|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Measure C claims to do one thing but actually does another. Mountain View’s ballot measure says it’s about road safety. It’s not. It’s about getting the city’s vehicle-dwelling homeless out of sight and out of town.
The reason behind this legislative sleight-of-hand is that under state law, the city can’t make homelessness illegal. As City Council candidate John Lashlee said recently, “Passing a law that says you can’t be homeless is not a solution to homelessness.”
Measure C, the result of a citizen referendum campaign to overturn a City Council decision, doesn’t pretend to solve the plight of the homeless in our community. It aims to sweep it out of view by driving inhabited RVs off of most city streets by classifying them as oversized vehicles banned from parking on “narrow” streets.
If you’re wondering what “most streets” means, you’re not alone. Even city officials aren’t certain of exactly which, or how many, Mountain View streets are included in the ban.
If Measure C were about traffic safety, city staff would have surveyed streets, checked sightlines and come up with a rational policy, like how far back from a driveway or an intersection an oversized vehicle needs to be in order for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists to get around Mountain View safely. There would be a map showing exactly which streets would be impacted. The fact that voters are being asked to make a decision without knowing exactly what they’re being asked to support is irresponsible.
Proponents of Measure C argue that sleeping in a car is no way to live, but that’s obviously not the point. No one is conflating a vehicle with the comforts of a home. Desperate families are living in vehicles because they offer a few things that a tent in the creek bed or a park bench do not — namely a roof, four walls and doors that lock — offering some small semblance of security for you and your belongings when you go to sleep at night. And it also avoids the risks of congregating with strangers in a homeless shelter during the coronavirus pandemic.
Proponents also argue that Mountain View is doing more than its neighbors to accommodate the unhoused, and we can certainly agree with that. The response of many of the surrounding communities is shamefully inadequate. While we congratulate Mountain View for its continuing efforts, the very low bar set by neighboring towns should not be the standard by which the city measures its success. The reality is that too many Mountain View residents still desperately need help.
Earlier this year the city, with Santa Clara County’s help, finally opened functional safe parking lots which stay open 24/7, and they quickly filled up. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that a lot of people prefer to park somewhere with a few amenities, like access to water and sanitation. But these safe lots aren’t open to all, which explains why there are still so many inhabited vehicles on Mountain View’s streets. While there’s no official count, it’s estimated that as many as half of the RVs in town are rented, and the city only allows owner-occupied vehicles in its lots. If you’re renting your RV, you’re out of luck.
That there are so many rentals reinforces what those who actually work with this community have been saying: a lot of these households are made up of working people who can’t afford to lease an apartment in one of the Bay Area’s priciest rental markets, but earn enough to make rent on a beat-up RV with a column lock. They are people who live in Mountain View for the same reasons everyone else does — because this is where they work, go to school, have family and friends, are part of a community.
In spite of the overwhelming forces of gentrification, Mountain View has made great strides toward becoming the kind of city it used to be: diverse, friendly and able to accommodate residents at a range of income levels. There’s a lot to be proud of. On the horizon are affordable housing projects, entire new neighborhoods and transitional housing. If the city sees through its commitment to adding housing at a range of price points, we look forward to a much happier day when people who work in all sectors of Mountain View’s economy can actually afford to live here.
But today, amidst a lingering pandemic and economic downturn that has been particularly devastating for lower-income people, is not the time to declare that Mountain View has done enough, and everyone still on the streets is too stubborn or stupid to live somewhere better. De facto curbside RV parks are not sustainable or desirable, but until the city can accommodate all of its current vehicle-dwelling residents, not just the lucky few, poorly conceived policies like Measure C do not deserve voters’ support.
Thank you to the voice for supporting our whole community by endorsing NO on C. We need a plan that actually helps our unhoused neighbors, not a reckless ban that will throw families, including essential workers we rely on, out of town. Long term solutions are the way to fix this problem. Measure C just makes it worse.
I’m sorry but this editorial completely sweeps aside the very real impacts of having RVs with no access to sanitation all over town, blocking bike lanes on our streets. Those are not trivial issues!
I don’t disagree with some of your points but I don’t feel like this editorial isn’t providing a balanced view. We had an RV on our small neighborhood block and the smell was overpowering. No one could walk by it on the sidewalk or get within 20 feet of it. There were dogs left alone in there all day in the heat barking — it was not good. I support getting that RV to a safe parking lot that MV provides, rental or not. There are ways to fix this without allowing roving biohazards and traffic/pedestrian/bike dangers to proliferate.
