News

Council moves ahead with milder RV ban

Vehicle-dwelling homeless face a series of parking restrictions

The Mountain View City Council held off on enacting an immediate citywide parking ban on large vehicles, which was largely seen as a way to kick out the city's homeless living in motor homes and trailers. Instead, at the June 11 meeting, the council voted for a complicated muddle of measures to take one of the city's most intractable issues and kick the can down the road.

Described by one councilman as "sausage-making at its best," city leaders ended up crafting a complex compromise in the wee hours of Wednesday morning as they were clearly fatigued. The final deal involved a gradual ramp-up of restrictions on large vehicles as city staff continues to study extra enforcement measures.

As part of that compromise, council members agreed to soften a proposed citywide parking ban on so-called oversized vehicles, defined as any vehicle over 7 feet high, 7 feet wide or 22 feet in length. Back in March, five council members came out in support of the idea of a citywide ban, describing it as necessary in order to ensure drivers and cyclists have a clear line of sight on city streets. Those traffic safety concerns were called a pretext by opponents, who alleged it was masking the city's real intent to close off the city's neighborhoods to the growing population of people living in vehicles parked on the street.

Under the deal, council members threw their support behind a modified ban to restrict overnight parking for large motor homes and trailers throughout the city from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. every night of the week, starting on Jan. 1, 2020. In a related step, the city would also explore an all-hours ban for oversized vehicles in certain areas, including residential neighborhoods, city parks and street sections where they are determined to be safety hazards. Sometime in the fall, city staff members say they will return with a new parking ban ordinance, including a map of proposed areas to restrict parking. In addition, the city will also still consider a citywide ban at a future meeting next year.

The modified parking ban was approved in a 6-1 vote. Mayor Lisa Matichak, who was opposed, said the nighttime ban would do nothing to address the road hazards caused by large motor homes and trailers.

In the end, the city's scaled-back restrictions on RVs were seen as a letdown for a large contingent of housing advocates, attorneys and vehicle residents who stayed until the meeting ended near 3:30 a.m. to urge restraint. In a rare step, many apolitical groups waded into the thorny issue to plead for the city not to punish the city's most impoverished residents.

Pastor Brian Leong of the Lord's Grace Christian Church, who launched the city's safe parking program four years ago, said he was "appalled" that the city was now reneging on its compassionate approach. Mountain View Whisman School District Superintendent Rudoph Ayende urged the city to think of the 21 homeless students in his district who were living out of vehicles. Rev. Lisa McIndoo of St. Timothy's Episcopal Church described a couple, both in their 60s, who lost their home after a series of medical emergencies. Just like that, McIndoo said, snapping her fingers, a couple who lived in the area for 35 years were now resorting to sleeping in their car at a church parking lot.

Nonprofit leaders depicted the parking ban as a surefire way to make a hostile housing situation even worse.

"A ban, especially an immediate ban, would have have devastating consequences on some of our most vulnerable people," said Tom Myers, executive director of the Community Services Agency of Mountain View and Los Altos. "It's a myth to believe that all people living in RVs are here by choice."

In the weeks leading up to the meeting, the city's proposed parking ban prompted warnings from the ACLU and civil rights attorneys, who argued it would be unconstitutional because it would essentially criminalize the city’s homeless population. While the city softened some aspects, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley attorney Michael Trujillo said his chief concerns were unresolved. He said his clients, a group known as the Mountain View Vehicle Residents, would consider next steps, including whether to pursue a legal challenge.

"We're really disappointed to see the council move forward with the ban after so much overwhelming public comment against the measure," Trujillo said. "Our constitutional concerns with the city's original ban haven't changed in our analysis."

It was a dilemma for Mountain View council members, who have faced intense pressure from the city's suburban homeowners to do something about the car encampments scattered across town. Through hours of debate, City Council members made series of attempts to craft an ordinance to restrict parking, but most ideas fell short of a majority. Ahead of the meeting, Councilman Lucas Ramirez had drafted his own seven-step proposal as an alternative to an immediate vehicle ban. Among his suggestions was to ban oversized vehicles only during early-morning hours and in residential zones -- a system that he acknowledged would push the city's homeless into the industrial areas of town. Mountain View should enforce all large vehicles only in the event that a citywide shelter emergency was lifted, he proposed.

