|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Election results Wednesday show a comfortable lead for Measure C, Mountain View’s prohibition on RV parking on narrow streets aimed at reducing the number of homeless people living in oversized vehicles.
As of 5 p.m., 12,489 votes had been counted in favor of the measure (57%), while 9,427 had been cast against (43%). The measure needs only a simple majority to pass. County officials say 62% of the ballots have been counted, and the city has just over 40,000 registered voters.
Though written as a traffic safety ordinance, Measure C is the city’s attempt to curb the number of inhabited vehicles parked along public streets. For several years, city surveys have counted as many as 200 RVs believed to be inhabited throughout the city, largely a symptom of growing regional homelessness across the Bay Area. The latest count shows the most RVs primarily clustered along Crisanto Avenue, Continental Circle and Terra Bella Avenue.
If passed, the measure imposes a parking prohibition on all oversized vehicles on “narrow streets” less than 40 feet wide. City staff have yet to confirm which streets would be subject to the ban, but a preliminary map shows the vast majority of city streets will be included. A similar parking restriction on streets with bike lanes is already in effect.
Measure C was originally passed by the City Council last year, but was subject to a referendum that forced council members to either nix the ban or send it to voters to decide.
On the campaign trail, proponents of Measure C describe inhabited RVs as a serious problem that must be addressed, pointing to reports of improper disposal of garbage and raw sewage. One website boosting Measure C described how the occupied cars and RVs amount to an off-the-grid neighborhood bringing “unknown individuals” to the city.
Many of the claims are backed only by anecdotal evidence, with sparse data from the city to confirm or deny that problems are widespread.
Resident Albert Jeans, a supporter of Measure C, said he was glad to see the measure was slated to pass Tuesday night, and that he believes there was a sort of silent majority of city residents in support of the measure. He suspects that residents supporting the measure, particularly a strong contingent of voters south of El Camino, were intimidated from speaking out at council meetings on the issue of inhabited RVs.
Jeans, who lives near the cluster of RVs parked on Terra Bella Avenue, said he believes that the vehicles are not inhabited by local residents who have been displaced by the housing crisis, but are instead coming from out of town to settle in Mountain View due to the city’s lax parking standards.
“We have to do something about these people who are just coming in and taking advantage of Mountain View’s past compassionate view towards RV dwellers,” Jeans said.
Opponents of Measure C have argued that most RV residents have ties to Mountain View and that the parking restrictions lack compassion and amount to a ban on homelessness, pushing people in abject poverty out of the city or out of their makeshift homes and onto the street.
Resident Joan MacDonald, speaking on behalf of the Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition, thanked the over 9,000 Mountain View voters who opposed Measure C. She said the group hopes the City Council will be open to ways that will allow RV residents to remain in Mountain View, particularly during a pandemic that has depressed the incomes of vehicle dwellers and increased their health risks.
This story will be updated as results come in.
This story will be updated as results come in.
This story will be updated as results come in.
Thanks to those who voted Yes on Measure C. There’s only so much one city can do and we have done more than enough. It’s time to end the apparent blanket pass for RVs that come from everywhere to park wherever they want. Enough is enough.
I am soo relieved that measure C passed. Thank you, dear neighbors! Thank you for having common sense, and helping RV neighbors into a safe parking lot and multiple other programs that the city sponsored while restricting all those who take advantage of us.
I am hopeful for the day when my kids and I could see mountains again, not a row of trailers and box trucks on Continental circle. I am hopeful my kids and I could safely ride bikes, walk without fear of walking into human waste, druggies, or garbage left by RVs. I am hopeful for our city. Thank you again!
I’m relieved as well and I never understood the argument that allowing people to sleep in their vehicles with no sanitation is the compassionate choice. Quite the opposite, I think it allows government to do nothing. I’m glad this looks like it is passing for safety and sanitation reasons but I also expect MV to step up and provide safer alternatives for RV dwellers in our city.
I am grateful as well that Measure C looks like to be passing with a wide margin. We will have to wait a week for final results.
This is such a shame that Lenny Siegel had to have his Mountain View Housing Coalition members gather the signatures to force the city council to overturn this very ordinance that they passed earlier, then they had to put it on the ballot. This wasted thousands of taxpayers dollars to put this on the ballot.
But remember, this is not a ban on living in your vehicle, it only applies to streets that are less than 40 feet wide, the narrow streets.
Hopefully, the passage on Measure C will send a message to everyone that Mountain View is no longer a camp ground open for everyone to come here.
It’s been said and re-said, and hashed and re-hashed; but I wanted to share a viewpoint again.
