|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Creating safe parking lots around Mountain View has been the favored option to address the growing number of people living out of their vehicles. But that solution is falling woefully short, leading city officials to question whether their ambitions will succumb to a growing political backlash to push the homeless out of town.
As of this month, there are spaces for just eight vehicles at safe parking lots in Mountain View, which is estimated to have about 300 inhabited vehicles throughout the city. Currently, these sites can only accept standard-size cars and vans, and not the RVs and motor homes that have become emblematic of the city’s homeless population.
For an issue mired in controversy, pretty much everyone agrees on one point — the current system simply isn’t working.
“I’m not going to point fingers at anybody, but what we’re doing right now is just not working at the rate we need it,” said Councilwoman Pat Showalter. “But I really don’t think people are really aware of how much effort has gone into trying to ameliorate this problem.”
There is consensus among city leaders the Mountain View needs to locate more large parking lots to temporarily house the homeless. But city officials say they are coming up short in that search.
For about three years, Kimberly Thomas, the assistant to the city manager, has been Mountain View’s lead person on homeless issues. Over that time, she said her team has looked into every available parking lot in the city, including publicly owned properties. Across the board, she said, there was no property that was a perfect fit. Each site had its own restrictions and challenges for converting into a temporary vehicle encampment site.
“We’ve looked at every possible lot,” Thomas said. “The challenge has always been to find something workable for this type of need. And that match simply hasn’t occurred.”
There is one exception. In October, the city signed an agreement with the nonprofit Palo Alto Housing to use a Terra Bella property temporarily to house up to 11 vehicles. It is a welcome addition, but still not the large area needed to get occupied vehicles off the streets.
Obvious ideas
There are a few potential sites that are frequently brought up. At the top of the list is Shoreline Amphitheatre, which has five dirt parking lots capable of accommodating nearly 7,000 vehicles, according to city records.
The site has many obvious advantages: It is city-owned with room to spare, especially during the off-season when the amphitheater’s summer concert series ends. Also, the space is located far away from the city’s residential centers, allowing city officials to avoid any neighborhood pushback from situating a homeless campground nearby.
While Shoreline Amphitheatre is publicly owned, the city of Mountain View leases the property for about $1.8 million per year to Live Nation for concerts and events. That long-term contract lasts through 2020, but it doesn’t prohibit the city from using the amphitheater’s parking lots. The 2006 lease explicitly gives the city the right to use three of the parking lots as needed — even for a homeless campground — so long as it doesn’t interfere with Live Nation’s scheduled events.
One problem, however, is the city has also agreed to allow Live Nation to sublease two of the parking lots to Google until 2025. In an agreement approved last year, Google is paying the city $2.25 million for exclusive rights to park about 1,200 vehicles in the lots.
Could the remaining Shoreline lots be used for the homeless? In recent months, the amphitheater’s parking lots have been frequently brought up by City Council members and candidates.
Thomas said city staff has given the idea a cursory examination, but the full range of restrictions haven’t been analyzed. She explained this was because the City Council never added it to the city’s list of goals or made it an explicit priority for staff.
City staffers have also performed a cursory examination of Moffett Field, another site that is frequently proposed for a safe parking encampment. As federal land, that site faces a wide range of restrictions, and city staff consider it a non-starter, Thomas said.
Even if a perfect site materialized, a new safe parking site would also have to run through a series of roadblocks. Technically, any site with more than four parked vehicles should have a special temporary use permit, according to a city report published in October. City staffers haven’t developed the framework for this permit yet, and it likely won’t be ready until next year.
Any safe parking site would also be expected to apply for city building and fire permits, which normally include attached fees, as well as comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, according to the city report.
In addition, a safe parking operator would also be expected to obtain a signed letter from every adjacent property owner consenting to the site’s use. In the likely event that at least one neighbor would be opposed to having a homeless camp next door, the city would require the proposal to go through a public hearing process.
Could these conditions be scaring away any property owners who might be willing to help? Thomas wouldn’t say. The City Council backed these steps last month in the interest of helping people, but within the letter of the law, she said.
