Town Square

Post a New Topic

Days numbered for city's small RV park

Original post made on May 21, 2015

Dozens of residents living in a North Whisman RV park fear that they could be forced out of Mountain View now that the property is being sold to a residential developer.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, May 21, 2015, 11:21 AM

Comments (19)

Posted by Rico Suave
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 21, 2015 at 12:53 pm

Here's an idea. How about mowing that whole block down, and building some offices and unaffordable high density housing.

Who cares about these people. Certainly not the Mountain View city Council.

Posted by Maher
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on May 21, 2015 at 2:17 pm

Just another example of MV City Council's NON commitment to supporting low rent housing in our community. Plus of course the new owner doesn't want to be bothered with ownership responsibilities. Best solution: city buys property and maintains current uses design. Why not do that?

Posted by hmmph
a resident of Waverly Park
on May 21, 2015 at 2:23 pm

Let's see if that campaign slogan "Residents First" will guide the council on this one. Lately their decisions clearly fall in the "Profits First, Residents Last" category.

Posted by Low Rent
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 21, 2015 at 2:27 pm

It's not the counsels job to offer you low rent. If you want low rent, move to Modesto.

Posted by @Low Rent
a resident of another community
on May 21, 2015 at 2:35 pm

So why aren't you in Modesto, Monta Loma? I mean, if you want to talk the talk...

Posted by OldMV
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 21, 2015 at 4:01 pm

The MV City Planning Commission and City council have been complaining quite correctly for years that MV doesn't have enough open & park space. Why don't they buy these ill-maintained and obsolete sites and turn them into a really nice local park. That's far superior to jamming in more cheap row housing, which North MV already has far too much of. It's time for the City Council to put up the $$$ to back up its political rhetoric.

Posted by High Rent
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 21, 2015 at 4:04 pm

A logical deduction as to why low rent from Monta Loma doesn't move to Modesto might be that he isn't desiring low rent. But I might be inclined to move there (or anywhere else!) due to the ever diminishing quality of Mountain View life.

Posted by dot
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 21, 2015 at 4:49 pm

I am sure Pat Showalter will come up with a solution that enables her to continue her quest for social justice, since she was eager to endorse the BRT project and spending $223 million tax dollars to move a few thousand people up and down ECR without providing MV citizens with any real bus service locally (the MV stops would be miles apart and connect to nothing) on the basis that express buses = social justice for those lacking cars.

And Ken Rosenberg should be on this one too, given his insistence that he had to endorse the BRT because we don't want to encourage car culture even if it means a bus that basically stops nowhere connects to nothing. Those folks at the trailer park work at Google too, and other local places. I am confident Ken will be leading the charge to make sure they are not driving in from the East Bay or beyond. He campaigned on Mountain View values, after all.

Posted by Madeline Bernard
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 21, 2015 at 4:57 pm

Madeline Bernard is a registered user.

It's ridiculous to consider replacing 32 occupied units (which was until recently 40) with only 53 units. I'm not sure what benefit is worth throwing Mountain View residents out on the street, but a 66% increase in boring ticky tacky houses certainly isn't it. I hope the City Council will bar this move until there are plans for a high-rise condo on that space, that has affordable units for these citizens.

Posted by Practical Point
a resident of Shoreline West
on May 21, 2015 at 5:19 pm

Wow. There's some anger from you guys.

Moving stinks, especially if you're forced to do it. Very true.

However, remember the plan to close this park was established in 1997 which was almost 20 years ago and the people including some that moved to the park only 2 years ago are complaining they'll have to move. You're paying $850 a month to live in Mountain View. Hello? Nobody does that. I paid more for my first tiny one bedroom apartment in 1995 than the people in this park are paying to live here today. That blows my mind.

The question isn't why are they moving. The question is what took so long for this to happen?

Posted by Otto Maddox
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 22, 2015 at 6:53 am

I want to live in Atherton. Who should I complain to about that?

Posted by The Difference
a resident of Shoreline West
on May 22, 2015 at 9:44 am

The difference, Otto Maddox, is that these residents live in Mountain View RIGHT NOW, and City policies are responsible for their displacement. Our decades-long failure to build enough housing to accommodate the job growth is the direct cause of our housing affordability crisis. Many long-time residents are being priced out or evicted because the City is neither building housing to mitigate the demand nor implementing policies to protect renters. Homeowners have Prop 13 protections, and renters have nothing.