In response to Sloane P. who wrote:
“I don’t disagree with some of your points but I don’t feel like this editorial isn’t providing a balanced view.”
Ah, the “fair and balanced” approach like Fox news that recently got a court to decide it was NOT a news channel but entertainment, please read the story “You Literally Can’t Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox’s Lawyers”, here (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye).
The court in effect declared “Fox News” to be an entertainment channel and not a news organization be declaring it was only making “rhetorical hyperbole”, and “opinion commentary”. If you look at all programming of Fox News, all programs follow the same model, so that non of Fox News does is news reporting at all. The Decision stated:
“McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:
2019cv11161 – Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Karen McDougal claims to have been defamed by accusations of “extortion”; leveled at her by Tucker Carlson on Defendant Fox News Network’s broadcast. However, as described herein, Ms. McDougal has not offered a plausible interpretation that the statements Mr. Carlson made, when read in context, are statements of fact. The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation. In addition, as a public figure, Ms. McDougal must raise a plausible inference of actual malice to sustain her defamation claim. She has failed to do so. The Amended Complaint offers only conclusory allegations about Mr. Carlson’s alleged biases and otherwise pursues theories that are pre-empted by long-standing precedent. For these reasons, Defendant Fox News’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF #28] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court respectfully is requested to close the case. “
You then wrote:
“We had an RV on our small neighborhood block and the smell was overpowering. No one could walk by it on the sidewalk or get within 20 feet of it. There were dogs left alone in there all day in the heat barking — it was not good. I support getting that RV to a safe parking lot that MV provides, rental or not. There are ways to fix this without allowing roving biohazards and traffic/pedestrian/bike dangers to proliferate.”
You are describing a lot, BUT you have not established that the RVs’ were the source of the problem. You are just trying to “paint a picture” that the City is falling apart, or will do so, because of the RVs. The reality is that COVID/ FIRES and AB5 are completely devastating the City, and the RVs have nothing to do with it.
I think anyone who has had the displeasure of being exposed to a long term RV in their neighborhood will be voting YES. Those thinking otherwise should check out this great post about unintended consequences: https://markmanson.net/unintended-consequences
It’s very important to think about the long-term ramifications of decisions that might feel good or generous right now, but will come back to not work as hoped.
Your editorial on Mountain View’s Measure C is exactly what I would expect from a Palo Alto based paper. You mischaracterize Measure C and ignore the positives. Do you really think Mountain View taxpayers should cover the expense of policing, sewage and trash removal and street cleaning around oversized vehicles coming from all over the state (even some from out of state)?
Out of town landlords dump junk RVs on our streets, profit from renting them – all the while paying no property tax. Many vehicle won’t open their door to be surveyed, but of those who have been surveyed, nearly half have no connection to Mountain View at all. They work in other cities that refuse to have street dwelling – so the expense falls to Mountain View.
You push the false narrative that those living on MV streets are all poor homeless prior apartment dwellers from Mountain View – but you know that is incorrect. MV Survey showed that 40% are not employed and not seeking work. There are well paid engineers who live here in very expensive RVs, there are people from out of state who have stated publicly that they came to live free on our streets, there is a small criminal element that use their oversized vehicle as a base for crime (why didn’t you check with our police on this?), in addition to the previously mentioned 40% who merely make the choice not to work and live off city services.
Mountain View has been the most progressive city in the Bay Area with our Safe Lots program, and our HomeKey project housing 100 more by the end of December – all making a real effort to move those living in oversized vehicles into housing. Mountain View is very willing to take on this expense if it will help people who truly want to move forward with their lives. Let’s see the surrounding cities step up to take care of their own. How shameful of your Palo Alto paper to attack the progress being made by the only City that is making this effort!