In 2018, the apartment I had lived in for 13 years which was “naturally rent controlled” due to its age was razed to build owner housing condos which I can’t afford.
I slept in my car for two weeks. I had gotten the notice to vacate, and I put all my focus on scrimping and saving and packing and being stressed out about being displaced, and all the very human emotions that go with it. And I had to accept that I might not be able to stay in Mountain View, where I have lived since 1993.
Finally I got an apartment that I could afford (albeit much much smaller), after having had all my stuff (greatly reduced by de-clutter: I bet a lot of folks have too much clutter) in a paid storage unit.
My point is: I don’t think it does anyone any favours for people to live beyond their means. I think that *that* is the real issue of the RVs on the side of the road. It’s one thing to be compassionate. It is another thing to be enabling.
And yes, again: I lived on the side of the road myself for a couple of weeks. It was temporary. It was supposed to be temporary. I didn’t get thrown out of town: I was cut enough slack to get my act together. That’s compassion. And I am thankful.
Glad to See Measure C was approved by the voters.
City of Mountain View is providing about 100 spaces for RV people to live at
Complete with garbage, sewage, and social services
It is a reasonable thing to do.
It is for former MV residents that have fallen on hard times
MV is doing its part to help. But MV can’t solve the entire regional problem.
I hope Lenny Siegel stops any more activity on this issue.
He is a former mayor, but does not act like he has any skills for being a mayor
He has advocated:
RVs from anywhere, to part anywhere, in unlimited quantity
No budgeting for this
Claiming it does not cost the City of MV any tax payer money
No support for garbage or sewage disposal
Claiming there are no traffic issues
Calls Measure C a Ban while ignoring the 100 safe parking spots being provided at taxpayer expense
Opposed putting this to a vote by the entire city
(I think this is really bad; this is a major issue and he opposed letting MV citizens decide)
Imposing the RVs on certain neighborhoods
(This is really bad also. Using government rules to impose bad effects on a group of MV citizens without their consent. Plus his followers will insult and treat badly anyone who objects)
This is all irresponsible behavior
So Lenny, please stop
Going around and around is wasted time and effort.
Everybody, please don’t vote for Lenny for anything
Lenny represents poor planning and chaos
Geez, this is Silicon Valley, there are more competent people than this around
My hopes now that we have a 5 progressives to 2 conservative composition of the City Council, the City Council will reverse the City Ordinance, and since Measure C is NOT a charter amendment it can be reversed as well it is just an ordinance.
This vote may be a victory for now, but the policy is ALWAYS up for REVIEW or REVERSAL and it always will be. unless a City Charter Amendment is passed
@Steven,
You said,
“we have a 5 progressives to 2 conservative composition of the City Council, the City Council will reverse the City Ordinance, and since Measure C is NOT a charter amendment it can be reversed as well it is just an ordinance.”
————————————————————————————
As I have been warning everyone that the 4 council candidates endorsed by the Voice are ALL activists.
They do not care about the city, they only want power for a singular direction in which they want to take the city.
Unfortunately, Lieber, Hicks and Ramirez will be the most dangerous to our city. ShoWalter is a puppet, she has no core values.
We will have to make sure and follow the council going forward and speak out in mass on issues.
De-funding the Police, turning Mtn.View into Portland, Seattle, or even San Francisco is not acceptable.
So, I guess being progressive according to some means allowing as many RV’s to park wherever they want in our City without any due regard for safety or sanitation. Who would have know!
@Steven this is democracy. The voters were asked about Measure C, the majority responded Yes on C! Elected officials who will not support Measure C will only get voted out in the next election. Again, democracy. Reversing measure C which was supported by the voters is a shame to the democracy we all enjoy. We voted for it. It won. Opponents of measure C should respect the election and its results.
@Mark, correct! We cannot allow Mountain View to be the next Seattle, Portland, or San Francisco. We moved here because of the quality of public schools and its low record on crime rates. We should keep it that way for our children’s future.
@Steven
Wow, I am shocked by you and your mischievous conduct.
I am shocked by your ill intent, and deliberate intention to “regulate the market” at any cost.
Steven and Lenny-Lenin communists deliberately working towards bringing any people to our streets, not just those who truly need and in emergency situations, but EVERYONE. Greedy landlords, contractors, freeloaders.
Because he wants MV property values to go down. He wants to hurt the community, people of Mountain View, and the property values.
You know what it’s called? It’s called crime and vandalism. Intentional, mischievous conduct aimed at the destruction of private and public properties.
As a result of your conduct, and Lenny’s I suffered from trespassing, theft of water, garbage, and emotional distress. Now you are threatening me and all of us to overturn the majority?
