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.
I couldn't agree more. This is a shining example of humanity's incredible willingness to shove other's suffering out of their point of view so they don't have to consider it, instead of lending a hand.
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.
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?
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:
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.
I honestly don't think it is a big deal. It's far preferable to having people sleeping in tents, which this law basically forces an RV dweller to do. It's a horrible law and I hope it gets repealed.
> I honestly don't think it is a big deal. It's far preferable to having people sleeping in tents, which this law basically forces an RV dweller to do.
It's presumably already illegal to sleep in tents in residential parking spaces (or, without the owner's permission, on the actual residential property), without even the time-of-day restrictions applicable to this rule, so I don't think it's accurate to say this forces them to sleep in tents.
It forces them to sleep either at different places than LA residential neighborhoods or at different times.
Quite simply, homeowners do not want homeless people in front of their abodes, and will vote to make sure it remains that way. What would you do if put in the position of said homeowner? It becomes a more difficult decision when its literally on your doorstep
> The hours you are talking about are night hours.
They have some overlap, but night hours generally begin before 9pm and end before 6am. But, in any case, it is possible to sleep during non-night hours. It may be less desirable, but banning sleeping in vehicles in residential parking spaces in night hours is different than banning sleeping in vehicles in residential areas which in turn is different than banning sleeping in vehicles.
Those affected will get jobs restocking supermarket shelves or as security guards during the night. If they can't find such jobs, they will make far more noise in their RV during normal sleeping hours than they would if they were sleeping, disturbing the surrounding neighborhood more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
> 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.
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.
Except the only reason there aren't enough homes is because of artificial limits on construction. There's more than enough space for everyone, it's just that those who are currently winning are using their dominant position to make sure that no one else can have a fair shake.
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.
46 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 97.6 ms ] threadI think more people need to do more good in this world.
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.
https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/it-shook-me-portland-man-s...
It's presumably already illegal to sleep in tents in residential parking spaces (or, without the owner's permission, on the actual residential property), without even the time-of-day restrictions applicable to this rule, so I don't think it's accurate to say this forces them to sleep in tents.
It forces them to sleep either at different places than LA residential neighborhoods or at different times.
EDIT: Which seems to be almost exactly what they did, per TFA.
During certain hours while parked in a residential area.
> Isn't that the point of a vehicle like that?
Vehicular camping is the point of an RV, sure. OTOH, overnight camping isn't the point of a residential parking space.
> During certain hours while parked in a residential area.
The hours you are talking about are night hours.
They have some overlap, but night hours generally begin before 9pm and end before 6am. But, in any case, it is possible to sleep during non-night hours. It may be less desirable, but banning sleeping in vehicles in residential parking spaces in night hours is different than banning sleeping in vehicles in residential areas which in turn is different than banning sleeping in vehicles.
That doesn't make the law equivalent to a blanket ban on vehicular camping, or even a blanket ban on such camping in residential areas.
Adding in case others aren’t familiar with the source: https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France
I’m fairly confident we’ve never had an Amazon box stolen partly because of his constant presence.
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...
Seems unlikely to be tolerated however. How dare you not go into massive debt in order to live.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [2] https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-AHAR-P...
The -only- solution to homelessness is homes. Compared to pushing people around all of the time: cheaper, and permanent.
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.