News

Mountain View is expanding its safe parking program as hundreds of vehicle dwellers remain on city streets

RVs parked in the Shoreline Amphitheatre safe parking lot in Mountain View on April 10. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

The city of Mountain View is currently home to one-third of all the safe parking spaces in Santa Clara County, designed to support homeless residents living out of cars and RVs with a goal of placing them into permanent housing.

And while city officials tout its 76 spots as significant progress in relocating vehicle dwellers off of city streets and into safe parking sites, they still face a daunting task. As of July, an estimated 265 vehicles are serving as makeshift homes along public roads, suggesting that the city's program -- while outsized for a smaller suburban city -- may have only put a dent in a chronic problem.

Since 2015, Mountain View has explored the idea of safe parking as a new method of dealing with rising homelessness. The city's homeless population ballooned from 139 in 2013 to 606 in 2019, bringing with it a steep rise in people living in cars and RVs clustered along several city streets. The most prominent example, Crisanto Avenue, had 70 inhabited vehicles as of a July 2020 survey.

The topic has since become a wedge political issue that has deeply divided city residents, with some calling for strict enforcement of parking rules to force RV dwellers from city streets. The City Council voted last year to approve an all-day ban on oversized vehicles on streets with bike lanes or that are less than 40 feet wide, but it was successfully challenged by a referendum. The ban will now come before voters in the November election as Measure C.

After numerous studies and difficulty getting the program off the ground, the city finally launched the safe parking program in earnest earlier this year. The city now provides 76 safe parking spaces, compared to the 136 spaces located elsewhere in the county. The City Council voted on Sept. 8 to expand the program, adding 25 more spaces for inhabited passenger vehicles.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

"The journey over the last four years has taken the city from having no options for safe parking ... to being a city that now has the largest safe parking program in the county," said Kimberly Thomas, assistant to the city manager.

The two biggest safe parking sites, located in a former VTA parking lot on E. Evelyn Avenue and "Lot B" of Shoreline Amphitheatre, are nearly at capacity. By the latest count, 62 people are living in 27 vehicles at Shoreline, and 67 people are living in 29 vehicles at Evelyn. Of the people participating in the program, 12 are families with children in Mountain View schools, and 19 are under the age of 19, according to a city staff report.

But for reasons unknown to the city, the launch of the program hasn't come with an equal drop in people living in RVs and passenger vehicles on city streets. The street-by-street count has wobbled between 200 and 300 inhabited vehicles since 2017, and the latest survey in July shows 265 vehicles are still being used as homes on public roads.

The only major difference is that RVs along Shoreline Boulevard have completely cleared out, whereas more vehicles are now clustered on Crisanto Avenue and Pioneer Way.

City staff at the Sept. 8 council meeting theorized several reasons for the lack of movement in the numbers, including a possible increase in homelessness due to the coronavirus pandemic or more vehicle dwellers moving in from cities with fewer services. The city also dropped its parking enforcement rules during the COVID-19 emergency, which could have contributed to an increase, or it's possible these vehicles were simply missed in past counts. City staff did not cite data to back up any of its theories.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

"It gives you some gauge of the realm of possibilities associated with why there is a slight increase in the count," Thomas told council members.

One of the big challenges that emerged since the safe parking program began is where to park commuter vehicle, an issue that caught the city by surprise. Many of the people living in cars and RVs have a second -- or even a third -- vehicle that they use to get to work each day, and the safe parking lots were never equipped to support secondary vehicles. For the Shoreline lot, where parking is limited, some homeless participants have been parking at the Shoreline Dog Park, nearly a half-mile trek from the safe parking site.

At the Evelyn lot, many participants are parking their extra vehicles on Pioneer Way, which is nearby but has caused friction with local business owners frustrated with the loss of spaces available to customers.

"There has been some pushback from the business owners for some of our tenants parking on the streets, which is not very neighborly," said Amber Stime, executive director of the nonprofit Move MV. "I'm not going to go and confront them, but I think we are doing our best to honor their space."

Councilman Lucas Ramirez said it makes sense to formally add commuter parking to the program, recognizing that people live in one vehicle but use another to go to work, go shopping and take kids to school. Failing to accommodate that runs the risk of deterring participation and failing to address the problem of people parking in the street.

"If you have to walk a fair distance to the dog park to get to your commuter vehicle, you may just decide 'Why not stay on Crisanto? Why not stay on Continental Circle? Because I can just park my vehicle right next door,'" Ramirez said.

Where the extra, unanticipated cars present a problem, some see a silver lining. Michael Love, a former pastor and operations manager for Move MV, said the commuter vehicles are a good sign that many of the homeless residents in the program are likely still working.

"The presence of the commuter car is a sign that this is somebody who is really on the cusp of being able to be, as quickly as possible, returned back to permanent housing," Love said.

Despite city staff framing the safe parking program as a success and a major milestone at the Sept. 8 meeting, some public speakers were critical of the council for taking several years to set up a modest program. Monta Loma resident Tim Mackenzie said the council has been dragging its feet, and that there has been a lot of "dehumanization and hostility" from the council towards people who are using the service. Charlotte Quinn, another speaker, said the council has done little to solve the problem while simultaneously attempting to kick RV dwellers out of the city. She hammered the city for resting on its laurels and comparing itself to other cities.

"There is nothing more important for you guys to be doing right now," Quinn said. "I seriously don't understand your function if this is not a priority, that you can possibly speak about not wanting to do more than San Jose as if a bar that's set that low is good enough."

Councilman John McAlister defended the council's record, saying the city had to go through a complicated, painstakingly slow process to get the program off the ground. To come to the city and say it didn't work hard on the problem would be "misinformed," he said.

Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga said she was fine with Mountain View punching above its weight when it comes to safe parking, but vented that the city has had to virtually go it alone and spend money on a problem that should be Santa Clara County's collective responsibility.

"I totally am proud to be a leader, I'm proud to set the example but I just get disappointed when I don't see followers from our neighboring communities," Abe-Koga said. "That's my real frustration here."

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Mountain View is expanding its safe parking program as hundreds of vehicle dwellers remain on city streets

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:43 pm

The city of Mountain View is currently home to one-third of all the safe parking spaces in Santa Clara County, designed to support homeless residents living out of cars and RVs with a goal of placing them into permanent housing.

And while city officials tout its 76 spots as significant progress in relocating vehicle dwellers off of city streets and into safe parking sites, they still face a daunting task. As of July, an estimated 265 vehicles are serving as makeshift homes along public roads, suggesting that the city's program -- while outsized for a smaller suburban city -- may have only put a dent in a chronic problem.

Since 2015, Mountain View has explored the idea of safe parking as a new method of dealing with rising homelessness. The city's homeless population ballooned from 139 in 2013 to 606 in 2019, bringing with it a steep rise in people living in cars and RVs clustered along several city streets. The most prominent example, Crisanto Avenue, had 70 inhabited vehicles as of a July 2020 survey.

The topic has since become a wedge political issue that has deeply divided city residents, with some calling for strict enforcement of parking rules to force RV dwellers from city streets. The City Council voted last year to approve an all-day ban on oversized vehicles on streets with bike lanes or that are less than 40 feet wide, but it was successfully challenged by a referendum. The ban will now come before voters in the November election as Measure C.

After numerous studies and difficulty getting the program off the ground, the city finally launched the safe parking program in earnest earlier this year. The city now provides 76 safe parking spaces, compared to the 136 spaces located elsewhere in the county. The City Council voted on Sept. 8 to expand the program, adding 25 more spaces for inhabited passenger vehicles.

"The journey over the last four years has taken the city from having no options for safe parking ... to being a city that now has the largest safe parking program in the county," said Kimberly Thomas, assistant to the city manager.

The two biggest safe parking sites, located in a former VTA parking lot on E. Evelyn Avenue and "Lot B" of Shoreline Amphitheatre, are nearly at capacity. By the latest count, 62 people are living in 27 vehicles at Shoreline, and 67 people are living in 29 vehicles at Evelyn. Of the people participating in the program, 12 are families with children in Mountain View schools, and 19 are under the age of 19, according to a city staff report.