WE, the people of Mountain View will also sue you for vandalism, intentional manipulation of free economy, and criminal conduct against the community. How about that?
Maybe, you will finally shut up, and let people live their lives without smelling poop from everywhere.
It’s exactly what I said would happen: people would come from all over to park on Mountain View streets.
Of all the types of homeless people, the ones in RVs really chose their lifestyle. And it’s at someone else’s expense when they park in front of your kitchen window. I was homeless for years. Not RV homeless. Really homeless. Someone living in an RV doesn’t have the excuse of being drunk or crazy. If they can maintain their mobile home, then they can get a job and work.
WOW,
I really feel like the girl that kicked the hornets nest.
Again, public policy is ALWAYS up for revision. For example AB1482 passed after the first Costa Hawkins repeal failure.
All you people like to say is that if you can’t have it the way you want it, you say to the people, the world is coming to an end.
I just pointed out the reality and the next thing I now it I am swarmed by theses posters. WOW.
Someone is getting nervous.
And by the way,
The U.S. and California Constitutions protect the tyranny of the majority as much as the tyranny of the minority.
If the City Council finds that the implementation of the RV parking bans are disparately impacting protected minorities, the City Council will have no choice but to reverse the ordinance.
So please don’t think that just because a ballot measure passes that is the end of it. The reality is that ordinances are just “regulations” under the City Charter, and can be changed for any reason.
In response to Tonya that wrote:
“Wow, I am shocked by you and your mischievous conduct.”
I am only stating the truth, it is not causing any damage to anyone. You wrote:
“I am shocked by your ill intent, and deliberate intention to “regulate the market” at any cost.”
I did not even mention any market regulations, but since the market has been abused and manipulated, it created just cause to do so. You wrote:
“Steven and Lenny-Lenin communists deliberately working towards bringing any people to our streets, not just those who truly need and in emergency situations, but EVERYONE. Greedy landlords, contractors, freeloaders.”
Here we go again, I am not a socialist, I am a pro disciplined and efficient market advocate. But the markets in California are manipulated and not efficient. You wrote:
“Because he wants MV property values to go down. He wants to hurt the community, people of Mountain View, and the property values.”
A proper market correction is required at this time, and the real estate and apartment industry knows its happening now due to COVID and AB5 no matter what. Sorry I am not the cause and there is no solution to it until COVID vaccines are made and peopled can be PREVENTED from catching it. You wrote:
“You know what it’s called? It’s called crime and vandalism. Intentional, mischievous conduct aimed at the destruction of private and public properties.”
Now that is a real stretch. I am doing nothing at all, the MARKET and COVID and AB5 are the actors here, your trying to transfer the blame to me because you cannot accept the facts. You wrote:
“As a result of your conduct, and Lenny’s I suffered from trespassing, theft of water, garbage, and emotional distress. Now you are threatening me and all of us to overturn the majority?”
The U.S> and California Constitutions prohipits the tyranny of the majority. I have not trespassed on your property, what police reports do you have to prove someone trespassed on your property? I have not stolen water from you, what police reports do you have to prove someone had stolen your water? I have not put garbage on your property, what police reports do you have to prove that someone put trash on your property? I have not inflicted emotional distress on you especially since we have never met, where is the police report of someone being charged with assaulting you? So when you wrote:
“WE, the people of Mountain View will also sue you for vandalism, intentional manipulation of free economy, and criminal conduct against the community. How about that?”
Sounds like the crazy lawsuits that Donald Trump has been filing and getting rejected for being frivolous and malicious. You really think this is a valid THREAT? You wrote:
“Maybe, you will finally shut up, and let people live their lives without smelling poop from everywhere.”
I think I put your story to bed.
I’m disappointed to see Measure C heading toward passing.
I’m also disappointed that most of y’all commenters here seem to have missed this sentence in the article:
“Many of the claims are backed only by anecdotal evidence, with sparse data from the city to confirm or deny that problems are widespread.”
You’re continuing those claims in your comments here, without data or evidence.
@Jed – the claim that there is only anecdotal evidence is not true. You just need to have paid attention to the City Council discussions over the past 6 years. The data shows that the City has PLENTY of space available in its SAFE parking lots that connect RV dwellers with community services to help transition them into real housing. Measure C will help connect most RV dwellers with the extensive resources the City and our wonderful community services groups are making available to them for free. These SAFE parking lots have been tremendously successful. We just need to incentivize the RV dwellers to participate in the program – Measure C does this.