By providing safe lots for hundreds of RVs, MV is doing more than 99% of all towns and cities around the country. Let me share with you a bit about the RV that lived 20 feet from my MV house for 2 years until the city stepped up its laws about oversized vehicles and the lots were opened up. You might be led to believe it was just a hard-working individual down on his luck, with a deep connection to the Bay Area. Or someone who was recently evicted due to rising rents. Wrong. The truth is much more sobering. The people in this RV were running from the law in 2 other states for a series of misdemeanors and felonies, including some violent ones. They drove their RV to MV because of the lax laws and because they knew that the broke rust-belt state where they came from had overflowing prisons. The police there were just happy to have them out of the state and would not lift a finger to extradite them back, even knowing exactly where they were, despite the outstanding arrest warrants. The people in this RV would be seen urinating in the street, spraying graffiti, yelling, fighting and drinking. Not to mention the pit bull always barking. The police were called every week or so, and would come by and waste many hours there, but ultimately they had no laws behind them do anything about this, so the RV remained. The hard-working families that moved to this formerly safe part of MV felt very uneasy about having outlaws, sometimes half naked and drunk, living outside their window. Poverty, drug addiction and homelessness are huge problems in America, but one that deserves a more durable solution that simply letting our neighborhood devolve into slums. Cities and states need to collaborate on solutions and share the burden, instead of the most progressive little cities trying to solve it all on their own. Personally, I have volunteered many hours at homeless shelters for families in the Bay Area and given money in addition to my time. I’ve also participated in an extensive research project working directly with the homeless. Supporting C doesn’t mean you don’t care about making a difference, but I urge my fellow neighbors to really think through the best ways we can help, not simply leave the problem festering on our doorsteps.
In response to Local you wrote:
“Your editorial on Mountain View’s Measure C is exactly what I would expect from a Palo Alto based paper. You mischaracterize Measure C and ignore the positives. Do you really think Mountain View taxpayers should cover the expense of policing, sewage and trash removal and street cleaning around oversized vehicles coming from all over the state (even some from out of state)?”
Here is some reality here, EVERYONE gets Policing, and Street Cleaning is done whether or not an RV is on the street. You haven’t provided any records proving that there is abuse regarding sewage. The fact is the the City Sewage System is so malfunctional, that the City is being sued for it. The same goes for Trash Removal. What City Record demonstrates your argument? You said:
“Out of town landlords dump junk RVs on our streets, profit from renting them – all the while paying no property tax. Many vehicle won’t open their door to be surveyed, but of those who have been surveyed, nearly half have no connection to Mountain View at all. They work in other cities that refuse to have street dwelling – so the expense falls to Mountain View.”
This is a first time comment that “landlords” are causing the problem. I never heard this one before. If this is true maybe we should tighten the laws regarding registration of any “leased” or “rented” units of any kind be required. Then these “landlords” get “taxed” to fund the costs you claim existed? You said:
“Mountain View has been the most progressive city in the Bay Area with our Safe Lots program, and our HomeKey project housing 100 more by the end of December – all making a real effort to move those living in oversized vehicles into housing. Mountain View is very willing to take on this expense if it will help people who truly want to move forward with their lives. Let’s see the surrounding cities step up to take care of their own. How shameful of your Palo Alto paper to attack the progress being made by the only City that is making this effort!”
100 units when there is a shortage of more than 1000 based on the RHNA needs reports? This “program” was never designed to ever deal with the magnitude of lack of affordable housing in Mountain View, and when that is accomplished, I would make good odds that the “RV” problem, almost like the “Jew” or “Gypsy” problems described in Europe would solve themselves.
Winston,
Here we go again the Donald Trump” offensive when he said:
““When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Such blanket accusations, prosecution with no evidence, and conviction of people without ANY due process via a BIASED judge like yourself.
This is where we are people. Please make up your own minds, but do mot let this kind of talk be the basis of your decision? Do your own homework, find UNBIASED people and information and VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!
Anybody can use Google Maps with Satellite View and measure streets to see which ones are wider than 40 feet. 40 feet appears to be a standard street width; I don’t think people will be arguing over a fraction of an inch here or there. The wider streets are clearly wider by several feet and there’s still plenty of room on those. Measure C is not just about traffic safety, which is significant in itself if you’ve ever seen RVs parked near intersections close to elementary schools. It’s also about public health, both for the RV dwellers and the surrounding community. For some reason the editorial leaves that out. There’s a reason why Mountain View enacted an ordinance last year to specifically address RVs leaking waste. Furthermore, the opponents to C don’t seem to have a counter proposal. They seem willing to let people continue to live in substandard conditions, providing a crutch as it were, rather than providing a way out. The editorial would also have you believe that most of the RVs are inhabited by families with children when in fact, as of a year ago, only 17 families with children were living in RVs. The current Safe Parking lots did not fill up immediately; it took a few months to reach capacity, and the waitlist is short. Despite the Safe Parking lots, the total number of RVs in Mountain View continues to increase. The current 3 Safe Parking lots cost us taxpayers over half a million dollars per year (~$10,000 per RV) Mountain View cannot afford to accommodate every RV that decides to take up residence here.
