
LA has passed new restrictions on sleeping in cars and RVs - Melchizedek
https://themindunleashed.com/2018/02/la-has-criminalized-poverty-by-making-it-illegal-to-sleep-in-cars-and-rvs.html
======
dpeck
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under
bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

Adding in case others aren’t familiar with the source:
[https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France](https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France)

~~~
burntrelish1273
Yup. The fallacy in that quote is that the poor don't have anywhere else to
go, whereas the rich can buy whatever they like. It's criminalizing poverty.

------
tehwebguy
Live on the east side of Venice / west side of LA. A fellow lives in his tiny
pickup in street parking directly across the street from my front door. Been
there for many years, much longer than I’ve been here.

I’m fairly confident we’ve never had an Amazon box stolen partly because of
his constant presence.

------
foxyv
What happens when you have a housing shortage and 14% of your land is empty
parking lots due to land use restrictions? It's a tragedy what is happening to
California.

~~~
ibejoeb
The demands on new buildings are crazy. Green space, parking... Everything new
has to be lux to exist.

------
munificent
Reposting a slightly reworded comment I wrote about Seattle that I think is
relevant here too:

One thing I never see come up in these discussions is the overall increasing
wealth disparity in the US.

In most of these discussions there is an unspoken moral belief that people
have some level of "rights" about where they live. Most agree everyone doesn't
have a moral right to their own sprawling mansion on the coast. And most agree
that it's not right if someone working 40 hours a week can't afford a home
anywhere in the United States.

But, between those two extremes is a continuum. My belief is that most of us
grew up in a culture that placed the "right" point on that continuum somewhere
between the city and neighborhood level of scale. You have the right to live
in the city of your choosing, regardless of your income level. But you don't
have the right to any neighborhood of your choosing. If you want to live in
the most desireable street, then it's fair for you to have to pay for the
luxury.

I think that's been a stable cultural point for a lot of cities in the US for
many decades. New York is a good example of a city that supported people from
the righest elites down to poverty-level working class.

But economic disparity has gotten so bad now that the affordability point on
the continuum no longer aligns with our moral point. If you are working class,
there are cities where the entire commutable region surrounding it is outside
of your price point. San Francisco is one, Seattle is well on its way, LA
might be.

I think much of the anger we feel comes from those two points being out of
alignment. We feel that people _should_ be able to live in the metro area of
their choosing, but the economic reality is that for some cities now, they
can't.

I don't think any small-scale solutions like affordable housing is going to
fix this. In a country where the rich keep getting richer, the poor keep
getting poorer, and the rich want to live near each other, the emergent
property is large economically homogenous zones that only a few can afford to
enter.

~~~
closeparen
>One thing I never see come up in these discussions is the overall increasing
wealth disparity in the US.

Wealth equality cannot save you from the basic mathematical reality that you
can't uniquely assign N homes to N + 1 households. Inequality is the only
thing that ever comes up in these discussions, and it's a red herring every
time. Price is the mechanism by which markets exclude people, so it's the one
you're going to see in a market economy. Social programs use waiting
lists/lotteries/political connections, but at the end of the day it's all the
pigeonhole principle.

Income inequality could be responsible for people wanting to concentrate in
cities in the first place, but I'd argue this is actually the arc of humanity
for millennia - America's decentralization is a mistaken aberration, and one
that's ending. People who can afford to overwhelmingly choose cities.

~~~
munificent
_> Wealth equality cannot save you from the basic mathematical reality that
you can't uniquely assign N homes to N + 1 households._

There are enough homes in the US, as far as I know.

 _> I'd argue this is actually the arc of humanity for millennia - America's
decentralization is a mistaken aberration, and one that's ending._

Yes, I think you're right. And I think it's generally a good thing that the
suburban sprawl phase is ending.

 _> People who can afford to overwhelmingly choose cities._

In the past, "can afford" was generally "yes" for cities, it's just that you
may have had to choose a working class neighborhood. But now we have the
population density of the 2020s and the income inequality of the 1920s. The
result is that the zone of affordability for many cities is now so far out
that you can no longer get close enough to even be able to commute into the
city.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Reducing inequality would be great, but
doesn't seem likely any time soon. Maybe a larger number of smaller mini-
metropolises instead of concentrating in a small number of giant ones like
NYC/LA/SF/Seattle, etc.

~~~
Splognosticus
> There are enough homes in the US, as far as I know.

1.8% of all homes in the U.S. are vacant[1], as compared to 0.17% of the
population who are homeless.

[1]
[https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf](https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf)
[2]
[https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-AHAR-P...](https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-AHAR-
Part-1.pdf)

~~~
jhbadger
It's not like most vacant houses are perfectly fine though. These numbers
presumably include the decaying abandoned houses in places like Detroit which
were abandoned because people couldn't make a living there.