East Palo Alto’s example
One potential solution could be to follow the lead of other cities. San Jose and East Palo Alto have both declared their citywide homelessness as a public emergency.
The declaration was more than symbolic: It allowed the cities to streamline the process for creating new safe parking sites and sidestep the normal policy considerations. In the case of East Palo Alto, declaring an emergency gave city officials a degree of immunity from liability and it also sped up the process for repurposing public land as they worked to launch a safe parking site for 20 RVs.
The urgency action was necessary given the large number of East Palo Alto residents who were suddenly thrust into homelessness, explained Pastor Paul Bains of the nonprofit WeHOPE.
“We’re trying to take a negative situation and turn it into a positive,” he said. “These people didn’t choose to live in RVs. Many of them were tricked out by landlords saying they were going to remodel their apartments.”
Thomas said Mountain View city staff did consider an emergency ordinance, and she acknowledged that it would offer added flexibility and the opportunity for some state funding grants.
“But it’s not something at this time that we think we should address,” she said. “In our city analysis, we didn’t see it as connected to a safe parking program.”
Some council members are beginning to lose patience with such a cautious approach. Mayor Lenny Siegel said he was likely penalized by voters in the election over the homeless issue, possibly costing him his chance at a second term. He expressed frustration that his past suggestions — such as the Shoreline parking lots — were not fully vetted by city staff. In some cases, these ideas were not taken up because he didn’t have support from a majority on the council.
“I’ve been saying for a while now that the city needs to do more, but city staff always pushes back and says we’re already doing a lot,” Siegel said. “We haven’t done much. I’ve tried, but the city went with slower solutions.”
Mountain View city staff have spent an incredible amount of time on the homelessness issue. Since 2016, city employees spread across various departments have spent nearly 4,400 hours on homeless-related issues, according to report from March. Most of this staff time was spent responding to issues resulting from people living out of their vehicles, such as parking enforcement, illegal waste incidents or other complaints.
A breaking point could be fast approaching. Increasingly vocal residents have made it clear they have lost patience with the large number of inhabited vehicles on city streets. In October, the City Council formally requested that city staff investigate parking limits or possibly a permit system on city streets in an effort to limit inhabited vehicles. City staff is expected to present a menu of options at a meeting early next year.
But even if tighter restrictions were passed, the city still needs to figure out some kind of safe parking, said Councilwoman Lisa Matichak. She has advocated for stricter limits on street parking, but the city needs to provide some alternative place for people living out of their vehicles to go, she said.
“We were hoping the (safe parking program) could get up to speed more quickly that it did,” she said. “I applaud their efforts, and I encourage them to keep going, but we need to look at other alternatives.”
Here’s an idea: Ticket the Rv’s for long-term parking and then tow and impound them. Wasting a full-time assistant city manager’s time and salary and 4,400 hours of other staff on this problem is an exercise in stupidity and wasting taxpayer money.
Matichak is the next to go at the next election when she says “The city needs to provide some alternative place for people living out of their vehicles.” Really??? Is the city going to find me a place to live and put food on my table as well? Is the city going to help pay my bills and mortgage as well???
And yes Lenny, you were roundly penalized and not reelected for your role in creating this mess.
Here’s a radical idea: build enough houses for these people. Nevermind, let’s just confiscate their houses and the little money they have and kick them onto the streets like the angry old people here want.
The RV problem is just one reason why we need residential parking.
The others are AirBnBs packed with transients paying $30/night and parking all over residential neighborhoods with no infrastructure for supporting these small hotels.
The other is Googlers parking all over single-family neighborhoods despite assurances that they would be “good neighbors.”
My parking sticker cannot get here fast enough.
Summary of old people’s positions here: won’t someone think of the cars!
I agree with Bikes2work, The actions of some are infringing on the rest of the residents as it pertains to their personal safety. Weather it be forcing cyclists into the streets or making it impossible for drivers to see oncoming traffic at corners. Some common sense legislation is in order to provide fairness for all.
“The RV problem is just one reason why we need residential parking.”
Isn’t the problem that we have residential parking? Parking is normally on the street and residences are not.
