|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
RV ban implementation costs
Honorable mayor and council members:
I just read the staff report on implementation of the “narrow” streets ordinance asking for a budget allocation of about $1M dollars to mostly manufacture and install signs on 400+ “narrow” streets.
At this point, I have one question for you: Some information had been available to you since at least spring 2020 to estimate implementation costs and timelines, as well as to assess the necessary trade-offs (less money for street improvements):
Back in June, I wrote, “Should you persist in keeping the question to the voters this Fall, I demand you fully disclose to the public the full costs of that ordinance – as adopted by a slim majority (4-3).”
Why didn’t you share a cost estimate with the voters: in ballot language, in arguments, during the election campaigns, at candidate meetings, in the impartial analysis…?
Regardless of anyone’s views on Measure C and with all due respect, I find that omission very deceptive (maybe even deceitful) to the Mountain View voters.
Serge Bonte
Lloyd Way
Measure C
The voters have spoken. Nearly 57% voted in favor of Measure C. But what were they voting for?
The proponents of Measure C said that it’s about “narrow, neighborhood streets.” They claimed that it’s not a “ban.” So voters supported the measure because they don’t want to see motor homes parked in front of their more permanent homes. I believe that many who voted “yes” would like to find a way for people who work, go to school, or most recently lived in Mountain View houses or apartments to stay in the community, just not in their front yards.
Proponents suggested that our safe parking program satisfies the need. It’s a great program, but it falls way short. We’re short 100 or 200 spaces, and many vehicle households do not qualify.
Until we make those spaces available, the city should identify streets wider than 40 feet – including some that currently restrict overnight parking – where vehicle residents can park their homes.
During the campaign, some proponents noted that safe parking provides case management that helps people move into more permanent housing. I support that. But under current conditions that promise is a thinly veiled argument for gentrification. We’ve heard from social service agencies, time and time again, that they are able to find housing for vehicle residents, homeless, and people about to lose their homes …ELSEWHERE.
As someone who worked hard to defeat Measure C, I am disappointed with the result. But it’s still possible to fashion policies that provide our vehicle dwelling neighbors with places to live without encroaching on our permanent neighborhoods.
Lenny Siegel
Former Mountain View council member
Lies have consequences
May 1, 1960: Francis Gary Powers flew the newest top-secret U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union, supposedly out of range of anti-aircraft fire. The Soviets objected to a foreign plane over the USSR.
President Eisenhower told a bald-faced lie: He said it was a weather mission that went astray. The Soviets gloated: “We shot it down, and we are holding pilot Francis Gary Powers.” I was 23. The idea that our beloved war-hero president would knowingly lie hit me in the gut.
This had consequences: It scuttled an important Paris summit between us and the Soviets.
Oct. 5, 1986: Eugene Hasenfus, piloting a plane full of supplies (then forbidden by Congress) on a secret mission to supply the Contras in Nicaragua was shot down by the Nicaraguans. The Reagan administration made many denials, but could not prevent the ugly Iran-Contra scandal from coming to light. Beloved President Reagan and his administration were tarred by the plot and the lies.
Nov. 3, 2020: President Trump alleged systematic fraud prevented him from being declared the winner. Then he fired Christopher Krebs, heading the agency for cybersecurity in elections, for disloyalty.
Now, Krebs details the three-year effort to secure election machines, detect foreign interference, and more, to make sure this election was the most secure ever. Attorney General William Barr, a Trump loyalist, declares that he has found no evidence, period, of election fraud.
I am waiting for the pilot dropping out of the sky to convince people that Trump lies.
Gertrude Reagan
Palo Alto
“I am waiting for the pilot dropping out of the sky to convince people that Trump lies.”
No need. Those that will not admit Trump lies would not see “the pilot” in front of their face.
In the Presidential race, here is the latest: Electoral College voting is underway today (Monday, Dec. 14). The Wisconsin Supreme Court this morning rejected the Republican challenge to the outcome there – albeit only 4-3. The U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of the case presented by the Texas Attorney General was based on the State’s lack of standing. We know from a 2000 case named Bush v. Gore that Presidential candidates have standing. So, Trump and Pence could yet file their own case – although the voting in the Electoral College is making the real steal by Trump and Pence less likely. But anyone who tells you IT IS OVER, sadly, is incorrect.
Gary,
Didn’t the Bush v. Gore decision state within it that it was a one time act? I am about to use a non-primary source called Wikipedia seen here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20in%20a,issued%20only%20for%20unanimous%20votes.) But it does contain direct resources regarding the footnotes indicated with a [XX]
Limitation to present circumstances
Some critics of the decision argue that the majority seemed to seek refuge from their own logic[57][58] in the following sentence in the majority opinion: “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”[59] The Court’s defenders argued that this was a reasonable precaution against the possibility that the decision might be read over-broadly,[60] arguing that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the sentence as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was untenable.[61] Regardless of whether the majority intended the decision to be precedential, it has been cited by several federal courts in election cases,[62][63][64][65][66] as well as by a lawyer for a Republican congressional candidate during legal arguments coincident with the 2020 United States Presidential Election.[67]”
Granted he may file another lawsuit, but it would appear that it would be a waste of time and money just to avoid recognition of his LOSS of a fight?
The Coffin door is closed and is lowering into the ground, right?
This president has done significant PERMENANT damage to our country and the constitution, it will take years to fix.
This whining is like the Trump supporters who keep creating law suits despite the inevitable. For Trump as well as those people who are against Measure C, simply take the hint, you lost. Tough pill to swallow but time to suck it up and move on.
I only stated that the Presidential candidates have standing – unlike the State of Texas. That much is clear from Bush v. Gore. A California attorney representing Trump filed a petition to intervene in the Texas case, but when the Texas case was rejected for lack of standing, all of the other petitions in the case became – and were denied as – moot. The attorney could have filed a petition creating a separate case – and still could file a separate case. There are 6 Republicans on the 9-member U.S. Supreme Court. Trump’s lawyer(s) will probably go back to that court. The vote of the Electoral College has reduced Trump’s chance of stealing another term. But there is still time for plenty of monkey-business.
Gary,
Am I right in understanding that “standing” alone cannot warrant action?
In order to have a proper lawsuit, you also must have a “cause of action”?
This has been the failure of every action so far regarding Trump, he has no “cause of action” for the courts to proceed, thus his cases get dismissed.
But let him continue to live in his world of “grievances” and making his LOSS excusable because he “DIDN’T” lose, right?