|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As more and more people are living out of vehicles, the response from many Peninsula cities has been the same: Go somewhere else.
In Los Altos, just parking a motorhome for a half-hour in the evening can lead to a citation. Palo Alto and Sunnyvale both previously tried to outlaw living out of vehicles, until a federal court ruled that such restrictions were unconstitutional. Instead, those cities have been ramping up restrictions on street parking, arguably as a means to the same end.
In Mountain View, city officials have taken pains to handle the problem differently, and at no small cost. Over the last couple years, the city has devoted more than $1 million and thousands of staff hours to homeless programs, rehousing initiatives and basic services such as portable toilets, showers and waste disposal for people living out of their vehicles. Given the direction to be compassionate, city police have reportedly turned a blind eye to some parking violations.
Some say these policies have been rolling out the welcome mat for more to come. At any rate, the number of inhabited vehicles in Mountain View has ballooned. A professional survey conducted in June 2016 counted 126 lived-in vehicles, mostly RVs. Last December, when the Mountain View police department performed its own count, the number of inhabited vehicles was tallied at just under 300.
On Tuesday night, March 6, Mountain View’s tolerant stance toward the roadside RV encampments was put to the test. Despite increasing complaints of trash and crime problems, the City Council voted 6-1, with Councilman John McAlister opposed, to essentially hold the line. In doing so, the council majority declined to support stricter enforcement measures that might have driven hundreds of homeless people out of town. But city leaders indicated that the status quo was becoming unsustainable, and they signaled that harsher measures would need to eventually come once they could establish some kind of safe space for the RV dwellers to go.
“Until we create an alternative for the bulk of people living in vehicles, we really aren’t solving the problem,” said Mayor Lenny Siegel. “If we make these programs work, then I believe that other cities will follow.
“It’s better than trying to move the problem along,” he said.
The meeting was a five-hour slog that waded into the many thorny issues surrounding people living out of their vehicles. Present at the meeting was a large turnout of housing advocates who emphatically urged city leaders not to “criminalize poverty.” Their concerns were counterbalanced by dozens of letters and hundreds of past complaints from residents who have lost patience with having the homeless problem parked outside their front door.
The controversy of the night was focused on a menu of options presented by city staff to ramp up parking and towing enforcement. Among these ideas, staff proposed prohibiting vehicles from parking on city streets if they were over a certain size or during certain times of the day. Alternatively, city officials also proposed creating some kind of permit system, in which people living out of vehicles would have to register with the city.
The enforcement proposals were not fully fledged. City staffers said they wanted to get a sense for the political support on the council before they studied how these programs could work, logistically as well as legally.
Echoing the concerns of many frustrated residents, council members Lisa Matichak and Margaret Abe-Koga both spoke in support of stricter measures to control the RV encampments. Matichak described accompanying police officers as they made the rounds to visit the city’s vehicle camps. While some deserved sympathy, her main takeaway was that many people were living on the street by choice, she said.
“I don’t feel like the situation has improved. While some people have been helped, more people keep coming to town,” Matichak said. “We absolutely should do what we can for the folks who need help, but there’s other folks who are taking advantage of the situation.”
But a series of votes on studying these ramped-up enforcement measures came up short. In a 3-4 vote — with Siegel and council members Pat Showalter, Ken Rosenberg and Chris Clark opposed — the council shot down a motion by Abe-Koga to study restricting parking for large vehicles and creating a permitting system. Another split vote failed to pass a proposal to study new restrictions on RVs near city parks and streets with visibility concerns, such as Shoreline Boulevard.
“This wouldn’t do anything to solve homelessness in Mountain View. It just moves it,” said Councilman Ken Rosenberg. “This seems to be an effort to make it seem like we’re doing something when we’re not.”
The winning vote for the night was to maintain the status quo for just a little longer. City officials are putting forward new initiatives to aid the homeless, and they need a little more time to show results, said Councilman Chris Clark. In a 6-1 vote, the council agreed to keep enforcement largely the same with one significant modification: Clark requested giving the police discretion on when to tow vehicles. Previously, city officials said vehicles would typically be towed only after five citations or for serious safety concerns, according to city officials. Clark said the local police had demonstrated excellent judgment on this.
McAlister voted against the proposal, saying he wanted to see some restrictions near city parks and more funding for law enforcement.
Spending $230,000 for various short-term measures to aid the homeless proved less controversial on the council. The measures include new funding for a “rapid rehousing” program, as well as for free showers and waste dumping for RV-dwellers and the cleanup costs for any biohazard spills.
For leaky vehicles that cause health hazards, the city will put forward $30,000 to pay for the towing costs, in effect subsidizing tow yards for agreeing to take RVs and trailers. Some tow companies in the Bay Area reportedly are declining to take large campers and trailers because they are dilapidated and cost too much to move. Only one tow company will still take custody of large motorhomes in Los Angeles, a city dealing with its own homeless crisis.
One promising sign for city leaders was a new nonprofit that will soon provide “safe parking lots” for people living in vehicles to stay. The group, calling itself Lots of Love, was started by several local churches who proposed the idea in 2015. Speaking for the group, Pastor Brian Leong of the Lord’s Grace Christian Church in Mountain View said that starting the nonprofit took much longer than expected, but he urged the city to give it a little more time.
“We’ve always been a caring and compassionate city,” he said. “If you cut RVs out of the city we won’t be able to get off the ground to see if safe parking can help the problem.”
Yet it was not immediately clear how many vehicles the new nonprofit would be able to immediately take off the streets. Leong said the group still needed to hire a director, and then members would look to start a pilot program that would run for at least three months.
The council agreed to contribute $55,000 to help fund the new nonprofit through mid-2019.
Yet, even as the council majority pushed for a compassionate approach to the homeless problem, members hinted that their patience could soon reach its limits.
“Our community has been more than willing to be tolerant with this so long as there was a plan and we would eventually return things to where they were,” Clark said. “When we have an alternative available we should move forward (with stricter enforcement), but I’m struggling with what to do in the interim.”