Bikestowork sounds a little hypocritical. He complains about RVs blocking bike lanes, but was a member of his homeowners board does nothing to enforce cars blocking sidewalks and disabled ramps in his neighborhood or cars blocking visibility at intersections.
I think Moffett Field is a solution that needs to be pressed very hard
Lots of land no longer needed for the military.
William, we just had an election, and there was one candidate who agreed with you on that. His name was John Inks, and, well, you should look up what place he finished. We voted in your idea already, and it lost, badly.
@Radical, how much are you willing to contribute to building homes for the RV dwellers – or are you all talk? Why don’t you invite some to park in your driveway or behind your house? Or are the infamous “Yimby” who believes Mountain View should build out and destroy any open space at all so you can afford a home here?
The vast majority of the RV dwellers are not, nor ever have they been, Mountain View residents. They just come here because they take advantage of the good intentions we had at first. Now – with the junk RVs rented out by landlords, the out of town (and some out of state) RVs clogging our streets, the sewage dumping into our street drains, people taking water from homeowner’s faucets, The wealthy engineers who live this way to avoid property taxes, the crime and the blight, and ALL of them NOT paying any taxes to the City – it is long past something is done.
First – have them prove they were MV residents (old rental receipts, tax forms, PG&E bill, etc. Then, for the few who are really prior residents, we refer them to services for job placement (if they have none) and help them work towards housing. There are less than 12 total children living this way, and they do not deserve to be surrounded with some of the criminal element living in RVs. Please don’t think these are all just law abiding citizens – just talk to any MV police and get that straight (there are documented theft, gun and drug rings, but they cannot prosecute unless they see the crime happening).
This last election made clear that we are done with being taken advantage of. You don’t see Los Altos, Sunnyvale, etc with this problem – because they prohibit any vehicle over 6′ tall on city streets. Even liberal Palo Alto prohibits street dwelling RVs (those on El Camino are on Stanford land), thus Mountain View became the dumping ground for the junk RVs and the criminal element.
Over $2M has been spent on this issue so far. If we spent that $2M on actual residents, we could have made real progress for them. Email the MV Council at citycouncil@mountainview.gov and let them know what you want done!
William, I thought you said “legal” means.
Harassment is hardly a legal tactic, nor is seizure of a 100% legally parked, registered, and tagged vehicle.
Shari, you know that’s simply not true, but your heart is so full of hate you’ll make up stories about the less fortunate. Why are you like this?
We get it, you bought your house and you got yours, so you don’t really care about anyone else. Punish the poor for not buying a multimillion dollar house so they can live close to where they work cooking, cleaning, and serving you. Yet again, you old folks show how you’ve abandoned any notion of community in the interest of looking out for yourselves. I’m sure you complain about your property taxes too, right?
So Radical, why don’t you offer up your driveway? And Interested is correct, the vast majority of these weren’t Mountain View residents. They are here because the city has made it more attractive to be here than somewhere else. And if you managed to build tons of homes (good luck with the environmental backlash on that) the ones in the RV’s will not suddenly have the funds to buy them.
But you LOVE to stereotype and belittle others. I am not old. I am not angry. I came from poverty. The only place my parents ever shopped at for clothes was goodwill. But having tons of RVs on the streets wherever is not safe, not sanitary, and not a good use of city resources to cater to.
The article is correct. The longer this problem goes on the greater the backlash is going to become, until support grows to get rid of them rather than find a solution.
Thank you for illustrating so perfectly the rejection of community your generation has gone through. It’s always “why don’t you X” rather than “why don’t we work together to help people.” Because, as I said above, you got yours, so who cares about anyone else. You own a multimillion dollar house, and you’re angry at people forced to live in their vehicles.
Building homes is the most environmentally friendly thing we can do, and it’s the only thing that will make a dent in carbon emissions. On top of that, it will house people! On the other hand, it might cause a shadow, nevermind let’s just fine and confiscate the homes of poor people.
According to the City, LOTS OF LOVE (safe parking initiative aka pilot program) has two church lots. 8 spots between the two. Only one church is full (3 spots) and the other is empty. So why are we wasting money on this???? Also- caseworkers to come to these people? Youre telling me they cant go to a building to get help. We have to go to them to give them public assistance?! This is a joke.
