No cars in sight: Castro Street closed to traffic for outdoor dining | Town Square | Mountain View Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

No cars in sight: Castro Street closed to traffic for outdoor dining

Original post made on Jun 22, 2020

A long stretch of Mountain View's vibrant downtown was cut off to vehicle traffic Monday, marking the beginning of a monthslong transformation of Castro Street into a pedestrian promenade with space for outdoor dining.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, June 22, 2020, 1:35 PM

Comments (111)

11 people like this
Posted by Bob Lopez
a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2020 at 2:22 pm

I'm glad Mountain View and other surrounding cities are finally able to offer outdoor dining to the public. Good luck Mountain View and to all of the thriving businesses downtown. We are blessed with some of the nicest weather in the country. Be respectful to each other and to the staff. We are all in this together.. enjoy your summer!!


8 people like this
Posted by MV Renter
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 22, 2020 at 3:06 pm

Please let us know where Castro Street can be crossed with an automobile, so that we know how to get to the Post Office from Shoreline.

Thank you!


15 people like this
Posted by Nadine O'Leary
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 22, 2020 at 3:08 pm

I was hoping the restaurants would be able to set out their own tables in the street - like they do in Europe. Picnic tables are not comfortable for many people.


6 people like this
Posted by Joe
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 22, 2020 at 4:22 pm

This is fantastic..its only july... where are the arrows on the street to show us where to walk? .. make sure to have tracers out in force.. !!
taser the rule breakers!! we still have 2 active cases in santa clara.. we need to add this as permanent additions!!


8 people like this
Posted by A Talking Cat
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 22, 2020 at 4:32 pm

Let's make this permanent! I'm really enjoying the experience of walking down Castro Street without needing to worry about a car running me over.


18 people like this
Posted by Common sense
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 22, 2020 at 4:44 pm

MV Renter: All cross-streets will be open. The closure takes the form of four separate one-block stretches of Castro, not one four-block stretch.

That was in the previous Voice article about this plan ("Vehicles will still be able to cross Castro at the intersections with California, Dana and Villa streets") and in the original City staff proposal preceding the City-Council vote, available on the City website. That report also showed it graphically as a map ("Figure 2"). "Staff proposes that Castro Street between Evelyn Avenue and Mercy Street (100 to 400 blocks) be closed through September 30, 2020. As shown in Figure 2, side streets would be open to facilitate east-west travel across Castro Street."

Second photo on this page, above, also shows Castro blocked off on both sides of Villa, with Villa still open for traffic.


1 person likes this
Posted by Greg
a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2020 at 5:03 pm

The circles are 6 feet apart from one another or the circles are 6 feet in diameter? There's a big difference. It doesn't matter how big the circle is, it matters how far apart they are.


6 people like this
Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 22, 2020 at 5:05 pm

I saw the tables lined up in the 400 Bryant parking lot. I hope
They plan to paint them by Friday. They look like crap.

I am also envisioning already the uber eats door dash grub hub drivers using the cross street intersections as
parking places with their park anywhere button engaged. Let’s hope MVPD runs a regular patrol up and down the side streets to prevent this.


9 people like this
Posted by Heaven
a resident of Bailey Park
on Jun 22, 2020 at 5:06 pm

No need to re-open to cars. This is good.


18 people like this
Posted by LaVonne
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jun 22, 2020 at 5:14 pm

Those of us who live alone seem to be excluded in all the dining situations. If we live in a senior community and can maintain the 6 feet apart rule, why can't more than one friend who also lives alone join together at a table?


14 people like this
Posted by Sandis
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 22, 2020 at 5:22 pm

"Picnic tables are not comfortable for many people."

There are other tables. There have always been other tables.


18 people like this
Posted by Dan Waylonis
a resident of Jackson Park
on Jun 22, 2020 at 5:36 pm

Yet another good concept ruined by the city. No alcoholic beverages on tables. One size fits all tables. Czar to determine which restaurants get which tables.


11 people like this
Posted by Shade
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 22, 2020 at 6:24 pm

Will there be shade over tables?


18 people like this
Posted by Geezer
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 22, 2020 at 9:17 pm

What about restaurants on the side streets? Places like Sushi Tomi, Fiesta Del Mar Too, Chez TJ and many others. They won't be able to have tables out in front of their restaurants. Doesn't really seem fair, does it?


29 people like this
Posted by Sarah
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 22, 2020 at 9:49 pm

Picnic tables may be ok for young people and maybe families but difficult for the elderly to navigate in and out. Plus very uncomfortable seating for a night out for dinner. And if the restaurant serves wine/beer why can’t we enjoy a drink with dinner? So I feel it’s only halfway a step in the right direction.


37 people like this
Posted by BW
a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2020 at 9:57 pm

I much prefer the way that Los Altos did it. Restaurants put out their own tables, rope off the area, and are able to serve alcohol. The way that Mtn View did it with community picnic tables is just dumb!


42 people like this
Posted by Robin
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 22, 2020 at 10:09 pm

I don't understand why you can't drink alcohol while sitting at your table enjoying a meal at a restaurant. You can *walk around* with open containers of alcohol when it's the Arts & Wine festival?! Hmmm


5 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 22, 2020 at 10:17 pm

I believe there is a law against public drinking, please read this:

9.66.010. Alcoholic beverages—Drinking and open containers in public.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to drink any alcoholic beverage upon any public right-of-way (including the street, parkstrip, sidewalk and public property up to the private property line), lane, alley, public park and other public property unless the consumption of alcoholic beverages is expressly permitted for that location pursuant to a permit or ordinance and the consumption is in conformance with the terms of that permit or ordinance, or except as may be otherwise authorized by the city.

(b) It is unlawful for any person to possess any can, bottle or other container of any alcoholic beverage which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which has been partially removed, upon any public right-of-way (including the street, parkstrip, sidewalk and public property up to the private property line), lane, alley, public park or other public property unless the consumption of alcoholic beverages is expressly permitted for that location pursuant to a permit or ordinance and the possession is in conformance with the terms of that permit or ordinance, or except as may be otherwise authorized by the city, or the possession is expressly allowed by a preemptive state law.

(c) It is unlawful for any person to drink or possess an open container of any alcoholic beverage while upon any private parking lot open to the public unless expressly permitted by the owner or operator of the private parking lot in conformance with a permit or ordinance or as otherwise authorized by the city.

(d) This section is intended to have no application to situations which would invoke application of state laws, including, but not limited to, restrictions on the drinking, possession or storage of an open receptacle containing an alcoholic beverage while a person is in a motor vehicle upon a highway (California Vehicle Code Sections 23121, 23122 and 23123), or restrictions on the possession of an intoxicating liquor by a person under the age of twenty-one on a public street or highway or on any public place or in any place open to the public (California Business and Professions Code Section 25662). (Ord. 2505-95 § 1).

So it would appear the City has no choice in this matter. Especially if the tables are on the streets.

What is confusing me is that so many people are thinking we are out of the woods.

The WHO and many others know that we haven't even looked around at the forest yet.


17 people like this
Posted by Jes' Sayin'
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 22, 2020 at 10:32 pm

How much of our tax money are they going to spend on street blockers, paint and picnic tables just to pick which businesses survive and fall? What about all the other restaurants that are not on Castro? Is this fair to them? Government bodies should never be in the business of picking winners.

Someone get Putin on the line. We're recreating Soviet communism here, for a select few.


7 people like this
Posted by My resident
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 23, 2020 at 7:01 am

This is awesome, please keep it like this afterwards! Castro doesn’t really make sense as a non pedestrian street anyways


20 people like this
Posted by Kate
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:19 am

This seems suboptimal (alcohol sales are an important revenue stream for restaurants, and picnic tables aren’t the most accessible for young kids and older folks), but perhaps restaurants will be able to deploy a “grab and go” model for these tables and the city can look the other way on alcohol consumption. This would also allow side street restaurants to have some tables allocated to them.


20 people like this
Posted by Officer joe Bolton
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:28 am

The business man - I suggest you contact the police with your concerns. Or you can patrol Castro street and make citizens arrests.
If you feel uncomfortable I suggest you stay locked up at home. Sara Cody will be thrilled.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:44 am

In response to Kate that said:

“This seems suboptimal (alcohol sales are an important revenue stream for restaurants, and picnic tables aren’t the most accessible for young kids and older folks), but perhaps restaurants will be able to deploy a “grab and go” model for these tables and the city can look the other way on alcohol consumption.”

THE CITY CANNOT DO THAT, THAT WOULD BE ABETING AND ACCESSORY OF VIOLATING THE STATE LAWS. In fact when I moved here and I went to the “Arts” festival, I never drank alcohol because I KNEW it was ILLEGAL. So did the City Council and Police Department. This kind of SELECTIVE law enforcement is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Next time I see the City Council encouraging this violation of law I will call the County Sherriff and they will likely arrest people including the City Police and the city Council.

In response to Officer joe Bolton if that is your real name you said:

“The business man - I suggest you contact the police with your concerns. Or you can patrol Castro street and make citizens arrests.”

I will call the County Sherriff and they WILL enforce the public drinking laws. The idea that you claim to be a police officer and suggest that it is ok to selectively enforce the laws goes against your oath of a law enforcement officer and unconstitutional law enforcement. Isn’t this the problem that we are facing with the Floyd killing and all the other videos now showing how police officers are not doing their jobs? By letting people commit small crimes enables larger ones, a quote from “Rudy Giuliani” When he “cleaned up” the city of New York.

The fact is that two wrongs don’t make a right. The fact that the City SELECTIVELY chooses what STATE laws it will follow, criminal in this case and housing in others, is an indication of massive CORRUPTION in the city. Then you said

“If you feel uncomfortable I suggest you stay locked up at home. Sara Cody will be thrilled”

Are you one of the people that threatened her for doing her job? She recently got threats so serious they are now being investigated in the story found here

(Web Link)

Imagine this, a police officer threatening a doctor for simply doing her job? What kind of country are we living in?


16 people like this
Posted by Officer joe bolton
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 10:06 am

The business man— are you really a business man
Officer joe Bolton used to host the 3 stooges TV show in NUC when I was growing up. Yiu can google him.
By all means ,call the sheriff. The only one who may be arrested is yiu for threatening the police and city officials.
I do not need to threaten anyone, I know that cody is doing a poor job and I am not shy about saying so.


15 people like this
Posted by JustSayin
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Jun 23, 2020 at 10:09 am

For senior citizens and the physically challenged those picnic tables will become a legal liability for the city and businesses.


9 people like this
Posted by Diane
a resident of another community
on Jun 23, 2020 at 11:23 am

I am wondering why your articles never mention downtown Sunnyvale who is closed to traffic already had outside tables on Murphy Ave available for pedestrians only over the past couple weeks. All restaurants are enforcing social distancing and lots of people are enjoying their new found freedom to eat outdoors and enjoy the great weather. The street is closed to traffic 24/7 and the Saturday Farmer’s Market is now mainly on Washington Ave so Murphy can be used for dining. Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 23, 2020 at 11:55 am

In response to Officer joe Bolton you said:

“The business man— are you really a business man”

Where one has 2 Bachelors in Science in Business Administration in Human Resources and Management Information Systems from the Lucas College of Business at San Jose State University, than that does mean I am a Business Man, I paid for the education and I earned those degrees. You are simply not aware of who I am, but the readers here know. You said:

“Officer joe Bolton used to host the 3 stooges TV show in NUC when I was growing up. Yiu can google him.”

