"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Come on, San jose is not dense. It has 5,256.2 people per square mile. Compared to LA, the ultimate sprawl city which has 8,225/sq mile, or New York which has 27,550/sq mi.
As I said earlier, ABAG is complicated. It isn't just an association of local governments. Cities can't leave it and relinquish themselves of the housing mandates, so they might as well stay in it and fight for something reasonable.
Cities and their citizens should decide for themselves whether or how they want to grow, or shrink.
Through application libertarian can mean whatever people want it to mean. Its meaning is as malleable as 'politically correct'.
Want to discourage people from building dense housing, then you're stopping the government from imposing a plan on freedom lovers.
Want to encourage people to build dense housing, then you're removing unnnecessary regulation from the free market and encouraging economic freedom.
The only real constant of American libertarians is the fact that they're almost all successful white people. So any libertarian group needs to address their concerns if it wants to stay relevant. Abstract ideological beliefs such as libertarianism can be mapped in many different ways to actual real world problems. So what usually ends up happening is the more influential subgroups within an ideological organization control the mappings of the groups ideology to real world issues. Then can claim anyone who does not agree with their mapping is not a true member of their ideological organization. It's similar the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, but not exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
It might seem convenient for libertarians to have a single ideology that they can map to every political problem they encounter. But I doubt many of them realize that in their complex machinations to contort libertarianism to fit political reality they're simultaneously redefining what libertarianism means to them inside their own head. This process is made easier by elected libertarians rarely having to actually do anything in politics. Since there are no libertarians at the national level every person who identifies as a libertarian can maintain their own personal definition of libertarianism that agrees with their ideal implementation of the ideology and still bond with other self identified libertarians exclusively through abstract ideology.
In short, libertarianism can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean as long as it doesn't piss of successful white people.
I don't get the obsession with density. Palo Alto is a small suburban town. People move there to get away from urban life and density. There is plenty of infill to be done in San Jose and San Francisco before you need to worry about Palo Alto.
I think the large amount of traffic during rush hour around those highway exits say otherwise. Several megacorps with tens of thousands of employees each have campuses in the region. It's an artificial area kept artificially suburban in a long stretch of continuous suburbia.
That's not true - the largest "megacorp" in Palo Alto is HP and they only have around 2000 employees. The only employer with more than 10k is Stanford, and the only employer with more than 5,000 is the Stanford hospital.
I said the area, where they all share a similar development policy. You have to include Mountain View, Menlo Park and Sunnyvale. They are all contain Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Symantec, etc. Not to mention many several hundred employee companies such as Palantir and a bunch you haven't heard of.
You don't have to include them because they are separate cities with separate governments and separate growth plans. And they don't have similar development policies.
Palo Alto is different from Mountain View which is different from Atherton. Mountain View has WalMart and Costco and Google. Palo Alto limits retail to 20k sqft, so there are no big box store or even supermarkets. Atherton just has a bunch of big houses. The differences are great - it lets people pick what the like and live there.
Actually I think people move there to be close to Stanford University, 280, Caltrain, and a bunch of VC and high-tech firms. If you want to get away from it all then some place like Half Moon Bay seems a much better choice.
> 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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure that there have been no instances where someone with a home threatened a police officer, or got into a fight. It's only those dirty homeless people who do that.
There may be higher levels of violence, but two incidents does not show that in my opinion.
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.
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.
In other words, there has not been one single incident of violent crime committed by a homeless man against a resident; had there been, they would presumably have cited it.
I'm no bleeding heart liberal. I'm all in favor of being tough on crime. But I'm having difficulty seeing this as anything other than straightforward unprovoked aggression against people who are not criminals.
That may resonate philosophically (and is a position I agree with), but in legal terms, there are any number of actions that are (a) victimless, and (b) crimes. Suicide. Many kinds of drug use. Any number of behaviors engaged in by consenting adults. And, since 9/11, some kinds of speech without actions at all.
Quote: "Suicide has historically been treated as a criminal matter in many parts of the world."
At this point a civilized person would post an apology for being utterly wrong, but, having spent my life dealing with people like you, I won't hold my breath for that outcome.
I'm sorry you don't understand present tense vs past tense. I'm also sorry your narcissism doesn't permit you to admit an error. I'm further sorry that you're unable to read past the first sentence of Wikipedia articles.
> I'm sorry you don't understand present tense vs past tense.
I didn't include a tense, past or present -- you wrongly assumed one, and there are still places where suicide is a crime, enough to justify my original claim.
> I'm also sorry your narcissism doesn't permit you to admit an error.
I used a literature reference to prove that the error is yours. Here's another:
"There are" is present tense. As is my statement, "is not".
> there are still places where suicide is a crime
The relevant jurisdiction is Palo Alto, California, USA.
> Man up
Apologize for your disgusting sexism.
> apologize for wasting our time
No one forced you to comment in the first place, much less respond to my comment. Apologize to yourself for wasting your own time.
Your Virginia link is absurd. There can be no crime in the United States without a codification of the crime. "Common law crime" is flatly unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Your eagerness to argue this point would be amusing if it didn't reach clinical significance. I pointed out a minor error in a comment I otherwise agreed with, and you've just completely blown up. Seek help.
For the record, by the way, I corrected you because the notion that suicide is a crime adds to the social stigma and discourages people from seeking help. You were doing a small disservice to society, and I wanted to undo that damage and make the world a little better. I'm sorry you can't stand that.
> "There are" is present tense. As is my statement, "is not".
I proved that suicide is a crime, now, as we speak, at present. You lost -- learn to live with it.
>> there are still places where suicide is a crime
> The relevant jurisdiction is Palo Alto, California, USA.
This is the Internet, rocket scientist. By definition it's international. Only a narcissist would try to claim that an Internet post can only apply to where he is personally sitting.
>> Man up
> Apologize for your disgusting sexism.
Precisely how does "Man up" disparage women? Think before answering, and again -- I won't hold my breath for that outcome.
> Your Virginia link is absurd.
That's an interesting way to acknowledge that you have been defeated by readily available evidence. It's a defense typical of narcissists.
> "Common law crime" is flatly unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Suicide is illegal in Virginia. Which word didn't you understand? Or do you believe that (as just one example) common-law marriage isn't an enforceable contract?
> I pointed out a minor error ...
You did no such thing. You were wrong, I was right, I proved it, now you're displaying classic narcissistic hand-waving behavior.
> You were doing a small disservice to society ...
By pointing out that suicide is a crime, and then proving it? Nice distortion of logic.
> I wanted to undo that damage and make the world a little better.
And, according to you, all evidence to the contrary, you're not a narcissist. It's a good thing that, unlike suicide, being a narcissist is not a crime.
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 ...
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.
> 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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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...
Not everyone in Palo Alto is a millionaire yet. But pretty soon they'll have to be if they want to stay.