But for reasons unknown to the city, the launch of the program hasn't come with an equal drop in people living in RVs and passenger vehicles on city streets. The street-by-street count has wobbled between 200 and 300 inhabited vehicles since 2017, and the latest survey in July shows 265 vehicles are still being used as homes on public roads.

The only major difference is that RVs along Shoreline Boulevard have completely cleared out, whereas more vehicles are now clustered on Crisanto Avenue and Pioneer Way.

City staff at the Sept. 8 council meeting theorized several reasons for the lack of movement in the numbers, including a possible increase in homelessness due to the coronavirus pandemic or more vehicle dwellers moving in from cities with fewer services. The city also dropped its parking enforcement rules during the COVID-19 emergency, which could have contributed to an increase, or it's possible these vehicles were simply missed in past counts. City staff did not cite data to back up any of its theories.

"It gives you some gauge of the realm of possibilities associated with why there is a slight increase in the count," Thomas told council members.

One of the big challenges that emerged since the safe parking program began is where to park commuter vehicle, an issue that caught the city by surprise. Many of the people living in cars and RVs have a second -- or even a third -- vehicle that they use to get to work each day, and the safe parking lots were never equipped to support secondary vehicles. For the Shoreline lot, where parking is limited, some homeless participants have been parking at the Shoreline Dog Park, nearly a half-mile trek from the safe parking site.

At the Evelyn lot, many participants are parking their extra vehicles on Pioneer Way, which is nearby but has caused friction with local business owners frustrated with the loss of spaces available to customers.

"There has been some pushback from the business owners for some of our tenants parking on the streets, which is not very neighborly," said Amber Stime, executive director of the nonprofit Move MV. "I'm not going to go and confront them, but I think we are doing our best to honor their space."

Councilman Lucas Ramirez said it makes sense to formally add commuter parking to the program, recognizing that people live in one vehicle but use another to go to work, go shopping and take kids to school. Failing to accommodate that runs the risk of deterring participation and failing to address the problem of people parking in the street.

"If you have to walk a fair distance to the dog park to get to your commuter vehicle, you may just decide 'Why not stay on Crisanto? Why not stay on Continental Circle? Because I can just park my vehicle right next door,'" Ramirez said.

Where the extra, unanticipated cars present a problem, some see a silver lining. Michael Love, a former pastor and operations manager for Move MV, said the commuter vehicles are a good sign that many of the homeless residents in the program are likely still working.

"The presence of the commuter car is a sign that this is somebody who is really on the cusp of being able to be, as quickly as possible, returned back to permanent housing," Love said.

Despite city staff framing the safe parking program as a success and a major milestone at the Sept. 8 meeting, some public speakers were critical of the council for taking several years to set up a modest program. Monta Loma resident Tim Mackenzie said the council has been dragging its feet, and that there has been a lot of "dehumanization and hostility" from the council towards people who are using the service. Charlotte Quinn, another speaker, said the council has done little to solve the problem while simultaneously attempting to kick RV dwellers out of the city. She hammered the city for resting on its laurels and comparing itself to other cities.

"There is nothing more important for you guys to be doing right now," Quinn said. "I seriously don't understand your function if this is not a priority, that you can possibly speak about not wanting to do more than San Jose as if a bar that's set that low is good enough."

Councilman John McAlister defended the council's record, saying the city had to go through a complicated, painstakingly slow process to get the program off the ground. To come to the city and say it didn't work hard on the problem would be "misinformed," he said.

Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga said she was fine with Mountain View punching above its weight when it comes to safe parking, but vented that the city has had to virtually go it alone and spend money on a problem that should be Santa Clara County's collective responsibility.

"I totally am proud to be a leader, I'm proud to set the example but I just get disappointed when I don't see followers from our neighboring communities," Abe-Koga said. "That's my real frustration here."

Comments

SC Parent
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 11, 2020 at 2:20 pm
SC Parent, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 2:20 pm

"City staff at the Sept. 8 council meeting theorized several reasons for the lack of movement in the numbers.... City staff did not cite data to back up any of its theories."

Did they literally just count the number of vehicles without recording any other data? How about writing down the license plate numbers so they can track the inflow/outflow? What if 200 vehicles left MV and 200 new vehicles arrived over the summer?


Local
Registered user
Martens-Carmelita
on Sep 11, 2020 at 2:33 pm
Local, Martens-Carmelita
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 2:33 pm

I think this is a good article, as far as it goes, but one glaring fact is not well addressed: where are a lot of these people actually from? Mountain View taxpayers cannot be responsible for all the people living this way on the street - as at least half of them are from other cities here on the Peninsula. Los Altos, Menlo Park, Sunnyvale, etc. prohibit street living, so they send their homeless to Mountain View - some even directed to come here by the other cities' local police. Thus it falls to Mountain View's taxpayers to cover trash and sewage removal, policing, providing water, etc. even though a great number of the RV occupants are from, or work in other cities.
The Safe Parking sites are not full - yet Mountain View is adding more, and providing Community Services assistance, in hopes more will be able to move off the streets into housing. Street living is no way for anyone to live - especially with children.
If all cities did their share and took care of their own, we could help the people be sustainably and safely housed. Yes, I'm very glad Mountain View Council and taxpayers have stepped forward with at least $2.5M to help so far (with another sizable amount just allocated), but Mountain View cannot stand alone here. Where are the other cities? How can they keep shifting their responsibility? Kudos to Mountain View - but let's see articles demanding that the other cities step up!


Polomom
Registered user
Waverly Park
on Sep 11, 2020 at 2:53 pm
Polomom, Waverly Park
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 2:53 pm

I have kept an eye on the influx of different RV's into our community ( since April). There are a lot of new(really old) ones on Continental Circle. Those RVs that moved into our safe lots were replaced by newcomers. Why are we not determining where they are coming from? Local is right, why are we not putting an end to the stream of vehicles coming from other communities? Mountain View has done their part. Has spent a lot of $. Has the largest safe parking program in the County now. Mountain View has to put an end to opportunistic RV dwelling. We are showing compassion, support the needy, but MV has to stop tolerating the freeloading RV dwellers from out of town.


Concerned
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 11, 2020 at 2:55 pm
Concerned, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 2:55 pm

The article conveniently omits that the City Council was told on Tues night that there are less than ten families/individuals on the Safe Parking Lots waitlist. One can only conclude that the remaining vehicle dwellers have little interest in joining a program to be housed and continue to live on the streets. This is compounded by surrounding cities not tolerating RV's and sending vehicle dwellers to Mountain View making it ground zero for RV living. I support a YES vote on Measure C, this is not sustainable!


Peter
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 11, 2020 at 3:37 pm
Peter, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 3:37 pm

Please vote yes on Measure C! Enough is enough!


Longview
Registered user
another community
on Sep 11, 2020 at 4:14 pm
Longview, another community
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 4:14 pm

Just as ABAG assigns regional housing construction goals to cities, I think the county should set goals to each city to house and support our homeless population. Then there could be much better informed and more productive conversations than the speculation we are seeing in these comments. Most missing from this conversation is comment on the presence of car and RV dwellers in all the cities of our region.


Longview
Registered user
another community
on Sep 11, 2020 at 4:25 pm
Longview, another community
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 4:25 pm

Choosing the streets where RV's can use street parking? That's fine. Prohibiting effectively all RV parking? Making Mountain View the least tolerant City in the region? Too much! Vote no on C, and vote for a better Council, that will ask the right question - where should Mountain View allow RV parking. Not everywhere - but there are places where allowing RV parking has little impact, and much benefit to service workers who are finding shelter in RVs.