So your either being a joke, or trying to be deceptive, which is it? You said:

“By all means ,call the sheriff. The only one who may be arrested is yiu for threatening the police and city officials.”

On what grounds could that be accused? In effect DEMANDING the law be enforced is not a threat to anyone. No you just are used to getting the CORRUPTED City to play nice and do whatever you want it to do. So there will never be any basis for this kind of false accusation. You said:

“I do not need to threaten anyone, I know that cody is doing a poor job and I am not shy about saying so.”

Technically if you see what is happening around the country, there is proof that her actions SAVED LIVES. And what you are encouraging is enticing the city to play RUSSIAN ROULETTE regarding COVID. You have the right to make YOUR OWN CHOICES that impact ONLY YOURSELF, but if any action you take endangers others in any way, THAT IS WHERE YOUR AUTHORITY IS LIMITED. You may hate what happened, but the fact is she SAVED LIVES by minimizing the COVID impact on the hospitals in the area. AND SHE CANNOT STOP THIS UNTIL THERE IS NO WAY COVID CAN THREATEN ANYONE ANYMORE.


24 people like this
Posted by Officer joe bolton
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:57 pm

Business man- oooh, capital letters!!!!!
Russian Roulette you have a 16.7% chance of dying, and that increases with each pull of the trigger- so not an apt comparison.
Apple, Adobe, Boeing, goodie, Facebook, Microsoft etc sent their people home starting in February. Maybe they save more lives than Cody. But she does not mention that.
COVID will always be aground and will threaten those that refuse to vaccinate. So we cannot stay her prisoners forever.

I just saw someone litter on Castro street better run down and call the sheriff.
BTW, cool your jets and get down from your high horse, Mr Cody.


17 people like this
Posted by Officer joe bolton
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:08 pm

Business man- and if yiu are so worried about the virus spreading, instead of harping about alcohol you should be demanding that all of the restaurants shut down completely- no dining outside, no take out, no nothing.
Now hop to it.


6 people like this
Posted by Homeless In MV
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:31 pm

This is good news. Now all individuals can mingle along Castro Street without having to adhere to SIP mandates.

It's tough being shut-in when one has no place to go (or live).

Looking forward to renewed panhandling opportunities and reconnecting with others I haven't seen for awhile.

Will any of the restaurants be handing out the surplus menu items that they do not sell...for free? And will their restrooms be open to the public?

One can eat good in downtown MV and the dining restrooms are
excellent places to take a quick towel bath.

Thank you downtown MV!


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:41 pm

Posted by Officer joe Bolton you said:

“Russian Roulette you have a 16.7% chance of dying, and that increases with each pull of the trigger- so not an apt comparison.”

Actually it is, for every time you go out without protections as a group you increase the likelihood of infection. And now we are learning that there is “NO HERD IMMUNITY” regarding COVID, just read this report from Johns Hopkins (Web Link) The reality is that our community is only safe when the social distancing is at a maximum at this time. You said:

“Apple, Adobe, Boeing, goodie, Facebook, Microsoft etc sent their people home starting in February. Maybe they save more lives than Cody. But she does not mention that.”

At least with regards to Apple, you are SO WRONG, the order was made by Apple in March Found here (Web Link) I think you just like making up stories. True that the ORDER wasn’t OFFICIAL until March 31, but that was because the County was attempting to prevent it until it was simply not avoidable that the COVID problem was out of control. The fact is this has been done not because of choice, but the County and this Doctor had no choice in this situation. You know this. You said:

“COVID will always be aground and will threaten those that refuse to vaccinate. So we cannot stay her prisoners forever.”

WE ARE NOT PRISONERS, NO ONE IS UNDER ARREST, WE ARE ALLOWED TO GO OUT TO GET NEEDED SUPPLIES AND SERVICES. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT SAYING A MAJOR UNTRUTH AND YOU KNOW IT. You said:

“Business man- and if yiu are so worried about the virus spreading, instead of harping about alcohol you should be demanding that all of the restaurants shut down completely- no dining outside, no take out, no nothing.”

Simply put, the current delivery and take out is sufficient to attain the highest level of social distancing that is proven to work in controlling spread of COVID. What you’re trying to do is deflect from reality.

Alcohol consumption in public is illegal, the fact the Mountain View “CHAMBER OF COMMERCE” a private company not an agency of the City of Mountain View, was protected from being prosecuted for providing illegal alcohol consumption during the Art festivals. THESE MUST STOP UNTIL THEY ARE NOT SELLING ALCOHOL.


14 people like this
Posted by Officer joe bolton
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:08 pm

Haines man- more capital letters.
No, if people cannot go to restaurants that would remove a way of passing along the virus. You want it both ways. Sorry.


19 people like this
Posted by Zensibke
a resident of Jackson Park
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:30 pm

Officer Joe - you are wasting your time arguing with business man. I have read his tirades on other threads. Out of control, yelling at posters that disagree with him, and really out off touch regarding the virus.
And good much with his alcohol crusade. Restaurants have been serving alcohol outside fot decades on Castro Street.
I just read his posts and do not reply, not worth the trouble.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 23, 2020 at 3:49 pm

In response to Officer joe Bolton you said:

“Haines man- more capital letters.

No, if people cannot go to restaurants that would remove a way of passing along the virus. You want it both ways. Sorry.”

Only one way. Social Distancing is a much larger issue. The fact is having people sitting at least 6 feet away from each other is simply almost impossible, because to talk with each other they will have to speak louder, thus spreading viral antigens more. There is a reality here that people are not even being aware of. That kind of behavior will spread antigens more not less.

In response to Zensibke you said:

“Officer Joe - you are wasting your time arguing with business man. I have read his tirades on other threads. Out of control, yelling at posters that disagree with him, and really out off touch regarding the virus.”

Please demonstrate that my scientific information is not correct? Otherwise your just trying to “kill the messenger” of bad news You also said:

“And good much with his alcohol crusade. Restaurants have been serving alcohol outside fot decades on Castro Street.”

Those restaurants were USING THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY in most cases. In others, the city DID NOT ENFORCE THE LAW.

In effect again, you are not realizing the true picture. As long as they are using their own land and not public property, they are free to use it like they want. For example the prior BrewHaus which had its own private outdoor seating.

So again, the City cannot host selling alcohol in the streets of the City, the fact it did so was a Crinimal Act and from now on, I will see fit that it never happens again. I can imagine how much money the City of Mountain View “CHAMBER OF COMMERCE” made during those events, the prices were nuts in any case, way overpriced. So when you said:

“I just read his posts and do not reply, not worth the trouble.”

Your choice, I respect it, and I do not demand anyone read my writing, but many do.


14 people like this
Posted by BW
a resident of another community
on Jun 23, 2020 at 4:12 pm

Hi ya Business Man! I here on Castro right now enjoying a beer. Outside! What are you going to do about it?


14 people like this
Posted by Officer joe bolton
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 4:24 pm

Business man- those tables were in the sidewalk areas ( Castro street has wide sidewalks) that restaurants are allowed to,use .been serving alcohol for decades

Actually being exposed to viral antigens would be good. You would generate immunity to them
You do not want to be exposed to intact virus. Big difference between the two.

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 23, 2020 at 4:53 pm

In response to BW you said:

“Hi ya Business Man! I here on Castro right now enjoying a beer. Outside! What are you going to do about it?”

You are a small fry, I want the BIG FISH, THE POLICE AND THE CITY

In response to Officer joe Bolton you said:

“Business man- those tables were in the sidewalk areas ( Castro street has wide sidewalks) that restaurants are allowed to,use .been serving alcohol for decades”

That didn’t mean it was legal, in fact it looks like it was a VERY serious illegal action that may be now being detected. That doesn’t mean it was correct? You said:

“Actually being exposed to viral antigens would be good. You would generate immunity to them
You do not want to be exposed to intact virus. Big difference between the two.”

I just pointed out the current research is not supporting that theory, the report you linked is over 16 years old and does not even discuss Coronaviruses. You simply do not understand science it seems. This is a REAL problem, that those with no scientific backgrounds rely on unrelated research.

My father was a Dr. in Chemistry and worked extensively with the Harvard School of Public Health, and as a teenager, I worked at that school for more than 2 years on a variety of lab projects. It gave me a free education. If you are going to argue “herd Immunity” it has to be working on research involving this specific virus COVID 19.

Otherwise you are only misreporting unrelated research.

THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS AND THE CITY SHOULD SIMPLY BE VERY CAREFUL.

I AM NOT CLAIMING TO BE AN EXPERT, BUT I WANT EVERY CITIZEN TO DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK. MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS. IF YOU ALSO THINK IT IS TOO DANGEROUS, DO NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY RISKS, THAT’S ALL I ASK?


14 people like this
Posted by Officer joe bolton
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 4:59 pm

Business man- yelling again!!! Co trol yourself.

I am Ph D in microbiology and have worked on viruses for 3+ decades.
The fact that your father as a chemist is irrelevant. The paper I,linked to was a general discussion about how viral antigens generate immune response. It was not supposed to be about coronavirus, but to educate you on the science of immunity.

Current research is not supporting what theory? People are producing antibodies to the virus. That means they are generating immunity to the virus, that immunity is generated by exposure to viral antigens,
There is a big deal between viral antigens and intact virus particles.
And since you are a business man and not a scientist, I suggest you read up on our immune system,. How it works and how immunity is generated,

And I suggest you get in touch with the local authorities about your concerns about alcohol.


21 people like this
Posted by Waldo
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jun 23, 2020 at 5:01 pm

It's nice to see TBM posts ignored in this thread. That's what the scroll wheel was invented for.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 23, 2020 at 5:30 pm

In response to Officer joe Bolton you said:

“I am Ph D in microbiology and have worked on viruses for 3+ decades.”

My close friend who also is a Phd in Microbiology, who expertise developed the DNA processes that now exonerated many falsely convicted criminals has also been pretty clear about this. He tells me that the scientific community is still completely blind regarding COVID. So I would not flout that expertise especially when you said:

“The fact that your father as a chemist is irrelevant. The paper I,linked to was a general discussion about how viral antigens generate immune response. It was not supposed to be about coronavirus, but to educate you on the science of immunity.”

But your intentional acts to avoid discussing the specific case demonstrates that you have used your training as a means to be a promoter of false science, just like when Dr. Robert A. Kehoe defended the lead industry regarding lead poisoning against Dr. Claire Patterson. Please refeer to the Cosmos episiode called the “Clean Room” the wili is found here (Web Link) and another resource is here (Web Link) Unfortunately there are those like yourself that are willing to make big money off of junk science. You said:

“Current research is not supporting what theory? People are producing antibodies to the virus. That means they are generating immunity to the virus, that immunity is generated by exposure to viral antigens, There is a big deal between viral antigens and intact virus particles.”

Actually the research is indicating that since this virus mutates so rapidly, earlier exposures with the presence of COVID antibodies are not proving to prevent new infections. Just read this article from The Scientist titled “Studies Report Rapid Loss of COVID-19 Antibodies” Subtitled “The results, while preliminary, suggest that survivors of SARS-CoV-2 infection may be susceptible to reinfection within weeks or months.” (Web Link)

In effect if this is true there might never be any herd immunity on this virus. Thus we are now under constant attack by the virus and only when there is a proven VACCINE will the war be over. Imagine people already sickened are going to get sick again. So when you say:

“And since you are a business man and not a scientist, I suggest you read up on our immune system,. How it works and how immunity is generated,”

I also have an associate’s degree in Life Sciences, and worked with my father on projects involving contagious diseases, toxic gas poisoning, detection of toxin in ambient air, making instrumentation for NASA for the space station, and provide protection for armed service pilots in the Apache helicopters to see if munitions are poisoning them. My work was with the Harvard School of Public Health, the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, and the Department of Defense. So you better not disregard my background.