Steven – Not sure what Trump has to do with anything here, nor Mexicans, nor due process. Anyone is free to close their ears to those of their neighbors have had the real-world experience of living next to the RVs. What I shared about this particular RV being occupied by people running from the law is not some QAnon horse dung but instead factually based and documented, and well-known facts to MV police officers as well. There are well over 500,000 homeless across the US. We have 80K residents of MV and can’t reasonable house them all here. Working on offering affordable housing, mental health counseling, drug addiction centers, food banks and so on are all things a city can do to support those in need. Or we could abandon our wider responsibilities and just let everyone live on our streets and call it “solved”. SF used to be one of the most admired cities in the worst. Now, people all over the world are incredulous that it is a wasteland of open drug use, human defecation and more. If you think that’s fake news, take a trip to downtown SF after sunset. It’s why many of us fled SF to quieter family friendly cities like MV.
Steven, can you FOR ONCE please stop your childish ploy of giving yourself (and those very few who agree with you) fake “up votes”? You brag about doing this, but it’s honestly something that should embarrass a responsible adult.
In response to Nihonsuki you wrote:
“Furthermore, the opponents to C don’t seem to have a counter proposal.”
In political science if a current proposal is the only proposal out there, that is NO LOGICAL REASON to pass it. Once this Measure is voted on, if it fails, then the new proposal can be worked on. But the lack of an alternative is not good reason to vote for it.
In response to Winston you wrote:
“It’s why many of us fled SF to quieter family friendly cities like MV.”
The City of Mountain View is NOT a GATED COMMUNITY. And it must not become one. If you want to live in that kind of location, please find it? Otherwise, the City of Mountain View must CEASE being a Charter City altogether and let it be annexed by a neighboring city. Then the City Council can be reborn as a GATED COMMUNITY HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION
In response to Local to Steven Goldstein you wrote:
“Steven, can you FOR ONCE please stop your childish ploy of giving yourself (and those very few who agree with you) fake “up votes”? You brag about doing this, but it’s honestly something that should embarrass a responsible adult.”
What no logical response to my writing at all? Just a complaint about something that is totally meaningless in the situation? The only thing that COUNTS are the VOTES in the election. And You Know It.
“You haven’t provided any records proving that there is abuse regarding sewage.”
My neighbor on Latham St who had a garbage bag full of RV black tank waste left on his doorstep would beg to differ.
When this was complained about on Nextdoor, somebody said he/she was a “privileged” person to complain about a “first world” problem.
The Bay Area housing issue is a regional problem that is solved by building housing. Plain and simple. Reckless abandonment of common sense is not compassion. Measure C is not a RV ban at all therefore I’m not sure what the fuss is.
Perhaps the same group of people would believe we should all be allowed to also pitch tents at will or build ADUs on my front lawn without restriction while we’re at it?
I support YES on Measure C because it is common sense and in the community’s best interests.
Safe Parking should be recognized as being supportive of the RV dwellers. It gives them what they need in terms of space, garbage, sewage, and social services. The 100 spaces being provided means MV is doing its fair share.
The current non-plan is to have 200-600 RV (rig count varies) without support services. There are actually no limits on the number or location of the RVs. It doesn’t take much math to figure out how much waste is being generated. At this scale (200-600 RV), an organized plan needs to be put in place. Professionally managed campgrounds have ratios of RVs to restrooms and sewage disposal equipment. An un-managed unplanned situation like this would not be allowed in campgrounds.
Safe Parking is fair in terms of giving them a neutral place to live. A problem with the current situation is only a portion of the City of MV bears the impact of these large vehicles on the street. It seems like one group of people (who are not bearing the impact) intends to impose their will on another group of people (who bear the impact of these vehicles). I disagree with those who say there are no traffic issues with these over size vehicles. There are issues, and to not recognize that is disingenuous.
The City of MV is doing the right thing by collaborating with County Supervisor Simitian to increase the available slots provided by other cities in Santa Clara County. To restate the obvious, MV can’t be responsible for solving a regional problem. But it is doing its fair share.