New MAyor lisa, we hope you make some change. As well as all of council. We are fed up. Lenny and pat should be an example of how we feel. Stop spending our tax revenue!
It’s a place to live, it’s not some luxury item. Whats wrong with you? I know you want this to be some private country club that you bought into, but that’s just further evidence of your generations lack of any dedication to community. And let’s be frank, here, you don’t have a heart, so it’s no surprise you don’t understand helping the poor.
Radical’s incessant age and income level baiting is tone deaf and a little immature. Good intentions do need to be balanced with economic and civic realities. While I don’t hate RV dwellers on principle, I also don’t live in an area that has many of them. It seems reasonable that the people bearing the brunt of the problem want solutions. I hope the complaints aren’t knee jerk reactions to people benefiting from government services.
ilovemv, take a thorough read of Interested and William Hitchens posts and then let me know what you think.
People living out of their car or RV are not trying to get over on the city, get over on local residents, or get over on anything. Many are doing it out of necessity. It boggles the mind the revenue and fees this city collects without being able to make headway on some of the most pressing concerns.
4400 hours, really? Are those billable hours? I’ll pay rental fees for a backhoe and a bulldozer, lets take a collection for materials and build another parking lot at shoreline expressly for this purpose. I am sure we can get it done in under 4400 hours.
Many of the complaints lobbied at RV dwellers are simply unjustified. With regards to citizenship of MV, how many MV residents are not American Born Citizens are here because of the generosity of Americans. Hazards to cyclists? The same complaints can be granted to little old ladies who cannot park their vehicles correctly, to delivery vehicles, construction road blocks, and well meaning but very poorly designed intersections. RV’s do not create a larger risk than any of these. In regards to choice. To think any dweller live’s in an RV for preference over living in a home that would be affordable in most other places is simply ignorant. Housing costs are disproportionate in the Bay Area and have been protected through restrictions to construction. The problem stems simply from the out of control housing costs. In regards to trash on the streets from RV Dwellers. I’ve seen several dwellers picking up the trash around their RVs that “MV Citizens” have left there. And I’ve seen more trash around MV homes. Waste? How many Homes and businesses leak waste into the ground. With the age of the buildings in MV, it’s likely that the majority are leaking waste into the ground. RV’s realistically are and less of an environmental hazard since any leak is noticeable.
Some RV Dwellers are software engineers that are buying a house for their parents or paying medical bills for a loved one. Some Dwellers are paying for college or starting a business in the area. Would Elon Musk have been able to start if living out of an office were banned? Would most of MV residents be able to get the education for a job without the generosity of a US Grant, college scholarship, or generosity of their parents. Some RV Dwellers are inventors and patent holders, doctors, and nurses, and Nuclear Physicist and even a Rocket Scientist. Perhaps there should be a law passed that states if a citizen is not actively pursuing an education, or employed by a software engineering company, or Space Agency, then the citizen should have their home taken from them to make room for a more productive citizen. Then there would be fewer RVs on the street. Or perhaps a law that states, if a citizen has not served in the US Military and made a contribution to defending the world from oppression, then that citizen should have their home taken to make room for someone who is of greater value. Then there would be fewer RVs in the streets. These suggestions are made in jest but only to a degree. There are far more deserving people living in RV’s and they are entitled to the same constitutional rights as anyone living in a home.
The irony is that MV City employees cannot afford housing in the area. MV emergency workers cannot afford housing in the area and the enforcement officers cannot afford housing in the area. Without RVs and even more significant are the car dwellers who are the restaurant servers. Most of the people living here in these situations are good human beings. The lesser ones, IE the extremely educated and mature one who suggest we honk at RV and car dwellers, provides less value.
There is no real justification for any of the complaints. They are blown out of proportion by an irrational prejudice, and feeling of self importance. RV Dwellers, as legal residents of the US have a right to live safely, freely, and without harassment as much as anyone living in a home or house. The land a house is occupied by is still a part of the US and as such is protected. An RV is a residence and it occupants, are granted the same rights to live and to be protected as anyone else. Free housing isn’t the answer, Affordable housing comparable to similar housing in other areas of the US is the answer.