-
A segment of Stevens Creek Trail has been temporarily closed after recent storms caused severe bank erosion along Stevens Creek. Photo by Michelle Le -
A cyclist takes the detour around Stevens Creek trail which is crumbling due to soil erosion on Aug. 22, 2017. Photo by Michelle Le -
The Santa Clara Valley Water District completed repairs to prevent erosion on the Stevens Creek Trail. Photo by Michelle Le
Mountain View planning commission backs major rowhouse project, despite misgivingsFebruary 9, 2026 1:57 pm
Once again, the Mountain View city council feels free to ignore the quality of life of the local citizens to serve a political agenda. Even when other local governments chose (rightly) to serve their residents first, Mountain View bucks the tend.
Thanks, City Council. I really enjoy paying thousands of dollars in taxes so that you can use them to support people who use city services without paying for them and divert them away from the residents. I especially enjoy it when you have the gall to ask for even more money to pay for even more services for those have chosen to park here and avail themselves of your largesse (using taxpayer money, of course).
Maybe the city council should figure out just who it is they are supposed to be working for. I didn’t move here just to provide a cash cow so that these misguided social justice warriors can make themselves out to be so “caring” of the community. If they want to use my money in such an irresponsible manner, maybe they can each adopt an RV family to share their homes and park in their driveways. At least then I would think they were practicing what they preach. Until then, they should be better stewards of taxpayer money.
I frankly think that MV’s policy is closer to the right place than Palo Alto’s– BUT, someday a cyclist is going to die because of an RV taking up the bike lane on Shoreline. Rosenberg and some of his ilk just cant be SLIGHTLY pragmatic and put some nominal controls on this activity. And there will inevitably be a traffic fatality as a result.
There are places where this RV parking is absolutely fine. There are others where it is a simple traffic hazard. And if you were to sit down with Rosenberg, he’d say to you. “why do you hate the homeless so much?”. I dont, Ken. The world is shades of grey. Modest, pragmatic restrictions are a reasonable compromise and in the end are better for everyone.
I agree completely with psr. I am saddened by the direction of MV. I have loved this city for more than a two decades, and increasingly it’s becoming unlivable. We, the citizens, need to get involved and begin electing representatives that actually represent their constituents. I doubt there are many residents of Mountain View that actually like seeing old beat down RVs line the streets. Ah, to look out your window and see a beautiful row of RVs. It’s no wonder there is a mass exodus of people leaving CA and in particular the Bay Area. I have heard that the State and Local government want us to leave – so the folks from other areas and countries can move in.
@lenny Siegel: this is absolutely ridiculous. The council needs to take action now. So you will impose Parking restrictions on Shoreline and just drive the RVs to other parts and residential neighborhoods in Mt. View? With the ‘dont enforce’ policy what are residents to do. You accept this blight on our city? I will be voting against ALL of you in future elections and will encourage others to do the same. This is totally unacceptable, RVs need to go. Most of them are obviously totally run down old RVs, which tells me they aren’t citizens of Mt. View trying to make it by, they are squatters in a city that they figured out won’t do anything. They will continue to multiply. If ONE crime against the residents of Mt View happens from these types, the blood is on YOUR hands. Vote them all out!
Mountain View’s Median house price went up to 2.2 million per year. They are not worried about current old time residents. They know that the cash cow will keep’em coming. This problem with homelessness is the worst I have ever seen. Anywhere. Tents are going up on the freeway, and behind peoples 2.2 million dollar homes. Something needs to be done. Status quo is not cutting it. Double standards don’t work. Problem for Liberal Council is that if they do whats right for Mt/ View they they will alienate their voting pool. The Rv dwellers are the liberal voting pool.
Time to start voting out the Council Members along with the School Board Members. We ain’t gonna take it no more. There’s no more point to even making a comment or argument here.
The obvious solution to this problem is to build enough houses for everyone here. Build public housing on municipal land, market-rate housing elsewhere. You won’t see people on the streets when there are enough beds for everyone. This is purely a symptom of the housing crisis.
Presumably, the NIMBYs commenting on this article just want to criminalize poverty and sweep our problems under the rug by punishing those most vulnerable. No surprise the NIMBY members of Council just want to hurt people.
RV residents are no less citizens than the rest of us. I applaud the Council’s action. Those of us better off can stand a bit of inconvenience and discomfort. We have a regular RVer near us who causes no problem whatsover.
Proposal:
Identify the houses in MV that have signs on their lawns and windows saying “Refugees welcome here.” Pair each one of these households with an economic refugee RV dweller. RV gets to park on their property, use their bathroom, and plug into their power outlets.
Beyond all the virtue signalling on display, this would be a chance to show some actual virtue.
I do not understand why this great community does not create a campground for these people. They are not a hazard they just cant pay the high rent here. A campground out at Moffat would seem to be a good solution.Hot showers and a laundry could solve a lot of problems of mess on the streets. I am sure a small fee for services would help every body.
@ NO MOUNTAIN VIEW City Council (except Mr. McAlister)-> WTF are you doing to my home town? This is ALL your fault. It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You make bad decisions and they snowball onto us. I’ve been her for 50 years, and I have never seen such a disregard of the resident’s quality of life. Look what you have done, this is quite a pickle you have created. SHAME ON YOU! The only reason I am still here is that my mother is still alive, has a house here and doesn’t want to leave (she doesn’t drive). Almost all of my family has moved out of this mess. You push us out so that people from other countries move in. Who are these people that can afford to buy a home or even rent here? If I had the mental fortitude I would run for city council, but I don’t need the drama.
@Lenny Siegel
You say:
“If our traffic department can’t figure out a way to re-stripe the bike lanes on Shoreline to improve safety, it is likely that they will post signs limiting vehicle size.”
So, your options are, “Move them today and look at restriping” vs. “Keep people in danger”.
So, every night, you are going to sleep, realizing that your decision is putting bicyclists in danger. You could have voted to move RVs out of the bike lanes, and you have chosen not to. This is your call on endagering the lives of children and other adult bikers.
Just keep that in mind. And when someone is killed, remember this, and try to explain to yourself why you had the option and did nothing.