Karen
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 11, 2020 at 4:26 pm
Karen, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 4:26 pm

As much as I have compassion for the residents that previously had housing in our city, or work here, but not all street dwellers that live on our streets
are from Mt View or work here. Mt View has been touted across the country as having the best services for street dwellers. Someone, explain to me why our tax dollars are going for these services, trash removal, waste removal, water (I have spoken to one resident that said she had to put a lock on her water spigot as water was constantly being stolen). Why is it that over 2.5 million dollars of our tax dollars been spent for over 5 years of the city council doing nothing! It’s an outrage. We all want safe and secure housing for the homeless, but why should our neighboring cities ban the street dwelling and not contributing one dollar. Enough is enough! We don’t know where these people are from. What obligation do we, as taxpayers, to support the services the city hands out. One dweller told me, “ I work in San Jose, but I love the parks and schools here”. All without paying a cent in property tax. This has to end. The residents want to be rid of the freeloaders from other cities and states. Take a census. Count the dwellers. Make something happen. This has to be stopped NOW.


Sewage dumping, a huge issue, not enforced, not monitored.
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 11, 2020 at 4:34 pm
Sewage dumping, a huge issue, not enforced, not monitored., Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 4:34 pm

Mountain View taxpayers have been subsidizing programs to assist RV dwellers for years now. It was a real eyeopener to hear that less than 10 RV's are on the safe parking wait list, yet hundreds are still on our city streets. In 2018 the short-lived FREE sewage dumping service, at a cost of 30K to taxpayers, was discontinued because RV dwellers did not use the service. The free waste disposal service was launched as a way to "prevent RV dwellers from illegally dumping their sewage down the storm water drains". YES YOU READ THAT RIGHT. Illegal dumping of sewage, ultimately into our creeks.

At launch of that program MVPD said “We have received reports of people pouring waste into park bathroom sinks. A lot of them are leaking sewage into the street. Some are dumping sewage onto grass areas and in gutters. It’s kind of all over the city. We’ve gotten complaints about Cristanto Avenue, and at Cuesta Park. And also at Rengstorff Park and Eagle Park.”

There are hundreds of RV's parked all over the city, where and how often are they dumping their human waste? Clearly many of these RV's could not make it to a dump station as they are inoperable. Does anyone care about public health risk? Environmental impact? This issue is not about dehumanizing people it's about keeping the streets safe and clean for all. Vote YES on Measure C, it's a start.

Feb 2018 Merc News start of free waste dumping program Web Link
May 2018, City ENDS free waste dumping due to low participation, 30K, 3 month failed pilot Web Link


to Longview
Registered user
Martens-Carmelita
on Sep 11, 2020 at 5:11 pm
to Longview, Martens-Carmelita
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 5:11 pm

Are you kidding about "Mountain View being the least tolerant City in the region"? That's the kind of flat out FALSE statement made when someone has no idea of the FACTS. Mountain View is the MOST tolerant and has done more for the street dwellers than any other city on the Peninsula. Name even one Peninsula city that has done more. Your false statements only make the situation worse.
MV has opened Safe Lots with free services, and are opening more - even though there are still spaces available in the first ones. We have spent over $2.5 million on services for them so far, and yes those are TAXPAYER dollars. I truly want to help those who want help, and who move into the Safe Lots, working with Community Services to be housed. However, many are refusing to do that, and prefer street living without taxes. A woman spoke at a City Council meeting on this this Spring - saying her friend was evicted from her apartment in Sunnyvale and the local police gave her information on moving into an RV in Mountain View and getting free services - as street dwelling is not allowed in Sunnyvale. That same scenario goes on in other Peninsula cities. Other cities must stand up and do their share. Vote YES on Measure C to deal with the facts in a compassionate and sensible way - and help those who want to help themselves.


MyOpinion
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 11, 2020 at 5:28 pm
MyOpinion, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 5:28 pm

@Longview; a resident of "Another Community" that says it all right there, if you live in 'another community' why are you telling us how to vote? Clearly you have no solution, you just like hearing yourself pontificate. Please spare us.


Frank Richards
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 11, 2020 at 6:44 pm
Frank Richards, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2020 at 6:44 pm

Must be a lot of Trump supporters in this comments section, wanting to keep "undesirables" out of sight from their million dollar homes.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 12, 2020 at 9:44 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 12, 2020 at 9:44 am

@Longview, thanks for supporting a compassionate community! I totally agree with your analysis - Measure C will make us one of the Least Tolerant of nearby cities. (not exactly The Least Tolerant). And having compassionate Councilmembers will allow them to fashion a better (I agree with slightly more restrictive On Street, i.e. sewage and 72 hour move) program.

I HAVE LIVED IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR OVER 30 YEARS - so, I'm suggesting how you might "compassionately vote".

Peace and Love


MyOpinion vote blue
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 12, 2020 at 12:47 pm
MyOpinion vote blue, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 12, 2020 at 12:47 pm

@Frank Richards... Trumpers? Give me a break, Lenny has used that pejorative for anyone who disagrees with him; an unsubstantiated cheap shot. Trump is as toxic as the sewage being dumped in Mountain View's storm drains.

Biden Harris 2020


MyOpinion @Steve N
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 12, 2020 at 12:53 pm
MyOpinion @Steve N, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 12, 2020 at 12:53 pm

@Steve Nelson - what exactly do you mean by "I agree with slightly more restrictive On Street, i.e. sewage and 72 hour move"

How would you solve the sewage issue and the 72 hour parking rule, both of which are enforced ONLY when a resident calls in a violation. Please define your plan for 'slight' restrictions and how they would be implemented and funded.


who is LONGVIEW
Registered user
Rengstorff Park
on Sep 12, 2020 at 12:57 pm
who is LONGVIEW, Rengstorff Park
Registered user
on Sep 12, 2020 at 12:57 pm

"Longview' knows an awful lot about Mountain View politics for someone who is 'from another community', my guess is that 'Longview' is part of the NO on C effort, but too cowardly to say so.


Frank Richards
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 12, 2020 at 1:56 pm
Frank Richards, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 12, 2020 at 1:56 pm

MyOpinion, you might not be self-reflective enough to see the link between your rhetoric and Trump's, but it's abundantly clear to many others. Demonizing others, fear-mongering about crime and waste, claiming that some of our most vulnerable are somehow taking advantage of the rest of us, the kind of stuff you hear at a Trump rally. You can see it in the claims about Mountain View taking people from other cities.

How does this sound to you:
"When [Sunnyvale] sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 13, 2020 at 7:54 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 13, 2020 at 7:54 am

How you Might. Since U asked! It is entirely clear that, as more of these tended and monitored public RV spaces are brought on-line, there (IMO) should be tightened enforcement of the on-street RV parking/living situation.

Monitor the 72 hr parking rule PROACTIVELY! Not just wait for complaint. Before that - Monitor the 'vehicle leaking sewage' illegality PROACTIVELY. To me, that means having a Parking Control police employee assigned (maybe hired) full time to monitor this enforcement job. After a month of new spaces - and new enforcement, the Dumping and 72 Hour problems would decrease.

I myself have a smaller, older RV that I use monthly for recreation. I've had it for 10 years - parking on street and my driveway. ONCE I didn't move in time - and got a $80 or so parking ticket. ONCE - then, learned my lesson.

CUPERTINO has on_the_sidewalk tent camping by the homeless. Legal - because Cupertino does not have enough homeless accommodation. How is That Legal? Maybe the Voice/Kevin can write up a story about That Court decision!


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 13, 2020 at 8:06 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 13, 2020 at 8:06 am

how to: in a Defund the Police mode: Hire the Parking Enforcement person in a social service position (and deputize them?). Have the full-time permanent position have a Master Of Social Work training requirement!

In the current environment for 'community based policing' this might be (IMO) an excellent innovation for our City. An RV enforcement person with a Social Service mindset - who would also work with community housing service groups AS PART OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION!


MyOpinion
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 13, 2020 at 2:06 pm
MyOpinion, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 13, 2020 at 2:06 pm

@Steve, you make good points.

Some of your issues were addressed in Safe Parking update at Tuesday's council meeting.It was surprising that only about 10 RV's are on the wait list. So clearly the RVs on the streets have no desire to participate, living on the street is their preferance. There are significant resources allocated to Safe Parking programs. Safe Parking is not solving this issue. It's a conundrum.