Additionally, there are evacuees from the recent fires who lost their businesses, jobs, homes, and in some cases loved ones who are living in the bay area in RV’s as they search for employment and attempt to restart their lives. Some of them will not be able to climb out of poverty or regain the wealth they lost.
The irony will be, when the ranters on this venue are forced from their homes due to poverty, job loss, illness, failure to maintain relevant skills for the rapidly evolving tech industry, or destruction and loss of their homes and everything they own due to an unimaginably fast spread of fire. Add to that of which their losses are not insurable because it is considered an “Act of God” by the insurance agency. Change is coming. With the rapidly change in technology in robotics, autonomous vehicles, and AI there will be an economic shift as large as the industrial age and will impact everyone. Some if not many will not adapt or will be effected by these. Change is inevitable and some of you will be the next RV, vehicle, or tent Dwellers.
The status quo is CLEARLY not working for anyone. Look at the situation, the comments, the results.
It’s time for some common sense legislation on this. The back of Nob Hill looks like a KOA camp, except no restrooms or rv sewage pump-out stations.
Talk to the rv folks, look at the faces of them as well as the residents. Everyone is miserable with the status quo. It’s time the council fast tracked this issue.
Is that an RV Dweller living in the parking lot close to the MV Police station? Is that a family living there and is he or she a city employee?
I know, it could be LITERALLY anyone living there! Family? City Employee? released child molester? drug dealer? strong arm robber? Who knows who’s in there????
This is why we need to start with registering and identifying all the street dwellers, so we know if they are living here, or lurking here.
Solutions start with data. Lets start knocking on doors and filling out the forms so we cn then provide the parking to those who deserve it.
There is no problem with Persons trying to survive by living in a vehicle. Perhaps consider that the people living a vehicle are trying to live a honest life. Judging people for living with a roommate, Living along in a three bedroom house alone, or home with parents. Etc. It’s not of anyone’s concern how someone decides to live. There was thousands of people displaced in the recent campfire disaster, Those people lives are changed forever, Many have turned to alternative ways to survive.. Including living in a vehicle. Who are we to disparage and condemn their efforts to rebuild their lives and achieve their american dream. Everyone should realize that people are in different stages in their lives with different abilities. Stop being so entitled and Judgmental. The bottom line if a vehicle has paid registration, It is entitled to park on the street. Streets are by by the Gas tax. Streets are for everyone.
…but not all of them. Some have made a choice, others have had no choice. There is no single type of street dweller. That’s why we should learn who they are then laser focus our efforts on those as described above, and we can also roust those who are simply using the rvs to stage criminal activities.
Registration will help us focus efforts on those who need it most, which is what I want my city to do.
Whether democratic process elects leaders who chose to fight or help people leaving out of their vehicles in MV, something needs to be done. Other cities treat the issue as emergency and so should we.
Right now we have no results to show for those 3 years of searching for a solution and for 4,400 hours of city staff time spent. The problem is getting visibly worse. MV gets $100 million budget surplus every year. City leaders should be embarrassed by their inability to solve the problem with those kind of resources at their disposal.
From the lessons learned while contributing to the Paradise wildfire humanitarian aid, I saw the disruption of the 52,000 displaced persons and learned from them as they told their stories. Even more alarmingly, I also saw the number of transients who moved into the area to take advantage of the charitable donations towards the displaced. The transients, drug abusers and freeloaders are genuine in their belief that if there is a handout, they deserve it. The already displaced evacuees were alarmed by the amount of security guards that were brought in. They quickly realized the guards were not there to deal with them, but were brought in as a response to the transients and the sudden rise in drugs and crime.
Creating a special charity does not seem to be an answer for the non-home or apartment dwellers. Creating land for RV parking seems to be an invitation to transients and problems with drug abuse, crime, etc and does not solve the problem that the majority of RV and Vehicle dwellers have in this area have. In Paradise, the evacuees were forced to leave due to the influx of transients looking for a handout. Mountain View and the Bay Area would increase the problems of transients who do not seek a way out of their situation. The work force that is surviving in RV’s and vehicles, are attending colleges and schools in the area would not thrive in an oppressive environment and likely are they looking for a handout. They would be better served by an alternative that is fair for all and in the spirit of the constitution of the United States of America.