What if the RVs start parking in the neighborhoods south of El Camino? Would council change its stance?
It is an environmental and public health crisis in the making. Despite the expensive attempts to mitigate the issue, with 300 RVs how many of them have been intentionally dumping or inadvertently leaking raw sewage? That untreated waste ends up in the Bay harming the vegetation and animal life. If it stays on our streets, it can be particularly bad for certain populations like children, elderly, and those with compromised immune systems.
No one is indifferent to homelessness, but some common sense is needed here.
I personally think that this is a good thing. If we remove the people living in their cars, then we’d be forcing our problem on another area. But if the Lots of Love program works, and it will, it will be great for the homeless people of Mountain View and might help the homeless people in other places too. Not only that, but the people who benefit from this could spread Lots of Love to another area and help homeless people there. If we don’t think about that, then we could be moving around homeless people until they have nowhere to go. I think that this is worth taxpayer money.
This situation is going to get worse and lead to blight and crime. The City streets are not for housing, they are for parking cars and temporary parking of larger vehicles not over night parking. Consider Menlo Park’s ordinance which no overnight parking even for cars, would be good for Mountain View.
For now the campers should be told that they will have to find housing or go to shelters.
Let’s start by contacting the occupants of each camper and determine the employement status, how long they have been living on the city streets in campers, etc so we can start making a end plan. No more money should be wasted on propping up the use of our streets as untaxed unapproved housing. Money spent on real homeless housing should be where the money goes.
These RV’ers and their supporters APPARENTLY believe that if you WANT to live somewhere, then you CAN live there … wow … maybe it’s just my generation, but I was raised that if you CAN’T AFFORD to live somewhere, then you CAN’T live there … and @ The Seat of Wisdom = I completely concur that our clueless, self-involved City Council members are wearing their sphincter muscles as necklaces …
mvresident2003, you should heed your own advice. How many times have you gotten up at a council meeting and made a public comment, rather than pseudonymously sniping about our most vulnerable?
These boards are only a good way of getting a sense of how certain busybodies in our community feel about things. You are not representative.
Mayor Siegel joked he wanted to make Mountain View the Berkeley of the South Bay. Well, it’s happening. Take a drive up to Berkeley and you will see the future this council sees for Mountain View. They gave away one million gallons of water a day to East Palo Alto, 23 Million dollars to LA school district with no strings attached, and now the green light for every RV in the Bay Area to park in Mountain View and we’ll provide more services to them than the folks paying property taxes. What does it take to start a recall ballot measure?
mvresident2003, does that mean the answer was “zero?” Let’s just say, I’ll believe it when I see it. Had you been at the meeting, you’d have seen just how much of our community wants to support these vulnerable people, and just how out of touch with Mountain View you and other busybodies on this board are
I was at the meeting Tuesday night and felt that the City Council members were swayed too much by those speaking at the podium who want to save the world.
One man told of an RV parked in his next-door-neighbor’s property. He thinks about 7 people are living in it, including children and dogs. He’s afraid to let his children play in his own yard, and he’s afraid to leave his home overnight–say for a family vacation–because he doesn’t think his house is safe from prying eyes and too much information about his family’s comings and goings.
Parents in southern California this week are accused of child abuse for housing their children in a shack. Why is Mountain View not shielding children from a similar abuse situation with no water, no heating, and no plumbing? Is it because they’re poor that they get away with so much?!
This situation is only going to get worse, especially when warmer weather comes. Instead of 300 or 400 homeless, there could easily be 1,000 or more.
Not only is there a bike-lane problem with RVs helping themselves to the lanes, but think about the parents of kids who are playing sports at say Eagle Park and can’t find parking along the street because the RVs have taken it.
I hope council members are reading these comments and the multitude of issues presented. The housing rules need to be put in place NOW.
@Mark
“maybe it’s just my generation, but I was raised that if you CAN’T AFFORD to live somewhere, then you CAN’T live there”
Oh please. You guys massively overhauled property tax laws when California started getting expensive to live in so you could stick around.
This is truly disgusting. I am so outraged. I have never been so appalled by our city council! Since when is it at all rational to allow 300+ people to camp on public streets for as long as they like? How many is too many? 1000? 2000? We could be there pretty quickly once word gets out. And over $1M spent on homeless initiatives? That’s not free money. It could have been spent on so many other things serving so many more people, our grossly under-funded schools for one.
I was sympathetic initially, but I am done. These campers are turning this city into a disgrace and taking advantage of us all. More than half of them didn’t even live in Mountain View before becoming “homeless”. And yes, I’ve seen the fancy RV parked on Shoreline. And the police recently arrested four RV dwellers for drugs, one right next to a popular Ballet school with lots of children who hang around before and after class.
This isn’t sympathy and kindness. This is misguided, runaway egos from a handful of people trying to make themselves feel good but only at someone else’s expense, at the expense of residents who deserve a safe, clean city to live in.
Build more housing (also more affordable) yes, but in the meantime get people off the streets!
“In a 3-4 vote — with Siegel and council members Pat Showalter, Ken Rosenberg and Chris Clark opposed”. I will be voting all four of you out next time. I am convinced you do not care about Mountain View or the people who live here – those who ACTUALLY live here, not those who decide to camp on the street. I’m done with you and your crazy ideas on managing this once great city. I’m regretting I even decided to live in Mountain View, City of Suckers.
@Just disgusting, feel free to leave at your earliest convenience if you “regret moving here in the first place.” Nothing’s stopping you.
What do you mean by “actually live here?” Vehicle dwellers live here just the same as you and have exactly the same rights you have. They’re just here trying to live their lives, go to work, and raise a family in a country that casts aside anyone who doesn’t have enough money.
I feel compassion for anyone who has to live in an RV and I don’t think the people who do have a choice. I’ve been open to allowing it but I do feel it is at the point now of creating a dangerous situation both for residents and the RV dwellers themselves. I’m not sure it is really doing a kindness to anyone to enable RV dwelling on a city street with no services.