"I don't think the status quo is sustainable, so whatever action we take we should be thinking of ways to wind down the status quo," Ramirez said. "I don't believe the solution to the housing crisis is people living in spaces in perpetuity."

Borrowing some ideas from that template, Mayor Matichak made a motion for 24-hour-a-day ban on oversized vehicles, which would take effect starting in November, but the proposal failed in a 3-4 vote, with support from council members Ellen Kamei and Margaret Abe-Koga.

Councilman John McAlister made a competing motion to try an overnight parking ban starting in November, but that motion also failed in a 2-5 vote, only winning support from Kamei.

Councilman Chris Clark, who crafted the final motion, said he wanted to step up enforcement, but in a manner that avoided using "the most blunt tool possible." He proposed holding off on any enforcement until the city had first studied how to restrict parking in residential neighborhoods.

"I value the livelihood of the most vulnerable folks in our community over the convenience of (the critics)," Clark said. "Frankly, most of those who are complaining are people sitting in seven-figure homes or can afford $3,000-a-month rents."

Clark admitted his motion was delaying some of the difficult decisions, but it would at least provide time to study the impacts. Under his proposal, the city potentially could have three stages of parking prohibitions: a residential ban, an overnight ban and an all-hours ban if the council lifted a citywide shelter emergency around mid-2020.

This could be a huge problem for enforcement, City Manager Dan Rich said. The city could only prohibit parking in areas with street signs that clearly spell out these rules. City staff estimated it would take about 12 weeks to order, fabricate and install the signs.

"There's a strong likelihood we'd have to re-sign twice at least in some (neighborhoods)," Rich said. "We can't enforce anything until it's signed, and if you change the rules in a substantial way, then the signage has to reflect that."

Another problem is the city's safe parking program is certain to be incapable of handling an exodus of vehicle dwellers who need to stop parking along the curb. Currently, Mountain View has space for only eight vehicles. By November, city staff expect to open up as many as 60 spaces, including 20 at a Shoreline Amphitheatre parking lot, and another 20 at a former light-rail station parking lot.

In a separate study session earlier in the evening, the council discussed ways to encourage more property owners to open up unused sites for safe parking. One favored idea was to put the city police department in charge of managing permits, allowing applicants to avoid going through a lengthy public review process.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

96 people like this
Posted by Billy Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Jun 12, 2019 at 6:26 pm

The City council clearly cant implement a simple RV ban they need to make things harder than they need to be .They have had 4 years to fix this problem and have gotten nowhere now they want to put it off even longer wow . They lack vision and have no clue plain and simple


85 people like this
Posted by Bored M
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2019 at 7:07 pm

There are 21 homeless (though they live in a mobile HOME) students in schools? What part of property taxes are these families paying directly or through rent? It's not the kids fault, sure, but what kind of irresponsible freeloading adults are we enabling? This is ridiculous! That's over $200k a year in flat out stealing of resources that could be allocated to kids whose parents are not burdens to the community.


117 people like this
Posted by Nick
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2019 at 7:11 pm

In the next election, vote for anyone willing to take an immediate stand and ban the RVs NOW. Anyone can see the situation is out of hand.


103 people like this
Posted by What a mess
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 12, 2019 at 8:01 pm

This is what you get when you dont elect council members who are properly trained to understand the impact of their decisions. What a mess. The easiest thing they could have done is to get the police to enforce the 72 hour parking rule.

As far as a late night ban, this is useless. Behind in-n-out burger and Uno Mas (Grant road) there is already a ban on parking overnight. There are a couple of RV's parked all of the time on that side street. I've never seen the restriction enforced.

So what's the point? Pass more restrictions that will not be enforced?
What a disaster


25 people like this
Posted by Devon
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jun 12, 2019 at 8:38 pm

FYI to all of the people pushing for immediate action on this ban:

I'm assuming you're all fans of the Constitution?