I was taught the process of Acquired Immunity by a PhD Microbiologist. If any antigen, either bacterial or viral changes its toxic protein effects and genes sufficiently enough, the earlier “Acquired” antibodies don’t work, and the body has to go through the primary infection process all over again.

Specifically a NEW “non-body” body in the human body is detected by a Macrophage, when it destroys the non-body body it expresses the genetic material from the cell walls of either a bacteria or a virus.

Then either it travels to the Spleen where it can create an antibody from the “non-body” body alone, which DOES NOT CREATE PERMENANT IMMUNITY because the Macrophage dies thus no more antibodies are formed.

IF a T-helper cell is involved it will create a “CLONING” process where that generation of “non-body” body will be permanent as long as those T-helper cells are not destroyed and they replicate. But again if the “non-body” body changes enough that T-helper cell will make an antibody that doesn’t work.

Isn’t this an accurate description of the SCIENCE of Acquired Immunity?

Simply put you are just trying to find any means to support the intentional infection of others aren’t you?


15 people like this
Posted by Officer joe bolton
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 5:40 pm

The business man- you do a good job copying and pasting . And of course, yiu are a wiz at name dropping - my father is this, my friend developed this, this Ph d taught me this....

LOL. I am going to take the advice of the poster above who said I should not waste my time with you. Lesson learned.

I look forward to reading about your efforts in the temperance movement field. LOL.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 23, 2020 at 6:17 pm

In response to Officer joe Bolton you said:

“The business man- you do a good job copying and pasting . And of course, yiu are a wiz at name dropping - my father is this, my friend developed this, this Ph d taught me this....”

This is the definition of a “non-denial denial”.

I quote from the following history :” Non-denial denial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A non-denial denial is a statement that, at first hearing, SEEMS TO BE A DIRECT, CLEARCUT AND UNAMBIGUOUS DENIAL OF SOME ALLEGED ACCUSATION, but after being parsed carefully turns out to NOT BE A DENIAL AT ALL, and is thus NOT EXPLICITLY UNTRUTHFUL IF THE ALLEGATION IS IN FACT CORRECT. It is a case in which words that are literally true ARE USED TO CONVEY A FALSE IMPRESSION; ANALYSIS OF WHETHER OR WHEN SUCH BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTES LYING IS A LONG-STANDING ISSUE IN ETHICS. London's newspaper The Sunday Times has defined it as "an on-the-record statement, usually made by a politician, repudiating a journalist's story, but in such a way as to leave open the possibility that it is actually true".[1]”

When a “lay” person challenges an person who says they are and “expert” they first try to discredit them.

Then when confronted with unbiased evidence to disprove your opinion you try to claim they don’t know anything.

Then when it is demonstrated that there is good evidence of some knowledge you try to claim it is “copy and paste” believe me, I “quote” my cut and paste. My writing was original.

You remind me of a scene in Law and Order SVU when a lay lawyer proves that an Arson investigator was making false claims in court via having a scientific experiment disproving the conclusions accepted by the witness without question found here (Web Link).

You are trying to avoid the fact that you misrepresent the real information, and if you do this professionally I find it a scary situation. I wonder did you work for Theranos?

Again, what does it take to finally stop this kind of propaganda?

People of Mountain View, PLEASE do your own research? Please DO NOT just take my word or anyone else’s words in this matter? Do due diligence and seek sufficient information to establish what risks you are willing to take, PLEASE?


7 people like this
Posted by Live and let live
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2020 at 12:44 am

I would much rather get sick and die after enjoying a lovely dinner (with alcohol) than after hunkering at home and getting the virus after a trip to the grocery store.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 24, 2020 at 5:38 am

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


10 people like this
Posted by An annoying due
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2020 at 10:00 am

Welcome to The Voice. Where every article becomes a finger pointing shouting match while the information gets manipulated to support individual egos.

I for once think the article provides good information and am thankful the city is doing this. While I may not partake for a while, I am sure the restaurants are happy that they at least have a chance of survival.

Also, whatever the city did or did not do, I don't think spending hours arguing on the internet will change any of it. Perhaps that time can be better spent contacting City Council or having a beer on the newly closed streets. :)

Stay safe.


9 people like this
Posted by Live and let live
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2020 at 11:07 am

Well I will be sitting at the city-approved tables, so how am I a grandma killer?
It’s not like I am doing anything against the numerous guidelines which are easy to lose track of btw.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 24, 2020 at 1:36 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


7 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2020 at 3:44 pm

This system really needs a more nuanced way to respond to posts. "Like this comment" just doesn't cover enough range. Maybe it could have separate responses for "Agree", "Haha", "Wow", and "Sad", like some other online systems do.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 24, 2020 at 7:16 pm

Given that the County is on notice that the recent spike in infections are going to possibly reveres thus back to phase 1, this topic might end up moot.

It really looks like we might reverse course get back to stricter control and not lesser social control.

But I am scared that people like the above will react violently if it comes to it.


5 people like this
Posted by Live and let live
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2020 at 11:14 pm

@Business man, are you suggesting I should not go eat outside at a restaurant even though it is allowed? I am confused...


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 25, 2020 at 12:14 am

Actually, yes.

Given the current spike in infections in Santa Clara, and the fact that testing isn't even close to being accurate.

Too many people are infected that are not detected.

We are about to possibly be required to roll back those rules.

The reality is that the only control we have is social distancing and minimizing contact.

I explained why you taking steps on your own can have dangerous effects on EVERYONE around you and EVERYONE around them.

Please bear that in mind?


9 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2020 at 2:45 pm

@Live and let live

I don't think you're confused. I think the one who is confused is the one who wrote that eating outside at a restaurant (as currently allowed) is assault or murder.

Except that TPTB have decided that that post contained "disrespectful comment or offensive language" and needed to be removed.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 25, 2020 at 6:47 pm

In response to Darin you said:

“I don't think you're confused. I think the one who is confused is the one who wrote that eating outside at a restaurant (as currently allowed) is assault or murder.”

The reality is that you are free to take any actions you want AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT INCREASE danger to others. The definition of involuntary manslaughter is defined from this website (Web Link.):

[Portion removed due to copying at length from a website]


But as I described here, there is good cause to establish that those defenses are invalid here, the penalties are:

“Involuntary manslaughter is a felony that is punishable by formal probation with a year in jail or up to four years in prison, substantial court fines, victim restitution and loss of gun ownership privileges. If placed on probation, there may be other conditions such as community labor and service or other programming that is required.”

Do you want to take this risk? All I am trying to do is prevent this from happening, is this a disrespectful comment or containing offensive language? I am trying to motivate peopled to act in accordance with the law and more importantly common sense.


12 people like this
Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 28, 2020 at 11:12 am

Wow. TBM has really gone off the deep end in this thread.

ABC has provided alcohol licensees with numerous form of regulatory relief during the Covid plandemic. It makes no sense for the city to not allow alcohol at the street tables since the state is explicitly allowing it on sidewalks and public thoroughfares immediately adjacent to and accessible from the licensees premises.

Read it here. Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 28, 2020 at 1:08 pm

In response to Greg David you said:

Wow. TBM has really gone off the deep end in this thread.

ABC has provided alcohol licensees with numerous form of regulatory relief during the Covid plandemic. It makes no sense for the city to not allow alcohol at the street tables since the state is explicitly allowing it on sidewalks and public thoroughfares immediately adjacent to and accessible from the licensees premises.

Read it here. Web Link”

That agency controls the sales of alcohol. It does not have any power over criminal statutes. You are so off target it is amazing. ABC is an agency that regulates the sales of alcohol, NOT the CONSUMPTION. It as an agency cannot change enforcement of the state statute regarding drinking on the streets or public spaces. So the consumer bears that legal risk not the seller.

And the City cannot even touch this area given that the City Charter REQUIRES compliance with the STATE laws. When will people understand that this idea makes no sense and was so poorly thought out?


8 people like this
Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 28, 2020 at 6:17 pm

TBM - I sent a complaint - to editors 'cause at over 3 screen pages, for just ONE of your numerous postings on just this one topic YOU ARE "HOGGING BANDWIDTH" my friend. This is a community resource that you are hogging (IMO).

Saturday evening my family SIP unit (3 persons) had a very nice dinner, at outside tables and the two adults enjoyed a bottle of Italian wine with our Italian dinner. Nice tables, great weather (and really shaded by those BIG WIDE TREES. Good food and service (we knew - a familiar establishment).

Walk on side streets with Masks Please and avoid most other people. Wear masks at your tables - until you eat.

No sweat - bring it back, Slowly and Carefully.

Shade - I've lived near Castro restaurant row for over 30 years. Sitting in the middle of the street gives you a completely different perspective on How Those Little (street) Trees Have Grown. Sort of like my 20, 25, and 30 yr old sons.

Live LONG and Prosper


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 29, 2020 at 12:05 am

Wll, it looks like one part of my prediction is right on target:

Gavin Newsom recommended bars be closed in Santa Clara County

The report found here (Web Link).

and Here (Web Link)

If SCC doesn't act to keep his bars closed he will likely take action.

That seems to be the end of the Alcohol situation.

However, the SCC jury is still out regarding expanded openings in the county?


4 people like this
Posted by Common sense
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 29, 2020 at 11:27 am

As reported right here at Embarcadero Media, "California Department of Public Health, along with Gov. Gavin Newsom, said on Sunday that Santa Clara and Contra Costa counties should continue to keep INDOOR bars closed" [my emphasis]. Web Link

Indoor bars have already been closed in downtown MV since March. So the news has no bearing on the new downtown-MV OUTDOOR dining options this Voice article is about, nor the extension of alcohol licenses at nearby establishments to serve customers at the new outdoor seating. I don't know why "TBM" is belaboring his various theories above mentioning "alcohol," but none of those comments have any relevance here that I can see. (Though I expect he will respond now to my comment too, with both customary length, and depth of understanding).

The initial "no-alcohol" rule for this outdoor seating followed directly from the city's original open-seating plan, incompatible with published State rules for extending existing alcohol licenses to outdoor seating under Covid-19. It looks like the street dining format has evolved already so that restaurants have designated tables, eliminating that issue.


1 person likes this
Posted by HammerTIme
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2020 at 12:41 pm

Meanwhile, Gavin is speaking live at this moment. The only new news is he wants to close bars that have already opened (hammer time), too quickly in his mind. SC county has no bars open, so TBM can take a breath. Meanwhile, trains, planes and automobiles are running between cities, counties and the state, the country and the rest of the world with no quarantines, no guidelines. Travel good! Protests good! Alcohol de-consumption is the key. Just wow. Thanks Gavin


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2020 at 4:32 pm

And oh by the way, don’t try to claim that a restaurant is not the same as a bar. Here is the definition of a restaurant alcohol license standard, it is a class 47 license:

“47 - On Sale General – Eating Place

(Restaurant) Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the licenses premises. AUTHORIZES THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE FOR CONSUMPTION OFF THE LICENSES PREMISES. Must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. Must maintain suitable kitchen facilities, AND MUST MAKE ACTUAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SALES OF MEALS FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES. Minors are allowed on the premises.

First consumption does not mean in the public spaces given that that is a criminal act. The consumption in that case must be on private land, or commonly is in the privacy of your home. So the City should be aware of this and prohibit alcohol consumption on Castro Street from now on, and never allow it again.