Regarding monitoring sewage issues for RV's on the streets. I agree proactive is best, but RV residents are not required to register with the city, nor do they have to engage with community outreach personnel. RV counts fluctuate, they park at various locations around the city. How would it be possible to track maintenance and condition of these black tanks? And as an RV owner you know how important it is to be sure black tank sensors are working, proper chemicals are used. etc. Not a fun task but an essential one.

IMO the first priority is to transition the truly needy into stable housing. CSA and County are working hard to do this. Rents are coming down, vacancy rates are going up. As a taxpayer, I would rather provide rent subsidies than services which keep people in sub-standard RV's; a disservice to those who need help.

Owning an RV is expensive, if someone can afford a newer RV along with a commute car, they seriously need to start looking for an apartment. With COVID travel restrictions RV's are in great demand, it's a good time to sell. Web Link


Local
Registered user
Martens-Carmelita
on Sep 13, 2020 at 9:57 pm
Local, Martens-Carmelita
Registered user
on Sep 13, 2020 at 9:57 pm

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

As for Steve Nelson, his ideas are very poorly thought out and his reasoning is poorly researched. He wants to spend hundreds of thousands MORE of our tax money to support street living, when there is no requirement for anyone on the street to even answer the door of their RV. The City Staff has the hard numbers proving that at least half the street dwellers have never had a connection to Mountain View, and many refuse to even interact with staff or police to interview for assistance. Mr. Nelson has odd dreams that the City can somehow monitor sewage dumping. Unless we have someone there with a flashlight all night by each RV, you won't witness the dumping of raw sewage and trash onto the streets and into the gutters - as it is undoubtedly done when there is no one around. Even the sinks and toilets in our park bathrooms have sewage dumped from RVs, and the only explanation there would be from those without proper disposal available.

The City already has professionals working with those living on the streets to help them move into housing. The problem is that the majority of RV occupants refuse assistance (and cannot be forced to comply). Therefore we have Measure C - which will PROACTIVELY help those unstably housed to move to Safe Lots and not only receive water, trash and sewage dumping - but will get free assistance from professionals to move into actual housing. Nobody deserves to live on the streets - especially the few children currently living this way in MV. Measure C is the way towards compassionate, progressive and FREE help to move forward. Those who would prefer to live free off the taxpayer, pay no property tax themselves, and negatively impact the environment with trash and sewage, can move to another City (perhaps one of those more tolerant cities to which you refer?) Please DO mention the cities which are more tolerant than Mountain View - or is that a subject where you just make up statistics like everything else you've stated?

I think perhaps you mean well, Mr. Nelson, but you have quite obviously not researched this subject. If you do that, I cannot imagine you wouldn't see that Measure C is the most positive way forward for those living on the streets.


MyOpinion
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 13, 2020 at 11:10 pm
MyOpinion, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 13, 2020 at 11:10 pm

@Local - Agree; Longview's reference to both ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) and Measure C (which is not yet well known to general public) makes it clear that Longview is someone very close to both this issue and local politics. If not Lenny someone associated with No on C.


JustAWorkingStiff
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2020 at 1:08 am
JustAWorkingStiff, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 1:08 am

The Safe Parking Program seem like a reasonable way to help those down on their luck.
The RVs out on the street should be encouraged to take advantage the Safe Parking program
One advantage of the program is reducing the impact on residents and business in close proximity to the RVs. Such as what is happening on Pioneer Way. It really isn't fair for the city to impose a large group of RVs on a small subset of people. All of MV should share in contributing resources to helping the RVs. The RVs need support services: water, garbage, and sewage disposal. The article states that in 2019 there were over 600 RVs in the city. Does Mountain View have specialized sewage disposal facilities to support such a large number of RVs? The nearest RV campground with specialized sewage disposal facilities is down toward Gilroy. Imagine having to dispose of all the sewage...and imagine 600 + RVs doing that. While I don't condone it, I understand why sewage gets dumped in the into the curbside sewers. But this poses a health hazard, and it why we have buildings ....with building codes for sanitary sewers. Safe Parking is a compassionate way to deliver the necessary services to support these RVs. It looks like they will have about 100 spaces. That is a pretty good amount, and MV is certainly pulling its weight on a countywide basis to help out. I really don't understand why some want to have an unlimited number of RVs who can park anywhere, and impacting the residents/businesses around them. There is the budgetary aspect also. MV has already spent around $2.5 M in about 5 years. Do people want to have unlimited, undefined budget to support RVs? (they really do need support services, it is not free). Other cities on a regional basis need to step up and do their share. MV is certainly doing it share.


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Sep 14, 2020 at 8:21 am
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 8:21 am

"Local", I doubt Longview is Lenny. Agree or disagree with him, you have to admit he's an honest guy who will tell you what he believes.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Sep 14, 2020 at 10:45 am
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 10:45 am

Why was the second part of my comment deleted? If it's legitimate for other posters like Local and My opinion to speculate on the identities if other posters, why can't I? Shari Emling is a public figure, has been quoted in this paper and the Mercury News, filmed an ad for the now-revoked Measure V repeal. On top of that, they're a close advisor of former Mayor Matichak on this issue. If Local is anyone well-known, they're almost certainly Shari Emling.


Lenny Siegel
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 14, 2020 at 11:20 am
Lenny Siegel, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 11:20 am

I am skeptical of comments by people, on all sides of a debate, who post under a pseudonym, so I always post under my own name.


MyOpinion
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 14, 2020 at 11:23 am
MyOpinion, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 11:23 am

Cindy - But do you agree 'Longview's' comments would indicate he or she is someone close to the issue? I agree that Lenny has always identified himself on social media, as would be expected of a candidate/former council member.


MyOpinion
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 14, 2020 at 11:25 am
MyOpinion, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 11:25 am

@Lenny I agree that public figures should identify themselves. Kudos to you for doing so.


Lenny Siegel
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 14, 2020 at 11:47 am
Lenny Siegel, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 11:47 am

"Local" wrote that my street "has signage for NO oversized vehicles allowed." That's a pure fabrication. In fact, we did have a motorhome parked on the street recently. And we've had people living in smaller vehicles parked on our street.

"Local" also wrote, "The City Staff has the hard numbers proving that at least half the street dwellers have never had a connection to Mountain View." The only survey I've seen said that 59% of respondents were "from Mountain View."

I understand that Shari has different opinions about how to address our housing crisis, but let's not make up "facts."


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Sep 14, 2020 at 11:54 am
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 11:54 am

MyOpinion, I'd agree that they're likely well-versed in the issue, whether or not that means they're "close" to it is up to what you mean by that. Local, on the other hand, posts the same talking points from the RV ban proponents, and almost verbatim the same lines of attack that Shari Emling has expressed to newspapers and during council meetings. Surely you agree with that?


Polomom
Registered user
Waverly Park
on Sep 14, 2020 at 12:58 pm
Polomom, Waverly Park
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 12:58 pm

@Lenny: your street has a 3 ton weight limit. That excludes pretty much all classes of motor homes.Even van conversions are usually over 6000 lbs.


MyOpinion
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 14, 2020 at 1:18 pm
MyOpinion, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 1:18 pm

@Cindy - What I mean by 'close' is that at this point, the people well-versed in Measure C are likely those involved, pro or con. I was commenting only on the mysterious Longview from 'another community'. That's all.


Local to Lenny S.
Registered user
Martens-Carmelita
on Sep 14, 2020 at 1:39 pm
Local to Lenny S., Martens-Carmelita
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 1:39 pm

Yes, Lenny, Let's NOT make up "facts". Here's a solid fact that differs from your unidentified "survey" saying 59% of street dwellers are from Mountain View: "As many as 50% of the households living in vehicles are not affiliated with a prior Mountain View address (March 19, 2019 staff report)" You might state facts like this from now on.