My neighbor was once told by the city that he could not put up a sun cover for his car, citing an obscure rule regarding residences. I myself received a letter from the city to trim some ivy that was covering a few inches of the sidewalk.
Why are tax paying residents teated so differently than non-taxpayers?
I do have a solution: I think the city should suspend all city taxes that residents must pay, until the city figures out a way to treat us all equally and fairly. Also, every council member should publish their home resident address, while inviting rv er’s to live on their property.
@ Lenny Segel you might as well move to Berkeley now since you will be voted out soon.
@YIMBY
What generation are you referring to? Anyone over 30 that has worked hard and bought a home long after prop 13? What are you … 15 years old?
Holy cow there are a lot of angry old people in this comments section. Guess what, folks, it really is terrible being homeless. That’s why none of you are living in RVs and instead sitting in your houses complaining about how great vehicle dwellers have it.
Pete, your response just doesn’t make sense. Try harder to be more clear in the future.
@ Lars
You assume a lot. Just because citizens that rent/ own homes in our city don’t like vagrants that aren’t paying any property tax doesn’t mean we are old or angry. We are disappointed in our city council and are tired!
Wow, so paying property taxes is what makes someone worthy? These are impoverished people being forced to live on the street. Get some perspective.
Hey Lars, you know what’s terrible?
The fact that when fecal matter dries, it becomes airborne and potentially releases viruses like rotavirus. If you happen to be a child and inhale that virus, you can get very sick and die.
Did you also know that in San Diego last year they had a Hepatitis A epidemic of 584 cases resulting in 400 hospitalizations and 20 deaths. Hepatitis A can be spread through contact with fecally contaminated environments.
To combat and contain the outbreak San Diego actually had to start washing their streets with bleach.
I am just glad I raised my kids before this started happening. I took them to all the park playgrounds in Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale including Eagle Park many times. When you play on the playgrounds for a few hours the kids usually have to use the bathroom. I am not sure I want my kids using these bathrooms that all these homeless people are using.
If I was a Mountain View parent of a young child I would like my city to think of their welfare too.
I didn’t realize eliminating homelessness was what Matichak, Abe-Koga, and McAlister were proposing. Oh, wait, no, they were just looking to criminalize poverty.
Those are both excellent arguments for why the city should provide free waste disposal and cleanup: it can become a public health issue. Next, it should look to provide supportive housing for all of these homeless individuals. Criminalizing poverty does not do anything to fix these problems. Do you really believe that our homeless population wants to go without a home?
Nevermind, it’s much easier for everyone here to get angry at poor people and pretend this isn’t a symptom of a greater problem.
How is insuring the health and safety of all the people of Mountain View and our environment criminalizing poverty?
Really this whole situation is about certain people trying to place their personal political agenda over the very real immediate concerns of this city. People in this city deserve to not be faced with a public health crisis, because of a political goals of a few people who have no interest in actually representing the best interests of this city.
How exactly is this situation sustainable as it currently stands? At what point do the larger health and environmental regulatory bodies step in?
It is ABUNDANTLY clear that we as MV citizens need to take action that the cowards on the City Council are afraid to do.
Can someone PLEEEEASE start a petition to get this issue on the ballot so that we can have common sense laws put in to place?
I will sign it and vote!
McAllister ran on a (yard sign) slogan of MV Residents FIRST. He has generally been voting that way. He is a native son, born in MV. In a varied-background Council, he is a respected voice of that sentiment, but with a UC Berkeley alum type of socially aware way.
The bike lane on Shoreline was never a curb-side, “protected lane” construction. The RVs there are parked usiing the designated parking zone, and the bike line is OUTSIDE the parking zone, The Mayor may not know that – because his biking routes are normally to his home on the Eastside of Castro (Old MV neighborhood).
Public health issues are serious. The San Diego situation was and still is serious. I hope the Chief of Police/City Manager start to use their NO TOLERANCE of LEAKING SEPTIC SYSTEMS that they now have, and start to tow after just ONE CITATION. No more visibly-leaking-sewage “warnings”.
I have had a retirement-trip RV for about 6-7 years. I park it on-the-street, on-my-driveway, and Move it or Use It every 72 hrs if on-the-street. For the first time ever – I got a 6 AM knock-on the door wakeup visit from the police. I has failed to adequately wash out the dump tube (for Black Water tank) and after a few days home, parked in-the-street, the tube had started to stink.
Good police response (I did my septic tube cleaning on my own property). REPORT TO THE POLICE all vehicles that have septic stink. This should not happen and the police will, from my experience, quickly respond to and assess the situation.
RVs semi-permanently hogging the parking need at public parks. Does need more work, but usually, overnight or mid workday the parking spaces all along Shoreline were empty. Over the last three decades. Empty paved public property, to help solve a public housing crisis? I support the Council majority on this, but most people can see the council is moving towards, as the song lyric goes “Let’s tighten it up!”
(Archie Bell & The Drells – that should date my high school years!)
have a good day, live long and prosper!
I was at Tuesday’s meeting and it was clear to me that despite the public outcry and data presented, some members of the city council already had their minds made about the situation. This was sad and frustrating.
I am all for compassion and the pilot programs are great ideas but these take time to show efficacy. Lots of Love, after 3 years, is only now ready to take in a limited number of vehicles. These council members are banking on silver bullets and that any intermediary enforcement will not help. But you can’t turn a blind eye to the data and maintain the status quo when it’s painfully clear the problem will only reach unsolvable thresholds. Even when more housing is built and these programs are successful, which again take time, it’s unrealistic that everyone will move off the streets and we’re still left with the same problems.
So please, members of the council, find a balance for pragmatism and proactiveness and buy yourselves some time to curb this situation.
sure hope the council and Berkeley Lenny read all these postings. 90% + in favor of getting rid of RVs – and the council has to take more time to figure out what to do? and spend hundreds of thousands $$ to support the RV habit? shame on you all. crack down on illegal street parking and make space for them in Moffet field. next election – just ask simple question – do you support having RVs on the streets? if answer is yes – vote them out of office. this is ridiculous as nearly everyone says . why should tax paying citizens fund a mobile homeless population that jeopardizes our community from a health and safety standpoint – and makes MV a new type of sanctuary city for the RV crowd? pathetic.