Measure C, coupled with the HUGE Mtn View investment in SAFE parking and homeless services goes a long way toward actually HELPING RV dwellers and IMPROVING their lives. It is a positive SOLUTION.
How will your apparent perspective (“let them park anywhere with no conditions for an indefinite amount of time”) give them a leg up on improving their lives. Will their fairy godmother magically find housing for them?
In response to SC Parent who wrote:
“@Jed – the claim that there is only anecdotal evidence is not true. You just need to have paid attention to the City Council discussions over the past 6 years.”
The City Council is not a court, nor is it required to swear an oath to tell the truth or even present real evidence. It is just a public hearing where anyone can say anything about any subject. You cannot use the City Council public comments or discussion as evidence to support your argument, it is nothing but hearsay. You wrote:
“The data shows that the City has PLENTY of space available in its SAFE parking lots that connect RV dwellers with community services to help transition them into real housing.”
Please provide us with a census of how many RVs or other means of housing people are using in the City and compare it to the numbers of spaces, I can easily point out that the numbers of the census would greatly outweigh the parking spaces available. You are just making all of this up. You wrote:
“Measure C will help connect most RV dwellers with the extensive resources the City and our wonderful community services groups are making available to them for free.”
No it won’t because it didn’t contain any language to require the city to do so. And you know it. You wrote:
“These SAFE parking lots have been tremendously successful. We just need to incentivize the RV dwellers to participate in the program – Measure C does this.”
That is your opinion, but you don’t have evidence or sworn testimony to support it. You wrote:
“Measure C, coupled with the HUGE Mtn View investment in SAFE parking and homeless services goes a long way toward actually HELPING RV dwellers and IMPROVING their lives. It is a positive SOLUTION.”
There is yet NO PROOF of this claim. If there is please provide us with testimony of those who feel they were one of your “success” stories? You wrote:
“How will your apparent perspective (“let them park anywhere with no conditions for an indefinite amount of time”) give them a leg up on improving their lives. Will their fairy godmother magically find housing for them?”
Well given that the average rents are as of today if you use the Zumper website found here (https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/mountain-view-ca) a Studio Apartment rent was $2199 on Nov 1, 2014 and it is now $1999. A One Bedroom Apartment was $2260 on Nov 1, 2014 and now it is $2345 today. A Two Bedroom Apartment was $2895 on Nov 1, 2014 and it is $3015 today.
And as long as COVID and AB5 continue their forces, there will be either one of two things going to happen. The “Workers”” that live in Mountain View in both home ownership, apartment or home rentals or RVs here are going to relocate with “their jobs” out of state because they are contractors and work from home becoming more permanent. OR the housing in the area is going to have to go into a “fire” sale to keep cash flows going for the local housing market.
In either case, the ”market” will act as a “fairy godmother” to these people at the extreme cost to the city. If you think the city is recovering in any way, you have got to be kidding. The city needed to provide affordable housing for as much as 30 years and did nothing. Hoping nothing like the COVID and AB5 would not happen.
People who support the RV parking do not live at or near Crisanto , Rengstorff. i.e. Showalter. She lives on the west side , polar to the Crisanto area. The MAJORITY who reside on Crisanto, are undocumented. They are not residents of Mountain View. They simply don’t want to live elsewhere.
Two sets of couples I spoke with, own a single family home. The people who live in the RVs’ , pay someone rent. Someone bought the RVs, placed them there so people can rent it. The two RVs, by Walmart and by Target , don’t want to pay rent . They don’t pay taxes. I spoke to them as well. Showalter and supporters have not. The minority, are truly in need of housing and cannot move due to lack of means, health or other reason. Again – this is the minority. at Rengstorff park , by Crisanto, there are piles of trash, alcoholics and meth addict ( 2 I’m aware of). These folks are not residents of Mountain View. Its easy for people to state how empathic they are towards the less fortunate , without critical thinking, reasoning and evidence. They don’t live at or near Crisanto. They don’t observe, study, take logical count of the so called residents there. Through the MV Day Worker Center , the minimum , paid is $20 per hour. We have to pick them up and drop them off. The men by Walmart/Target, ask for $25-$35/ hour. They don’t pay taxes and they simply don’t want to pay rent. Those who are truly in need of housing, have solutions but they are the minority. Its so easy for people to be up in arms and support the RV dwellers but, they don’t live there and they haven’t researched based on facts.
In response to HN LNG you wrote:
“People who support the RV parking do not live at or near Crisanto , Rengstorff. i.e. Showalter. She lives on the west side , polar to the Crisanto area. The MAJORITY who reside on Crisanto, are undocumented. They are not residents of Mountain View. They simply don’t want to live elsewhere.”
