10 ms·

Palo Alto bans vehicle dwelling

55 points by drwl 13y ago

ics 13y ago
> 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 13y ago
  Did you read the rest of the article, where they covered specific reasons for why some local residents felt unsafe?
  - ics 13y ago
    Yes I did. How many domestic abuse reports among wealthy people do they need to decide that all wealthy people should be banned from the neighborhood? They would be much better off considering just how unsafe the local homeless feel, either living in their cars or literally on the street.
  - SwellJoe 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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.
      - ics 13y ago
        FWIW, I didn't read your post as being antagonistic. I was actually posting a reply to your comment originally (about the one guy attacking another, and the threat towards a police officer) but chose to chuck most of it and put the shorter version here instead.
      - SwellJoe 13y ago
        "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.
  - revelation 13y ago
    I did, and there were none. It was all a bunch of "seeing hobos makes me feel unsafe". Sorry, but your feelings do not factor into this.
- MrFoof 13y ago
  "It's not that I mind people living out of their cars, but just not in my backyard."
RexRollman 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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 13y ago
        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 13y ago
        OK, sorry if I seemed prickly.
  - spellboots 13y ago
pcunite 13y ago
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 ...
noarchy 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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.
- ics 13y ago
  In this case there were numerous people speaking against it, yet I'm sure they are a very small group compared to those in favor or just apathetic. And of course once it's passed, it's very unlikely that someone living in their car would have the means to actually challenge it when invoked.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  The article doesn't explain what a car is either, but that's because you can look that information up for yourself. Like all incorporated municipalities, the city's legislative powers exist pursuant to its charter, a delegation of authority by the state. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/municode.asp http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/municode.asp which will take you a site where you can read the city charter. A charter is like a mini-constitution for the city that specifies what its powers are, how they are exercised, when elections have to be held and so on.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
minor_nitwit 13y ago
Rather than creating laws against the poor, perhaps the millionaires of Palo Alto should try to do something to fix the problem.
- gfodor 13y ago
  Nice false dilemma
  - chill1 13y ago
    > 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 13y ago
      Your link begins "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, ...)". Both are standard terms for the same thing.
  - kaonashi 13y ago
    Creating laws against the poor harms the poor. It's not a dichotomy at all. You can't help a group by actively harming them.
- NoPiece 13y ago
  What makes you think they don't? The city is generous in homeless services, which in turn draws more to the city. Especially as neighboring cities have already banned car camping. http://www.communityworkinggroup.org/opportunitycenter.html http://www.communityworkinggroup.org/opportunitycenter.html
rdixit 13y ago
unchecked capitalism without a social safety net is a savage and brutish failure
- ams6110 13y ago
  OK, but where Is "unchecked capitalism" happening? Surely NOT in California.
- n3rdy 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    > 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.
    - lurker14 13y ago
      Unemployment is a creation of civilization-- when people congregated in cities to take on specialist jobs, instead of subsistence farming and hunting and foraging.
- noarchy 13y ago
  Part of this is the result of capitalism (for better or worse), sure, but this story is specifically about government trying to take a broom to a certain part of the population, and sweep them out.
- ryandrake 13y ago
  The Bay Area's income/wealth inequality is criminally disgraceful, but "unchecked capitalism" is probably a little too vague a description of what's going on.
jurassic 13y ago
This seems like a clear message to the houseless (!= homeless) population of Palo Alto to GTFO. Sad, but can't say I'm surprised.
amerika_blog 13y ago
Thus my plans to run a startup from my van by the river are dashed.
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  Been doing it for five years. Works great. But, California might not be the ideal location for it.
dylangs1030 13y ago
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 13y ago
  >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 13y ago
    That sounds like as long as there is payment, you can, and as long is on pavement. As in, 1 cent, legal
    - 13y ago
guylhem 13y ago
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.
smutticus 13y ago
"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-homes http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/07/29/palo-alto-mobile-ho... Not everyone in Palo Alto is a millionaire yet. But pretty soon they'll have to be if they want to stay.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  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/legal-group-sues-to-stop-plan-bay-area.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2013/08/06/lega...
  - NoPiece 13y ago
    What's perplexing about a libertarian group not wanting some regional agency imposing a housing plan on a city that doesn't want it?
joubert 13y ago
The Borders on University could mike a nice shelter...
lnanek2 13y ago
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.
samstave 13y ago
But what if I want to live out of my Tesla Model S? Then its ok, right???
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  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.
confluence 13y ago
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.
kenster07 13y ago
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.
zfrenchee 13y ago
It seems no one commenting here is actually from Palo Alto.
lurker14 13y ago
If you live in Palo Alto and oppose this ruling and have a driveway, rent your driveway to someone in need.