Since you were at the meeting, “Needs action now”, you are well aware that the public outcry at the meeting was overwhelmingly to support our neighbors forced to live on the streets. Some council members, Matichak, Abe-Koga, and McAlister, certainly had their minds made up for their NIMBY political agenda. Even McAlister has his lifted-from-Trump “MV Residents First” slogan, ignoring the fact that the vehicle dwellers are themselves residents. In a typically Trumpian way, they aren’t the right type of residents. Will he put them first? Of course not, they’re poor, so this comments section wants to shuffle them off to the next town and pretend we aren’t responsible for what we’ve done to these people’s lives.
@Pete
That has nothing to do with my comment. Also, I highly doubt you know anyone in their early 30s that voted for Prop 13 for reasons that should be obvious to you.
I thought it was a little off-putting when an Individual residing in a vehicle on Shoreline would visit my neighbors portalet 2-3 a day during while their residence was being remodeled, and while they were at work during the day. He would just stroll up and use the portalet like it was a public restroom. I am pretty sure such an activity would be considered trespassing, since, uh, the portalet was clearly not on public property…but was tucked up against the residence. I told my neighbor what was happening and they had the portalet removed the next week.
Who wants random people living in vehicles on the street strolling onto one’s private residential property…for any reason?
What were you doing stalking your neighbor during the day? Don’t you have a job yourself, or are you just the idle rich profiting off the housing crisis which has caused all this homelessness?
More likely, you just made up a story to scare people.
I work from home. My driveway was is right next to the side of the house where the portalet was placed.
The first time I noticed the man was when I was backing out of my driveway, and he startled me because he stepped out from the beside shrubs between my property and my neighbors property. I wondered who he was and what he was doing there, and then figured he had been using the portalet. The second time I noticed the same man (same clothes, etc.) was later that afternoon as I was walking back from from downtown, and as I stepped up to my porch I heard a door slam and I wondered what the noise was, and a few seconds later the same man came walking out from my neighbors side yard (beside my driveway) and strolled on down the street. I realized the door slam I heard was the portalet door slamming shut after he had stepped out of it. The third time I saw him, I was again backing my car out of the driveway just as he was stepping into the Portalet. It was after this third time in as many days of seeing this same man – who was not one of the contractors and who did not live on our street – using this portalet, that I decided to see where he came from. The next time I saw him strolling down the street, headed for the portalet, I decided to see where he went after he was done, and I watched him as strolled over to Shoreline and back to his vehicle.
I think it’s telling that you, Lars, try and malign someone who relates their truthful experience, simply because you don’t want to hear that truth.
Yes, let’s take the word of someone who admittedly stalks people around their neighborhood because they don’t like the look of them.
Last Tuesday night we witnessed an appalling lack of leadership and responsibility and a shameful lack of respect for the residents of the city spearheaded by a cabal at the center of the Mountain View City council.
While Mountain View residents have been patient and empathetic toward the plight of the homeless, and more specifically those dwelling in RVs, they have expressed frustration with the lack of direction in the City in attempting to craft a remedy. Their solution; do nothing. Actually, not nothing. They have attempted to offer all sorts of services for those that are willing to make use of them….but nothing toward a solution that would actually remove RVs from the streets. They even claim that their solutions are working (for a few), but publicly acknowledge that the problem is only growing in size and scope.
The cabal of which I speak is (in decreasing order of Self-Aggrandizement) former Mayor Ken Rosenberg (who thinks he can solve the world’s problems via our small city’s council platform), current Mayor Lenny Seigel, and a reliable lockstep vote from past Mayor Patricia Showalter. Chris Clark was also the “Justice Kennedy” swing vote to many of Tuesday night’s non-actions.
What the council has heard loud and clear (over the years and again last night) was that residents have had enough of this nonsense. The council has known for half a decade that there was a growing problem, and three years ago began searching for solutions with all the commitment and rigor of Trump’s White House to the issue of Russian interference in the 2016 election: It has ignored it and left it to others. Thus, after three years of “searching” for a “Safe-Parking” location, or even developing what such a program should look like, the city has defaulted to merely asking and encouraging the faith-based community to create a solution by opening their parking lots; potentially offering “insurance” and what ever other changes in law are required to facilitate such a solution.
In some effort to stymie a potential solution, last year the city council gave away (to Google) the only serious and viable large-scale option that caters to everyone’s reasonableness and empathy, while achieving the goal of removing RVs from the streets; that is to make the parking lots at Shoreline Ampitheatre (that sit vacant and unused 90% of the time) available. It remains unclear how many of the S.A. parking lots actually remain available, when Google will actually start to build, and whether they could offer their own parking lots in the interim. Clearly the acquiescence to Google’s request to utilize the parking lots was in part to thwart this reasonable alternative and in part to serve another agenda and constituent.
Wow!
While I appreciate the efforts made by these faith-based enterprises (which are considerable and will likely bare fruit soon – in the form of some small pilot programs), the problem is not theirs, thus it is not theirs to solve. Kudos for their willingness to help.
Instead, council has focused on distraction tactics, such as the reducing the problem to the lack of affordable housing or that the solution is the imposition of rent controls. Both of these are misguided and avoid attacking the problem head-on. The problem is not created solely by the enormous wealth created by the .com world. In fact, more housing won’t begin to alleviate the problem until housing construction EXCEEDS demand. Until that happens prices will only continue to escalate. Rent controls, while well-intentioned, will only serve to decrease the likelihood of additional investment in rental housing; some of which we’ve already seen (at Montecito/Rengstorff), which with the city council’s blessing, has been taken out of use and will be converted to sellable units.
Being homeless is generally not anything any of else would welcome, and becoming homeless is a very real concern for many. Being in an RV is not a pleasant way to live, and offering port-a-potty’s and waste-dump vouchers doesn’t appreciably improve the situation, but allows them an argument that they’re doing something. Council member Showalter described the gradations of homelessness; from house to apartment to motor home to “sleeping rough”.