OMG here we go now again with the “undocumented” people. Another Donald Trumpet spewing the same language as this:
““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.” You wrote:
“Two sets of couples I spoke with, own a single family home. The people who live in the RVs’ , pay someone rent. Someone bought the RVs, placed them there so people can rent it.”
Yes that is true, but do you even know if the owner lives in Mountain View, MAKING money from them? It may be your neighbor making money off this practice you simply can’t tolerate? You wrote:
“The two RVs, by Walmart and by Target , don’t want to pay rent . They don’t pay taxes. I spoke to them as well. Showalter and supporters have not.”
Yes, the don’t pay “property taxes”, but they pay all the others especially sales taxes in the City of Mountain view. Thus, they feed the local economy. You know it. You wrote:
“The minority, are truly in need of housing and cannot move due to lack of means, health or other reason. Again – this is the minority. at Rengstorff park , by Crisanto, there are piles of trash, alcoholics and meth addict ( 2 I’m aware of).”
Pleas provide the police reports? Your story coming from an anonymous poster has no merit, it is hearsay. You continued:
“ These folks are not residents of Mountain View. Its easy for people to state how empathic they are towards the less fortunate , without critical thinking, reasoning and evidence.”
And where is your evidences? Sorry an anonymous poster making up stories doesn’t count. You know it, You wrote:
“They don’t live at or near Crisanto. They don’t observe, study, take logical count of the so called residents there. Through the MV Day Worker Center , the minimum , paid is $20 per hour. We have to pick them up and drop them off. The men by Walmart/Target, ask for $25-$35/ hour”
Wait, you are using “undocumented workers” and using them while you criticize the idea that they are here and available. What hypocrisy. You know this. Maybe that’s why your anonymous, we can’t call you for violating the law regarding hiring undocumented workers. You wrote:
“They don’t pay taxes and they simply don’t want to pay rent. Those who are truly in need of housing, have solutions but they are the minority. Its so easy for people to be up in arms and support the RV dwellers but, they don’t live there and they haven’t researched based on facts.”
Again, the “THEY” arguments. Please if anyone wants to be taken seriously by the readers here, NO MORE ANONYMOUS POSTINGS. Every time I see one I will call you out on it from now on.
@Steven Goldstein, I’m sorry you’re so angry. Just so you don’t have to reply to any more Voice comments, I’ll just summarize your position and the history behind challenging the safe parking regulations as this:
“City Council listened to its residents and passed a reasonable ordinance to ensure public and environmental safety. A small group of people didn’t like that, so we collected a few thousand signatures to challenge that ordinance, saying that the Council shouldn’t mandate this, and the voters should decide. On Tuesday, the Voters reaffirmed the City Council’s reasonable ordinance. Now I say that the Voters shouldn’t decide because clearly the majority of voters in MV are mean, mean people because they don’t agree with my position. Therefore, I feel justified ignoring the election result and will try to impose my position because it’s the right thing to do because…well…its myposition and I’ve got to be right.”
All I can say is this:
a 57% to 43% means that it was not a “heavily” favored vote. Just look at Measure D which was rejected by a vote of 2 to 1 ratio 68.8% versus 31.2%. I think the term heavy here was inappropriate, the idea is that there is sizable support to reverse the RV Ban.
On top of the idea that it still remains to be seen if a court challenge might still happen. My question is how many cities in the state have a similar policy?
If there is no other city, the constitutionality question is strongly against the city under the Federal Constitutions 14th Amendment and the California Constitutions Equal Protection Clause.
Remember it is NOT Illegal for someone to be homeless, and the Courts have protected them from being abused under the laws in California. The idea is that a shelter like an RV is perfectly legal, and the city cannot declare it illegal here. Which is what Measure C does. The City is not a special zone.
Jed, from Jackson Park, reports being bothered above because “Many of the claims are backed only by anecdotal evidence, with sparse data.”
Jed, apparently you, in turn, missed this: “Opponents of Measure C have argued that most RV residents have ties to Mountain View.”
That rhetorical assumption is constantly repeated, never examined. It makes claims about “most” RV dwellers, but it too extrapolates from extremely sparse information.
Apparently Jed doesn’t realize the irony of raising such a point in this comments thread. It is the people who opposed Measure C who’ve consistently shown *less* interest in the real demographics, done *less* attempted outreach, talked *less* to police officers about day-to-day experiences with vehicle dwellers — for years! Lisa Matichak did ride-along with police to learn more, when Lenny Siegel would not. Another resident active in Measure C questioned police officers and learned details opponents did not. You can’t make claims or theories about who is in those vehicles if you Do Not Know — let alone if you don’t WANT to know.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Enough!
