Los Angeles vote to remove Anti-Camping Zones highlights divide over homelessness policy

By The Malibu Times · Sat Aug 22 2026

Council's 10-3 decision removes restrictions at 12 locations as Malibu takes a contrasting approach focused on outreach, enforcement and heightened wildfire danger

A Los Angeles City Council vote to remove anti-camping restrictions at 12 locations in Hollywood, Silver Lake and Echo Park is renewing debate over how communities should balance homelessness outreach with public safety and access to public spaces.

The council voted 10-3 on Aug. 18 to rescind 12 discretionary zones established under Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 41.18 in Council District 13, represented by Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez. Councilmembers Traci Park, Imelda Padilla and Monica Rodriguez opposed the action.

The vote does not repeal Section 41.18 citywide. Instead, it eliminates restrictions at 12 specific locations designated under Soto-Martínez's predecessor, former Councilmember Mitch O'Farrell, including freeway overpasses and underpasses and other public areas in Hollywood, Silver Lake and Echo Park. Other laws governing obstruction of sidewalks and public rights-of-way remain in effect.

The decision represents a significant change in how one part of Los Angeles will address encampments and comes as Malibu, following years of devastating wildfires, is taking a contrasting approach in which the potential fire danger associated with encampments has become an increasingly important part of the city's homelessness strategy.

Soto-Martínez, who introduced the motion, has long opposed Section 41.18 and argues that forcing unhoused people to relocate does little to address the underlying problem.

“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 the council discussion.

Supporters of the change argue that repeated encampment sweeps can separate people from outreach workers, cause belongings to be lost and make it more difficult to maintain contact with individuals who may be eligible for housing or other services.

Homelessness advocates who supported removing the zones say the city's focus should instead be on outreach, interim shelter, mental health and substance-use services and permanent housing.

For Soto-Martínez and his supporters, the issue comes down to whether enforcement actually reduces homelessness or simply changes where it is visible.

The three councilmembers who voted against the motion raised a different concern: what happens to public spaces once restrictions are removed.

Park, who represents communities on Los Angeles' Westside, argued that Section 41.18 provides an important tool for maintaining areas after outreach has occurred and shelter or services have been offered.

She told the council she could not support eliminating measures intended to keep public areas safe and accessible for children and families.

Rodriguez similarly argued that the ordinance serves a purpose beyond addressing homelessness itself by protecting public spaces and allowing families and other residents to use parks, sidewalks and community areas.

Critics of the council action have pointed to concerns commonly associated with larger encampments, including blocked sidewalks, trash and sanitation problems, open drug use and fires.

Padilla also questioned whether councilmembers were being asked to defer to Soto-Martínez on policy within his district when he has opposed requests by other councilmembers seeking anti-camping restrictions in their own districts.

The vote could also provide a test for the city's broader approach. Supporters believe reducing enforcement will make it easier for outreach workers to maintain contact with unhoused residents and move them toward housing. Opponents will be watching to see whether encampments return or expand in the areas where the restrictions have been removed.

Soto-Martínez said his office conducted extensive outreach before seeking the change, including knocking on more than 2,000 doors near the affected locations. He reported that approximately 96 percent of those who responded either supported removing the zones or expressed no opinion.

An informal survey conducted by CBS Los Angeles after the vote produced a different snapshot. A CBS reporter interviewed 22 people in Hollywood, Silver Lake and Echo Park. Twelve said they did not support allowing camping in public spaces, five supported the change and five were undecided. CBS made clear that its “whiteboard poll” was an impromptu, unscientific survey rather than a representative public-opinion poll.

Those interviewed raised many of the same issues heard in the council debate, including concerns about fires, drug activity and the condition of sidewalks and public areas. Others acknowledged the difficulty of restricting camping when people have nowhere else to go.

The competing responses underscore the broader challenge facing communities throughout Los Angeles County: how to help people move out of homelessness while maintaining public spaces for residents, businesses and visitors.

For Malibu, the Los Angeles vote provides a sharp contrast to the approach being taken locally, particularly as the community continues to confront the realities of living in one of California's most fire-prone areas.

Malibu has worked for years to combine homeless outreach and housing assistance with the removal of encampments that create public safety, health or environmental concerns. City staff works with law enforcement, county agencies andoutreach providers to identify encampments, connect individuals with services and clear sites when necessary. Cleared locations are also revisited to discourage encampments from becoming reestablished.

But in Malibu, the issue carries an additional dimension that is difficult to separate from the community's history: wildfire. That concern has only intensified following the Franklin Fire in December 2024 and the devastating Palisades Fire in January 2025, which destroyed hundreds of structures in Malibu and neighboring communities.

Earlier this month, the Malibu City Council declared a local emergency because of worsening wildfire conditions, allowing the city to move more quickly to address homeless encampments in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones when they pose a fire threat.

For Malibu, the concern is not hypothetical. The city has documented dozens of fires associated with homeless encampments in recent years, while continuing to identify and remove encampments in partnership with law enforcement, county agencies and homeless outreach providers.

The distinction is important. The debate in Los Angeles has largely centered on whether anti-camping zones effectively reduce homelessness or merely displace people while restricting where they may sleep. In Malibu, city officials must weigh those same humanitarian and public-space concerns against the potential consequences of an ignition in dry brush or open space.

An encampment fire in a dense urban area presents serious risks. In Malibu's wildland-urban interface, particularly during periods of critically dry vegetation and Santa Ana winds, an ignition has the potential to spread beyond the immediate location and threaten homes, evacuation routes and entire neighborhoods.

That reality has shaped Malibu's approach. The city has emphasized that enforcement is paired with outreach and services rather than treated as a replacement for them. Malibu has also reported a long-term decline in its unhoused population while continuing efforts to prevent encampments from becoming established in locations that could threaten public safety.

The contrast with Los Angeles District 13 illustrates why homelessness policies can look considerably different from one community to another.

Soto-Martínez and advocates supporting the removal of the 12 zones argue that keeping unhoused residents in contact with outreach workers and concentrating resources on housing is more effective than repeatedly forcing people to relocate.

Malibu's experience adds another consideration to that debate: in a community where wildfire can move rapidly through canyons, hillsides and neighborhoods, the location of an encampment — and the potential ignition sources within it — can become an emergency-management issue as much as a homelessness issue.

As Los Angeles moves forward with its new approach at the 12 locations, the debate is unlikely to end with this vote. The results will be watched throughout the region as cities continue searching for ways to address homelessness while balancing outreach, public access and safety.

For Malibu, where the scars of recent fires remain visible and wildfire preparedness is a year-round priority, that balance necessarily includes another question: how to provide compassionate services to people experiencing homelessness without allowing encampments to create an unacceptable fire risk for the larger community.