Then you all should know that the ACLU deemed this ban unconstitutional because the City didn't provide an adequate alternative for RV residents. Their safe parking lots initiative would've been enacted AFTER the immediate RV Ban. Meaning 200+ federal and state income taxpayers would've been displaced immediately, effectively making this a ban on poverty.

I rent out an apartment, but the only thing that separates me from these people, is that I haven't yet had an emergency that's made me unable to to pay my rent and kicked me onto the streets.

It might not be a common reality to many affluent folks in Mountain View, but to those of us who live paycheck to paycheck, this is a very scary and unsustainable reality.


42 people like this
Posted by Bored M
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2019 at 8:59 pm

@Decvon

The ACLU is the ultimate over reaching organization. Maybe it is second the the NRA. Either way, the ACLU defended NAMBLA too. Common decency and societal standards are not the ACLU's concern. If you don't know NAMBLA, look it up and be disgusted.


105 people like this
Posted by Peter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2019 at 9:36 pm

I’m very disappointed in my City Council. Part of being in politics is making tough decisions, and you guys failed us by not enforcing the RV ban. NOW word is out that you can come from elsewhere and park your RV in Mountain View and you can get your kid(s) into our schools without paying any property taxes. Ugh! Enough is enough!


9 people like this
Posted by Jane
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 12, 2019 at 10:15 pm

If RV street parking interferes with bike Lanes, it makes perfect logic to have RVs move from 2-6 am when we have peak bike lane usage. I was so excited to hear the ban had not been enacted, and then hearing that in January vehicles will have to move between 2 and 6 a.m. I realized what a sneaky back end way to confuse people about what's happening and to enact an RV ban without saying that it's an RV ban.


21 people like this
Posted by Steve Peters
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 13, 2019 at 7:39 am

Steve Peters is a registered user.

@Peter said
> I’m very disappointed in my City Council. Part of being in politics is making tough decisions, and you guys failed us by not enforcing the RV ban. NOW word is out that you can come from elsewhere and park your RV in Mountain View and you can get your kid(s) into our schools without paying any property taxes. Ugh! Enough is enough!

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act signed by Ronald Reagan in 1987, "ensures homeless children transportation to and from school free of charge, allowing children to attend their school of origin (last school enrolled or the school they attended when they first became homeless) regardless of what district the family resides in" (quoted from Web Link ). Banning RV's would place an even greater hardship on Mountain View families who become homeless, and our school district would be responsible for paying for their travel to and from school if they are forced to move father away.

People living in vehicles are our neighbors.


33 people like this
Posted by Kris
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 13, 2019 at 8:34 am

Re: homeless "stealing" resources by having kids in schools

Web Link

Only 25% of K-12 funding is from local / property taxes. The majority comes from the state.

And how should we classify prop 13 beneficiaries? There are plenty of parents who inherited homes and benefit from prop 13 lock-in. You'd call that theft as well, I assume?

We could use a little more compassion and empathy.


46 people like this
Posted by Bored M
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 8:43 am

Okay @Kris, they are only stealing $50k+ a year. About the salary of an additional teacher.


15 people like this
Posted by mel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 13, 2019 at 9:29 am

interesting those in favor of the ban show up and comment on this site
but did not come to testify in large numbers in public at the cc meeting

why?

i suspect they do not want to appear inhumane in public or do not have constructive ideas except to say 'you guys have had 4 years to solve the problem - just solve it' (well it is complex)
another random thought -- some of us are at risk to join those in vehicles through no fault of our own -- just get rid of those on the streets who remind me it could happen to me too

mel


77 people like this
Posted by Reader
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2019 at 9:55 am

All of the people living in RV's are doing so by choice. They could move somewhere less expensive. They just don't want to.


28 people like this
Posted by Thad
a resident of another community
on Jun 13, 2019 at 10:37 am

Q: Why don't they just move?
A: They can't afford to, especially without a job lined up on the other side.

Q: Why do they chose to live this way?
A: Because the other options are live on the streets in a tent or die.

Q: Why are so many people so heartless to their fellow humans?
A: Greed, Ignorance, and a tiny bit of Malice.