Steven Goldstein, though you believe you’re an authority on so much, clearly you just make things up, and you know it. Here you say:
“My hopes now that we have a 5 progressives to 2 conservative composition of the City Council, the City Council will reverse the City Ordinance, and since Measure C is NOT a charter amendment it can be reversed as well it is just an ordinance.
This vote may be a victory for now, but the policy is ALWAYS up for REVIEW or REVERSAL and it always will be. unless a City Charter Amendment is passed.”
Well, Goldstein (formerly The Businessman) you are so wrong (as usual). Here is the FACT:
Because Measure C was a referendum voted in by the voters, it can only be changed or rescinded by the voters, not by the Council. And as the Council is required to give the ROV 30 days from election day to certify the results, it will be certified on 12/8.
Goldstein, it might serve you better to check with City Staff, rather than just pretending you know what you’re talking about. I realize very few actually read your endless posts, but for those that do – the facts would be a refreshing change.
I am also disappointed to see Measure C pass. I would have thought that in a global pandemic we would have done better than to kick a bunch of poor people out of town, because that’s what will happen.
A small sample of street measurements on Google Maps shows that most MV streets are now off limits. With the passage of the companion ordinance about not parking RVs on streets with bike lanes, a lot of the streets over 40′ are also off limits. The 100 safe spots are nice, and they only apply to RVs owned by the occupants, and there aren’t enough of them anyway. Many RVs are rented, so that option isn’t open. Some of these families have children who will have to leave their school mid-year, as if distance learning wasn’t bad enough.
There are many RVs parked along San Ramon Avenue near my house, and I often walk by them with my dog. They picked San Ramon because few houses face the street, and they don’t want to bother people. I have acquainted myself with a few of them. They aren’t threats to anyone, they just can’t afford an apartment. Do they produce garbage? Yes, and my dog and I see just as much garbage on other streets where there are no RVs.
We could have helped these people, and instead we turned our collective backs on them. It’s sad.
In response to Local you wrote:
Because Measure C was a referendum voted in by the voters, it can only be changed or rescinded by the voters, not by the Council. And as the Council is required to give the ROV 30 days from election day to certify the results, it will be certified on 12/8.”
I hate to burst your bubble but if you read the information from Ballotpedia specifically this web page (https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_local_ballot_measures_in_California) you can see this information:
Constitution
Section 11 of Article II of the California Constitution gives the citizens of general law cities and counties the power change ordinances through initiative and referendum.
Text of Article II, Section 11:
“(a) Initiative and referendum powers may be exercised by the electors of each city or county under procedures that the Legislature shall provide. Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), this section does not affect a city having a charter.”
(b) A city or county initiative measure shall not include or exclude any part of the city or county from the application or effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes in favor of the measure, by the electors of the city or county or any part thereof. (c) A city or county initiative measure shall not contain alternative or cumulative provisions wherein one or more of those provisions would become law depending upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes for or against the measure.[14]”
There is NO provisions saying that a City Council can revise or override the referendums. In fact since the City of Mountain View HAS a CHARTER, the referendum is NON BINDING regarding the City. You are making a very big mistake here. Now if you followed this part:
“Section 3 of Article XI gives all cities and counties the power to become charter cities and counties and gives all citizens the power to amend their charters through initiative and referendum.
Text of Article XI, Section 3:
“(a) For its own government, a county or city may adopt a charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the question. The charter is effective when filed with the Secretary of State. A charter may be amended, revised, or repealed in the same manner. A charter, amendment, revision, or repeal thereof shall be published in the official state statutes. County charters adopted pursuant to this section shall supersede any existing charter and all laws inconsistent therewith. The provisions of a charter are the law of the State and have the force and effect of legislative enactments.
(b) The governing body or charter commission of a county or city may propose a charter or revision. Amendment or repeal may be proposed by initiative or by the governing body. (c) An election to determine whether to draft or revise a charter and elect a charter commission may be required by initiative or by the governing body. (d) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.[14]”
So in effect, the Measure in fact had a major vulnerability. If it was written to amend the City Charter, you would be correct. But sadly, it doesn’t. I believe it was written WITH this defect as to maybe “trick” people like yourself. I am surprised that those voting for it didn’t have a clue. I am sorry to tell you that your information is incorrect.
My words are a quote from City Staff. They don’t need to twist and dance to answer something so simple – or get overly wordy to attempt to sound like they know what they’re talking about. Sorry, but I trust City Staff before I believe a word you say.
Just find a hobby or something, okay? You think you’re the authority on everything, and you so clearly are not.
