Councilman Soto Wants to Gut 41.18 Zones. That’s a Mistake, and Angelenos Deserve Better

This week, Councilman Hugo Soto introduced a motion to remove the 41.18 zones in his district. I think it’s the wrong call, and I want to explain why.

For those who don’t follow City Hall closely, Section 41.18 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code allows the City to prohibit sitting, lying, sleeping, or storing personal property in specific public rights-of-way, areas near schools, daycare centers, parks, and pedestrian bridges. These zones weren’t created on a whim. They exist to protect the places our kids walk to school, the parks our families use, and the sidewalks people rely on to get around safely. Soto’s motion would strip those protections away and reopen those spaces to encampments.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the job of a city council member is to make life better for the people who live in their district. Angelenos pay taxes in exchange for basic things, clean streets and sidewalks, police and fire protection, access to public parks. When you eliminate 41.18, you’re breaking that deal. You’re telling residents that the safety and access they pay for is now negotiable.

I want to be clear about something, because this issue gets flattened into a false choice too often. Opposing this motion isn’t about turning my back on people experiencing homelessness. Not everyone living on the street is in the same situation, and I don’t think we should talk about them as if they are. Some people are going through real economic hardship. Others are struggling with addiction or a mental health crisis they never asked for and never chose. Letting people who are sick simply waste away on a sidewalk without any real intervention isn’t compassionate. It’s neglect, dressed up in the language of tolerance. Those individuals deserve treatment and a genuine path forward, not a policy that looks the other way while their situation gets worse.

At the same time, there are people who have made a deliberate decision to live on the street. We live in a free country, and adults are allowed to make choices for themselves. But that freedom doesn’t give anyone the right to negatively impact the community around them, families’ sidewalks, kids’ parks, or a neighborhood’s basic safety. Removing 41.18 protections means letting one group’s choices override everyone else’s quality of life. That’s not fairness. It’s the opposite.

This isn’t a new position for me. Back in October, I publicly called on my own opponents in this race to take a clear stand on enforcing 41.18, because I believe voters deserve to know exactly where every candidate stands on keeping shared public spaces safe. I’ve pointed to how the ordinance has worked in Council District 3, when it’s paired with real outreach and support services, as proof that it can work citywide.

I’ve also spent time seeing this issue up close. Over the past year, I completed numerous ride-alongs with LAPD, including patrols in the San Fernando Valley. What I saw confirmed what I already believed: our mental health system is broken, officers are constantly responding to people in crisis with almost no tools to actually help them, and quality-of-life enforcement has become nearly impossible in practice. When an encampment blocks a business entrance or threatens a family’s safety, officers often don’t have the resources or authority to do much about it. That’s not a policy failure at the enforcement level, it’s a failure of political will at the top, and Soto’s motion moves us further in the wrong direction, not closer to a fix.

So here’s where I stand. When I am elected, I will take a zero-tolerance position on encampments. Every encampment will be addressed within 24 hours, and I will use every tool available to actually help the people living in them, not just move them along. Nobody has the right to sleep wherever they choose on a public sidewalk when a bed and real services are available. That’s not cruelty. That’s basic order, paired with real compassion, which is exactly what I think this issue has been missing.

I’d ask Councilman Soto to reconsider this motion. Instead of removing protections that keep our schools, parks, and pedestrian bridges safe, let’s work together on a plan that keeps 41.18 in place while expanding shelter capacity, outreach, and mental health and addiction treatment across the district. Safety and compassion aren’t opposites. The families in this district deserve both. So do the people struggling on our streets. Gutting 41.18 gives them neither.