So let's spend our sizable amount of funds on people who WANT to be helped and work with the City services to do so. I'm surprised you think street dwelling is good enough for another human. I want to help them move towards housing - but they need to want to help themselves. That's what Measure C does.


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Sep 14, 2020 at 2:04 pm
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 2:04 pm

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
You first said there was "hard proof" that "at least half [...] never had a connection to Mountain View", which means >=50%. The quote you use to support that claim is "as many as 50% [...] not affiliated with a prior address" which means <=50%. Leaving aside the disclaimers the report states about the limitations of that assessment from the MVPD, it contradicts your claim! I have to agree with Lenny, you are not entitled to your own facts, in fact the survey he references is entirely consistent with the staff report you've cited! I'm sorry, but any campaign that needs to resort to lying to make their point tells us enough about its righteousness.

Finally, all Measure C does is criminalize these people's current living situations, it does nothing to support people like you pretend it does. The only outcome if you make it illegal will be for these people to incur more debts when they're already in poverty, lose their current homes, and likely end up in a homeless encampment.


Local
Registered user
Martens-Carmelita
on Sep 14, 2020 at 7:41 pm
Local, Martens-Carmelita
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 7:41 pm

Lenny, You know full well that your signage prohibits any vehicle parked on your street over 3 tons (meaning ALL RVs and most converted vans as well). Saying that you "had a motor home parked on the street recently" is an equally false flag (how long was it there before being towed?) so your word games won't work. I imagine you were the resident who asked for that signage - and it is easily checked.

My statement "as many as 50% of the RVs are not affiliated with MV in any way" is quite true and no amount of manipulation will change that. Keep in mind, it is probably quite a bit more, as many refuse to open their door to be surveyed. There are out of town contractors who dump junk RVs on Mountain View streets and rent them out (paying no property tax) to their laborers who live there during the week and go home out of town for the weekends. There is a small criminal element who, of course, will not interact with police. Most other cities prohibit street living, and therefore MV gets the majority.

I am baffled at the argument that we should just let anyone park their occupied vehicle anywhere in Mountain View and the taxpayers should cover the removal of trash and sewage from the streets that results. Those of you who favor this, should prove that you have personally welcomed this in front of your home. Do you honestly think this is an acceptable way to live for anyone? Don't you think we should have a solid program of assistance and safe parking that will help these people move forward with their lives? MV taxpayers have spent nearly $2.5M so far, and just authorized close to another million to assist them. Let's make this money count and REALLY help our homeless instead of just treating them like this life is "good enough" for them.

If we spent this planned nearly $3.5M on helping them to have a safe lot to stay off the streets, with trash and sewage removal, police protection and working with Community Services Agency to move towards being housed - they will have a better future. MV taxpayers are more than willing to spend this money constructively to help those who accept our help - but few care to continue paying services for those from other cities, the criminal element, and the freeloaders who move here to live free on our streets without any intention of improving their lifestyle.

I think it's short-sighted and very unfortunate that some still think street living is okay and don't care to help these people have a better life. I am baffled by the anger of those who resent the help Measure C will give those on the street - but perhaps you have your reasons? Measure C is the most compassionate, creative and effective way to help our Mountain View people to a better life. Vote yes on C.


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Sep 14, 2020 at 8:26 pm
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 8:26 pm

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

You said you had "hard numbers proving that at least half the street dwellers have never had a connection to Mountain View" which is simply false. Now you pretend that Measure C has provisions that do anything else but ban these vehicles. The text of the measure is right there for anyone to read! Have you no shame?


Frank Richards
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 14, 2020 at 9:54 pm
Frank Richards, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 14, 2020 at 9:54 pm

I posted it before, but I'll post it again because Local just can't resist.

Local: "few care to continue paying services for those from other cities, the criminal element, and the freeloaders who move here to live free on our streets without any intention of improving their lifestyle."

Trump: "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Cut from the same cloth.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 15, 2020 at 11:39 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 15, 2020 at 11:39 am

Homeowner privilege is very closely related to White Privilege. And what I like to use in democratic policy discussions, Wealth Privilege.

I have an RV, I drove it to Lenny's house, and parked it on his street. Picked up my Lawn Sign. RV is small / 24" long. It is lighter weight (never measured but I'd guess less than 6,000 pounds, 3 Tons). It is REALLY TOO BIG for that tiny narrow street! But that street is TOO NARROW for two-side parking also. Can't get emergency vehicles BOTH WAYS!

Streets less than 38 ft (or ?) should have restricted parking. Not on Both Sides. But a 7 ft high or a 10-12 foot high (work/utility very light truck/van) vehicle does not need to be prohibited At All Times! My small RV fits the 'restricted size' JUST TOO TALL.

"I am baffled at the argument that we should just let anyone park their occupied vehicle anywhere in Mountain View and the taxpayers should cover the removal of trash and sewage from the streets that results." I do not make that argument! CLEAR AND SIMPLE. Most of the opponents of C don't either. And car parking/camping is not going to be illegal?

Dump Station. There could be a Public One installed very inexpensively out at the PUBLIC WORKS YARD. Once-a-week vouchers could be 'part of the program', along with strict 'leakage' testing. Use your nose, or use a fecal remains test. Close off the sides of streets where "the Public Health Dept" has detected sewage and enforcement/cleaning tests have not mitigated the problem.

I DO NOT WANT A "TENT CAMPING" sidewalk problem in Mountain View, just because we did not provide enough homeless housing to meet the 'law of the land' (Kevin - where is that darn article!)


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Sep 15, 2020 at 2:54 pm
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Sep 15, 2020 at 2:54 pm

I cannot believe the Voice deleted the portion of my comments calling out Shari for outright lying here. No wonder the presidency is the way it is: when someone is lying it's the responsibility of all of us to call it out! Shari is using lies to advocate for harming the poor, and somehow my comment is disrespectful?


Resident of MV
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 pm
Resident of MV, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 pm

From the first sentence of the article:
"The city of Mountain View is currently home to one-third of all the safe parking spaces in Santa Clara County, designed to support homeless residents living out of cars and RVs with a goal of placing them into permanent housing."

According to Wikipedia, Santa Clara County has ~1.8 million population, Mountain View has ~80k population. So Mountain View has ~5% of the county population but has ~33% of all the safe parking spaces?!?!?


JustAWorkingStiff
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Sep 18, 2020 at 11:45 am
JustAWorkingStiff, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 11:45 am

I am a bit baffled why there is an argument over how many people parking their RVs on the streets
are former MV residents.

Pretty straight forward fix:
1. Anybody parking their RV in Safe Parking should prove that they are a former resident
2. This gives them access to support services provided by the tax payers of MV
3. This is standard process for administering


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 18, 2020 at 12:35 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 12:35 pm

Stiff,

How do you prove you are a resident? Residence does not require an ID. In fact all you have to do is sit down and you are a resident.

I am still observing the changes occurring in Mountain View due to the COVID19, the California Fires and AB5.

You should look at Zumper price trends in Mountain View found here (Web Link

A Studio Apartment at its peak in Aug 2019 on average was $2899, now it is $2095 a reduction of 28%. A Single Bedroom Apartment at its peak in Jun 2018 on average went for $3990, now it is $2499, a reduction of 37%. A Double Bedroom Apartment at its peak in Jun 2018 on average went for $5000, now it is $3200, a reduction of 36%. A Triple Bedroom Apartment at its peak in Dec 2018 on average went for $5500, now it is $4300, a reduction of 21%.