(However… it IS rather amusing that you continue to give yourself fake up-votes, even though you say how useless they are. LOL I just noticed you’re still obsessed by this!)
In response to Local to Goldstein you wrote:
“My words are a quote from City Staff. They don’t need to twist and dance to answer something so simple – or get overly wordy to attempt to sound like they know what they’re talking about. Sorry, but I trust City Staff before I believe a word you say.”
First, how can we have any faith in a person posting anonymously? When will these people stop using fake names? Second, you need to get the “City Staff” to identify who they are, because we can’t verify your claims. Why won’t the “City Staff” be identified? This kind of hearsay statements simply do not work. You wrote:
“Just find a hobby or something, okay? You think you’re the authority on everything, and you so clearly are not.”
Another personal insult? And second, I am only providing objective and documented proof that what you say is not accurate. I am NOT the authority, but a judge will be if this gets challenged. The reality is that a referendum on ONLY a city ordinance has no control over future City Council actions. The ballot measure is required to be a CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT in order to block the City Council.
Which is what the Measure V or the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act was in the ballot. Completely different and thus is an example of how you are not making any sense here.
Maybe you need to go an get to work on a new Ballot Measure to Amend the City Charter?
As the photo accompanying the article amply shows, the RVs afford virtually no space for bicyclists to safely avoid hazards. These hazards include doors that get swung open by vehicle occupants and vehicles whizzing by. The RVs also block sight lines. While I was cycling on Terrabella, I was nearly struck by a car pulling out from a driveway; the motorist’s view of the road was completely blocked by an oversized vehicle. We need bicycle lanes and clear sight lines on Terrabella, not oversized vehicles. Our roadways are a shared common space; they are not living quarters.
My minivan is high enough to block the intersection view near me – if I park it (legally) close to the crosswalk area. I guess I can now rent out my minivan – for homeless use on any street – and maybe put in an air bed and other ‘improvements’.
This Measure C will not prevent car camping (under 72 hours) on the streets and will not prevent mini-van public street camping or public rightofway (or maybe park ANNEX) camping/living tents.
Mark Ruzon and I are neighbors (at more than a social distance). I bike where he walks, and I confirm his observations. Several posters mentioned children and safety. Measure C makes it more difficult for me to see my daughter and her family. Due partially to Bay Area housing costs and commutes, they live in Reno, and visit (usually for less than three days), towing a small camp trailer. The trailer allows private space for family & dog so they don’t share our house during Covid. We visit on the patio, but I guess Thanksgiving will be the end of it. Have to find a neighbor with a driveway flat enough to level a trailer I guess.
Public Hue & Cry once again leads to unintended consequences.
Just an interesting note:
Someone accused ME of vandalism.
But I am considering going to the Mountain View Police Department because someone vandalized me.
I put up a sign on Shoreline Drive regarding the election, I have a photograph of the sign after I put it up.
I went to pick up my signs today and found it missing.
I made 3 of them. They did not say anything other than that MAK, LM, and JG should not be elected because of their work on Measure D. I was NOT advocating any other candidate. So you cannot claim I was advertising for any others.
So who are the criminals here?
In any case, so far I have not seen anyone produce any evidence that this ordinance is likely going to be reversed by the new City Council, in order to prevent the loss of money it will take to defend it in court.
Measure C was a desperate attempt to force anyone who lived in the RVs to be forced to get an apartment in the City. But the city population will decrease due to COVID and AB5. This is just unavoidable. And the city funds and the local businesses are going to shrink.
As far as the funding for those “transitioned” into conventional housing, those funds will run out and fail to be restored. This will result in these people forced to leave Mountain view, and their “economic” contributions will disappear.
The idea was NEVER going to work for the long term. This was the same idea regarding the Reagan Housing program that resulting in Section 8 vouchers, there was supposed to be affordable housing subsidies and grants, but they were never funded, thus leaving NO new housing to be built.
The housing crisis still exists, even if we use force of law to banish some of the victims out of our line of sight.
California is short 3.5 million homes compared to population growth, and this shortage is most acute in places that have allowed jobs to grow without housing to match. this shortage causes displacement, impoverishment, homelessness, overcrowding, long commutes, traffic, and pollution.
Let’s get to work.
OK now that Donald Trump is now going to leave the White House, here is some predictions.
The first is the CDC will start issuing REQUIREMENTS to control the spread of COVID, NOW that Donald Trump is NOT a threat to them.
The CDC will extend and strengthen the Eviction Order they made previously, possibly make it last as long as the COVID crisis is still in effect. This will mean the COVID National Emergency ORDER will have to be lifted prior to the Eviction Order.