MV has spent $2.5 M since 2015 and Spring 2020. So there are expense associated with supporting the RVs. I add this because I am being told that no money is being spent on the RVs. This is untrue. City Officials have stated their expenditures at Council Meetings and in written communications several times. To deny that the City of Mountain is not spending MV Tax payer dollars on RVs is disingenuous. In this case, I am using the phrase disingenuous to be polite. City officials have communicated this very clearly several times.
To close, this is about providing a reasonable amount of spaces for RVs in neutral areas. It is not an RV ban. 100 spaces, plus sewage, garbage, and social services for RV dwellers is a reasonable offering. At least $2.5 Million has been spent so far, and more is to come. It is reasonable to provide tax payers a budget of how much will be expended.
What is unreasonable is a non-plan which allows for unlimited numbers of RVs, from anywhere, to park anywhere. Contrary to untrue statements being made, the City of MV is spending tax payer money (At least $2.5 M) to support the RVs. Not providing a budget to tax payers is irresponsible. What is missing is “We want to support X numbers of RVs, with Y services, for Z amount of Budget dollars and putting it to a vote. The anti-C group has had plenty of time to come up with it. But all they have is a non-plan.
In response to MV Local you wrote:
“My neighbor on Latham St who had a garbage bag full of RV black tank waste left on his doorstep would beg to differ.
When this was complained about on Nextdoor, somebody said he/she was a “privileged” person to complain about a “first world” problem.”
Please provide the link? You do know a “Nextdoor” posting is not an official record? To me you are trying to again be deceptive. Pleas provide the link to Nextdoor so I can read it? Then you wrote:
“The Bay Area housing issue is a regional problem that is solved by building housing. Plain and simple. Reckless abandonment of common sense is not compassion. Measure C is not a RV ban at all therefore I’m not sure what the fuss is.”
If what your claim was true, then why is there so much opposition to it? No, you are again trying to insult anyone that disagrees with you with this language “Reckless abandonment of common sense” is insulting. You wrote:
“Perhaps the same group of people would believe we should all be allowed to also pitch tents at will or build ADUs on my front lawn without restriction while we’re at it?”
The streets are NOT your front lawn, the streets are PUBLC property. NO ONE is trying to use you private land for an RV.
In response to JustAWorkingStiff you wrote:
“Safe Parking should be recognized as being supportive of the RV dwellers. It gives them what they need in terms of space, garbage, sewage, and social services. The 100 spaces being provided means MV is doing its fair share.”
Again, that plan was practically nothing, regarding the RHNA recognized needs, and it was designed to attempt to pit those living in the RVs against each other like a “Thunderdome” to see who could get wat amounts to 1 spot out of at minimum 10 needs. You wrote:
“Safe Parking is fair in terms of giving them a neutral place to live. A problem with the current situation is only a portion of the City of MV bears the impact of these large vehicles on the street. It seems like one group of people (who are not bearing the impact) intends to impose their will on another group of people (who bear the impact of these vehicles). I disagree with those who say there are no traffic issues with these over size vehicles. There are issues, and to not recognize that is disingenuous.”
We all bear the problems of the lack of affordable housing, and worse the practice of hiring contractors so that they have no reliable income to establish the ability to rent an apartment in the City. Prior to COVID and AB5 the tech industry would abuse workers like crazy, I know I worked for a company that said I was their “employee” but would assign me work assignments that were less than 1 week long in a lot of cases. The reality is that the tech industry doesn’t hire employees here, they just use “Alternative Work Forces”. You wrote:
“The City of MV is doing the right thing by collaborating with County Supervisor Simitian to increase the available slots provided by other cities in Santa Clara County. To restate the obvious, MV can’t be responsible for solving a regional problem. But it is doing its fair share.”
Please define what objectively is determined as “fair share”? That is just a spin phrase to white wash the subject. You said:
“MV has spent $2.5 M since 2015 and Spring 2020. So there are expense associated with supporting the RVs. I add this because I am being told that no money is being spent on the RVs. This is untrue. City Officials have stated their expenditures at Council Meetings and in written communications several times. To deny that the City of Mountain is not spending MV Tax payer dollars on RVs is disingenuous. In this case, I am using the phrase disingenuous to be polite. City officials have communicated this very clearly several times.”