And the fact that the "real" economy is still flushing down a toilet might eventually force housing prices here to be affordable to more people. Either that or housing businesses will go bankrupt and tie the units up in court. Either way, the Valley is confronted with a serious crisis like it hasn't EVER seen.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:21 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:21 pm

@JustAWorkingStiff, I'd say, those are simple-enough types of qualifications that many could agree with. And The Facts seem to be;
:There are filled up Safe Parking lots (so there is a Waiting List)(only 10)
:There is now a Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot leased to the County, soom to be opening for cars
:There is a problem with 72 hours, 'move along' parking enforcement (clunker vehicles, CA Vehicle Code)
:There is a sewage problem (Public Health issue and CA Vehicle Code) with some street-living RVs
:There is a problem with 'over occupied' streets in some areas. (Local curb-parking restrictions/RED CURBS)

and along with Cindy and some others (IOO). In Our Opinions
:There is some Problem with COMPASSION of some of the most vocal/opinionated residents of Mountain View

Peace and Love


gretchen
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:40 pm
gretchen, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:40 pm

I am a 40 year resident. I do not care about the origins of those in need, any more than I care about the origins of those that use parks, or attend events downtown. (BTW we supply parking and facilities for all of these folks. I get the same benefits in most communities.

Recently, PA for the first time addressed, although in a small way, vehicle parking for the unhoused. This is a global problem and needs coordinated solutions. I am proud to be a member of a community that is at least trying.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 19, 2020 at 10:32 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 19, 2020 at 10:32 am

@gretchen of ML. I too "am proud to be a member of a community that is at least trying." U are Right! I probably, now that I think on it, went too far in trying to 'be agreeable' with JustAWorkingStiff. Maybe he and others might consider - with some sort of Sign-Up Regulation / attached to BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION permits, a temporary RV living situation for out-of-area-construction workers?

@JustAWorkingStiff I hope realizes, that many construction workers, for decades, have lived out of this area, and weekday lived here to work. Live in Central Valley (affordable for your Family Group) and work construction in Mountain View.

IMO these working people "have a connection to Mountain View" [Local's issue?] I do not think Local is thinking hard about this, any more than the Howard Jarvis group thinks hard about any taxing issue!


Longview
Registered user
another community
on Sep 30, 2020 at 3:26 pm
Longview, another community
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2020 at 3:26 pm

Vote No on Measure C, and then participate as the next council comes up with a reasonable approach to RV street parking - saying where can RVs park.
A total ban goes too far
Web Link


Local
Registered user
Martens-Carmelita
on Sep 30, 2020 at 5:12 pm
Local, Martens-Carmelita
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2020 at 5:12 pm

I am sorry that a lot of people seem to have an opinion on Measure C, without even reading the Measure. Here is a website, if you honestly want to know what you're talking about: Web Link
Measure is NOT a ban, but it WILL prohibit oversized vehicles from parking in front of YOUR house/apartment. If C loses, look for RVs parked literally anywhere they want to park - and coming from anywhere (as many do now). The out of town landlords will not be able to scam MV taxpayers by dumping junk RVs on the street and rent them to their out of town workers. People from other communities, who now take advantage of MV taxpayers, will have to return to their work/home city of Los Altos, Menlo Park, Santa Clara, etc. and let THOSE communities help them. Mountain View cannot carry the entire expense, and should not be required to do so.
Our tax money can be much better used to open the Safe Lots and supply sewage and trash removal, supply water and showers, and get people (with actual MV connections - not out of towner) off the streets and working with Community Services to be actually housed. Right now, with the third Safe Lot open, all street dwellers have been given a spot if they want it. With the new Project Home Key opening in December, everyone who qualifies will be in Safe Lots or transitional housing and moving towards really being homed. Nobody deserves to live on the streets - surely we are a more compassionate and respectful community than that? When did living on the street become "good enough"?
Take positive action to truly help people who really want help, and vote YES on Measure C.


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Sep 30, 2020 at 6:18 pm
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Sep 30, 2020 at 6:18 pm

Shari, no one here is buying your gaslighting that Measure C is "compassionate," and frankly it's almost sociopathic that you are so on-message about it. There's no "compassion" in simply making someone's living situation illegal, no matter how much you repeat yourself.

I do wonder if you'll be the next to receive an FPPC complaint like Gary Wesley did. You've certainly spent a lot of money on signage and websites in your quest to criminize poverty.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 3, 2020 at 4:28 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 3, 2020 at 4:28 pm

@Local. In California judges usually accept 'the dictionary definition of a term'. So how should we logically understand your use of the word Ban? (@Longview, myself and dictionary agree)
noun
1 an official or legal prohibition: a proposed ban on cigarette advertising | a three-year driving ban.
• an official exclusion of a person from an organization, country, or activity: a proposed ban on foreign correspondents was condemned by international leaders.

Sounds like you are really not a good debater of Public Policy.
Measure C is not in effect, nor has it been for the last year. How would it be then, that I do not see RVs parked literally anywhere!

Try to help people (in RV housing): get the darn Council off their rear ends after 4 1/2 years and FULLY FUND a 600 RV temporary housing program. No Less - NO C! (or is that # really 300 more). @Local WE AGREE open more SAFE LOTS!

Peace and Love


Local
Registered user
Martens-Carmelita
on Oct 3, 2020 at 5:22 pm
Local, Martens-Carmelita
Registered user
on Oct 3, 2020 at 5:22 pm

"Cindy Lane" - why don't you use your real name? You slander other people and think hiding will keep you from being charged for that? I have not spent a dime on signage for C nor websites - though I do vocally support them. You make outrageous claims and shout your way across these pages with Trump-like hatred and anger. Maybe give it a rest, as you get more bizarrely out of control as you go.

I have nothing to do with you, and never would want to. I state my opinion and I don't slander you - but give me your real name because you will be hearing from my representative, okay? I've had enough of you. Perhaps you just criticize and slander others, because your real argument is so weak?


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Oct 3, 2020 at 7:38 pm
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Oct 3, 2020 at 7:38 pm

Cindy Lane is my real name. It's rich coming from someone hiding behind "Local" to accuse others all the time of not using their name. We can let the rest of the readers decide who is "bizarrely out of control." And if fining people and seizing their property is what you consider "compassion"...

I look forward to hearing from your representative, care to put me in touch here? Although, you may want to discuss the definition of "slander" with them first. It will probably also help to ask them about "vexatious litigant," since it sounds like they might consider you one.


To "Cindy Lane"
Registered user
Martens-Carmelita
on Oct 4, 2020 at 2:26 am
To "Cindy Lane", Martens-Carmelita
Registered user
on Oct 4, 2020 at 2:26 am

What "seizing property"? That's a strange interpretation of "offering people Safe Lots and assisting them to be housed." I am just astounded by people who I see as not interested in helping the unstably housed to have a better life.

Thanks for the name, you'll be hearing from me. I was sure it was an "posting name" as I've never heard of you (nor has anyone I know) and you seem quite fixated on me. It's getting rather creepy.


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Oct 4, 2020 at 11:13 am
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Oct 4, 2020 at 11:13 am

How else do you describe towing away someone's home except "seizing property"? You act like an expert on this, but did you think they tow those vehicles into the Safe Parking Lot? As everyone here has pointed out to you (and you no doubt already know), Measure C says absolutely nothing about Safe Parking or any of the "compassion" you love to pretend it contains.

Let's just say I won't be holding my breath about anyone being in touch. You are all bluster, but really just a sad, lonely old woman. But asking around to all of your like-minded friends about someone who's arguing with you on the internet? Now, that's creepy!


Polomom
Registered user
Waverly Park
on Oct 4, 2020 at 5:23 pm
Polomom, Waverly Park
Registered user
on Oct 4, 2020 at 5:23 pm

@Cindy Lane. It is very easy to tolerate RVs everywhere in Mountain when your own neighborhood The Crossings has limited street parking everywhere. So please, unless you offer parking to an RV in front of your house stop accusing other community members that are working hard to get the actual unhoused into Safe Lots and ultimately permanent housing. Nobody wants to support the people renting out RVs, the Monday-Friday commuter or the actual homeless that refuse any kind of help. Mountain View is the only city that cares what is going to happen to their vehicle dwellers. But enough is enough. With the money spent and the city programs offered it is time we put a stop on more out of towners moving in. Limiting oversized vehicles from parking everywhere will force them into city lots or into official campgrounds which are plentiful in the south county.
@Steven Nelson. If you want RVs parked along your street say the word. It can be done. There are a lot of tenants in Park Plaza or The Americana that would love to share their closest neighbors.
Vote Yes on Measure C


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Oct 4, 2020 at 7:22 pm
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Oct 4, 2020 at 7:22 pm

Why do the proponents of Measure C keep trying to indicate that some of their neighbors are less authentic Mountain View residents than they are? First, it's the vehicle dwellers that don't count as residents, now it's entire neighborhoods that aren't entitled to an opinion.