------
hawkesnest
You can't sleep in an RV? Isn't that the point of a vehicle like that? So long
as they aren't dumping their tanks inappropriately, what's the big deal?

~~~
patcheudor
As I understand it, a few people were regularly parking their RV's in front of
people's homes for weeks on end and in rare cases being rude to local
residents. It only takes a few bad apples to ruin it for everyone. Apparently
this has been a problem in Portland as well:

[https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/it-shook-me-portland-
man-s...](https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/it-shook-me-portland-man-says-he-
was-attacked-for-reporting-homeless-rv/277-508166309)

~~~
pebcakID10T
I believe there was already a law stating that you couldn't park in the same
place for extended periods of time. Different laws could be written to make
sure obnoxious behavior is preventable without forcing people out on the
street.

------
loteck
Sigh, journalism.

 _Unfortunately, under new legislation passed in Los Angeles, programs like
this will be illegal, because sleeping in cars and RVs have been entirely
outlawed._

Immediately followed by:

 _Under the new laws, it is illegal to sleep in a car or RV that is parked in
a residentially zoned area from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m._

Thus, it has not be "entirely" outlawed, and the headline is sensational at
best.

On a similar note, we've had this same law in San Diego for some time, and
people with disabilities are suing to stop it, saying it's unconstitutional.
[https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/cases/bloom-et-al-vs-
city...](https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/cases/bloom-et-al-vs-city-of-san-
diego-et-al)

~~~
woolvalley
"It's not banned, it's just effectively banned!" /s

------
pontifier
In Provo Utah, it is illegal to sleep on any city owned property. The law is
so broadly constructed that a sleeping baby in a stroller or a sleeping
passenger in a moving car are most likely in violation.

This type of law is completely insane, and was one of the last straws for me.
I ran for mayor with the purpose of disincorporating the city. Needles to say,
I didn't succeed, and now the old corrupt mayor is a congressman.

Nobody seems to care when it's other people's rights that are eroded.

------
dpweb
Not just very poor people, but minimalists. I couldn’t pay LA or SF rents, not
cause of poverty, just on principle. Makes you kind of angry what 2000/mo.
gets you. Compared to some of these tiny or crappy apartments and houses, an
RV doesn’t look too bad.

Seems unlikely to be tolerated however. How dare you not go into massive debt
in order to live.

~~~
brewdad
No one is stopping you from living the minimalist RV life in LA or SF. You
can't do so on the publicly owned streets. Find yourself a privately owned
parking spot, either in a surface lot or a residential plot and you'll be in
compliance.

My town has a similar ban in place. Plenty of my neighbors own RVs. They park
them on a concrete slab poured next to their house, usually under some type of
open carport. You could find someone to rent you a space like that.

------
devhead
chasing the symptom is easier than identifying and addressing root causes,
which are as varied as the people who are homeless, do no real good.

I think more people need to do more good in this world.

~~~
Kalium
You're absolutely right! Identifying and addressing root causes is hard, good,
morally required work. Work we _must_ undertake.

Yet, what are people to do when they have been placed in a position where
identified solutions to the root causes have been placed out of reach? They
can make themselves more comfortable, at the very least. Their suffering is
not a moral obligation.

------
8bitsrule
Once again, this throws more money into continual, expensive enforcement, with
no end in sight.

The -only- solution to homelessness is homes. Compared to pushing people
around all of the time: cheaper, and permanent.

------
lostgame
Alternate title: 'LA once again proves itself to have some of the most
inhumane excuses for life on this planet.'

~~~
lostgame
Like most of America, it seems to almost _thrive_ on it's ignorance of the
actual issues, throwing band-aids on severed limbs and getting all lawsuit-y
when someone tries to bring it up.

~~~
jccooper
Like "in Canada where laws like this have been implemented for some time".

------
newfoundglory
Can the title be updated? In its current form it’s false outrage bait.

~~~
dang
We've taken a shot at it.