So if the sales indicate that more than 50% of the sales revenue of said restaurant are in Alcohol, it would not qualify as a class 47 license.

Again you have to be careful about your assumptions, the reality is that city cannot override the state laws, but is bound to them in the City Charter.


4 people like this
Posted by HammerTIme
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2020 at 4:47 pm

Without all the screaming- there is a difference

47. On Sale General – Eating Place
(Restaurant) Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the licenses premises. Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the licenses premises. Must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. Must maintain suitable kitchen facilities, and must make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on the premises. Minors are allowed on the premises.

48. (Bar, Night Club) Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the premises where sold. Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises where sold. Minors are not allowed to enter and remain (see Section 25663.5 for exception, musicians). Food service is not required.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2020 at 6:46 pm

HammerTime,

Please understand since there is no bold, underline, or italics in this forum, the only emphasis is all caps.

And if you read about netiquette all caps are an accepted emphasis not necessarily meaning yelling.

But yes the bar also has a limitation, off premise drinking must not be public drinking, it must be on private land of some sort, not the streets and if the sidewalks are city property the same goes for the sidewalks.

There really has been a mistake occurring in Mountain View. And unfortunately the correction must be made.

One correction is to have the restaurants lease the public spaces so it becomes private land. But it will have to be for the market value of the land, it cannot be charged for say $1.00 a month. Then that land is not public and the licenses are not in doubt.

BUT if the city has allowed this to occur, it can be recorded or already has been, and any report to the Alcohol Beverage Commission i think that's what its called uncovers this problem, their Alcohol license can be revoked or a VERY high fine will be required.

Again, there have been a lot of people that didn't do their homework, this reminds me of Studio 54 and the efforts it took to avoid getting a license to sell Alcohol. They daily went to City Hall to get a caterers permit.

Thank you very much


3 people like this
Posted by Common sense
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 30, 2020 at 4:56 am

Incredible.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 30, 2020 at 9:24 am

Incredible?

Meaning I saw a plan that actually does work?

WHY didn't anyone else figure it out?

WHERE were the experts or the experiences business people or government officials?

WHO is it that is managing these businesses and the City?

WHEN were they ever going to figure that out?

HOW is it that we don't have qualified people that can figure out these things?

MAYBE these people are not as smart as they think? MAYBE they should be replaced with people who actually can figure out real solutions? MAYBE the city with the SMARTEST people in the U.S. DESERVE better?

I have plenty of ideas, but no one wants to even give me any credit being able to make long term solutions. This is my only freebee if this City wants solutions, they should hire me to be a strategist.

But one condition upon hiring is that I have the authority to implement my plans without interference from those with conflicts of interest, i am doing this for the City Citizens and not the City of Mountain View,


5 people like this
Posted by HammerTIme
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2020 at 1:27 pm

California's ABC has been very responsive to the guidelines Gavin has published and has worked very closely with those who operate with a 47 or 48 licensed inside or outside Santa Clara county. As has been mentioned before, selective enforcement is legal. Gavin wields the power of the ABC as he sees fit during this pandemic (aka carrot and stick). TBM sounds a bit Trumpish (without interference reference:)


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 30, 2020 at 2:31 pm

In response to HammerTime please consider this?

Selective Enforcement is NOT legal and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in California. Please refer to the case of Murgia v. Municipal Court. It stated that defendants are required to be provided records to determine if selective enforcement is applied against them. And if so it provides a defense regarding any offenses being prosecuted. Which means if the Mountain View police department fails to arrest, all others accused of the same offense any other time would be entitled to have the charges dropped. It specifically stated:

“We have concluded that the trial court erred in denying the discovery motion on the ground that such alleged discriminatory prosecution, even if established, would not constitute a defense in the pending criminal proceedings. Over a decade ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the equal protection clause is violated if a criminal prosecution is "deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, OR OTHER ARBITRARY CLASSIFICATION." (Oyler v. Boles (1962) 368 U.S. 448, 456 [7 L. Ed. 2d 446, 453, 82 S. Ct. 501].) [1] Neither the federal nor state Constitution countenances the singling out of an invidiously selected class for SPECIAL PROSECUTORIAL TREATMENT, whether that class consists of black or white, Jew or Catholic, Irishman or Japanese, United Farm Worker or Teamster. If an individual can show that he would not have been prosecuted except for such invidious discrimination against him, a basic constitutional principle has been violated, and such a prosecution must collapse upon the sands of prejudice.”

Thus even if Governor Newsom wants to give ABC the freedom to not enforce the public consumption prohibition on selling alcohol he has no discretion to do so. Not until the legal license standards are modified to allow this. This requires legislative action and for him to sign it.

Also understand there is well known knowledge that this practice is UNCONSTITUTIONAL if you read the story from San Jose Inside titled “Selective Enforcement is Unconstitutional” (Web Link) it has embedded in it the case of People v. Ferguson where the court declared Selective Enforcement is a violation of the Constitution.

Please do not continue to make claims that are simply not true. Just 10 min of work and I found many cases where the theory you made was proven false. Even the the Wikipedia definition (Web Link) states:

“In law, selective enforcement occurs when government officials such as police officers, prosecutors, or regulators exercise enforcement discretion, which is the power to choose whether or how to punish a person who has violated the law. The biased use of enforcement discretion, such as that based on racial prejudice or CORRUPTION, is usually considered A LEGAL ABUSE AND A THREAT TO THE RULE OF LAW.”

The justification of selective enforcement does not apply here as per the example of:

“In some cases, selective enforcement may be desirable.[1] For example, a verbal warning to a teenager may effectively alter their behavior without resorting to legal punishment and with the added benefit of reducing governmental legal costs. In other cases, selective enforcement may be inevitable. For example, it may be impractical for police officers to issue traffic tickets to every driver they observe exceeding the speed limit, so they may have no choice but to limit action to the most flagrant examples of reckless driving.”

As per the U.S.”

“United States

In the United States federal system, the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when, who, how, and even whether to prosecute for apparent violations of federal criminal law. The prosecutor's broad discretion in such areas as initiating or forgoing prosecutions, selecting or recommending specific charges, and terminating prosecutions by accepting guilty pleas has been recognized on numerous occasions by the courts.[3][4][5]

Wayte v. United States 470 U.S. 598 (1985)[6] said:

In our criminal justice system, the Government retains "broad discretion" as to whom to prosecute. [...] This broad discretion rests largely on the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)[7] was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

In effect you are arguing that say the governor knows someone attacked someone, the governor is NOT obligated to report and enforce the criminal law? This is exactly what you claimed here given that public drinking is a criminal act. Please be careful what you are arguing. And so in sum I am opposite of Trump because he allows crimes to occur and tries to protect the criminals, I don’t.


4 people like this
Posted by HammerTIme
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2020 at 4:10 pm

"In law, selective enforcement occurs when government officials such as police officers, prosecutors, or regulators exercise enforcement discretion, which is the power to choose whether or how to punish a person who has violated the law".

Ever wonder why the police stood by while anarchists took to the streets during a SIP? Ever wonder why 72 hour parking infractions are not enforced unless it's an abandoned vehicle. Ever wonder why occupied RV's were given a free pass until bike lines could be built? Ever wonder why some traffic violators are given a warning? Ever wonder why Gavin gave the guidelines to "open" but the counties the "how" and the "when"? Ever wonder why Gavin threatens to enforce but doesn't except when he wants to?
It's called selective enforcement and it's really a "thing". The ABC is his stick/carrot depending on what the "science" tells him.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 30, 2020 at 4:29 pm

In response to HammerTIme you brought up something interesting you said:

“Ever wonder why the police stood by while anarchists took to the streets during a SIP? Ever wonder why 72 hour parking infractions are not enforced unless it's an abandoned vehicle. Ever wonder why occupied RV's were given a free pass until bike lines could be built? Ever wonder why some traffic violators are given a warning? Ever wonder why Gavin gave the guidelines to "open" but the counties the "how" and the "when"? Ever wonder why Gavin threatens to enforce but doesn't except when he wants to?”

OK I am going to call your bluff. My car was towed from my street due to the 72 hour tow law. But it was not operable at the time and I WAS actively trying to get it serviced. It needed a new engine and I had the resources to get one and to get it installed. But my car was gone due to the City police towing it.

OK now I am going to lodge a complaint in court because it was selective enforcement, given that you claimed that the RVs were not towed. I was selectively enforced probably because I was participating in the City Council meetings and my car was registered under my name.

Time for me to go get a lawyer to sue the city for loss of my vehicle. They didn’t even attempt to reach me at that time. So thank you because you just taught me I have a major case against the City. Simply put, you like it when you get away with something because of selective enforcement, but when you are the target, that is a different story.

Thank you the City is going to have to pay me for the replacement of my car now.


3 people like this
Posted by HammerTIme
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2020 at 4:38 pm

TBM,

There is a difference between an unoccupied vehicle (abandoned-yours)72 hour parking violation and an occupied RV that is not abandoned. That's the definition of selective enforcement. You wouldn't want to forcibly remove a family from their RV so you can tow it, would you? But we want abandoned cars removed from our streets after proper notice.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 1, 2020 at 7:57 am

In response to HammerTIme you said:

“There is a difference between an unoccupied vehicle (abandoned-yours)72 hour parking violation and an occupied RV that is not abandoned.”

My vehicle was not abandoned, it was on my street and registered. I was not given any notification. What we had here was a targeted attack against me by the City. So when you claimed:

“That's the definition of selective enforcement.”

TARGETED enforcement is even worse than selective enforcement, but non the less, neither are constitutional and everyone knows it so when you said:

“You wouldn't want to forcibly remove a family from their RV so you can tow it, would you? But we want abandoned cars removed from our streets after proper notice.”

Again no proper notice was given, my car was practically right outside my window. I had it there because I was intending to have it towed for service and the tow truck could not put it in my normal parking slot. No the City was retaliating against me for helping Measure V get passed and I know it and the city knows it. This will be the complaint that will be filed with my new attorney. This can be a federal crime because it is defined as conspiracy to deny constitutional rights, in this case my First Amendment rights to free speech and political action.

It would seem that the City may have to take responsibility for the loss of my vehicle. The City should have known better, but it simply uses the Police to act as its own Private Security against those it determines “undesirable”. In fact the California Supreme Court determined it did so in a cas in the 1990s the story is found here (Web Link) A perfect example of corruption don’t you think?

Again the City cannot have it both ways, either always enforce the laws equally or not enforce them at all. In this case ABC laws clearly indicated that restaurants cannot sell alcohol for PUBLIC consumption.

The City must lease the land on the streets and the restaurants will have to pay to use them. If they don’t, then they cannot sell alcohol for consumption on the street. THIS IS THE LAW. And IF the City moves forward to allow it, it will be liable for the corruption it is.

Now with regards to the Arts and Wine Festival, the same deal is required, if it is hosted by the City of Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, they will have to pay a lease on the public road in order to temporarily make it private land. If they don’t they cannot allow public consumption of alcohol either.

Given the wealth the Chamber of Commerce has, this should not pose any problem, right?


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 1, 2020 at 1:52 pm

Well it looks like Gavin Newsom just reshut down all indoor restaurants.

Castro Street is a moot topic now.


13 people like this
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2020 at 2:06 pm

LOL. TBM. You need to go back and get thfacts befor eyou embarass yourself again.

"All counties that have been on the state list for extra monitoring for more than three days must stop welcoming people indoors at restaurants, wineries and tasting rooms, movie theaters, zoos, museums. Outdoor operations at those venues may continue, but bars must close down completely."