Polomom, Shari, can either of you give us a clear list of the neighborhoods where residents are allowed to have an opinion? The Crossings and Cuesta Park are out, Waverly Park and Martens-Carmelita are in, as you've made clear. Can you fill out the rest of the list?


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 4, 2020 at 8:26 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 4, 2020 at 8:26 pm

WOW,

So many people wanting to make Mountain View into their own "Country Club" where they can exile anyone they deem unworthy of even just parking a RV.

This is just another form of "exclusionary" treatment for those the posters here do not want around them, for whatever reason they have.

So they use the exceptions of the situation to support their claims, this reminds me of Donald Trump that said:

"“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”"

Does this sound familiar to what is happening here?


Tonya
Registered user
Cuernavaca
on Oct 6, 2020 at 11:20 am
Tonya, Cuernavaca
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 11:20 am

As a minority and immigrant myself, I do emphasize to all people who are overpriced out of the Bay area. But turning streets to mobile parks is NOT a good or sanitary idea. Have you guys tried to live in RV? It's cold, uncomfortable with no basic utilities or electricity.

WIth pandemic and virus, that's NOT the way anyone should live. And people living on streets bumper to bumper without water, sewage, or proper social contact - is a recipe for disaster.

I urge everyone to vote YES for street regulations. As taxpayers, we paid so much to solve this problem, while our neighbors rejected all city dwellers for reason. We have to help RV dwellers that belong to MV into safe parking lots and keep the city civilized and well regulated.

IT's 21st century and I cannot believe that Lennie and alike want folks to live on the streets when he comfortably lives in his single-family residence with NO parking on my street sign and low property taxes.

RVs have to have access to water and sewage and public streets are not the right or safe place to do so.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE C


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 6, 2020 at 11:47 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 11:47 am

Tonya,

Please understand I was making a "parallel" regarding how Trump viewed Mexicans, and how some Mountain View Residents view those living out of an RV. I was not making ang claim that "ALL" RV residents are a minority

Pretty much any mention of an RV resident has been in a negative way. Most comment are saying that if you cannot afford a rental or a purchased home in the City they want you out. Isn't this correct?

This "alternative" drives down the rents and purchase prices of the real estate in Mountain View. This is the root reason why this attack is occurring. Especially given that the rental rates have dropped as much as 35% in the last year.

The Real Estate market and the Apartment market is going through a major shakeup, with COVID/Fires/AB5 so these businesses are trying to use any means necessary to protect themselves. Like trying to make RV residents look like "untouchables" as defined in the old Indian Caste system. Or you could call them "gypsies" during the 1930s Germany.

Lets face the truth, they are being scapegoated because they found an alternative of being exploited regarding housing costs in Mountain View. They found a legal alternative until the City tried to make it illegal. I for one vote NO on prop C and I just explained my reason for it.


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Oct 6, 2020 at 12:03 pm
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 12:03 pm

Tonya, all Measure C does is make these people's living situation illegal. That's just a fact. No matter how much the proponents lie, it does nothing to provide alternatives of funding to help them. Everyone in Mountain View would prefer to help these people off the streets, but Measure C does not provide help of any kind: it's purely punitive.

That's why Measure C proponents like Shari have to lie all the time. When the facts aren't on your side, lies are your only option.


Tonya
Registered user
Cuernavaca
on Oct 6, 2020 at 6:26 pm
Tonya, Cuernavaca
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 6:26 pm

All political stuff aside, it's NOT okay to legalize living people on the streets. It's beyond wild.
From outside of my window I see buckets of human waste, liquids, and trash. LEt me not go graphic here.

Any civilized society would never allow this to happen, and I see that MV city does take steps to help RVs to safe parking lots where RVs could have access to water, sewage, and electricity.

This is not funny to let RVs do whatever they like. I can't just come and park my stuff anywhere I want. There gotta be some regulations, otherwise, we will be back to plague or worse health crisis pretty soon.

Nobody shall live on the streets. And it's not about political views you have. Everyone deserves a safe place, and thank you to MV leaders for working on this, and providing safe parking lots and other programs for RV dwellers. I hope the streets will be safe for all, and RV dwellers don't have to leave their buckets of poop on your doorsteps or outside on the streets anymore.








Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 6, 2020 at 6:43 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 6:43 pm

In respopnse to Tonya you said:

“All political stuff aside, it's NOT okay to legalize living people on the streets. It's beyond wild.”

It was NEVER illegal technically, so your logic makes no sense you said:

“From outside of my window I see buckets of human waste, liquids, and trash. LEt me not go graphic here.”

PLEASE provide the geographic data, I will be happy to photograph it and deliver it to a MV Voice reporter to have a story written. You said:

“Any civilized society would never allow this to happen, and I see that MV city does take steps to help RVs to safe parking lots where RVs could have access to water, sewage, and electricity.”

I know there are steps, MEAGER as they are GIVEN the much larger needs. But you still didn’t address the fact that you are just part of a group that want to drum out the “gypsies” from Mountain View. You said:

“This is not funny to let RVs do whatever they like. I can't just come and park my stuff anywhere I want. There gotta be some regulations, otherwise, we will be back to plague or worse health crisis pretty soon.”

NOW you want to promote a theory that RV’s are responsible for the COVID? You have got to be kidding, because they are in fact small isolation chambers. The GRIM reality is that the smoke really helped in reducing the COVID spread NOT that we actually controlled the spread with outdoor dining. Just look at the Trump COVID spreader event of the Supreme Court Announcement, the majority of it was OUTDOORS. But as the air clears and as we start going indoors for the season, the CDC and every other public health group knows the spread will return in strength if not worsen.

YOUR WORDS ARE JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO TERRORIZE THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW. You said:

“Nobody shall live on the streets. And it's not about political views you have. Everyone deserves a safe place, and thank you to MV leaders for working on this, and providing safe parking lots and other programs for RV dwellers. I hope the streets will be safe for all, and RV dwellers don't have to leave their buckets of poop on your doorsteps or outside on the streets anymore.”

Please take pictures of your claims? So far I have not seen any news of widespread “POOP”. This so far is an unsubstantiated political attempt to demonize those you think are unworthy of being here, that’s all.


Tonya
Registered user
Cuernavaca
on Oct 6, 2020 at 6:53 pm
Tonya, Cuernavaca
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 6:53 pm

TO Steven Goldstein

Can you go to Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and lobby them there for free unlimited RV parking???

Please come to Cuernevava Continental circle, and watch how people live day and night.

Yep, they found a great deal in terms of $$$, and don't have to pay rent or mortgage or property taxes. And looks like they are saint or untouchables. I am actually thinking of buying RV myself than paying my dues. Why not? At least will save lots of $$$.


Tonya
Registered user
Cuernavaca
on Oct 6, 2020 at 7:13 pm
Tonya, Cuernavaca
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 7:13 pm

FOR ALL who missed a poop coverage earlier

Web Link

for live reporting and coverage come to Rengstorff park or Continental circle or Shoreline


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 6, 2020 at 7:17 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 7:17 pm

In response to Tonya you said:

“Can you go to Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and lobby them there for free unlimited RV parking???”

No I can’t, I LIVE in Mountain View. You said:

“Please come to Cuernevava Continental circle, and watch how people live day and night.”

Why not capture your neighborhood yourself and send it to the MV Voice? I don’t live there so I could be considered a trespasser if it is private property. Oh wait, the streets are NOT private property, OK I can’t get arrested. If you have a good point, please produce some proof? There is a issue you probably don’t understand and it is that street surrounds a private land area. When I googled road sight that area I did not see many RVs in bad shape, in fact they looked almost brand new. In fact I saw some that did look like the best RVs in the market. The Streets were almost clean enough to eat off of. You said:

“Yep, they found a great deal in terms of $$$, and don't have to pay rent or mortgage or property taxes. And looks like they are saint or untouchables. I am actually thinking of buying RV myself than paying my dues. Why not? At least will save lots of $$$.”