Realizing that owning or renting a structured dwelling does not make a citizen better or worse, more deserving or less to live in peace, more deserving or less to live without harassment, or more deserving or less to advance themselves with better opportunities is not only fair, but guaranteed by the constitution of the United States.
Learning from Paradise and the problems with transients; encouraging good citizenship, productivity, and growth, is a better solution than enabling freeloading, drug abuse, and encouraging crime. Start with a recognition of responsible citizenship equally for all.
If citizenship and the value of a human being was based upon dwellings types, then the United States should have never fought the civil war, should have never engaged to defend the rights of others in WWII, and should have never engaged an any humanitarian aid missions. The United States is built on people who are seeking a better way. You would not be here if our forefathers saw things the same way as what has been suggested by some here. From the sounds of some, you would think they were racists from North Carolina flying a rebel flag from the back of their ford F-150 and keep a white robe with a hood behind the seat.
All dwellers have rights and their rights are equal. The realization from Paradise is that at any moment, anyone can suddenly be thrust into a situation where they’ve lost everything but the cloths on their backs. And many who live paycheck to paycheck or have very little savings despite being a household with an income deep into 6 figures, could quickly be in the same category as those in Paradise. But thinking that that is the only risk to housing stability is foolish. We only need to look past our borders to see that the list of risks to stable living in the modern US are growing, not shrinking.
A proposal to maintain peace and opportunity should be made. One with a world-wide and long-term perspective that can fairly accommodate human beings not looking for continued handouts, who are not disruptive, who work to contribute to the economy and or are students attempting to climb or maintain their position on the social ladder is important to all living human beings. Anything else, is as the same as racial, religious, or sexual discrimination.
An equitable solution that solves cost issues and is fair to all is to use value for value. For those that are non-home or apartment dwellers, are not transients, are not criminals, but are good standing citizens and as deserving as anyone else, a value for value system would be a special parking permit purchased through an open system, or a tax. If they are living in MV or anywhere else in the bay area, then a per SQFT tax that is not discriminatory would offset operational costs and achieve the goal of reducing the number of problems that seem to stem from the enablement of transients. If they live on the street, then they pay for the space they occupy and contribute equally to the community. This is the same opportunity that home and apartment dwellers have thus it is fair for all citizens. The non-home or apartment dwellers permit would offset the cost of emergency services and police. It encourages participation in keeping the peace and adds to watchful eyes preventing crime or terrorism. A dump station would take care of the dump problem. And a fine for “any and all” residences, residents, and non-residents that pollute the environment or disturb the peace would fairly ensure a reduction in all potential problems. The tax would discourage free-loaders looking to take advantage of charity since it would no longer be a charity. Police officers could do their job of keeping the peace without worry of retaliation from deserving citizens and it would assist with value and recognition of equal citizenship, and it would encourage contributing to the economy and the well-being of the community.
On Central Avenue there are several people running businesses parked along the curbs using RVs as bunk houses for the owners and workers. They also store their equipment trailers and cars on the street. These are not homeless people. They live in far south counties and return to their homes each weekend.
I pay taxes, mortgage, and utilities to live here. Scammers who take advantage do not.
I would bet if you sorted the actual poor homeless, the problem would shrink to a manageable size where County Social Services and the city could assist with housing.
1st world problem…the homeless are blocking my bike lane…do you ride your bike to your warm home in the winter? Do you chose the environment over humanity and bike to work instead of using your car and a vulnerable demographic is making it hard for you?
@mvresident2003
Do you think people choose to try to live in Mountain View just because? They just got the idea in their head that they were going to live here for whatever reason and now they’re in an RV? Yeah, why did they have to randomly choose Mountain View instead of some cheaper rural town far away from here?
Or is it because Mountain View and Palo Alto both have tons of well paying jobs with nowhere near the amount of housing needed to balance it out? And it becomes a choice of either commuting in from hours away or getting an RV and just making it work?