51 people like this
Posted by Don't understand the 2-6 ban
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 10:40 am

I'm confused about the idea of banning the RVs between 2-6 am. So... that means it's OK to park your RV during the day and block the bike lanes... when they are in use? What am I missing?


4 people like this
Posted by Reader
a resident of another community
on Jun 13, 2019 at 12:04 pm

The 2AM - 6AM ban will have a big impact. Where will they go from 2AM to 6AM? It's not going to be easy for them. Then they will have the added difficulty of finding a parking space at 6AM. I think it will be enough of an inconvenience that it will drive out a lot of the RV dwellers and will keep them out. Surrounding cities need to adopt similar measures or they will be inundated with RV's from Mountain View.


18 people like this
Posted by 2-6 ban
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2019 at 12:13 pm

2-6 ban is a registered user.

If the purpose of the ban is to protect bike lanes and pedestrian safety, banning RV's only in the middle of the night works against the council's own logic.

For the record, I support making RV parking illegal on most roads and around parks as a matter of public health and safety but also providing designated RV parking areas with city services and priority for employed people, those with children, etc.

But the 2-6 ban strikes me as disingenuous and I wish the council would be more upfront about their goals. This strikes me as a halfway measure that won't satisfy either side.


52 people like this
Posted by Initial Vote - Remember
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jun 13, 2019 at 12:25 pm

For the record (since it's buried in the article)...

The initial motion made by Matichek was to approve the staff recommendation of a 24/7 citywide ban (which staff would've been unlikely to make if the City Attorney were concerned about legality) and compromise by pushing the enforcement date out to Dec 31, 2019.

Those in favor: Matichek, Abe-Koga, Kamei
Those opposed: McAlister, Ramirez, Hicks, Clark

I'll leave it for others to assess whether this reflects the previously stated position of your elected councilmembers.

This proposal would've still allowed time for "Safe Lots" to come online, and for companies with RV campers amongst their employees to make space on their own lots (they've already had ample time to do this).

Residents have been patient. It's extremely disappointed that Council did not close on this. It's probably top 3 in citywide importance to residents, and it's been out there for 4 years.

Why is banning overnight RV parking, at a minimum in residential neighborhoods, not a no-brainer that Council members can support?


19 people like this
Posted by Initial Vote - Remember
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jun 13, 2019 at 12:38 pm

Correction to Prior: The Residential "no-brainer" ban should be 24/7.


75 people like this
Posted by SC Parent
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 3:04 pm

Have people forgotten that Section 19.111(c) of the MV City Code already bans living in vehicles parked on the street? The city council could just direct the police department to enforce that.

"No vehicle parked upon any public street shall be occupied or used for dwelling purposes."

Done and done. No need to debate anything until 3am. (Note, that this language was proposed to be removed by the "oversized vehicle ban" they were considering on Tuesday)


69 people like this
Posted by Time for Change
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 13, 2019 at 3:42 pm

City council, your voters spoke at the ballot box.

There is no middle of the road compromise between the vocal group who want to let RVs to park on our streets and the majority of the voters who said “no”

You know this election was a referendum on this very issue, so you need to get those RVs off the streets soon not - months from now.


67 people like this
Posted by MVmom
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 3:49 pm

City council members; I voted for most of you thinking that you would make a difference in our community and actually listen to the residences of Mountain View. I am so disappointed that you continue to allow people to live full time on our city streets in RV's. Have you gone to our neighborhoods and to city parks where RV's are parked and seen that many are setting up things outside their RV's therefore spreading their belongings on public streets and private properties?Have your used a restroom at a city park near the RV camps and seen how dirty they have become with trash and diapers left around etc.? I do not understand why the City of Mountain View does not use the parking area E near the Shoreline Amphitheater and designate it as an RV parking area. This parking area is huge and seems like it is almost never used unless there is a huge event and even then RV's could park there after the event is over. Portable showers and porta potties could also be easily placed there for them to use. The city could charge RV's living there a nominal fee to help pay for use of the area and services. So come on city council members! Figure out a plan to help get this resolved.


65 people like this
Posted by dont go away mad
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 13, 2019 at 4:48 pm

dont go away mad is a registered user.