We will now have the proper contagion control process in place.
I STRONLGY urge the City Council to extend its Eviction Moratorium. Given that yes the “unemployment” rate is going down, but not because of hiring, only because people are losing their Unemployment Insurance.
Now that Biden is in the White House, there will now be the House of Reps and the White House in effect working against the GOP Senate to extend those benefits as well. Which will spike the Unemployment rate.
We will see.
@Steven Nelson, but it will make employers from the Central Valley stop sending their employees to MV in their trailers during the week and pocket the hotel allowance. It will stop the RV landlord from renting out our public streets without proper services. It will be an incentive for people to better themselves and seek CSA services. It will force the affluent RV owners to live in an RV park in the South County. And for us tax payer, there is money saved for the 2 people on payroll right now to simply look for sewer leaks and observe the current situation. That money could do a lot more at CSA. The Safe Lots can house 75 vehicles, the future small village on Leghorn will have 100 units. 175 people/families can be helped before the end of 2020. I am convinced that will put a dent into our unhoused vehicle dwellers who want help.
@Jeremy Hoffman I have lived here 35 years, the imbalance is decades old.
**************************Rumor here***************************
A friend from the Old Mountain View neighborhood is hearing that the Lenny Siegel and crew will be contacting the ACLU to ask them to send a warning letter to the city that if they enact this ordinance they will file a lawsuit against the city.
*************Again, just what she is hearing in the area**************
Mark,
Given that the constitutionality of the RV ban is very likely going to be rejected by the court, is a significant issue.
Given that the COVID and AB5 impact on the city funds which are crashing, the city cannot AFFORD to pay for the legal costs of defending the RV ban.
The reality is that the combination of these two is a major factor for the City Council to repeal the RV ban, nonetheless of the vote.
Given that Measure C is an ordinance referendum and NOT a Chart Amendment the city council has the discretion to reverse it to avoid the legal costs and predictable loss of the defense of it.
It does look like the Measure C was always designed to be a hollow victory.
Mark,
Let me guess it was Lisa Matichak that told you about the actions of the ACLU.
She is again attacking a regulars citizen for taking actions well within his rights. Given the election is over.
I do hope the ACLU does file a lawsuit against the City of Mountain View.
But realize this, any and all possible support funding to anyone that got any transitional assistance in the Safe Parking program are going to see those funds disappear.
What will the City do?
40 feet has NOTHING to do with safe navigation. Measure it out. Easily wide enough for 2 RVs AND two 18 wheelers.
This is a thinly disguised move to simply push anyone in an RV out of the city. Your are kicking out the woman who teaches pre-school and yoga in town.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11842966/mountain-view-measure-c-would-push-rv-dwellers-off-city-streets
You are kicking out 74 year old Ida Seclen who has lived in town or nearby her entire life.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/11/07/mountain-view-rv-dwellers-fear-displacement-after-voters-decide-they-cant-park-on-narrow-streets/
Some use the fig leaf of “this is compassionate, because it will force the city to help these people.” That is the same “compassion” as dismantling pre-existing conditions insurance protections in the ACA ‘because then congress will be forced to pass better healthcare reform.’ To be self consistent, you must also support the republican rationale to overturning the ACA.
Call the measure what it is: you do not want homeless people in our city and you wish them to be shipped out.
@Steven,
As usual,you are wrong.
I have never met, or communicated with Lisa M. in any way.
The person I know, knows of you as well, but you do not know her.
Mark,
OK.
Do you know whether the funding of the “transitional” housing services are perpetual, or have an estimated length of time, or a cap on how much money can be spent?
What we do know is that there are only 63 passenger type parking spots in the city and 67 RV spots allocated in the Safe Parking programs if you look at the city website here (https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/preservation/safe_parking_program.asp)
The website claims that:
It offers stability, but does not indicate HOW, and it excludes so called transient workers or professionals who choose “living in their cars to save money.” Even though they may not have the money to afford housing in the city.
It claims to offer supportive services, but does not indicate what they are.
It CLAIMS that 30-50% of passenger car slots attain interim or permanent housing, and NO record of any RV transitions.
That is a failure regarding standard grading because it is less than 50% of a subset of 50% of the spots allocated.
The reality is that the CSA does not have the funds to actually achieve an acceptable rate of at least 70% of ALL participants
Too bad I didn’t point this out prior to the election, BUT this will be proof that the so-called services are not meeting the demands in court. Thus, this will be good cause to render the RV ban as unconstitutional. It also proves that this program is a failure and it will be good cause to reverse the RV ban in the city.