@Yimby, Do you think it is either/or the issues you posted, or are do you think there are more than two reasons some live on the street?
Do you think there are many multiple reasons individuals live on the street, or just a couple?
We seem to have a big problem with psychopaths incapable of putting themselves in anyone else’s shoes. It seems really easy for some to condemn others for being poor without realizing the poor also wake-up each morning challenged with making the best of their lives that they can. Everyone is not as smart as the brightest among us and everyone was not lucky enough to have inherited or bought homes when they were affordable in Mountain View. Communities are made up of many more than the software engineers who have taken over much of the available rental space thereby driving up prices beyond what most can afford. No one chooses to be homeless and it is willful ignorance that says let’s live in a society governed by survival of the fittest. Time to wise up and lend a helping hand to those less fortunate than ourselves.
Moderators, there is a person posting using my username here and in other articles. This is against the Terms if Use, please address.
In response to comments. Frankly, an extreme point of view would be to state “Housing should be allocated in a tiered cast system. US citizens first. Naturalized citizens second, non-citizens third, illegals? The top of the tiered system would have the nicest houses with the best schools and at a cost that is reasonable with the rest of the country. The second category would get what’s left but would compete economically for the homes. This means that what’s left after the first round would be cost allocated using supply and demand. Since supply is limited, price dictates who can afford what remains. Illegals compete with what is left from the second round but by this time not much is left and it’s very expensive. Or they can suit up in armor and fight lions or each other for houses in Mountain View. A caveat would be that anyone can move up if they can defeat someone at the higher level. No guns, just swords spears and lances.” If you agree with that point of view, clearly you are extreme. The issue isn’t RV dwellers and car dwellers. The issue is cost of a place to live. No one has the right to ask for $4500 a month for a single bedroom apartment and then say, if you can’t afford it you cannot live in this area. Living without oppression is what this Nation stands for. Its what we stand against, and is the fine thread that has allowed peace to exist from coast to coast for over 200 years. Learn western history and understand the reason the founding fathers wrote The Constitution of the United States of America. Car and RV dwellers have a right to live safely and have earned as much right to the protections gaurenteed by the same constitution that home dwellers have. If you don’t like it, then put up fences and gates around your city, give everyone you want to let in a visa to work, and tell them to get out at night if they can’t afford to live here. I think the result will be that the businesses leave, and your housing problem/ RV and car dwellers issue is resolved.
Please consider reading the staff report coming to the City Council for the City of East Palo Alto on December 4th. http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_12042018-1465
You will find a tremendous amount of staff time has been put into this staff report which shows a strong argument for restrictions of oversized vehicles in the public right of way from 2am-5am every night for many of the issues so far discussed prior to my comment.
Sunnyvale also seems to deal with the issue differently than MV, all without fences or visas.
We should really explore all options. What’s going on right now in MV is not working, that much is clear. If it were working we all would not be here.
We should all band together for a fix.
Fake “Radical”, since your ideas are so bad, you need to pretend to be someone else, I’ll repost my statement from up thread:
Here’s a radical idea: build enough houses for these people. Or, like the fake above wants, let’s just confiscate their houses and the little money they have and kick them onto the streets.
The best solution for a fix to the RV problem starts with an understanding of the population. Data points are needed to establish a basic understanding of the population most in need of housing, then address that population first.
It all starts with understanding who needs help the most if we want to find a compassionate solution. Registration then prioritization can start us on our way to a community based compassionate solution.
My main issue is the over-sized vehicles blocking bike lanes. Just look at the RV on Shoreline in the article photo. There is supposed to be a bike lane beside that RV. Often it is reduced to inches by these behemoths. It isn’t great to have bike lanes directly beside car doors, but these RV’s push bikes into the 35-mph travel lane and reduce visibility for everyone.
Please ticket/tow/prohibit large vehicles that block bike lanes.