So till the city council grows a pair, the good people of Mountain View will continue to deal with not being able to use our bike paths, park near the swimming pool during big swim meets and look around the big RVs blocking the view of traffic. We will continue to use our property taxes to keep the rest rooms open. I have seen first hand (only because I can see the rvs parked from my porch) some of them are locking their dogs inside the RV’s all day while they are working. In Menlo Park you cant park on the street in front of your own house. They have been enforcing that since the early 70s. If little Johnny gets hit by a car because an RV’ is blocking his path there will be a huge lawsuit and they will win because the city has known for years it’s dangerous. City council should meet every night till they find a solution.


24 people like this
Posted by Alex Nunez
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 13, 2019 at 5:07 pm

A massive thank you to the vehicle residents who despite many socioeconomic difficulties and prejudice they face in their lives have been able to mobilize themselves and elevate their voices. I believe Councilmember Clark, as quoted in this article, rightly identifies that the detrimental impacts to the livelihood of an already suffering population ought to and must take a moral precedence to the inconveniences that are cited by many of the proponents of the ban.

It is true that the City of Mountain View will not solve this homelessness & housing crisis on it's own. But it hurts to know that there are members of our community who are so willing to pile vitriol, stigma, & blame on some of the most vulnerable residents in our community while they are desperately trying to stand back up. And it hurts all that much more to witness the moral buckling of our elected leaders in Mountain View when they respond to the attack whistles of our more intolerant residents by actually trying to criminalize the last resort available to our neediest neighbors.

I hope that one day it comes to pass that elected officials at all levels of government will use their leadership to hold a line that engenders greater empathy within our morally misguided neighbors and helps them overcome the natural human tendency towards defensiveness. I hope one day our elected leaders will dedicate themselves to the tireless pursuit of solutions against the root causes of inequality, even against all the ways that the dark sides of others might discourage them from doing so.


45 people like this
Posted by dont go away mad
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 13, 2019 at 5:49 pm

dont go away mad is a registered user.

The good people of Mountain View will continue to deal with not being able to use our bike paths, park near the swimming pool during big swim meets and look around the big RVs blocking the view of traffic. We will continue to use our property taxes to keep the rest rooms open. I have seen first hand (only because I can see the rvs parked from my porch) some of them are locking their dogs inside the RV’s all day while they are working. In Menlo Park you cant park on the street in front of your own house overnight .They have been enforcing that since the early 70s. If little Johnny gets hit by a car because an RV’ is blocking his path there will be a huge lawsuit and they will win because the city has known for years it’s dangerous. City council should meet everynight till they find a solution.


70 people like this
Posted by jordydog1
a resident of Slater
on Jun 13, 2019 at 6:22 pm

jordydog1 is a registered user.

This article should have been labeled as the Op Ed it is rather than being presented to readers as a legitimate news story.

The Voice claims to be interested in investigative journalism, so why not investigate and find out exactly how many RV dwellers are displaced MV citizens or local employees and how many are simply transients? We could then have a serious conversation about how to deal with the situation.

A majority of homeowners, including myself, would like to banish RVs from the streets. They're unsightly and a danger to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. That doesn't mean we're unsympathetic to local families priced out of housing or down on their luck. I'm sure many people would support helping fellow MVers find a safe place to park or an affordable apartment. Non-MVers, on the other hand, should be ticketed, towed and sent packing ASAP.


50 people like this
Posted by Billy Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 10:08 pm

If they enact a 2 to 6 am ban I will call the police every night and use all the city manpower enforcing the ban I urge everyone who is fed up to do the same . If we pull together we can break the city at there own stupid game .


14 people like this
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Slater
on Jun 13, 2019 at 10:21 pm

In an ideal world a community would see those in need and try to find ways to help, or at the very least coexist. Instead, the Haves devote themselves to making the Have-Nots go away, never mind if they have anywhere to go.


32 people like this
Posted by Both
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 14, 2019 at 10:13 am

Both is a registered user.

It's possible to BOTH feel compassion for the homeless and low-income people and want RV's off the streets.

I think the city should quickly designate safe places for RVs to park, with accessible showers and restrooms, at a nominal fee, but primarily at taxpayer expense.