The problem is hardly unique to Mountain View, though MV has encouraged the condition to proliferate, by failing to discourage it, by providing limited services to encourage it and by failing to enforce long-standing existing laws. These include Mountain View Municipal Codes 19.71, 19.72, 19.79.1 & 19.111 c) (see MV’s website for specific language). In fact, city council has suspended enforcement of 19.111 c) by a legally flimsy argument with association to the ninth circuit ruling in Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles (while the exact language of the LA ordinance was what was ruled on, my interpretation is that ours may contain different, yet real defects). With a “Safe Parking” program, the ordinance would likely be fully defensible and enforceable. Nor can Mountain View solve it alone. A regional problem can only be solved regionally. While I applaud both Ken Rosenberg and Lenny Seigel’s responses claiming that MV can and should lead the effort and others will follow; this statement requires ACTUAL leadership. By letting RVs park anywhere, the city essentially has capitulated its authority to enforce any and ALL regulations.
Whatever empathy residents have or had is now dwindling: First, Mountain View MUST enforce existing laws and remove the RVs from the streets. Second, we hope and want a solution that does not create or contribute to people running down-slope with respect to housing. The only clear solution that does BOTH is to relocate these homes to a secure, safe, parking lot where garbage, sewer, repair options, lighting and security are provided. To be clear, we are NOT stating that you may not live in your motor home, we are only stating that you may not do so on a public street; and that it is up to the city council to provide city-owned land to be used for the purpose. This could and should be done with minimal (and even subsidized) cost to patrons.
This council appears unwilling to tackle the problem head on. However, voters can: Seigel, Rosenberg, and Showalter are all up for re-election this November. Their presence on the city council is becoming as much of an eyesore as the Motor homes they’re defending! While purporting to be empathetic to their plight they have clearly not been to the actual voting, tax-paying residents of this city. Should voters decide that they have pushed things too far and remove them next November, many of their other progressive legacies could end up being undone in the process.
Please facilitate a real solution to this problem NOW. You’ve had three years to work on it,… and you won’t likely get another four.
Quick question, Doug: what do you think of the solutions proposed by Matichak, Abe-Koga, and McAlister?
Vote. That’s the only way we have to replace members of the council who refuse to act on this issue. By not doing anything, this council is ” trying to move the problem along” right into the laps of future council members.
I have spoken to a couple of different folks who currently reside in RVs parked on the city streets during the week, and drive their personal vehicles to their construction job site daily, then drive those same vehicles home to their permanent residences in the inland Valley on the weekends. Both of these folks I spoke with mentioned that they usually move their RVs once a week, although not far, typically just up and down the same block, or sometimes around a corner.
Requiring developers to either hire local construction workers, or provide weeknight housing for construction workers who are commuting more than *x number of miles to a job site (*city can figure a number of miles) would most likely make a substantial dent in the number of RVs currently scattered all over Mountain View and Palo Alto.
@lenny Seigal
You are out of touch. Council member Abe-koga pointed out well how you, Showalter and Rosenberg did not even get out with MVPD to go see the issues the City is facing. How can you know without being with the people who deal with the problems. 111 arrests?! Over 70 percent RV people. That is a major major red flag and out Mayor has not went out with Police? The Officer told you he talks to the RV people who say they come for services and what the city offers, yet you basically say you dont believe MVPD. LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT…you dont go out and see things with MVPD and you still have the gall to say you dont believe they are here for services and ammenities given by my tax dollars???
I am going out to vote you out. You live on Lorreto. How about RV people get directed on your street. Sewage can hit your door steps, you can breath people’s waste and have drug addicts be your neighbor. Get off your Berkley loving high horse and make room for a real leader sir! Showalter and Rosenberg, you need out too.
Lars
I’m generally supportive, though I didn’t like John McAlister’s motion to ban only in front of parks as it is, a) likely only to push them further into the neighborhoods and, b) it tacitly approves of them being elsewhere in the public easements and rights-of-way, in violation off 19.111 c)(which is still an ordinance – its just no longer being enforced). Although lots was said, I believe Lisa Matichak’s motion was to support future enhanced enforcement once a workable solution, i.e. safe-parking, lots of love, etc. are up and running. The motion was supported and seconded by Margaret Abe-Koga. These secondary motions were only made to try to salvage something from nothing. Again, the only rational, workable, solution is for the city to create off-street parking by utilizing city-owned property. Kudos for Matichak, McAlister and Abe-Koga for standing up for the residents and against the cabal at the center (my opinion regarding Chris Clark is still a work-in-progress). It didn’t need to take 3 years to not find a solution, and yet as of today, still no large-scale solution, or even framework has been developed!
Had enough with this city council. Not voting for any of them except McCalister. We are a magnet for all kinds of problems.
Rosenberg isn’t running for re-election, but endorsed Lucas Ramirez.
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/02/15/councilman-drops-out-and-a-candidate-steps-forward
@ Bikes2work – Some people living in RV’s might be construction workers. Some might me maids. Some might work at restaurants or hotels. Let their employers offer parking space for employee RV’s. At the very least, our police and sanitation departments must enforce our city laws. Move your vehicle on street cleaning day. Move your vehicle every 72 hours. These laws must be enforced equally.
“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” Eh, @Vote?
* I was there on Tuesday night, and I came away with the impression the CC really wants to see if this “Lots of Love” program will work or not; or at least help the City sort out the most at-risk RV people vs. those who could otherwise afford an alternative if they really had to. Hence, their punting on this.
* Recalling a positive zoning-related experience several years ago, what really gets the CCs attention is when a lot of “regular” citizens show up in-person to speak about a given issue — people that have never been to a CC meeting before vs. the professional real estate developer and activist crowd that they see on a regular basis …
I am disappointed that the council did not approve the reasonable motion by Abe-Koga to study restricting parking for large vehicles and creating a permitting system. I also think that the MV Voice Town Square should have a limit on the number of times one person can post on any given topic. (4 times would be adequate, otherwise discussion is taken over by the few)
Oh, honey, there are only a handful of unique posters on this article. Unless you believe that some of these responses actually have 1200+ likes, in which case, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
MV Woman,
Since you were at the League of Women Voters forum, you must remember when councilmember McAlister asked the audience what they thought the city should do, provide more resources for these people or increase enforcement. He took a vote and clearly announced the outcome: the audience wanted to provide more resources. Why did you fail to mention that?