"As neither Contra Costa nor Santa Clara has yet to open such indoor facilities, it serves to push off any reopening for at least three more weeks, while dine-in restaurants in Solano must close."
Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 1, 2020 at 3:30 pm

Maybe you just don't understand:

In order to prepare the food it must be done inside the restaurant, right?

That process is an indoor operation, the current order says all indoor operations are to be closed.

Unless all food is prepared in a food truck, the restaurants cannot open their kitchens under this order. The language was:

"Restaurants, wineries and tasting rooms, movie theaters, family entertainment centers, zoos and museums and cardrooms in the 19 counties MUST STOP INDOOR OPERATIONS for a minimum of three weeks, Newsom said during his coronavirus briefing Wednesday."

Food preparation is an indoor operation, why can’t you understand it?

This goes to show what people are trying not to hear. The reality is that the kitchens are shut down.


7 people like this
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2020 at 4:22 pm

LOL. TBM. you are embarrassing yourself again

Web Link

"His order requires restaurants, wineries, tasting rooms, family entertainment centers, movie theaters, museums, zoos and cardrooms in the 19 counties to halt indoor operations for at least three weeks. The affected establishments are allowed to operate outdoors, such as restaurant patios."

Note that it says that the affected restaurants are allowed to operate outside. Now if as according to what you wrongly say "the current order says all indoor operations are to be closed". How can restaurants then serve food outdoors as stated in the article, Einstein???

Regardless, restaurants have been allowed to operate their kitchens since day one of the SIP.

But if you believe that all restaurants should now be closed, you should head over to Castro Street and start making citizen arrests. LOL, you are funny


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 1, 2020 at 4:37 pm

OK I will make a correction.

The restaurants are allowed for "pickup" or "delivery"

I made a very bad mistake, and I admit it.

The order does say:

His order requires restaurants, wineries, tasting rooms, family entertainment centers, movie theaters, museums, zoos and cardrooms in the 19 counties to halt indoor operations for at least three weeks. The affected establishments are allowed to operate outdoors, SUCH AS RESTAURANT PATIOS.

BUT that means it only allows for THOSE PATIOS, but NOT on PUBLIC LANDS.

Please be careful, the reality is they are allowed to operate on THEIR private property and not on the streets because they do not own it or have legal rights to the streets.

The City is going to have to arrange a leasing agreement, it cannot be given away because it is in fact the property of the citizens of Mountain View. Thus again be careful.

I admit my mistakes once I am informed, thus I do much more that what others here refuse to do.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 3, 2020 at 12:57 am

I unfortunately made another mistake.

I just read in the City Charter that the City Council must lease the streets of Mountain View. Also restaurant use of the sidewalks are prohibited by the City Charter.

Please refer to the following City Charter part:

“SEC. 27.2. - "Sidewalk" defined.

"Sidewalk" is that portion of a street, other than the roadway, set apart by curbs, barriers, markings or other delineations for pedestrian travel.

(Ord. No. 175.809, 10/29/62.)

SEC. 27.3. - Use of sidewalks for sale, storage or display of goods, wares, etc.

Except as otherwise permitted by this code or by the Downtown Mountain View Flexible Zone Guidelines for Sidewalks and Cafe Operations, as adopted and amended by the council, no person owning or occupying any premises fronting on a public street SHALL PLACE ANY GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPLAY, EXHIBITION, ADVERTISEMENT, OR SALE THEREON; nor any crates, cases, boxes, or barrels on any portion of the sidewalk in front of such premises; nor suspend any goods, wares, merchandise, or advertising banner or device over any portion thereof; NOR SUFFER ANY OF SUCH THINGS TO BE OR REMAIN THEREON; NOR THEREBY RESTRICT THE FREE USE OF SUCH SIDEWALK BY THE PUBLIC.”

(Code 1938, Sec. 422; Ord. No. 5.92, 2/25/92.)”

Thus all restaurants in Downtown are in violation of the City Charter if they have any seating on the sidewalk. The City Council cannot change this because of the following provision in the City Charter:

“Section 506. - Powers vested in the council.

All powers of the city, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER, shall be vested in the council, and said council may establish the method by which any of such powers may be exercised.”

Thus, the City Council cannot override the sidewalk provision of the City Charter. Any private land that the restaurant owns is lawful, but any space beyond it that abuts the street or is inside the street and you have a major problem for the restaurant. At least regarding the street the restaurant does have to pay to lease the land under the provision of the City Charter that says:

“SEC. 2.89. - Lease of city property.

Except as provided herein, property owned, held or controlled by the city MAY BE LEASED for a period not to exceed fifty-five (55) years.

(Ord. No. 22.94, 11/22/94; Ord. No. 11.18, § 1, 10/23/18.)”

However the restaurants cannot assume use of the streets due to the following provision of the City Charter:

“Section 102. - Rights and Liabilities.

The City of Mountain View shall remain vested with, and continue to have, hold and enjoy, ALL PROPERTY, RIGHTS OF PROPERTY AND RIGHTS OF ACTION OF EVERY NATURE AND DESCRIPTION NOW PERTAINING TO THIS MUNICIPALITY, and is hereby declared to be the successor of the same. It shall be subject to all the liabilities that now exist against this municipality.”

So unless there is a formal lease, those seating inside the street areas of Castro Street are not legal. In effect they must be removed until said leases are written paid and processed.

The City has to get this done ASAP or it is in violation of the City Charter.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 4, 2020 at 10:05 am

WHat?

no response at all to my information?

I hear crickets


6 people like this
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2020 at 11:39 am

TBM-- Our legal team has advised us to no longer engage with you. Since you maybe charged with involuntary manslaughter, if we continue to engage with you, we may be charged with being accessories after the fact.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 4, 2020 at 1:33 pm

In response to He embarrassed himself again you said:

“TBM-- Our legal team has advised us to no longer engage with you. Since you maybe charged with involuntary manslaughter, if we continue to engage with you, we may be charged with being accessories after the fact.”

Well, it looks like your legal team may need to address a new reality. If you see the news that Morgan Hill was just ordered to shut down outdoor dining with this news report ((Web Link) Specifically:

“MORGAN HILL, Calif. (KRON) – Restaurants in Morgan Hill were told by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control on Friday that they must stop all outdoor dining immediately.

Originally, restaurants were told they would have ‘a three-week cessation’ for indoor dining beginning July 1.

ABC officers said that outdoor seating wasn’t approved for Santa Clara County in the first place.

“Typically, we would be notified of this type of enforcement in our jurisdiction, but neither our department nor the Sheriff’s Office were notified that anything like this would be happening,” Police Chief Shane Palsgrove said.

Restaurants in the county were not given notice that outdoor dining would be shutdown.

City officials say that if restaurants aren’t allowed to open outdoor dining, they will lose more revenue.

Morgan Hill has taken health measures to keep residents safe and has worked with businesses to be sure they are able to open in a safe manner.

“We take safety seriously in Morgan Hill and have worked diligently to understand, support and follow both the state and county orders. We are still investigating what took place and why this happened without any forewarning or collaboration with the County or the City. This is very unsettling. Morgan Hill and the County of Santa Clara have been working hard to lead the way through the recovery of this pandemic in the safest way possible. The Governor pledged to work collaboratively with us, and we look forward to gaining clarity from the state and county.”

So who is the one that is getting embarrassed?


3 people like this
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2020 at 1:59 pm

Now, TBM, did you rent uniforms and have some of your acolytes show up in Morgan Hill as ABC officers and order outdoor dining to stop??

As far as I can see from the June 5 county order:
Web Link

Outdoor dining is allowed:
"General Rules

Only food facilities that provide permitted sit-down meal service are allowed to open for outdoor dining. Brewpubs, breweries, bars, pubs, craft distilleries, wineries, and tasting rooms that do not themselves provide permitted sit-down meal service shall remain closed to the public, except for takeaway retail sales allowed by the Order, including Appendix C-1, and other applicable law.
Dining is limited to outdoor areas only. Patrons dining at the facility may only enter indoor areas of the facility to use the restroom or hand-washing stations, to order and pick up food from a quick-service operation, or to access outdoor seating areas.​
Complete, implement, and provide to all Personnel a Social Distancing Protocol using the template in Appendix A to the Health Officer Order (as updated on May 22, 2020).
Post signage required by the Social Distancing Protocol.
Adhere to measures in the most recent COVID-19 Risk Mitigation Measures for Food Facilities issued by the County Department of Environmental Health."

and as far as I see from Newsomes order:
Web Link

only indoor dining was stopped in 19 counties by his order:
"Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered 19 counties with surging coronavirus outbreaks to close indoor restaurants, wineries, movie theaters and other venues Wednesday, saying California must act to keep the pandemic from spiraling out of control."

Looks like these were phony ABC officers, given that they could not provide any documentation to back up their demands
So looks like you will not only be charged with involuntary manslaughter, they will be adding charges of impersonating an officer


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 4, 2020 at 2:11 pm

In response to He embarrassed himself again:

You can claim that the order on Friday was made by false ABC officers.

The story is verified by the Morgan Hill Times article here (Web Link) Stating:

Specifically:

“Some Morgan Hill restaurant owners were surprised and confused by the sudden appearance in town Friday night of state officers who said they were there to enforce the governor’s Covid-19 regulations.

Officers from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) visited numerous restaurants the night of July 3, according to city officials and restaurant owners. The officers entered the restaurants and told staff or owners that they were enforcing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Covid-19 order, which the officers said prohibited outdoor dining in Santa Clara County.

But those targeted by the enforcement and local legal authorities—including Morgan Hill’s city attorney and county public health officer—have said the governor’s order states the opposite of what the ABC officers claimed.

Mark Turner, CEO of the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce, said restaurants in the City of Gilroy were also shut down or threatened with shutdown by the ABC officers.

Dan McCranie, owner of Ladera Grill, said at a July 4 press conference that his restaurant was among those targeted by two ABC officers the night of July 3. McCranie said the officers entered the restaurant about 8:30pm and told his manager that Ladera Grill must shut down operations because they were in violation of state orders regarding outdoor dining. The manager was threatened with citations for restaurant staff, the owner and even customers if they reopened at a later date, McCranie said.

But McCranie said Ladera Grill is in compliance with all state and county regulations on business and public gatherings under Covid-19. He said the restaurant will remain open as planned for outdoor dining and takeout orders until he sees a directive specifically prohibiting such business.

“This is a combination of outrageous, unprofessional and, I think, mendacious,” McCranie said of the ABC officers’ actions. He noted that the restaurant has been open for outdoor dining the entire month of June, in accordance with county and state public health guidelines.

Ladera Grill Manager Chris Provini added that the officers said they could have cited the restaurant and customers immediately the night of July 3, but decided “out of generosity” to delay such enforcement.

The ABC office did not return a phone call requesting comment.

Mayor Rich Constantine, City Manager Christina Turner and City Attorney Don Larkin also spoke at the July 4 press conference outside Ladera Grill. The city officials said they were as surprised by the ABC officers’ visit to town as the restaurant owners were. They said they have been on the line with state and county officials to gain some clarification as soon as possible on whether the state is allowing outdoor dining in South Santa Clara County.

Constantine said while it is “customary” for an outside law enforcement agency to notify local police when entering a jurisdiction for enforcement, ABC did not contact Morgan Hill Police. Constantine said he spoke to Sheriff Laurie Smith, who said she did not have advance knowledge of the ABC visit.

“We were all caught off guard,” Constantine said. “We understand that Covid-19 is a very dangerous virus, and we as a city have been in compliance, as well as our businesses.”