I also think that RVs can be a health and safety hazard and should not be allowed to park anywhere at any time in our city. I wish this conversation wasn't so either/or. I wish the people who support the RV ban would speak with more compassion. And I wish that those supporting the RV dwellers could try to understand the other side and the reasonable arguments for putting limits on where RVs can be.


60 people like this
Posted by Ok
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 10:59 am

Just enforce the existing laws. Why the police can pick and choose what articles of city code to enforce? If there is an article that prohibits using a vehicle parked in the public street for dwelling then enforce this article. Otherwise why does anyone have to obey the law?


58 people like this
Posted by Freefall
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jun 14, 2019 at 1:16 pm

I will remember this at next election and not vote for those who did nothing about illegal rv dwellers on our streets maintained by our tax money. This town is looking disgusting and less safe.


65 people like this
Posted by SensiblePlan
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 14, 2019 at 2:37 pm

Here's a proposal:
Designate some safe parking spaces for RV but only with a permit. To obtain a permit, you have to prove your last stable residence was in Mountain View. That way we show compassion to people that have lost their residence and need some temporary place to stay while not opening the gates to people from all over the area to move here as the other cities flat out ban all RVs.


53 people like this
Posted by Why not sue zero tolerance Los Altos
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 14, 2019 at 2:53 pm

Why is it only Mountain View’s problem? Why aren’t Tom Myers, Community Services Agency of Mountain View and LOS ALTOS, ACLU and religious leaders & housing advocates lambasting Los Altos council at their council meetings until 3 AM? It’s a REGIONAL problem.


52 people like this
Posted by Vote them out!
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jun 14, 2019 at 5:12 pm

Chris Clark will be coming up for re-election next year, if he chooses to run again. VOTE HIM OUT!!!

McAlister is termed out, choose wisely for 2 new candidates for council!.


11 people like this
Posted by There is no one to vote out!
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jun 14, 2019 at 5:55 pm

There is no one to vote out! is a registered user.

Both Chris and John are termed out next year. Margaret and Lisa will have to defend their seats.

4 Council seats available in 2020. So...you gonna turn on conservative Margaret and Lisa? Yeah, I didn't think so.

But neither one will collect my vote. They are cruel council members. Don't take the humans involved in the equations into consideration. Heartless and humourless.


74 people like this
Posted by @There is no one to vote out!
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 14, 2019 at 8:17 pm

@There is no one to vote out!
Spoken like a true RV dweller!

What you do not understand, or care about is, the majority wants to vote your RV out of the city! If no one is above the law, then the law applies to them as well, just as it does to me and you.


16 people like this
Posted by Law
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 14, 2019 at 11:34 pm

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.


Like this comment
Posted by Jeff Grafton
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 15, 2019 at 1:00 am

Jeff Grafton is a registered user.

@jordydog1

The MV Voice published such a story a few months ago: Web Link


87 people like this
Posted by Sally
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 15, 2019 at 1:25 pm

I’m progressive in my politics and I donate as much as I can afford to homeless, especially the Downtown Streets Team in San Jose (where I grew up). But I want these RVs gone. Allowing them in our neighborhoods is not right. Enforce the current parking rules.


24 people like this
Posted by Law
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 15, 2019 at 1:41 pm

Sally, honey, if you want to roust the poor and homeless, your politics ain't progressive.


70 people like this
Posted by ellen
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 16, 2019 at 2:17 pm

what about the city's tax payer's--somehow we got forgotten in all this. If you can't afford to live here then don't live here. If we keep going like this every street will be filled with these RV's. Our surrounding city's send them here, many do not work here but are looking for free space to live with offers services . They do not pay taxes like the property owners have to to keep our public services going. Schools, parks, garbage, clean up after the mess many leave. At the very least charge them a fee until we can work out a permanent solution. It's only going to get worse as we are paralyzed.
I had a friend visit yesterday who has not been here in the last 3 years and her words--wow Mt view is looking like a slum.


26 people like this
Posted by Billy Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Jun 16, 2019 at 3:10 pm

Ellen your friend is right it is a slum .