To me, you are just angry that they “hacked” a better plan. You are free to join them, right? So why not? Oh I guess what is the problem is that you OWN some rental properties in that area that people have moved out of and no one is moving in, given that 1 and 2 bedroom apartments dropped prices by 35% in the last year. In the end you have as much choice as they do, right?


Cindy Lane
Registered user
The Crossings
on Oct 6, 2020 at 7:21 pm
Cindy Lane, The Crossings
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 7:21 pm

Everyone agrees that people being forced to live in their vehicles is a tragedy. The core disagreement lies with who is the victim and what we should do about it. The proponents of Measure C, Tonya, Shari, et al, believe that it's wealthy homeowners forced to look at the vehicles that are the true victims. Their solution, Measure C, is to make it illegal with no care for what happens to these folks after. See Shari above being unable to follow the logical conclusion of what happens when their vehicles are towed.

The rest of us in the community rightly see that the poor are victims of skyrocketing housing prices and rising inequality. A solution that simply throws these people out, Measure C, is not consistent with the values of Mountain View, where we all take care of each other.

Frank and Steven had it right mapping the Trumpian values to the rhetoric from the Measure V proponents. Hopefully, the inclusive values of Mountain View will win the day, rather than the divisiveness we've seen in this country for too long.


Tonya
Registered user
Cuernavaca
on Oct 6, 2020 at 7:24 pm
Tonya, Cuernavaca
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 7:24 pm

Steven Goldstein:
sounds like brand new RVs are your rentals?
You are defending your business well. And thank you for the invite.

I will consider investing into RVs and renting them out. I'll tell Steven Goldstein said "do it"! Let others pay for it:)










Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 6, 2020 at 7:48 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 7:48 pm

In response to Tonya,

Ahh, NO.

I am an IT Security expert, I have no investments in the housing market in any way. I also have 2 Business Degrees.

But that struck a nerve, you got VERY defensive. I guess we all know who you are "advocating" for?

I advocate for the market correction that didn't take place during 2007-2009. The Real Estate Racket that claims what properties are worth with no science behind it, getting suckers to overspend on them, and then saying we are immune from lawsuits because our "opinions" are protected under the First amendment. The unfortunate truth is the California Courts made that judgment.

The BUYERS in the market should NEVER listen to a Real Estate agent regarding price, they should start negotiating at 50% the claimed value and never exceed 70%.

The values are nothing but FICTION.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 7, 2020 at 8:38 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2020 at 8:38 am

@SG. That is a new interesting argument. Measure C is in some ways just another way to keep large profits going to APARTMENT COMPLEX OWNERS. That would make sense - why MAK and Matichak are such vocal supports of this (they both get thousands of dollars in campaign contributions by the likes of Prometheus - I think largest rental apartment business in MV).

This is why my misghted $100 contribution and vote to Lisa was wasted in 2016! She is not the COMPASSIONATE public policy maker that she pretended to be. As soon as she was elected, in Nov 2016 she started accepting very large (multi-thousand dollar) contributions from the largest rental real estate owners in this city!


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 7, 2020 at 12:34 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2020 at 12:34 pm

Steven Nelson,

I am very surprised that it didn't get noticed.

The amazing reality is that the City Council is up to it's armpits in Conflicts of Interest regarding all properties in the City.

Again when I looked at Google Maps on the street suggested, some of those "RVs" were top of the line with "extension" bays. These people are in fact forcing price drops in the housing market in the City.

Now IDK how much of a oligopoly it is regarding rental housing in the City, and the City refuses to require a registration and public database. That information would disclose if there is a particularly interesting ownership profile here in Mountain View, and that it has some undue influence over the City.


Tonya
Registered user
Cuernavaca
on Oct 7, 2020 at 9:09 pm
Tonya, Cuernavaca
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2020 at 9:09 pm

Steven Goldstein,
Are you a communist?

Everything you say reminds me of soviet lessons of communism and bolvevicks, that advocated for collectivisation, equal rights and fight against the “ rich.”

Since when it became wrong to do the right thing in America? Not to poo on streets, pick up your garbage, respect neighbours and their rights?

I was born in the USSR and know better than anyone how it goes when everyone wants stuff for FREE. The problem? a Communists and socialists will eventually run out of someone else money and what would be left?

Correct! The poop that nobody wants to pick up.

If that’s your life goal - sure!

if your goal is to invite opportunists and people from all over Peninsula to live on streets for free, house hack and make profits in Their brand new RVs? I see this.

We are already dealing with environmental consequences of RV choices. Lawsuit against MV because of what??! Poop in water!

Web Link

So I’ll stop here. Too busy working to pay the bills and taxes and have no more time or desire to deal with anymore communistic BS.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 7, 2020 at 9:26 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2020 at 9:26 pm

In response to Tonya you said:

“Are you a communist?”

OMG, I am a disciplined graduate of Bachelors of Science in Business Administration 2 degrees from the Lucas College of Business of San Jose State. Here we go again, if I don’t agree with you I am a communist? You said:

“I was born in the USSR and know better than anyone how it goes when everyone wants stuff for FREE. The problem? a Communists and socialists will eventually run out of someone else money and what would be left?”

OMG I never said I wanted anything for free, I am a fan of MARKET CORRECTIONS because Alan Greenspan testified that the housing market efficiency of value was flawed due to market manipulation. Dose that sound like a communist? You said:

“if your goal is to invite opportunists and people from all over Peninsula to live on streets for free, house hack and make profits in Their brand new RVs? I see this.”

Nice try to put words in my mouth. As long as it is legal people have the right to be anywhere they want. If it forces the MARKET to CORRECT itself, so be it. You said:

"We are already dealing with environmental consequences of RV choices. Lawsuit against MV because of what??! Poop in water!

Web Link

You misquote the case if you read it the city is dumping raw sewage into the creeks. Not RVa are causing the problem. It is the aged and obsolete sewage system that need repair or replacement, and new sewage treatment facilities. Why did you even bring this up?

UNBELIEVABLE.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 7, 2020 at 9:47 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2020 at 9:47 pm

OMG I just got the real story:

This report Tonya brought ups said:

“Raw sewage in creeks prompts lawsuits against Sunnyvale and Mountain View

Posted February 11, 2020

Raw sewage in creeks prompts lawsuits against Sunnyvale and Mountain View

The Mercury News

A Bay Area environmental group has sued the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View, saying they are in violation of the federal Clean Water Act for discharging raw sewage and polluted storm water into creeks, sending bacteria pollution to levels more than 50 times legal limits. The group, San Francisco Baykeeper, said samples it collected revealed dangerous levels of E. coli, fecal coliform and other pollutants in Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, Sunnyvale East Channel and Guadalupe Slough, all of which empty into San Francisco Bay.

LIKE OTHER CITES IN THE BAY AREA, BOTH SUNNYVALE AND MOUNTAIN VIEW TREAT THEIR SEWAGE AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS BEFORE EMPTYING IT INTO THE BAY. BUT THE SUITS CLAIM AGING CLAY SEWER PIPES THROUGHOUT THE TWO CITIES ARE LEAKING UNTREATED SEWAGE INTO STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS, WHICH EMPTIES INTO THE CREEKS. “Basically these two cities are contaminating the bay year round with raw sewage,” said Sejal Choksi-Chugh, executive director of Baykeeper.”

THE CITY IS TRYING TO SAY THAT THE RVS CAUSED THE PROBLEM.

What a joke!

The City has failed to maintain and upgrade the sewage system and doesn’t want to be forced to do it, as well as avoid any court judgement. This is NOTHING but a SCAM to try to avoid accountability of the poor management of the City Sewage Systems. It has NOTHING to do with RVS at all.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

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