The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to remove 12 designated anti-camping zones in District 13, reversing restrictions that had been in place for approximately five years.
The 10-3 vote followed a push by Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, whose district includes Hollywood, East Hollywood, Echo Park and Silver Lake.
Councilmembers Imelda Padilla, Traci Park and Monica Rodriguez voted against the motion, while John Lee and Curren Price Jr. abstained.
Soto-Martínez argued that repeatedly moving unhoused residents from one location to another does little to address homelessness and can make it harder for people to connect with housing and social services.
“Displacing our neighbors from block to block, or in many cases, from district to district, doesn’t help them find housing,” Soto-Martínez said during Tuesday’s council meeting.
“In fact, in most cases, it makes it much harder for us to help them, because they lose their belongings, they get fined, and many times, they are arrested,” he added.
“To me, that is a policy that does not work,” Soto-Martínez said.
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS
The 12 anti-camping zones being removed are all located within District 13. The decision therefore does not immediately eliminate similar restrictions elsewhere in Los Angeles.
Section 41.18 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code prohibits people from obstructing streets, sidewalks and other public rights-of-way. The ordinance includes restrictions involving sitting, lying or sleeping in certain public areas and the placement of personal property.
Soto-Martínez has argued that enforcement can interfere with efforts by outreach workers to maintain contact with unhoused residents and connect them with housing.
During public comment, several residents supported the council's decision.
“Section 41.18 makes the homelessness crisis worse, as all of you know,” one resident said, arguing that displacement can make it difficult for case managers to locate people when housing opportunities become available.
Another caller criticized the policy, saying, “41.18 is a failure.”
Opponents, however, argued that anti-camping restrictions provide important protections for residents and public spaces.
“If you don’t want those protections in your district, that’s a decision you can make and explain to your constituents,” Councilmember Traci Park told Soto-Martínez. “But I’ve seen what happens when we abandon our public spaces.”
Councilmember Imelda Padilla also raised concerns about the impact on homeowners and families.
“In communities like mine, communities of color … where people have worked so hard to become homeowners, I don’t think it’s fair that they can’t hang out in their front yard or keep things in their front yard,” Padilla said.
THE BIGGER QUESTION
The vote highlights one of Los Angeles' most contentious debates over homelessness: how the city can balance the needs of unhoused residents with the concerns of homeowners, businesses and other people who use public spaces.
Supporters of removing the zones argue that enforcement alone cannot resolve homelessness. They say repeatedly relocating people can disrupt relationships with outreach workers and make it more difficult to connect individuals with permanent housing.
Opponents argue that restrictions can help keep sidewalks, parks and other public areas accessible and usable for surrounding communities.
One resident who opposed the change argued that removing the zones could cause homelessness to spread into additional neighborhoods.
“You want the homeless to move into the neighborhood; you want the homeless to spread out,” the resident said, adding that the change could affect “the families, the individuals who work hard just to make a living.”
A skeptical view is that removing the 12 zones does not automatically mean more people will receive permanent housing or that homelessness will decline in District 13. At the same time, keeping the restrictions in place does not necessarily prove that enforcement produces lasting housing outcomes. The effectiveness of the change will ultimately depend on whether the city can pair its policy decisions with sufficient housing, shelter, outreach and supportive services.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The immediate impact of Tuesday's vote will be limited to the 12 designated locations within District 13.
The decision did not repeal Section 41.18, meaning the broader municipal law remains in effect in other areas of Los Angeles.
The vote could nevertheless lead to a larger policy debate. Some city staffers expressed concern that other councilmembers could push for similar removals in their own districts.
The zones had been in place for roughly five years, making their removal a significant change in the city's approach to homelessness enforcement in the affected locations.
City officials will now have to monitor conditions in the areas where the restrictions were removed and determine whether the policy produces the results supporters expect.
WHAT WE STILL DON'T KNOW
- Will other council districts seek to remove their anti-camping zones?
- Will the change result in more people being connected with permanent housing?
- How will the city respond if encampments increase in affected areas?
- Will businesses and homeowners report changes following the vote?
- Will Los Angeles reconsider Section 41.18 more broadly?
- How will officials measure whether removing the zones is successful?
- Will additional homelessness-policy changes follow?