50 people like this
Posted by CP
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 16, 2019 at 4:12 pm

CP is a registered user.

The 2-6am no parking ban is a joke. It already exists and isnt enforced near the in and out and nob hill shopping plaza. I encourage all of you complaining about the rv's here: go to ask mountain view and file a complaint about the rvs that continue to defy the no parking 2-6am rule and park overnight every night across from in and out near grant and el camino. There is a Leprechaun brand RV parked in that area that hasnt moved in years. Its a young couple no kids, i see them coming and going. Please complain! It takes the same amount of time as writing a comment here and has more impact. The city has to do something to enforce the no parking 2-6am laws we already have! If residents don't file complaints, nothing will change.


2 people like this
Posted by harry
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 16, 2019 at 4:48 pm

I know how to solve the biggest problem going on here. really, it all boils down to an old gospel principle. prince and the pauper. let's all just trade places for a month. the haves come and live in an rv on the street, without any access to their bank accounts or other means- and the rv'ers go and live in their nice, safe, comfortable home or apartment. the haves exchange their lives with the have-nots. for a whole month. then lets all switch back to our true lot in life, and reconvene the city council, and see what kind of laws we want to pass, and what kind of mindset we want to have, concerning the rv problem--- I bet there'd be a whole lot of people finding a new kind of religion---


71 people like this
Posted by Peter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 16, 2019 at 6:07 pm

@Harry
Me: eye roll.
Be realistic. I’d love for my kids to go to the super nice Atherton schools but I’m not going to park an RV over there because they wouldn’t allow it and because I simply can’t afford to live there. I, fortunately, can afford MV and that’s my choice. If I couldn’t afford MV I’d move somewhere more affordable. Plain and simply.


2 people like this
Posted by Law
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 16, 2019 at 6:27 pm

Peter, when did you choose to be able to afford to live in Mountain View? How did you make that choice?


69 people like this
Posted by Peter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 16, 2019 at 6:38 pm

@ Law
When I “decided” to work my BUTT off to go to college by night while working FULL TIME, all the way through college, and, voila! I got a job than enabled me to live here. Hard work pays off. ( Had I not got a job that enabled me to live here, I would have “decided” to move somewhere more affordable.


80 people like this
Posted by Side1
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 16, 2019 at 6:40 pm

Camping on the streets was never legal.

They made a choice when they made the Police not enforce the law already on the books.

Not enforcing a legitimate law should be breaking the law in itself.
interfering with a public safety officer at the very least.

Everyone saw this coming years ago, except those that made the decision to let them stay parked on the streets.

Resulting in lowering property values and some of them dumping sewage tanks into the storm system so it flows to the creeks and bay creating a serious health and safety concern.

I am sorry they can't afford to live in this city, but THAT is the short answer. They can't afford to live in this city, plain and simple.


53 people like this
Posted by Vote them out!
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jun 16, 2019 at 6:51 pm

Here lies the future of Mtn.View, if we do not stop voting for these "progressive" liberal candidates for council.

Link here, Petition launched to recall Mayor Garcetti over LA homeless crisis.
Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Law
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 16, 2019 at 7:02 pm

Which of those were the choice to afford to live in Mountain View? Going to college? Accepting whichever job you currently have? Why do you think the folks living in their vehicles didn't make the same choice?


99 people like this
Posted by Local
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Jun 16, 2019 at 7:09 pm

Local is a registered user.

I consistently see the RV dwellers referred to a "poor and homeless" or "victims of circumstance". Please - I do understand your sympathetic attitude if this were the truth, but you have no facts to back that up. Your "holier than thou" attitude is false and baseless. Please get the facts before making your false claims, or you only slow the help for those legitimately due assistance.

Ask the police who are assigned to monitor the RV situation, for the actual statistics. The FACT is that there are drug rings, prostitution, gun rings, theft rings, people who are able to pay rent but choose to freeload and not pay taxes, well paid Google engineers dodging property taxes, out of town people taking advantage of MV lax enforcement, out of town landlords who dump junk RVs here and rent them out for profit, and yes - a small minority of former MV renters who could no longer afford rents here and chose to live in an RV to remain in our city.