WOW $500,000 per year in a city where Google, one of the highest valued corporations in the world worth in the hundreds of Billions of dollars is. That is NOT impressive. You wrote:
“What is unreasonable is a non-plan which allows for unlimited numbers of RVs, from anywhere, to park anywhere. Contrary to untrue statements being made, the City of MV is spending tax payer money (At least $2.5 M) to support the RVs. Not providing a budget to tax payers is irresponsible. What is missing is “We want to support X numbers of RVs, with Y services, for Z amount of Budget dollars and putting it to a vote. The anti-C group has had plenty of time to come up with it. But all they have is a non-plan.”
Again, if the current plan is bad, it does not get to be used simply because there is a lack of another one. Oh yes, the City Council at the time rejected many other ideas to promote this one, you should check the history.
Goldstein, does another MV Voice article constitute an “official record” enough for you?
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/11/16/a-waste-bucket-cracks-open-a-foul-problem
“The streets are NOT your front lawn, the streets are PUBLC property. NO ONE is trying to use you private land for an RV.”
You’re missing the point. There is a reason there are planning codes and building regulations. A public thoroughfare is also NOT long term RV parking.
MV Local,
a single story does not make it a “pattern”. Nor does it justify a blanket condemnation of any group. You know this.
And since it was “sealed” prior to this person opening it, it wasn’t a problem. It was a contained problem until someone disturbed it. There is no evidence that it was going to be publicly spilled at all in this story. In fact if you read the story there were some problems but the overwhelming minority was caused by RVs, there were actually more problems with “permanent residents” then there was with RVS, please read this text:
“But while stories of filth-filled buckets may draw lots of attention, it hard to say whether the problem is getting worse.
Asked for comparison data, city officials said there were a total of 75 waste discharge incidents over the 2017-2018 fiscal year, which ended June 30. Only 19 of those incidents were reportedly linked to inhabited RVs and other vehicles, while 20 WERE ATTRIBUTED TO PERMANENT RESIDENCES.”
Is there MASSIVE spillage due to RVS? READ THE STORY IT SAID:
“There were reportedly four incidents of illegal dumping tied to vehicle dwellers over the same 2017-18 fiscal year period, compared to three incidents in the 2016-17 year, according to the Mountain View Fire Department.”
Again you make it sound like there is a massive waste problem when in fact it is much less than the Cities pollution caused by mismanaged sewer pipes causing a lawsuit against the City.
Let’s NEVER bring this argument up again? You don’t even bother to read the stories you use, you just think the Headline is enough.
Yes on measure C. We are doing more than enough with our 4 safe parking lots which have 65 RVs and 140 participants. Let’s put an end to MV being a city where other cities send their unwanted RVs. Enough is Enough!
In Steven Goldstein’s universe, a bucket with a bag of human waste in front of your door is not actually a problem until you open the bag.
What kind of logic is that? Schrödinger’s poop?
In response to Peter you wrote:
“Yes on measure C. We are doing more than enough with our 4 safe parking lots which have 65 RVs and 140 participants. Let’s put an end to MV being a city where other cities send their unwanted RVs. Enough is Enough!”
WOW Conspiracy Theory? The cities of Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and Palo Alto are SENDING RVs into Mountain View?
Now this is an amazing claim.
It almost sounds like Mountain view is being persecuted by the rest of the state of California?
Talking about trying to PLAY the VICTIM?
I respnse to MV Local
First, You and your friends claim that there was a MASSIVE human waste problem.
Second, you bring up a story where the information didn’t even come close to supporting you.
Third, then you do what anyone with no evidence to support you do, like Donald Trump, try to make ME the problem that you cannot even substantiate.
The reality is that there is no reasoning with anyone with this pattern of behavior.
So Steve Goldstein, are you saying MV should support 1000 RVs?
I am merely inferring from you 1 to 10 ratio on 100 spaces.
Give me a number of what you think would be an appropriate level of support.
1000?
1500?
2000?
More?
What ever the number you think is right, you should make a proposal to City Council.
And put a clear plan together that the entire city can vote on
This is a big decision, and every voter on the city should vote if you think we do do more.
But you need to plan for support services.
But at that scale, the amount of resources you need increases and becomes more complex
At that scale, you really can’t hope the issue get taken care of. Hope isn’t a plan.
There has to be a clearly defined place to dump the sewage for RVs
And we will need agreement from all the neighborhoods where we are going to put the
1000, 1500, 2000 RVs or what ever number you choose.
And if we need to build a dump station, you to factor the cost of excavation, equipment,
and tying a pipeline into main sewer line and also see if there is sufficient capacity. You may need to hire people to manage the site and schedule RVs and issue vouchers. It only sounds complex because of scale of 1000 or more RVs the amount of resource to manage increases.