55 points by drwl 13y ago

ics 13y ago

> 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 13y ago
Did you read the rest of the article, where they covered specific reasons for why some local residents felt unsafe?
- ics 13y ago
  Yes I did. How many domestic abuse reports among wealthy people do they need to decide that all wealthy people should be banned from the neighborhood? They would be much better off considering just how unsafe the local homeless feel, either living in their cars or literally on the street.
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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.
    - ics 13y ago
      FWIW, I didn't read your post as being antagonistic. I was actually posting a reply to your comment originally (about the one guy attacking another, and the threat towards a police officer) but chose to chuck most of it and put the shorter version here instead.
    - SwellJoe 13y ago
      "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.
- revelation 13y ago
  I did, and there were none. It was all a bunch of "seeing hobos makes me feel unsafe". Sorry, but your feelings do not factor into this.
MrFoof 13y ago
"It's not that I mind people living out of their cars, but just not in my backyard."

RexRollman 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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 13y ago
        OK, sorry if I seemed prickly.
- spellboots 13y ago

pcunite 13y ago

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 ...

noarchy 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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.
ics 13y ago
In this case there were numerous people speaking against it, yet I'm sure they are a very small group compared to those in favor or just apathetic. And of course once it's passed, it's very unlikely that someone living in their car would have the means to actually challenge it when invoked.
anigbrowl 13y ago
The article doesn't explain what a car is either, but that's because you can look that information up for yourself. Like all incorporated municipalities, the city's legislative powers exist pursuant to its charter, a delegation of authority by the state. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/municode.asp http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/municode.asp which will take you a site where you can read the city charter. A charter is like a mini-constitution for the city that specifies what its powers are, how they are exercised, when elections have to be held and so on.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

minor_nitwit 13y ago

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

gfodor 13y ago
Nice false dilemma
- chill1 13y ago
  > 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 13y ago
    Your link begins "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, ...)". Both are standard terms for the same thing.
- kaonashi 13y ago
  Creating laws against the poor harms the poor. It's not a dichotomy at all. You can't help a group by actively harming them.
NoPiece 13y ago
What makes you think they don't? The city is generous in homeless services, which in turn draws more to the city. Especially as neighboring cities have already banned car camping. http://www.communityworkinggroup.org/opportunitycenter.html http://www.communityworkinggroup.org/opportunitycenter.html

rdixit 13y ago

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

ams6110 13y ago
OK, but where Is "unchecked capitalism" happening? Surely NOT in California.
n3rdy 13y ago
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 13y ago
  > 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.
  - lurker14 13y ago
    Unemployment is a creation of civilization-- when people congregated in cities to take on specialist jobs, instead of subsistence farming and hunting and foraging.
noarchy 13y ago
Part of this is the result of capitalism (for better or worse), sure, but this story is specifically about government trying to take a broom to a certain part of the population, and sweep them out.
ryandrake 13y ago
The Bay Area's income/wealth inequality is criminally disgraceful, but "unchecked capitalism" is probably a little too vague a description of what's going on.

jurassic 13y ago

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

amerika_blog 13y ago

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

SwellJoe 13y ago
Been doing it for five years. Works great. But, California might not be the ideal location for it.

dylangs1030 13y ago

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 13y ago
>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 13y ago
  That sounds like as long as there is payment, you can, and as long is on pavement. As in, 1 cent, legal
  - 13y ago

guylhem 13y ago

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.

smutticus 13y ago

"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-homes http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/07/29/palo-alto-mobile-ho... Not everyone in Palo Alto is a millionaire yet. But pretty soon they'll have to be if they want to stay.

anigbrowl 13y ago
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/legal-group-sues-to-stop-plan-bay-area.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2013/08/06/lega...
- NoPiece 13y ago
  What's perplexing about a libertarian group not wanting some regional agency imposing a housing plan on a city that doesn't want it?

joubert 13y ago

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

lnanek2 13y ago

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.

samstave 13y ago

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

SwellJoe 13y ago
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.

confluence 13y ago

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.

kenster07 13y ago

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.

zfrenchee 13y ago

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

lurker14 13y ago

If you live in Palo Alto and oppose this ruling and have a driveway, rent your driveway to someone in need.