City Manager Christina Turner added that city staff have been working closely with downtown restaurants since the pandemic started. “We have been helping them meet all the protocols” for outdoor dining, social distancing and hygiene, Turner said.

Restaurants in Gilroy were also “approached and told to close” by ABC officers the night of July 3, said Gilroy Chamber of Commerce CEO Mark Turner. He added that one of the restaurants’ staff was told that if they reopen, they would be subject to criminal citation.

“We feel this is harassment of South County businesses,” Mark Turner said. “Businesses are suffering as it is, and they’re in compliance with the governor’s orders. We are totally outraged by this incident.”

Morgan Hill Police Chief Shane Palsgrove confirmed July 4 that ABC did not notify MHPD that they would be in town. He has since spoken to an ABC district supervisor, who said the ABC office received its orders to conduct the July 3 enforcement too late to notify the local police. The ABC supervisor also said it was acting on the belief that Santa Clara County does not have the state’s approval to allow outdoor dining at restaurants.

Palsgrove added that it appears restaurants that hold an alcohol license from the ABC were the ones contacted July 3.

Morgan Hill City Attorney noted that the ABC officers the night of July 3 showed restaurant managers a printed copy of the governor’s July 1 Covid-19 order. This document, Larkin noted, specifies that businesses may continue outdoor operations as long as social distancing is enforced.

Earlier this week, Newsom placed Santa Clara County on a “watch list” of 19 counties with surging coronavirus cases that might be required to roll back recent business reopening. The document that ABC officers presented to local restaurant staff July 3 refers to this list of counties. It states that ABC-licensed businesses must discontinue outdoor operations unless they are operating a restaurant on site.

McCranie said July 4 that more than 80 percent of Ladera Grill’s sales come from food, as opposed to alcohol. City officials said other Morgan Hill restaurants that offer outdoor dining have also been in compliance with the outdoor operations provision.

On July 1, Public Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody said Santa Clara County was still not allowing any of the riskier activities cited by Newsom—such as indoor dining and movie theaters—that might have to shut down.

The county public health office said in a statement that they were not notified in advance of the July 3 ABC operation in South County. “The county urges everyone to continue to follow local and state health orders, and to avoid social gatherings and fireworks to prevent injuries and illness this Fourth of July weekend,” said county staff.”

AND the San Jose Mercury News verified the order in the following story (Web Link)

Specifically:

“Morgan Hill officials and business owners expressed their frustration and confusion after agents with California’s Alcoholic Beverage Control on Friday night ordered several restaurants to close their outdoor dining service, which has been allowed in the county for weeks.

Government officials, including the mayor, city attorney and chief of police in Morgan Hill said they were unaware of any orders barring outdoor dining, which has been allowed in Santa Clara County since June 5 with restrictions intended to enforce social distancing and prevent the spread of coronavirus. They also weren’t aware of any planned enforcement action from ABC agents in the city.

“We’re all very much concerned about what’s going on,” Mayor Rich Constantine said. “They were told that they were in violation of the state order, which none of us have seen, that there was no outside dining allowed.”

Constantine said he’s read every ordinance and re-listened to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Wednesday news conference since he first got a call around 8:30 p.m. last night about the ABC agents enforcement actions but he can’t find any orders the businesses in his city have violated. The city has reached out to its counterparts in Gilroy, where several businesses were also approached about outdoor dinning on Friday, and to county officials. All were unaware of any rule barring service outside.

“It’s our job as city government to disperse that law,” Constantine said. “If we have no idea what’s going on, how are our businesses going to know.”

In a statement, ABC said agents began enforcement actions on Friday for the Fourth of July weekend.

“Agents across the state met with owners of licensed premises to ensure they were complying with alcoholic beverage laws and public health orders,” the statement said. “ABC stresses education over enforcement in most instances, and the vast majority of owners voluntarily complied after meeting with ABC Agents.”

Among the businesses approached on Friday was the Ladera Grill, a fine dining establishment in downtown Morgan Hill, on the site of a hotel that was once visited by the Swedish crown prince and princess. At about 8:20 p.m., two agents in bulletproof police vests and wearing sidearms entered the establishment, seeking the manager.

The agents informed the manager that the restaurant had to shut down outside dining on Saturday by Newsom’s order, or the manager, owner and customers could be cited, according to Lader Grill’s owner Dan McCranie. The agents, McCranie said, didn’t point to any specific written rule or ordinance barring outdoor service.

“There is no regulation I have seen written or otherwise … that does anything other than allow outdoor dining in Santa Clara County for restaurants,” McCranie said, calling the enforcement action outrageous, confusing and aggressive.

McCraine said he was counting on outdoor dining to help slow down operating losses during the pandemic that he now estimates at about half a million dollars. At 11 a.m. on Saturday, he opened the restaurant for outdoor customers.

“I intended to be open today and if I’m going to be cited, I’m going to have my managers inform customers there is that risk they might be cited,” he said.

The confusion has been widespread. Christina Turner, Morgan Hill’s city manager, said not all restaurants in Morgan Hill received the same message — some were ordered to shut down, others were simply given a warning.

“The ABC is hand-delivering a flyer about the directive,” she said. “That flyer is very inconsistent with the verbal message being given.”

Even Chief of Police Shane Palsgrove was confused after business owners started calling his department thinking his agency was part of the enforcement — McCranie said the ABC agents showed his manager their badges but the manager was confused and thought they were local police because of their vests.

“We did receive a lot of calls regarding this and we were learning bits and pieces of what was happening and had to connect the dots and chase down what was happening in the city,” Palsgrove said. “We learned some of it from Facebook, some from community members.”

Constantine said the confusion couldn’t have come at a worse time for businesses in his town struggling to stay afloat during the pandemic. The late-night enforcement was particularly surprising because the city and county, he said, aren’t scofflaws that have defied state orders but rather have followed the county’s proactive lockdown as a way to slow the spread of coronavirus.

“We’re not trying to break the law, we’re trying to follow the law,” he said. “We just need to know what the law is.”


1 person likes this
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2020 at 2:17 pm

From some of the stories you posted:

"But those targeted by the enforcement and local legal authorities—including Morgan Hill’s city attorney and county public health officer—have said the governor’s order states the opposite of what the ABC officers claimed."

and

"Morgan Hill City Attorney noted that the ABC officers the night of July 3 showed restaurant managers a printed copy of the governor’s July 1 Covid-19 order. This document, Larkin noted, specifies that businesses may continue outdoor operations as long as social distancing is enforced."

and

"Government officials, including the mayor, city attorney and chief of police in Morgan Hill said they were unaware of any orders barring outdoor dining, which has been allowed in Santa Clara County since June 5 with restrictions intended to enforce social distancing and prevent the spread of coronavirus. They also weren’t aware of any planned enforcement action from ABC agents in the city."

and

"The confusion has been widespread. Christina Turner, Morgan Hill’s city manager, said not all restaurants in Morgan Hill received the same message — some were ordered to shut down, others were simply given a warning.

“The ABC is hand-delivering a flyer about the directive,” she said. “That flyer is very inconsistent with the verbal message being given.”"


ANd I thought you were just going to make citizens arrests on Castro Street. Boy have you crossed the line now


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 4, 2020 at 2:23 pm

In response to He embarrassed himself again:

I have done NOTHING.

You are trying to imply that I impersonated the ABC officers in Morgan Hill.

I have been and still obeying the SIP in Mountain View.

I have driven to Dunking Donuts in San Jose, but I have not been in Morgan Hill for months.

NICE TRY.

You can argue all you want, but those officers did present credentials to the restaurants I am very certain about it.

So please do not make accusations you cannot back up, it can be slander and liable.

Be careful.


1 person likes this
Posted by too funny
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2020 at 4:19 pm

@TBM

Mountain View is not Morgan Hill. What is your point about outdoor dining in MV? I forgot, sorry.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 4, 2020 at 4:49 pm

in response to too funny:

ABC rules apply to ALL cities of CA.

Thus if Morgan Hill is getting valid orders, Mountain View should assume they are under the same orders.

Isn't that true, Mountain view is a City of Santa Clara County of the State of Ca.

That is all the connection you need.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 4, 2020 at 9:23 pm

Well it was official regarding outdoor dining shutdown if you read this article

(Web Link) It stated:

"A request to ease lockdown rules that would’ve allowed larger gatherings and more business reopenings in Santa Clara County has been denied by the state, a county official said.

The request for a variance was made on July 2 and would’ve allowed all businesses to reopen except those considered high-risk that necessitate taking off a mask — such as smoking lounges and indoor bars — as well as mass gatherings such as theaters and music venues. Had the variance been approved, the county would’ve issued unique orders tailored for reopening nail salons, gyms, construction and more. That order will no longer go into effect.

The denial was confusing for Jeff Smith, Santa Clara County’s CEO, considering California has granted more leeway for other counties to reopen.

“They’ve granted variances to basically every other county that’s applied and they deny ours,” Smith said. “It makes no sense.”

The fact that SCC did not understand that their plans were rejected is not an excuse.

Thus Mountain View is on orders to keep the restaurants closed.

I figured this was going to happen, those of you who wanted to discredit me or try to mislabel me a irrational may have to think more in the future.

Is this clear enough?


1 person likes this
Posted by Too funny
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2020 at 9:38 pm

Gavin has many arrows in his quiver. ABC and FTB for example. It's called selective enforcement. Tough concept but real, nonetheless.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2020 at 9:49 pm

In response to Too Funny:

The Governor has no choice, under California Statute Public Health standards:

He must PREVENT infection to the best of his ability.

Not ACCEPT infection as a practice of Risk MANAGEMENT.

So you can criticize the Governor as much as you want, but he has NO CHOICE but to take this action. It is NOT selective.


1 person likes this
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2020 at 7:06 am

TBM is at it again. he should stop embarrassing himself

The July 2nd variance request has nothing to do with outdoor dining. That was allowed in the June 5th order that was approved by the state.

I posted these earlier , but just to refresh people's memories

Web Link

"His order requires restaurants, wineries, tasting rooms, family entertainment centers, movie theaters, museums, zoos and cardrooms in the 19 counties to halt indoor operations for at least three weeks. The affected establishments are allowed to operate outdoors, such as restaurant patios."

and

""Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered 19 counties with surging coronavirus outbreaks to close indoor restaurants, wineries, movie theaters and other venues Wednesday, saying California must act to keep the pandemic from spiraling out of control."

Just so you know, I have a relative who is a chemist. I know someone with a Ph D and a person that developed a process.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 5, 2020 at 9:12 am

In response to He embarrassed himself again you said:

“The July 2nd variance request has nothing to do with outdoor dining. That was allowed in the June 5th order that was approved by the state.”

And yet the current news indicates otherwise. This demonstrates that some people cannot tolerate any news that overrides their preferences. You went on to say:

“I posted these earlier , but just to refresh people's memories

Web Link

"His order requires restaurants, wineries, tasting rooms, family entertainment centers, movie theaters, museums, zoos and cardrooms in the 19 counties to halt indoor operations for at least three weeks. The affected establishments are allowed to operate outdoors, such as restaurant patios."

and

""Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered 19 counties with surging coronavirus outbreaks to close indoor restaurants, wineries, movie theaters and other venues Wednesday, saying California must act to keep the pandemic from spiraling out of control."”