Then you need to propose that each household (everybody in Mountain View, no exceptions)
contributes to funding all this. Is is $165 per year per household? Is it $200? At this scale, is it $300-$500 per year per household. I dunno. And you can argue your case that we should support X numbers of RVs and tell the voters why they should willingly increase their taxes for this. But until you do this, you have no plan.
And the plan proposed by the city is the best one we have in front of us.
And don’t tell me it costs nothing to support the RVs, since official city records show $2.5 M haas been spent between 2015 and Spring 2020.
True story about unintended consequences: Once upon a time, in the not so long ago distant past, there were some torrential rainstorms, and the mother/baby rooms at our local hospital had to be quickly evacuated when water started pouring in through the electrical outlets on the walls!!! In the midst of mopping up and making things safe again, investigation showed that the problem originated with clogged pipes/drains on the roof. Looking into how the drains had become clogged so dangerously, it was determined that the well-meaning locals who were kindly feeding peanuts to the squirrels in Cuesta Park, had inadvertently contributed to a near tragedy.
You see, the squirrels wanted to have a good view. So they took those peanuts (in the shells) to the roof of the pavilion where they could ingest their treats unhindered. But, squirrels being squirrels, they just left the shells where they fell. And over time, and over rainstorms, the shells made their way to the drains, where they caused such blockage as to leave rainwater no place to go but through the walls, putting the people in the rooms below into a potentially dangerous situation.
The people feeding the squirrels never expected to create such an issue. The squirrels never thought about it, that’s for sure. And of course, the hospital administration couldn’t say anything about the issue, because they would be called inconsiderate and uncaring and enemies of the poor animals. But the problem didn’t end there, the squirrels got so bold and so entitled about getting fed, that they were actually jumping INTO strollers to grab muffins from baby’s hands. At least one little boy was attacked, and when lawsuits started coming, action was finally taken. When searching for this story on the Voice’s archives, there are tons of stories on this from 2006 to 2011. Here’s a headline from one of the stories: “Squirrels in Cuesta Park have grown more aggressive over the past year. Below, this 18-month-old boy was attacked in May 2006, receiving several scratches to his face.” It was an unintended consequence to what was originally an act of kindness. But when squirrels feel entitled and protected in that entitlement and have no boundaries, it became crucial to find a better situation for all the taxpayers who wanted to use that park, as well as the squirrels who wanted to live there. There needed to be parameters which made our community safer for all. I’d like to believe…
…I’d like to believe that when Lenny Siegel decided that he wanted Mountain View to become like Berkeley and encouraged people to come live on our streets, he didn’t think about the unintended consequences. I’m sure he believes himself to be motivated by wanting to help people. Someone who is planning on running for office on an activist platform would need that for his credibility. But Mountain View, which is a compassionate, caring, giving community, found its resources and capacity strained by the sheer numbers of people moving onto our streets.
Knowing that RV’s (indeed any vehicle) cannot be parked in one place for more than 72 hours, our community just assumed that the ordinances would be enforced. But one RV became 5, which became 10, which became 50, which became 100 and so on and so on, until they numbered in the many hundreds.
Recognizing that these people were obviously in need of services, but that the long lines of parked vehicles (or even individual ones parked in visibility blocking places) were creating safety and visibility issues for our community, lots of people spent many hours trying to create a plan to make our streets safer for all.
After many hours of consideration, it was determined that in order to help people, we had to know their situations. Community service officers and various members of the community’s attempts to reach out were often rebuffed. But where help could be given, it was. The Community Services Agency has done a wonderful job of helping as many as possible. And while we worked on a plan for Safe Parking Lots (constrained by state laws that did not allow for 24 hour parking, without adding the additional bureaucracy of registering under the laws required of a mobile home park), it was important to address the safety issues raised by the community. They simply asked for two things. One, that bike lanes not be blocked and two, that parking not be allowed on narrow streets. Those two things should have gone through easily and eased concerns. The bike lane issue was taken care of, and has greatly improved the situation. It should have also happened with the narrow street restrictions. But if there was still an issue in November, then LS and those running as Democratic Socialists would need a cause, would need a battle, and a slogan.