If we spent our (so far) nearly $2M to help those very few who actually are former residents here that can no longer afford it - we could get these people housed. Your tax money is picking up the expense for all the others as well - and the expense of cleaning up the sewage dumped on the streets, the trash, the police intervention, the blocking bike lanes, blocking line of sight, etc.

The MV Voice doesn't tell you the whole truth. The article mentions the family that lost their house and had no option other than moving into an RV on Mountain View streets. They neglect to tell you that that family was from Sunnyvale - and moved here because Sunnyvale enforces the law against street dwelling. Thus, yet another out of towner who your tax dollars support, in place of the RV dweller's original city.

We need a strict screening of who is on our streets, and if you are here illegally, or involved in illegal activities, move on. This is a regional issue - and Mountain View cannot be responsible for the entire Bay Area.


59 people like this
Posted by Peter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 16, 2019 at 7:20 pm

@Law
That’s your argument? Really?
Here it is, plain and simple: if one can’t afford to live in an area, move to somewhere where one can afford.
I know for a fact that there’s an RV near me whose owner got a job through PD and they quit after a week or so. And now I see him just chillin each day outside his RV while he smokes his cigs. The same guy let’s his dogs just crap all around his RVs I even had to write a note on his truck and give him poop bags. That same guy was drunk one night and screaming at cars passing by, including my wife who was passing by in her car. And you may wonder whys why I don’t want RVs near me. Well, there u have it.


Like this comment
Posted by harry
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 16, 2019 at 7:36 pm

you completely misunderstand my comment, peter. it was not made in defense of the more fortunate, but in defense of the rv's---


4 people like this
Posted by Law
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 16, 2019 at 7:41 pm

Peter, I haven't made any argument in our discussion, I asked you to elaborate on your belief that you made the choice to be able to afford to live in Mountain View and why others have chosen not to. Why did you find yourself unable to answer my question, and instead needed to rant about a particular person?


1 person likes this
Posted by Law
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 16, 2019 at 7:45 pm

[Post removed due to violation of terms of use]


32 people like this
Posted by To Stalker
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Jun 16, 2019 at 8:42 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


20 people like this
Posted by CP
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 16, 2019 at 9:52 pm

CP is a registered user.

Because the MVPD knows how toxic and futile it is to try to reason with people like Law and harry. Waste of time. The RV enforcement is coming. When residents engage city leaders via an appropriate manner such as Ask MV, and make intelligent, factual arguments, they listen. They don't listen to nonsensical, non voting, non legitimate MV residents i.e. people who either own or rent a permanent dwelling with an actual residential address the pist office delivers to. Also, no one has called out Supt Rudolph for attending the city council and making statements in supports of kids living in RVs on the streets? How dare he make official statements to the city council in his capacity as Supt in support of RV dwellings without a board discussion. I think we parents are so tired of him noone even calls him out anymore on his outrageous lack of judgement and entitlement over his MVWSD fiefdom. Its summer so i guess he figures the parents arent paying attention.


3 people like this
Posted by CP
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 16, 2019 at 9:55 pm

CP is a registered user.

Well im sure someone will call me out for minor typos but the key themes of my comments stand.


22 people like this
Posted by These are NOT all poor people.
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jun 17, 2019 at 3:47 pm

These are NOT all poor people. is a registered user.

Some of these so-called indigent 'RV Dwellers' are gainfully employed. They live in campervans and RV's (some are expensive and clearly not a a cheap housing option) and just move around like a game of Wack a Mole, and why? Because Mountain View allows it (unlike Zero tolerance Los Altos). Why isn't a permit process a good first step to separate those in need from those who just want to game the system? Let's help those truly in need find stable housing, and let's send the freeloaders on their way.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Why is it becoming increasingly impossible to open a restaurant on the Peninsula?
By Elena Kadvany | 27 comments | 5,210 views

Electric Buses: A case study
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 2,231 views

Helping Partners Become Couples (vs. Helping Couples Become Partners)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 605 views

Sugar Detective
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 300 views

 

PRICE INCREASES MONDAY

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Register now