Constant regurgitating older news being updated continuously with official actions are not demonstrating that your argument is sound. All you are doing is trying to change the subject. The fact is that Santa Clara County was denied the variance officially. The Variance included the provision for “outdoor dining”. The current news stated:

“The news comes as agents with California’s Alcoholic Beverage Control cast doubt on whether Santa Clara County’s order allowing outdoor dining — in effect since June 5 — HAS BEEN IN OPPOSITION TO STATE ORDERS. On Friday night, armed ABC agents visited several restaurants in Morgan Hill and Gilroy, informing them that they should shut down outdoor service on Saturday or risk a citation.

That news was met by frustration and confusion from business owners as well as the mayor, city manager and police chief in Morgan Hill, WHO SAID THEY HAD RECEIVED NO WARNING OR GUIDANCE FROM CALIFORNIA THAT THEIR CITY MIGHT NOT BE ADHERING TO STATE ORDERS. The issue, Smith said, is that the state’s health order doesn’t explicitly ban outdoor dining, which Santa Clara County took to mean they could allow it. The state, Smith said, seemed to disagree with that interpretation.

“If they felt that way, they certainly could’ve made a phone call,” he said. “I don’t think they needed to show up with armed agents.”

ABC AGENTS VISITED BUSINESSES IN THE AREA TO INFORM THEM OF THE STATE’S RULES ON FRIDAY NIGHT, TELLING OWNERS THEY COULD STAY OPEN THE REST OF THAT DAY BUT SHOULD ONLY REOPEN FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICE ON SATURDAY, THE AGENCY SAID IN A STATEMENT.

“Agents met with owners and explained that Santa Clara County HAD NOT RECEIVED VARIANCE TO OPEN, and that they were TECHNICALLY IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S STAY AT HOME ORDERS,” the statement said. “Agents did not issue any citations or notice of violations.””

No citations nor warnings were issued because the Santa Clara County failed to provide due notice to the restaurants. Thus the ABC took the correct approach and issued warnings. But that means the next wave they will have orders to cease and desist.

The grim reality should not be an issue in this case. The State made its decision on July 3rd revising the status of the Santa Clara County orders that were dependent on the variance being approved by the State, which is now officially rejected, WHICH IN EFFECT MADE THEM INVALID. It also indicated that the state was trying to CORRECT THE COUNTIES PERCEPTION THAT “OUTDOOR DINING” WAS ALLOWED UNDER THE STATE ORDERS OF SIP.

You can try to use personal attacks as much as you want, I don’t care, but you cannot rewrite the chronology of events. Stop trying to ignore the current orders and decisions made by the State in overriding the Santa Clara County variance. It is dangerous for you to do so.


2 people like this
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2020 at 11:08 am

Just spoke with the chemist, the Ph D and the guy who developed the assay. They agree, TBM does not get it.

The July 2nd variance that got turned down did not have anything to do with outdoor dining. Outdoor dining is allowed in SCC.


As I posted numerous times:
"His order requires restaurants, wineries, tasting rooms, family entertainment centers, movie theaters, museums, zoos and cardrooms in the 19 counties to halt indoor operations for at least three weeks. The affected establishments are allowed to operate outdoors, such as restaurant patios.

It is still not clear what happened in Morgan Hill. And if it is a countywide issue why, was Morgan Hill the only city targeted.
I think this will be resolved after the holiday weekend.

However if you feel so strongly, you had better call the police, because I just came back from a trip and I see the outdoor dining I going on in Mountain View and Palo Alto. I assume it is the same in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Cupertino etc.
You will have a busy day TBM.


1 person likes this
Posted by too funny
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2020 at 12:00 pm

Pretty simple, Gavin got a call from Morgan Hill (maybe some city officials, maybe the police, maybe some challenged individuals, doesn't really matter). People may have been perceived as behaving badly, they may have been drinking without having a plate of food somewhere on the dine-out table required by Sara Cody. Sara does not want non-family members drinking without food. Gavin sends in the ABC to scare the bejesus out the restaurant operators. Selective enforcement again, perfectly legal TBM. Now whether Gavin is overstepping our local health county director, that is another question as Gavin gives the guidelines and Sara determines the how and the when. Or that was the way it was suppose to be anyway.

Between the ABC and Franchise Tax-board, Gavin can scare/target (selectively enforce) hot spots as he sees fit. He has the tools. Morgan Hill is not Mountain View. Whether Gavin is trumping Sara here in Santa Clara County, well that is another question for later.

Outdoor dining is allowed in Mountain View until Gavin or Sara decide otherwise. Neither of which has happened.

Good news, Gavin did leave his wine tasting room open in Napa. He for whatever reason is not targeting himself:)


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 5, 2020 at 12:20 pm

In response to above:

First, it is a matter of time to whether the SCC will in fact reverse course on outdoor dining. The fact is they have been "out of the office" during this time. So as of now, there is a lag time. This however may be VERY short lived once the SCC Public Health office gets it's copy of the variance denial.


Second, you are free to do whatever you like as long as it doesn't cause higher risks to the public health. Given that 50% of those infected don't know they are and it is well known, that means that ignorance of being infected is not a defense.
You are all properly notified of the risks you are taking. If you harm or kill anyone in the process, you are criminally liable for it.


Third, it looks like most people are wise enough to avoid these conditions, I did take a side trip after doing my laundry nearby. The numbers of people on Castro Street are significantly small. Most likely the restaurants are losing more money trying to do this than what its worth and they will voluntarily quit the idea anyway.

In any case we shall see.

But constantly trying to bait me by insulting me will not change the COVID, not change the problems we face, all your trying to do is direct your anger into a person instead of the real problem. It is simply easier to find someone to use as a SCAPEGOAT rather than just adjust to this new reality.

I simply do understand that everyone is getting really sick and tired of this situation, and we should have addressed this problem at the beginning. I too want to be with my friends very badly. I too want to go see a movie, go to a nice restaurant, got to a social club, and be with good people.

But attacking others because we ARE ALL IN THE SAME SITUATION doesn't make it any better, you are still in the SAME SITUATION AS ME. You think I LIKE THIS?

LETS GET COVID A VACCINE AND WORK TOGETHER TO PREVENT INFECTION.

But if you want an infection party, be my guest.


1 person likes this
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2020 at 12:48 pm

"Second, you are free to do whatever you like as long as it doesn't cause higher risks to the public health. Given that 50% of those infected don't know they are and it is well known, that means that ignorance of being infected is not a defense.
You are all properly notified of the risks you are taking. If you harm or kill anyone in the process, you are criminally liable for it."

You are funny. I know of no arrests for anyone spreading the virus unknowingly to anyone.

"Third, it looks like most people are wise enough to avoid these conditions, I did take a side trip after doing my laundry nearby. The numbers of people on Castro Street are significantly small. Most likely the restaurants are losing more money trying to do this than what its worth and they will voluntarily quit the idea anyway."

I have been to university avenue and California Street in Palo Alto. And Castro Street in MV. the places have been bustling. But of course someone like you, , wants these places to shut down. You want to inflict even more pain and suffering to the people who work in the food industry. You are actually enjoying this pandemic.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 5, 2020 at 3:21 pm

Again another temper tantrum directed to someone that has no control or responsibility for the crisis in the first place.

You WANT to get people angry at others because you know you are in no control here, the VIRUS is in control.

And Even the FED knows that. And the investment market is in complete denial regarding the fact we are talking about years before this situation will be under control.

Instead of dealing with reality, you want to try to create a target to attack. It is natural but also just a defense mechanism.

If it does turn out that the state is directing SCC to shut down outdoor dining, you are going to simply claim the State is responsible for the economic damages. It is not, this was a recognized result of a pandemic for more than 10 years.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2020 at 3:24 pm

I am quoting from another news article, I think it addresses this situation:

"Posted by An Environmental Scientist

a resident of another community

19 minutes ago

Global warming, radiation and wind patterns are contributing to the spread of Covid-19 regardless of SIP mandates, safe distancing measures, wearing face masks, testing and tracing.

The virus is mutating and some people have natural predispositions towards getting viral infections.

Natural selection is in full swing and medical researchers have discovered a number of similar characteristics among coronavirus patients. People with O positive/negative bloodtypes, thicker hair and nicotine in their systems appear to have a lower incidence of Covid-19.

While cell phone radiation is minimal, it can trigger mutations in asymptomatic carriers and global winds are capable of carrying and transporting massive amounts of dust and debris, including particles containing both Covid-2 and 19.

An effective Covid-19 antivirus is DECADES away due to the mutation factors.

No one is safe regardless of personal precautionary measures and SIP mandates.

A complete lockdown is warranted only essential businesses should remain open.

Only the truly ignorant clamor for the reopening of all businesses at present. Most are either young, conservative, or evangelicals in denial of reality.

As far as economic factors and concerns, the USA survived the Great Depression and will either rise again or fall by the wayside.

Empires come and go. It is a part of human history so perhaps it's best to get over any self-serving preconceived notions of invincibility.

Life goes on with it without you."


1 person likes this
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2020 at 3:52 pm

LOL. TBM. Now you are posting questionable "science" that has not been peer reviewed or even vetted by real experts. You do. not post an attribution for your comments nor do you post a link to the original article.
Can you say "plagiarism"????

Why not a complete and total lockdown-- no one allowed for anything . Armed police will patrol the streets and shoot on site anyone found outside. Bodies of course will be left to decompose in the street, since no one will be allowed out.

You just do not want to. make the food service industry suffer-- you want everyone to suffer.
Do you work for Sara Cody???


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 5, 2020 at 4:11 pm

In response to He embarrassed himself again you said:

“You just do not want to. make the food service industry suffer-- you want everyone to suffer.

Do you work for Sara Cody???”

Are you one of the people that threatened Dr. Cody?

Are you one that has a financial stake at the current crackdown in business?

Are you either a member of the City of Mountain View Corporation or a Member or Leader of the City of Mountain view Chamber of Commerce (A PRIVATE COMPANY AND NOT A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY)

I have no investment nor employment connections to anyone. I am independent.

You just trying to encourage anger and violence in this forum because when people are angry enough they will act out in inappropriate ways.

The readers surely know better.


Like this comment
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2020 at 4:29 pm

TBM-- please post a link to the article you plagiarized along with the name of the person who made the statements you quote.

Otherwise, there is no point in addressing your various rantings on this issue.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 5, 2020 at 4:44 pm

As i said it was from a poster on the Mountain View Voice, the news article it came from is here "Santa Clara County to allow Hair Slons and Gyms to Reopen provided the meet social distancing rules"

(Web Link)

I never claimed it was a scientific journal.

But it seems I am not the only one stressing safety.


1 person likes this
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2020 at 5:17 pm

TBM wrote when he initially posted the OPINION from environmental scientist:

"I am quoting from another news article, I think it addresses this situation:"

So it really was not from a new article, that would suggest that it is based on fact, it was from a poster on this forum--NOT A NEWS ARTICLE.

Or in other words, a poster who is using a different device so that it would provide a unique IP address and posting under another name

Nice try.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 5, 2020 at 6:25 pm

All I can say is this:

This reckless action seems to be endorsed by so many people.

I thought I was scared regarding the situation before.

Your attitude has now proven to me my fears were not just justified, but i am even more terrified.

So many people will get sick and die needlessly.

You believe in Trumps claim that 99% of infected are not in danger. You believe that the situation is under control. No matter what the numbers say.

I am resigned to the fact that nothing will change anything, and the virus is already ahead of us and we can't get it under control. As long as people like yourself want to keep us unsafe.

It is mutating and it has the potential to get a lot worse, and since you want it to have free reign over all of us, I can't do anything to convince you.

So be it, let the pandemic go, and if it does continue to mutate, let it kill all of us, that is your desire isn't it?


