreach, and socialist comments at
libertarian excess corrupting the political system.

I really don't care what your political bent is, but if you live in a
developed nation it's your responsibility to try and help, not punish the
poor. Why? Because someday you might be poor yourself. The economy is like
that.

I've met people who lived in their cars, and they don't make any trouble, keep
to themselves and just want to be left alone till they get back on their feet.
Why do you need to bother them? It costs you nothing to leave them alone.

------
samstave
But what if I want to live out of my Tesla Model S? Then its ok, right???

~~~
SwellJoe
I'm tempted to park there in my motorhome (new MSRP ~$95,000, though I bought
it used for a third of that) again, as I did a few years ago for three weeks.
I ran into lots of the folks who lived in the neighborhood, and they all
simply wanted to know where I'd traveled and where I was heading next.

Would be curious to see how a middle class white guy gets treated vs. poor
people.

------
joubert
The Borders on University could mike a nice shelter...

------
zfrenchee
It seems no one commenting here is actually from Palo Alto.

------
dylangs1030
tl;dr: It is now illegal to live in (most obviously, but not necessarily,
sleep in) vehicles parked in streets, alleys, and "public ways" (parks, etc.)
in Palo Alto.

It doesn't apply to private property, so you can conceivably still use a
camper as long as you own or are given the right to use a plot of land.

~~~
schiffern
> _It doesn 't apply to private property_

But this does. PAMC 18.42.070:

(f) Limitations for Sleeping in Recreation Vehicles

Subject to securing a permit therefore from the building official and
otherwise complying with applicable law, the use of a recreational vehicle, as
defined in this title, may be permitted for sleeping purposes only for a
period not to exceed thirty consecutive days in any calendar year for not more
than two nonpaying guests of the occupant of a single-family dwelling in
accord with all applicable regulations governing parking and storage of
vehicles.

(g) Vehicle Visibility from Public Streets

Except in the OS (open space) and AC (agricultural conservation) districts, no
person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this
section, whether disabled or fully operative, in any areas visible from a
public street unless it is parked or stored upon either permeable or
impermeable paving surface.

(h) Parked Vehicles shall not Obstruct Traffic Views at Intersections

No person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in
this section within the thirty-five foot triangle of property at the
intersection of streets improved for vehicular traffic.

(i) Parked Vehicles Maximum Coverage of Front Yard

No person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in
this section in a manner that they cover more than 40 percent of any required
front yard.

(j) Each Day of Violation a Separate Offense

Violation of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in this
code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be
separately punished.

(Ord. 4934 § 4 (part), 2007)

~~~
gte910h
That sounds like as long as there is payment, you can, and as long is on
pavement. As in, 1 cent, legal

~~~
schiffern
It's the opposite — you can _only_ have non-paying guests. I also assume there
are numerous regulations governing RV parks, which is what you'd be if you
accepted payment.

------
amerika_blog
Thus my plans to run a startup from my van by the river are dashed.

~~~
SwellJoe
Been doing it for five years. Works great. But, California might not be the
ideal location for it.