Seems Mountain View really messed up when they elected Siegel, Clark and Rosenberg. I am glad to see Matichak show some strength on the issue since she is also currently representing MV on the SJC airplane noise advisory committee, which is even more critical to MV then this RV issue. If Seigel was on that committee, he would offer to let all the airplanes fly over MV, just to help out our neighboring cities.
When voting for MV council, it’s always hard to differentiate between candidates when they all seem to spout the same politically correct rhetoric. I think last time they were all so bad that I gave up and skipped voting. Next time I will try harder to determine the best of the bad.
This is the best boondoggle ever. As soon as my kids go off to college my spouse and I plan to buy a nice RV and park it on Shoreline near downtown, and rent out our current home (already paid off) and then just live off the profit from our rental. I would totally do that if it meant we both could retire early and no longer have to slave away at jobs we dislike to feed ourselves. With the city providing services and with a clearly supportive city council and at least some sympathetic/tolerant community members, this is the best retire-early plan I can get!
Thank you Mountain View City Council. Hey, if you can’t beat em, join em!
“My Retirement Plan,”
The fact that you aren’t doing it right now shows the truth of the matter, that you don’t actually want to live on the streets. Pretending otherwise is making light of the people in poverty forced to live there and is really disappointing. It’s obvious why you don’t want to post using your real name.
@My Retirement plan,
You got it! You can rent your home out for several thousand a month, park your RV – for free – on Shoreline and have a nice view of Eagle Park, buy an inexpensive monthly gym membership so you can workout and shower daily, and viola…you are set! You don’t need to worry about paying to dump your waste, paying for water or trash disposal…it’s all covered by the taxpayers! The city may even come up with more services to assist you in your endeavor? Isn’t Mountain View grand?
Psssst, don’t tell anyone about all the freebies because then the street parking might get a little overcrowded when other people begin to stream into the city to take advantage of the city and its residents.
Oh, wait….
@Linda Curtis:
“Do you prefer they drive to work everyday polluting the air we breathe”
…
“If Shoreline is so dangerous, then use a different route!”
How about this — if the bike lane is okay to give to RVs for them to have free places to live while they are in town, why don’t we just give up a lane of Shoreline? Or is that because you, Linda, actually use that?
@Steven Nelson: The issue is that the RVs are wider than normal cars, and they overlap the bike lanes, making it even harder to see over or around — that’s why it’s a problem.
Bike lanes were built for Bicycles, and weren’t designed to give “Overlap room” for RVs. You wouldn’t be okay with giving up a car lane, you shouldn’t be okay with giving up a bike lane.
@Lars
I’m not doing it today because I have children and I would never let them live that. I would rather move than keep kids in an RV. Most people living in RVs in MV are not living in them with their kids.
But once the kids are out of the house and it’s just the two of us, I am dead serious. I would have no problem living just the two of us in a nice RV. The only thing stopping me is that in most cities it is culturally inappropriate to impose on others in the community that way,but since many MV residents seem to be tolerant of this behavior then I have nothing stopping me. Its a great trade off to get to stop working earlier than otherwise possible.
As a bonus, since we will have very little income from our rental, my kids might quality for free financial aid for college!
That is the problem with this country, a complete lack of respect and appreciation for public resources and a total disintegration of personal responsibility. But I won’t be the only fool salmon swimming upstream, so I will join them.
It’s not every day someone comes out and says, “I’m the problem with this country,” so kudos to you for that. I’m eagerly anticipating your updates on how this plan works out for you and how enjoyable you find it.
The data showing the increase of RV campers seems to indicate that what MV is doing isn’t working, so I’m surprised that the council decided that status quo was the right thing to do.
If someone is unable to afford housing in a particular area, the logical thing to do would be to find an area where they can afford housing. For the RV campers, it’s clear that MV and the SF Bay Area is not affordable.
I would urge the council and MVPD to cite, tow, and otherwise discourage RV camping on streets where it is not permitted, as Los Altos has done.
@eric
The Council did authorize additional restrictions where parked RVs pose a traffic hazard. If our traffic department can’t figure out a way to re-stripe the bike lanes on Shoreline to improve safety, it is likely that they will post signs limiting vehicle size.
City Council has their collective heads stored in a dark place.
With every RV comes 2 passenger vehicles. It’s just too crowed here. Today on mercy street I watched my neighbor try to back out her driveway. (Near shoreline) The problem was she couldn’t see on coming traffic due to an RV blocking her view. The RV was brand new and it was worth easy $50,000. So why buy a house when you can buy a $50,000 RV pay $600 a month payments and live in a nice neighborhood that has free sewage removal? Am I the only one that thinks this is crazy? Something has to change and it begins with replacing city council members who want to give away our tax dollars.
If someone where a MV resident and lost their housing due to high cost of rent, I would say “sure let’s help them” But when you open the door to people who never lived here, you will be taken advantage of. I say we check their ID and if they are from other parts of the country we tell them to keep moving. House guest are like fish. After 3 days they start to smell
it’s all fine to post here but if you’re really seriously upset about this ridiculous and outrageous decision by City Council then PLEASE go to the next meeting and make your voices REALLY REALLY heard! These boards are a great way to get an idea of how people feel about issues but only by showing up and actually getting in front of these council members can we really make a difference.
Cancel Facebooks rental agreement and move RV dwellers into those attractive new buildings on San Antonio. The RV’s can be stored in the parking garage out of sight. Maybe the tech companies should foot the bill as well as the City Council. Didn’t they start this whole thing?
Oh Mr. Stevens, believe me, I and quite a few others will be. This is the figurative straw, people have had enough. This is not a discussion about “our most vulnerable”, it’s about the health and safety of our community.
