CANDIDATE COMMENTARY—
Tim Gaspar is a candidate for Los Angeles City Council District 3 in the November 3, 2026 election. He is running against Barri Worth Girvan. This commentary reflects the author’s views and does not necessarily constitute a CityWatch endorsement.
On August 18, the Los Angeles City Council voted 10–3 to remove 12 location-specific Section 41.18 zones in Council District 13 at the request of Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez. I believe that was the wrong decision, and Angelenos deserve to understand why.
Section 41.18 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code restricts sitting, lying, sleeping and storing personal property in certain public rights-of-way. It prohibits blocking sidewalks, building entrances, driveways, fire connections, streets and bicycle lanes. It also prohibits encampments within 500 feet of schools and daycare centers and permits the City Council to establish additional zones around parks, libraries, bridges, underpasses and other sensitive locations.
The Council’s action did not repeal Section 41.18 or eliminate its citywide restrictions near schools and daycare centers. It removed 12 specific designations in Soto-Martínez’s district. Nevertheless, I believe removing those protections could result in encampments returning to some of these public spaces and make it more difficult to keep them safe and accessible.
The job of a City Council member is to make life better for the people who live in the district. Angelenos pay taxes in exchange for basic services: clean streets and sidewalks, police and fire protection, and safe access to public parks and other shared spaces. When location-specific protections are eliminated without an equally effective alternative, residents are being told that the safety and accessibility they pay for are negotiable.
I want to be clear because this issue is too often reduced to a false choice. Opposing the removal of these zones does not mean turning our backs on people experiencing homelessness.
Not everyone living on the street faces the same circumstances. Some people are experiencing severe economic hardship. Others are struggling with addiction, mental illness or a personal crisis they never anticipated. Allowing people who are seriously ill to deteriorate on a sidewalk without meaningful intervention is not compassion. It is neglect dressed up as tolerance.
Those individuals deserve treatment, shelter and a genuine path forward—not a policy that looks the other way while their condition worsens.
There are also people who decline available shelter or services and decide to remain outdoors. Adults are entitled to make decisions for themselves, but those decisions should not prevent families from using sidewalks, children from enjoying parks or businesses from remaining safely accessible. Personal freedom does not include the right to take over public spaces at the expense of everyone else’s quality of life.
Soto-Martínez argues that enforcement under Section 41.18 can displace unhoused residents, interrupt relationships with outreach workers and create legal complications that make permanent housing more difficult. His motions also state that street homelessness in District 13 has fallen by more than 40% since 2023.
Those concerns deserve consideration, but I do not believe they justify eliminating these protections. If enforcement is disrupting outreach, then the answer is to improve coordination among outreach workers, service providers and law enforcement—not abandon the rules intended to keep public spaces safe and accessible.
This is not a new position for me. In October, I publicly called on my opponents in the District 3 primary to take a clear position on enforcing Section 41.18. Voters deserve to know where every candidate stands on protecting shared public spaces.
I believe the experience in Council District 3 shows that Section 41.18 can be an effective tool when it is combined with genuine outreach, available shelter and support services. Enforcement alone will not solve homelessness, but abandoning enforcement will not solve it either.
I have also seen this problem up close. Over the past year, I participated in numerous LAPD ride-alongs, including patrols in the San Fernando Valley. What I witnessed confirmed my belief that our mental health system is broken.
Officers repeatedly encounter people experiencing serious mental health and addiction crises, yet they often have few practical resources available to provide lasting assistance. When an encampment blocks a business entrance or creates a safety problem, officers may have legal authority to respond but lack the staffing, shelter options, treatment resources or coordination necessary to produce a lasting solution.
That is not simply a failure at the enforcement level. It represents a failure of political will and leadership at the top. Removing these Section 41.18 zones moves Los Angeles further away from an effective solution.
When I am elected, I will take a zero-tolerance position on encampments while insisting that enforcement be paired with meaningful assistance. Reports of encampments should receive a City response within 24 hours, beginning with outreach and an assessment of available shelter, treatment and support services.
The objective should not be merely to move people from one block to another. It should be to move people into appropriate shelter and services while restoring public spaces for their intended use.
When an appropriate bed and genuine services are available, no one should be permitted to occupy a public sidewalk indefinitely. That is not cruelty. It is basic public order combined with compassion—exactly what has been missing from Los Angeles’ approach.
I ask Councilmember Soto-Martínez and the City Council to reconsider this direction. Instead of removing protections around parks, bridges and other sensitive locations, City leaders should keep appropriate Section 41.18 zones in place while expanding shelter capacity, outreach, mental health care and addiction treatment.
Safety and compassion are not opposites. Families deserve both, and so do the people struggling on our streets. Removing these protections provides neither.
(Tim Gaspar is a Businessman and Candidate for City Council District 3 - West Valley)
