The days of having your car towed for an unpaid ticket or a lapsed registration would be over under a bill just passed by the California State Assembly.

Assemblyman David Chiu wrote Assembly Bill 516, which would bar cities and counties from towing or booting vehicles that have five or more tickets or towing a vehicle whose registration is six months out of date — those are the current standards for towing. Cities would have to pass a specific ordinance to overwrite those rules.

The bill would also bar cities from towing cars and RVs parked for more than 72 hours unless the city passes a local ordinance. City officials say that could damper their efforts to stem the tide of RVs setting up house on streets.

“There are still two dozen other reasons to tow cars, including blocking a fire hydrant or blocking a driveway” or if the vehicle is abandoned, Chiu said.

Fines, fees and storage costs can quickly add up to more than $1,000 to retrieve a towed vehicle.

The bill is being pitched as a social justice remedy aimed at easing the plight of people living in their vehicles who may not be able to afford to recoup their cars once they are impounded.

“In many cases, we aren’t just talking about people losing their cars,” Chiu said. “We are talking about people losing their homes and jobs as well.”

Instead, Chiu said there are less-crippling ways for cities to collect on overdue tickets, like levies against bank accounts or garnishing the offender’s wages or state tax rebate.

As for the growing problem of people living in their cars and RVs while parked outside someone’s home or business?

“The bill still allows cities to pass their own parking bans in those neighborhoods,” Chiu said.

The “no-tow” law has the backing of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, but is opposed by the League of California Cities.

League legislative representative Rony Berdugo said that while banning towing may provide some financial relief to someone “who chronically ignores parking and commits other vehicle violations, it would come at a cost to the greater good and character of all.”

Particularly in communities already dealing with illegal dumping and blight, Berdugo said.

San Francisco has yet to take an official position on the bill, but Mayor London Breed is expressing “concerns” given the rising tide of RV dwellers.

“While we support wanting to alleviate the burden that tickets and towing puts on poor drivers, we also need the ability to manage our streets,” said Jeff Cretan, the mayor’s spokesman.

Privately, Bay Area officials say the bill would make it impossible to get RV dwellers off the streets.

“It would eliminate the biggest stick we have,” said one Oakland official who asked not to be named because of the sensitive nature of homeless politics.

Both San Francisco and Oakland are working on opening designated lots for people living in RVs who are looking to get into housing. Berkeley recently passed a ban on overnight RV parking.

And while the law is aimed at offenders living at or below poverty level, the no-tow law makes no distinctions for income, so everyone would be free of the fear of having their cars towed for not paying their tickets.

“But I don’t think people who can afford to pay their tickets will stop paying,” Chiu said.

Whatever the case, last week the Assembly agreed with Chiu and approved the bill 49-11, with 20 Assembly members abstaining.

Next stop is the state Senate.

Flag flap: Dublin is moving to revisit its recent 3-2 vote against raising the LBGTQ flag at City Hall for Pride Month. But if Mayor David Haubert has his way, the rainbow symbol will fly or be displayed somehow at City Hall.

Haubert was one of three council members who nixed raising the multicolored rainbow flag, in part because of opposition and in part because the city has no policy on raising flags at City Hall.

The council’s refusal to fly the flag — together with some of the public comments made at that meeting — resulted in a national stories that questioned Dublin’s support for its LGBTQ community.

Two speakers said raising the flag might be seen as supporting pedophiles. One of the speakers also objected because LGBTQ lacks an “S” — for “straight.”

“People are rightfully angry about outrageous comments made by some members of the public, comments that showed ignorance, bigotry and homophobia,” Haubert said.

“I’ve asked that a flag policy be ready by our next meeting” on June 4, Haubert said.

A second vote on the flag could follow shortly, possibly the same night.

“It could fly outside, or be displayed inside — there are many alternatives,” Haubert said, adding that he was speaking for himself and not other council members.

Haubert also had some words for the reaction of flag supporters to the vote.

“It’s better when you talk things out like this, which is what I have done in the last few days,” Haubert said. “But throwing a fit just because you didn’t get what you want is not good ... . I’m not being moved by that.”

Councilman Shawn Kumagai, who made the request to fly the flag, said that since the “no” vote, there has been “an outpouring of support” for the LGBTQ community and that he was “glad to hear of the mayor’s support.”

“My position still stands, however, that the flag be flown for one day,” Kumagai said.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Phillip Matier appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on the KPIX-TV morning and evening news. He can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call 415-777-8815, or email pmatier@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @philmatier