>We don't just let people put up houses on random pieces of land they don't own and live there.

The current lack of any serious action or even any real interest in solving the now generation old homeless problem makes shanty towns eventually inevitable. I know it will be embarrassing to have them scattered outside the richest cities in the country but for some unfathomable reason that is the economic path we chose.

I suggest Mt San Bruno will make a fine favela for what is already the world's richest 3rd world city in all but name.

The city shouldn't do things that the people who live in it disprove of. If you can find me a majority of local people who agree with this then I'll buy this answer. This is a bit different then most other situations though. This is genuinely effective activism that will improve the quality of some people's lives. I don't see what's wrong with this especially if no one is harmed and no one's private property rights have been encroched. From what I understand this was done on public property that was "unattended" until the law was changed to exclude this practice.

From this statement:

   Since the city changed its [unattended property] ordinance, barring me from putting them on public land, I can only go with private land

I also see no valid reason to allow the government to damage property that is confiscated without paying them back. That's insane in it's own right.

I assume a group within the city unilaterally decided to confiscate and destroy the tiny houses. They seem to think that if you make being homeless more uncomfortable, then the homeless people will just eventually give up "slacking" and go and get a job and rent an apartment.

When the people who raze homeless camp sites or "tent cities" do it, they usually say that for their safety and public health reasons, they have to destroy everything.

With that usual behavior, I wouldn't be surprised if a random employee saw the sheds with the solar panels and said "It'll be a shame to let that go to waste" and took them off before the sheds were supposed to be destroyed.

I hope the guy running this project finds a good place to keep the tiny houses in the future. I'm disappointed in LA for passing the laws to try to prevent homeless people from having semi-permanent structures rather than tents.

What I don't understand is how it's legal to park a trailer on a street, but not a shed on a trailer frame.

> You can't put a 6'x8' home on public land without permission.

The article implies you could? Some sort of loophole they had to close down?