I have “Modest Proposal” similar to one first proposed by Johnathon Swift in 1729. The difference is that mine is sincere and not satirical. Since the State of CA prohibits MV from expelling on-street RV dwellers (Boo!!!), the MV City Council should act decisively. Instruct the MVPD and other agencies to use all legal means, especially ticketing, towing, and confiscating vehicles and their contents, to discourage long-term on-street parking; particularly in residential neighborhoods and also when blocking intersections, crosswalks, narrow streets and turns, and bicycle lanes. Second, terminate all health and social support programs that encourage on-street vehicular “camping”.
So, to be blunt, hassle them, limit their parking options to inconvenient locations, confiscate their “tents”, and deny them any social services. My guess is that they’ll move on to “better pickings”; e.g., anywhere but MV.
@Radical thank you for illustrating so perfectly the inability to make smart choices. There are SO many more affordable places to live. Upon retirement I will not be able to stay here, this city, my home, is too expensive. But I don’t expect people to make it more affordable for me, I’ll move and find a place I can afford (out of state unfortunately, Ca taxes are out of control and only getting higher)
I truly, honestly, in my heart just do not understand this expectation that one should be able to live wherever they want just because. Never ever in my life have I thought that “I want to live “fill in the blank” and if it’s too expensive then they should make arrangements so I can afford it.” HONESTLY. Who thinks these things??????;
Poor Mountain View. The chickens have finally come home to roost. Is there a Bay Area city more responsible for creating the housing crisis than Mountain View? A city government drunk with desire to create more and more employment for people from every corner of the earth–with TOTAL disregard for the impact this continues to have on traffic, housing, schools and community. And millions of additional square feet of office space still careening through the pipeline at city hall.
The Community Stabilization (Measure V) effort put forward by the voters should have been directed at city hall, not landlords. Mountain View government has been the most DESTABILIZING entity imaginable. They can easily manage the approvals for tens of millions of square feet of office space but can’t figure out what to do with 300 RVs. It would be laughable if it wasn’t ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC.
This article, and the issue as a whole, is mis-titled.
The problem is not with searches for safe-parking spots. These RV people are looking for safe-Camping spots. They don’t want to ‘park’ for a couple hours. They want to claim a spot and Camp there for days, weeks, and months on end. They want city services, like water, trash, electricity and sewage.
Let’s stop calling it a parking problem and call it by its true name Street Camping.
I hate to say this:
The “rv” solution or living in a vehicle was not ever accepted as a solution to the housing shortage problem. It must be stopped now becasue it will never be resolved. The housing shortage will never be corrected. This process simply has been tolerated as a “short-term” solution, but now it has expired it’s usefulness
Every contractor or employee of any company in the valley must compensate enough for those to have a “real” address.
The valley governments must require all businesses to identify whether their employees rely on sleeping in “rvs” their vehicles, etc.
Then the valley governments should require that be registered with the cities.
If they employ more than those with “real” addresses, NOT PO BOXES, they must be required to discontiue such employment.
Unitl the housing shortage is solved, there must be an equal employmant shortage.
THAT WILL MAKE BUSINESS SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITHOUT COST TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
It is time to stop this insanity
Radical.,
You should register yourself first. If they are registered already, I hate to tell you this but you need a new name
Thanks for the web link Mother of Three East Palo Alto
It is quite a large document and FYI the section on RVs begins on page 62 – lots of useful info there and salient points.
YIMBY, I still don’t get it. You talk about how there’s jobs here, so that’s why you came. But if the jobs don’t pay enough for you to afford to live locally why stay with this job? There are SO MANY OTHER JOBS and SO MANY OTHER PLACES with much less expensive cost of living. THERE ARE OTHER CHOICES.
But you insist that you must be able to live here. Everyone else is responsible for you being able to live here. Life is about choices. Some make smart ones, some don’t.
Excellent suggestion ‘The Business Man’! Get rid of the jobs. That will get rid of the people, the crowded freeways, overtaxed school system, devolving infrastructure, and deteriorating quality of life for those who have lived here for 50+ years. Where do I sign up?
The city’s logic is “these parking lots have limitations that do not allow for RV parking, so let’s let them park on the streets and ruin the entire city”. Genius.
Ticket, fine, tow, repeat. Let’s clean up the city.