All the city council needs to do is enforce the existing laws, RVs are parked at Rengstorff Park for weeks at a time and the police refuse to do anything. If a law abiding resident of Mountain View parks their car for 72 hours on a public street it will be towed, but RVs get a free pass, why? Why are the laws enforced in some neighborhoods but Cristanto street is the wild west? Why doesn’t the city council post their addresses and allow RVs to dwell outside their homes, dump sewage on their streets, sell drugs on their sidewalks?
Let me get this straight. I own property in Mountain View, pay taxes, etc. But if my water and electricity are cut off, I’m forced out of my house because it’s “unlivable”; so sorry, no help from the city.
BUT if I buy a run down RV and park it outside my neighbor’s house, dump my sewage down the storm drain, get my water in buckets at night from my neighbor’s hose, and put a whole bunch of blankets on my bed, then the city will come out and take my sewage, garbage, and transport me some place for a hot shower and give me meals???
Any fifth grader would look at you like you just grew a third arm out of your forehead!
So Lars, which motorhome are you posting from?
I’m curious how many of the RV’s belong to transient construction workers. With all the construction in progress around Silicon Valley, there aren’t enough construction workers.
RV living is very attractive to construction workers. If we ban the practice entirely, will the cost of construction go up even further?
@ Vote,
I’m not suggesting that existing laws not be enforced. The article is about new restrictions. For instance, I’m quite pleased that new vehicle parking restrictions were placed on Latham near Target. It was really dangerous trying to get out of the Target driveway. Those RV’s have now moved to Ortega across from Klein Park. They are now right beside a construction site. They look pretty bad, but they aren’t obstructing the view of cross traffic.
May I suggest a compromise likely to satisfy most:
The city ought to establish and publicize designated areas where RVs can park and stay indefinitely. These ares should be directly at the addresses of the Council members only. Everywhere else in the city, parking of RVs would be strictly forbidden. Offenders would be towed at Mr Leonard M. Siegel’s expense to the Mayor’s curb.
Problem solved!
I see no comments about the criminal element that pervades these RVs. The policeman, who is assigned to them, made it clear at the League of Women Voters’ Forum that there are drug rings, prostitution, theft rings, and even disclosed after the event that there is at least one child molester living in an RV in Mountain View. This doesn’t even include those who simply choose not to work (i.e. the MV Voice article quoting the man who said he could get a job but chose not to do that) nor does it include the Google engineer type who make plenty of $$ but choose to merely scam the system and get free cleaning, water, sewage drainage, etc. at taxpayer expense. Keep in mind, these RVs are not paying property taxes.
Town Staff informed us that there are 10 children living among these 300 RVs on our streets. Does anyone REALLY they deserve to live among this degree of crime? Shouldn’t we do a strict vetting of who actually was a contributing Mountain View resident before becoming homeless – and help those people to get off the streets? IF we stopped supporting the freeloaders and criminals, we’d have a substantial amount more to help those homeless through no fault of their own.
I was astounded when a young man from Los Altos stood at the microphone at the Council meeting and said Mountain View HAS to take in everyone from everywhere – that it’s our responsibility. When he was asked what Los Altos is doing, he said, “I don’t know.” So Mountain View should bear the crime, sewage spills, and expense for the surrounding cities who aren’t interested? There was also an organized effort by charity groups to show up and push for status quo for the RVs, even though most of those charity groups have done very little to help the situation. One man, who had been “working on this problem for years” said he is almost to the point where his church could help by taking three RVs into their parking lot. THREE? There are THREE HUNDRED.
We taxpayers are really being played, and no…. we are NOT criminalizing poverty. That’s just a dog-whistle term used to hide the real issue of crime, disease, sewage spills, etc. Scream it all you want – it’s not going to work.
Matichak. Abe-Koga and McAlister are the only Council who is listening. I am grateful that Rosenerg is not running for re-election. Siegel, Showalter, and Clark do NOT respect the residents in Mountain View and if anyone is interested in starting a RECALL – I’m with you! Along with that recall, we need an initiative on the ballot to decide if we want these RVs off the street – or if we’re going to keep going down this path to destruction.
I still want to see the return of RV parks where these legitimate homes on wheels can be at home, hooked up to electric, water, sewer lines. Our city should subsidize these RV parks.
And any RV that would be fully self contained, if in proper repair, should receive the repairs needed to fix leaks, NOT a tow! That costs the city a whole lot more and accomplishes nothing!
Lars is dominating this agenda. Makes me think he’s fighting to keep his freebies and his parking spot. If he’d paid property taxes and raised his family here in Mountain View he’d be singing a different tune.
People I’ve met living in RVs have jobs here & families they house far, far away. Do you prefer they drive to work everyday polluting the air we breathe & crowding the freeways even more? They give up seeing their spouses & kids to keep their jobs they have had long before they could no longer afford to live here. They need real RV parks to put their home-away-from-home in for the week nights.
It is wrong factually and morally to say they increase crime or don’t contribute.
Three support workers are required for each tech worker and their pay is very disperate. The low paid have to find a way to live here or add to the commuter jam. And as older, rent controlled housing increasingly gets torn down for the expensive, new, never rent controlled stuff, only the more weathy can afford to rent in Mountain View.
Let’s find room for those living in self contained RVs on nonresidential streets to not crowd homeowners (til multi story housing projects develope adjacent to their homes, as is happening more & more). The vans & not self contained vehicles need Lots of Love. Kuddos to that program!
Do not villianize property!
Bikers: If Shoreline is so dangerous, then use a different route! Is it that your mere need for speed is somehow worth risking your life? Rethink it!!
Lars, since you are all about transparency and you personally feel the need to support RV dwellers, please do share your address and invite them to your place.
I, on the other hand, do not feel the need to put my name out on an anonymous message board nor do I feel any need whatsoever to support RV dwellers. In fact, I believe very strongly that it is a huge disservice to them and instead they need to be encouraged to move to areas they can afford.
You have every right to feel the way you do and then support it and back it up. But do not expect me to agree with your agenda and do not expect me to willingly step up and pay for your very misguided ideology.
You think it, you pay for it. I’ll look forward to your address and invitation.