Mountain View is not Atherton or Los Altos or Palo Alto. However, we will become like those cities if we continue to do nothing. In a matter of time, the only people who will be able to live here are old people who bought a house decades ago or wealthy people. The lower and middle class residents will be forced out.

Posted by BOB
a resident of another community
on May 22, 2015 at 10:18 am

I understand exactly why they are doing it. What I don't understand is that why people feel like they are entitled to live on a piece of land just because they've lived there. They act as though the land owner has no rights. If the land owner is ready to sell or wants to do something different with THEIR property or they are doing it to make a profit off THEIR LAND that's what they're entitled to! Why else would you buy INVESTMENT property. Who are you to FORCE someone to continue holding on to a piece of property just because someone is living in it or on it. Does it totally suck for those families, sure it does but you as a property owner shouldn't be forced to be obligated FOR LIFE. Self entitlement is whats really wrong with this place.

Posted by Member
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 22, 2015 at 10:23 am

It is a shame that affordable housing is the target of today's economy. All people want to do is take care of their family, have a stable home front and have a job. Why do the Land Lords not value what made their family life successful for others? Do on to others as you would like to be treated is definitely a moral action of the past.

Posted by @Difference
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 22, 2015 at 11:04 am

"Our decades-long failure to build enough housing to accommodate the job growth"

Hahahaha, That is so wrong. If we did that than the traffic in this peninsula would be non-moving. No one wants that, except a few freaks.

Posted by Christopher Chiang
a resident of North Bayshore
on May 22, 2015 at 6:21 pm

Those who blame renters 100% for not becoming owners fail to be fully honest that the prices renters must pay to be owners are far from a "free market." Adjusted for inflation, as a percent of average MV salary, it's 4x harder than it was in 1970 to buy a home in MV. So renters pay more in rent all the while having to save more to buy, both largely influenced by local public policy decisions. Everything goes back to supply. Allowing people and markets to find
people places to live is no evil, but the fundamental duty of a
society. Cites serve the well being all people, not just certain kind of people: not just homeowners, or renters, but all people. What is alarming about this news is that this displacement was not driven by the property owner alone, but by a pro-active city policy to forcibly displace some of our city's most vulnerable residents. At the very least, the current city council has a moral obligation to remove the city's own mandate.

Posted by R4
a resident of North Whisman
on May 23, 2015 at 7:54 pm

A block away from this RV park, Sal Teresi received a land use designation of R4 for his property. This is an epic land use designation. Look at the parcel map of Mountain View and you will see how rare a land use designation it is.

If the city wants to revisit development of low income housing at this location, it should get what it paid for instead of looking to Sal to pay for it. Demolish 291 Evandale and finish what Sal started.

Posted by Left in the Middle
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 30, 2015 at 11:36 pm

Must be nice to have financial support for moving and an opportunity to live in affordable housing in Mountain View. When our family could no longer live in the home we raised our children in because taxes went up, we had to pay for our kids college tuition and home repairs were no longer affordable-no one came running to rescue us. Our family had to downsize and move into a home and community that was more affordable and further away from work. We sacrificed. That's life. Once again, the writing is on the wall and soon Mountain View will be too expensive for us. Once again, our earnings are too high for us to get assistance for moving and housing. We sacrifice, we "let go" and we accept our circumstances and our financial limitations. No handouts for the middle class. I have a friend who gets entitlement money for housing (nicer than mine), health insurance (better than mine), assistance with higher education and he works fewer hours than I do. The taxes that come out of my paycheck pays for these entitlement programs. Don't you just love this country.

Posted by @Left in the Middle
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Jun 1, 2015 at 12:25 pm

I sympathize with your situation and ask you to consider that because things have been unfair/difficult in the past, that they should continue to be that way. Part of the great things about advancements in human society is that we in fact advance. I'm not saying people should get things for free, but as humans I think we all deserve to have our basic needs met. Yes, no one has the right to live in any place, but it does seem mighty harsh to have so many families being priced out of their homes.

Again, I would like to think we are more evolved in our ways of being.

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.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Mountain View Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Holiday Fun in San Francisco- Take the Walking Tour for An Evening of Sparkle!
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 3,310 views

Boichik Bagels is opening its newest – and largest – location in Santa Clara this week
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,282 views

I Do I Don't: How to build a better marriage Ch. 1, page 1
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,388 views


Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Voice readers and foundations contributed a total of $84,000.