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 9:51 am

No one appears to be reading the Count Shelter in Place order especially the text stating:

“For the purposes of this Order, “Essential Businesses” are:

xvi. Restaurants and other facilities that prepare and serve food, BUT ONLY FOR DELIVERY OR CARRY OUT. Schools and other entities that typically provide free food services to students or members of the public may continue to do so under this Order on the condition that the food is provided to students or members of the public on a pick-up and take-away basis only. Schools and other entities that provide food services under this exemption shall not permit the food to be eaten at the site where it is provided, or at any other gathering site;”

This order has not been changed, it is posted on the Santa Clara County Website found here (Web Link)

Even though the County posted this material:

“Supplementary Measures for Outdoor Dining

Beginning June 5, 2020, restaurants and other food facilities that prepare and serve sit-down meals may provide sit-down dining to patrons outdoors (“Outdoor Dining”) IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER’S SHELTER IN PLACE ORDER, its Appendix C-1, and applicable law. “

Here’s where the problem arises, one section CLEARLY stated that “outdoor dining” is explicitly prohibited in the County Standing Order. That order was never modified, and from what I understand it cannot be modified without state variance approval. Until such time the County made a very bad mistake in giving the impression it was modifying the order, WHICH IT DID NOT DO. In effect the “guidelines” were invalid from the start given that all conditions in the statement saying this:

“IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER’S SHELTER IN PLACE ORDER, its Appendix C-1, and applicable law. “

In effect invalidated any “outdoor dining” from the start. It appears that “wishful” thinking overrode proper legal interpretation, in an inclusive list like this all conditions have to agree in order to allow “outdoor dining”. The fact that the City Attorney didn’t notice this shows poor understanding of legal matters.

Restaurants were ordered to only allow delivery and pick up. This is the TEXT of the County Order. The “guidelines” simply are not part of the original order, and that order must be approved by the state prior to changing it. The guidelines are not a modification of the original order either. Thus many cities went off track, they never got an official order saying it was allowed. Thus the cities are getting angry for taking actions without prior approval of anyone?

This in effect made the local businesses take on more costs and risks without good cause to do so. I encourage these businesses to file for compensation from the city for any losses they had incurred.


2 people like this
Posted by just_the_facts
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2020 at 10:05 am

It is difficult to discern any underlying facts from TBM's complaints, which are made up almost exclusively of TBM's legal analysis and conclusions.


Like this comment
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2020 at 10:17 am

just the facts-- so true. Seem that TBM is on a crusade to bankrupt restaurants and make food service workers miserable.

And from the web page he linked to it states:

"June 5, 2020 Updates to Current County Order: This updated Order will go into effect at 12:01 am on Friday, June 5, 2020, and will remain in effect until the Health Officer amends or rescinds it. This updated Order modifies the current order, which went into effect on May 22, 2020. Below are the June 5 updated Appendices and Attachments."

Clearly states that the June 5 order allowing outdoor dining, among other things, modifies the previous oder.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 10:55 am

In response to Posted by He embarrassed himself again you said:

“just the facts-- so true. Seem that TBM is on a crusade to bankrupt restaurants and make food service workers miserable.”

Don’t put the blame of the VIRUS on me. I am only promoting the safety of the public. You are just trying to redirect the hostility to a person and not the REAL problem, and you know it. Again you don’t understand what the difference between the ORDER and the GUIDELINES are. GUIDELINES are not AMENDMENTS, they are simply RECOMMENDATIONS dependent on the TEXT of the ORIGINAL ORDER so you are correct in part by saying:

“"June 5, 2020 Updates to Current County Order: This updated Order will go into effect at 12:01 am on Friday, June 5, 2020, and will remain in effect until the Health Officer amends or rescinds it. This updated Order modifies the current order, which went into effect on May 22, 2020. Below are the June 5 updated Appendices and Attachments."

Appendices and Attachments are only what they are, they are not AMENDMENTS, they are only RECOMMENDATIONS that MUST comply with the order text. You are trying to misinform people and nothing else. The Guidelines contained the “possibility” of outdoor dining, but the required compliance with the ORDER itself negated the Guidelines.

Denial of the written information does not mean you are correct, it only means you simply refuse to accept it.


1 person likes this
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2020 at 12:12 pm

LOL. Looks like your father, the chemist did not teach you reading comprehension

.“"June 5, 2020 Updates to Current County Order: This updated Order will go into effect at 12:01 am on Friday, June 5, 2020, and will remain in effect until the Health Officer amends or rescinds it. This updated Order modifies the current order, which went into effect on May 22, 2020. Below are the June 5 updated Appendices and Attachments."

What part of THIS ORDER MODIFIES THE CURRENT ORDER do you not comprehend?????


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 12:41 pm

THE TEXT STILL REMAINS IN THE CURRENT ORDER:


“For the purposes of this Order, “Essential Businesses” are:

xvi. Restaurants and other facilities that prepare and serve food, BUT ONLY FOR DELIVERY OR CARRY OUT. Schools and other entities that typically provide free food services to students or members of the public may continue to do so under this Order on the condition that the food is provided to students or members of the public on a pick-up and take-away basis only. Schools and other entities that provide food services under this exemption shall not permit the food to be eaten at the site where it is provided, or at any other gathering site;”

This order has not been changed, it is posted on the Santa Clara County Website found here (Web Link)

Even though the County posted this material:

“Supplementary Measures for Outdoor Dining

Beginning June 5, 2020, restaurants and other food facilities that prepare and serve sit-down meals may provide sit-down dining to patrons outdoors (“Outdoor Dining”) IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER’S SHELTER IN PLACE ORDER, its Appendix C-1, and applicable law. “

Here’s where the problem arises, one section CLEARLY stated that “outdoor dining” is explicitly prohibited in the County Standing Order. That order was never modified, and from what I understand it cannot be modified without state variance approval. Until such time the County made a very bad mistake in giving the impression it was modifying the order, WHICH IT DID NOT DO. In effect the “guidelines” were invalid from the start given that all conditions in the statement saying this:

“IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER’S SHELTER IN PLACE ORDER, its Appendix C-1, and applicable law. “

In effect invalidated any “outdoor dining” from the start. It appears that “wishful” thinking overrode proper legal interpretation, in an inclusive list like this all conditions have to agree in order to allow “outdoor dining”. The fact that the City Attorney didn’t notice this shows poor understanding of legal matters.

UNTIL THAT TEXT IS REMOVED THE CURRENT ORDER REMAINS.

You are not dealing with reality here. The people should not be side tracked by irrelevant claims like the one you make. THE TEXT INSTRUCTING RESTAURANTS TO ONLY PROVIDE PICK UP OR DELIVERY MUST BE REMOVED TO AGREE WITH YOU. WITHOUT SUCH REMOVAL, THE GUIDELINES WERE INVALID.

I am frustrated that no one is asking the Governor about the ABC enforcement in Morgan Hill. The reporters must ask the question. I am watching him right now.

He DID support the actions of the ABC and in fact is not saying that "outdoor dining" enforcement of ABC was NOT correct. Actually he is supporting the actions ABC did in Morgan Hill.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:02 pm

Lets get some FINAL clarification here:

The recent Mercury News article titled “COVID-19 quandary: Why is outdoor dining shut down in Santa Clara County and not elsewhere?“ found here (Web Link) stated:

“The state’s crackdown on outdoor dining in Santa Clara County over the holiday weekend in an effort to slow spread of the coronavirus has left restaurant owners granted the al fresco option locally a month ago confused and worried.

“If they shut us down, that’s really rude,” said Helen Nguyen, who was continuing to offer outdoor dining Monday at her Pho Ha Noi restaurants in Cupertino and San Jose until told otherwise. “It’s really stressful on a business owner right now. We don’t know what’s going on.”

The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control sent armed agents to restaurants in Morgan Hill and Gilroy telling owners they had to cease outdoor dining under a July 1 order by Gov. Gavin Newsom, stunning local officials who said they were not alerted beforehand.

State officials explained that Santa Clara County had not received formal state permission — a “variance” form the statewide stay-home order — to allow outdoor dining. County Executive Jeff Smith said over the weekend that he didn’t believe the statewide order expressly forbade county health officials to authorize that themselves.”

Believe it or not, I believe the state public health laws require an explicit approval before making any changes. Just look at the fact that the County was just denied a “variance” in the last couple of days for gyms and other businesses. THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO GET APPROVAL AND DECIDED TO TRY TO ACT BEHIND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S BACK

What is really happening is that the restaurants wanted to be sneaky. So what they did is used their local political lobbying and intimidation to get the guidelines written on June 5th. The County was hoping it would be not noticed by the state. The claim that the orders recently did not expressly forbade public county health officials to act on their own.

That is unbelievably poor judgement given that the state of CA is in a State of Emergency still. The County KNEW WELL that what they were doing was trying to sneak changes in HOPING that the state would find no good reason to enforce the current Shelter In Place. BUT the COVID is still here and has gotten worse in the state. Thus this gamble backfired on the county, which surely knew better but is trying to act like it was a surprise to them.

I think that the County and Cities of Santa Clara County should have funds withheld due to non compliance, and all businesses should be fined as well, the businesses can file a grievance with the Cities and the County for their losses.


Like this comment
Posted by He embarrassed himself again
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:26 pm

Bottom line we are off the watchlist. Since we never had indoor dining, that part of Newsome's decree did not matter for us.
With regard to outdoor dining, Newsome's decree last week for counties on the watchlist were allowed to continue with outdoor dining. Plus the SCC health issued an amended order in June which allows outdoor dining (ignore TBM's future claims that it is not allowed).

Plus, since the weekend, we have not heard anything more from those ABC (TBM) officers.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:42 pm

In response to Posted by He embarrassed himself again you said:

“He is trying to cripple the food industry in SCC. First it was claims about alcohol. Now it is claims that outdoor dining is illegal in SCC.”

How much more clearly is this quote:

“State officials explained that Santa Clara County HAD NOT RECEIVED FORMAL STATE PERMISSION — A “VARIANCE” FORM THE STATEWIDE STAY-HOME ORDER — TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING. County Executive Jeff Smith said over the weekend that he didn’t believe the statewide order expressly forbade county health officials to authorize that themselves.”

The guidelines published by the Santa Clara County were NOT LEGAL because of both Not Conforming to the Shelter In Place laws, but the state laws as well given that the County was not ever given a variance for “outdoor dining”. You are completely failing to understand the reality here.

Second, I am not trying to damage any business, I am promoting public safety. You just don’t like the fact that the County, the Cities, and these Restaurants are caught in violation of the current Shelter In Place. You said:

“Bottom line we are off the watchlist. Since we never had indoor dining, that part of Newsome's decree did not matter for us.”

Irrelevant because the County never got approval for any of the guidelines so this is irrelevant. You said:

“With regard to outdoor dining, Newsome's decree last week for counties on the watchlist were allowed to continue with outdoor dining. Plus the SCC health issued an amended order in June which allows outdoor dining (ignore TBM's future claims that it is not allowed).”

Irrelevant because the County never got approval for any of the guidelines so this is irrelevant. The fact that the State has no declared that those orders or guidelines were NOT approved makes your statement clearly false.


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

Email:


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

Last year's Palo Alto Chili Cook-off winner, MB's Place, dishes on how to make the best chili
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 3,378 views

Stay Together or End the Relationship? Independence or Interdependence?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,177 views

The dual dilemma for students and adults – will working from home really work?
By Diana Diamond | 4 comments | 877 views