Los Angeles City Council Committee Halts Proposal to Expand Anti-Camping Law
Los Angeles is weighing a contentious expansion of its public camping regulations as lawmakers demand clearer fiscal and operational data. In a 3-2 vote on Tuesday, the Public Safety Committee held off on advancing a proposal by Councilwoman Traci Park to broaden Municipal Code 41.18. The measure would establish new restrictions near critical infrastructure and sensitive zones without requiring individual council resolutions.
While proponents argue the update is urgently needed to clear encampments and save lives, opponents warn the city lacks the required infrastructure, staffing, and financial resources to support a citywide rollout.
Questions Raised Over Staffing and Fiscal Impacts
The committee agreed to amend Park’s motion after Councilwoman Nithya Raman raised concerns about undefined terms within the text. Raman instructed city staff to deliver comprehensive answers before a draft ordinance reaches the full City Council. The request directs the City Attorney’s Office, Chief Legislative Analyst Sharon Tso, and Chief Administrative Officer Matt Szabo to define critical infrastructure, environmentally sensitive areas, and fire hazard severity zones.
City officials must also provide a citywide map detailing the geographic scope of the proposed zones. The directive also requires a thorough analysis of anticipated fiscal, operational, and staffing impacts. This includes calculating the costs of installing new signage, mapping encampments, issuing notices, and enforcing restrictions.
“It’s important for us to just understand what we’re voting on,” Raman said. “While I think it’s incredibly important for us to make sure that critical infrastructure and fire hazards are addressed quickly and effectively, I also do think that there is a lot that’s undefined in this motion.”
Competing Arguments Over Encampment Clearances
Municipal Code 41.18 currently prohibits sitting, lying, sleeping, or storing personal property in designated areas. In 2021, the city expanded the law to ban encampments within 500 feet of sensitive locations like schools and libraries, later adding parks, daycare centers, underpasses, and areas near the Los Angeles River. Establishing these zones currently requires a majority vote on a council resolution.
Park’s proposal would streamline that process by allowing council members to establish anti-camping zones without a council resolution while adding post offices, fire stations, and police stations to the sensitive-use list. It would also enforce a 500-foot buffer around fire-hazard severity zones, environmentally sensitive areas, and critical infrastructure.
Park and committee chair John Lee opposed the delay, arguing that the law is vital for clearing encampments and saving lives. Park noted that the city has spent millions of dollars clearing encampments and moving people indoors. She defended the expansion as a necessary step that aligns with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s July 2025 directive for state agencies to address encampments on state property.
“This motion and the objectives it pursues are in alignment with the flexibility that we have been provided by our Supreme Court — guidance that we have been given by our own governor, and models that we have seen in municipalities all over the western region of the United States,” Park said.
Opponents on the council remain skeptical. Councilman Curren Price, who represents parts of South and Central Los Angeles, argued that the city still lacks adequate shelter beds and housing resources. He noted that no analysis has been completed to determine what the expansion would mean citywide.
Supreme Court Ruling and Mayoral Race Shape Encampment Debate
The debate unfolds against the backdrop of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, which affirmed that cities may enforce laws regulating homeless encampments and public spaces. The enforcement of Section 41.18 has also emerged as an issue in the Los Angeles mayoral race, where Mayor Karen Bass is facing a challenge from Raman.
Bass supports Section 41.18, while her campaign has criticized Raman for voting against resolutions establishing additional anti-camping zones. Raman argues that the law should not be expanded without parallel spending on housing, shelter and outreach.
Other council members have sought to pull back on the law’s reach. In September, the City Council approved a motion by Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez to rescind 12 anti-camping zones across his district in central Los Angeles, arguing that discretionary zones established by his predecessor made it harder for his office to connect unhoused people with services.
Common Questions About the Proposed Ordinance
What specific locations would Park’s proposal add to the city’s sensitive-use list?
The proposal adds U.S. post offices, fire stations, and police stations to the list. It also creates a 500-foot buffer around fire-hazard severity zones, environmentally sensitive areas, and critical infrastructure.
Which city officials are tasked with answering the committee’s questions?
Nithya Raman instructed the City Attorney’s Office, Chief Legislative Analyst Sharon Tso, and Chief Administrative Officer Matt Szabo to provide definitions, maps, and fiscal impact analyses before the ordinance advances.
How does the current process for creating an anti-camping zone work?
Under existing rules, council members can establish anti-camping zones by resolution, which requires majority approval. Park’s proposal would allow council members to establish anti-camping zones without a council resolution.
Keep reading