And so they pushed to delay the narrow street restriction until election time and re-imagined it into a ban so they could come up with a slogan similar to End the Ban, Make a Plan. Here’s the problem, there was NEVER a ban, it was just a catch phrase. And from that group, there was never a plan. But luckily…
…But luckily, our Council, and others, have continued to work on the issue.
In the meantime, there were thoughtful, reasonable requests from many Mountain View residents to make the situation more tolerable while those reasonable people worked on a plan to truly help those on our streets. The numbers had grown exponentially and there was no plan to create parameters. So, it was decided that first, we should help those who were displaced from their homes in Mountain View, who worked in Mountain View, who had children in school in Mountain View, who were elderly, who were disabled, who were vets. With Mountain View’s streets flung wide open, nearly $3M in taxpayer money spent on assistance services, and no end in sight, other cities were only too happy to send anyone in need to park on our streets. So there we were, our little city, not only fighting to get other cities to step up and help, but being stymied at every turn by those who wanted to turn this into a stepping stone to gaining a place on our council. Can you just imagine if this whole thing starts all over again? It will, if we are not careful.
Right now, with the opening of our THIRD safe parking lot, everyone who wanted a safe parking space, has received one, and is connected with services agencies such as Community Services Agency. As they are helping folks find more permanent housing, this means that new places are opening up in the safe parking lots. Plus, and this is really cool news, the city is purchasing a large empty lot on Leghorn, where they will be able to install 100 modular housing units before the end of the year. It’s so important to get Measure C passed so the people who really care and the city officials can stop chasing their tails and really get down to what is important, and that is to help find long-term solutions. We are well on our way, and proud of what we’ve accomplished, and we are committed to continuing to find creative ways to make things work for all. If Measure C doesn’t pass, a lot of families will continue to be in need. And we will all have to find out how to get OUR street protected, as is LS’s narrow street, with NO parking signs. Yup, that’s right. The squirrels have gone nuts!
Sorry, Bpositive, but the less said about your analogizing families living on the streets with animals, the better.
Instead, I’ll address the rhetorical tactic that Measure C proponents continue to use. As you’ve pointed out, without Measure C in effect, the City can still work and has worked for years to provide services and address the unfortunate situation these families find themselves in. What none of you are able to ever do is explain why Measure C is necessary? It provides no services, provides no funding. All it does is punish people, end of story.
You spun a great yarn, but I find when someone needs to tell a tale like that, they’re definitely selling something no one wants to buy…
In response to JustAWorkingStiff:
Again, when are you going to figure out a poorly written and ineffective plan (MEASURE C) does not deserve to be passed. You don’t get the right to presume a ballot measure will be passed if you argue that the other side hasn’t brought up another idea. That’s not how voting works. In fact the option of not doing a poorly conceived idea makes much more sense it you can argue that there are alternatives, right? You wrote:
“Then you need to propose that each household (everybody in Mountain View, no exceptions) contributes to funding all this. Is is $165 per year per household? Is it $200? At this scale, is it $300-$500 per year per household. I dunno. And you can argue your case that we should support X numbers of RVs and tell the voters why they should willingly increase their taxes for this. But until you do this, you have no plan.”
I find it funny you brought up the old rate of the CSFRA fees to fund the RHC. I can almost be sure you were or are a person behind the MeasureVTooCostly movement and ballot, that died so badly that the website is gone and people spent money to purge the videos made by various previous or current members of the City Council, AND the measure was pulled from the ballot.. Thanks for demonstrating what you really are, you are either associated with the California Association of Realtors or the California Apartment Association, and your trying to force more people to pay too much for housing.
In fact, it looks like the majority of the Measure C proponents are associated of these groups or friends with Jose Gutierrez, Margaret Abe Koga, and Lisa Matichak, whose Measure D failed by a vote of better than 2 to 1. It lost because people were provided proof that the proponents used any deceptive means to try to con the voters, and fact checker proved the deception. I am not making any predictions, but what will happen if Measure C fails as badly?
Good job Steve coming up with crazy conjecture, spinning a derogatory non-fact based fantasy
And by the way, it sounds like you gave me a promotion.
What you are doing is ignoring the practical facts from a standard project management perspective. A project planning perspective acceptable in every major corporation in Silicon Valley. And in Silicon Valley us types attached to engineering units are are good at deploying at scale.
Safe Parking provides authorized spaces for RVs with garbage, sewer, and social services.
It is an efficient way to deliver services rather than having recipients randomly distributed throughout the city. Of course, you side step the fact that you would like to have a large number of RVs in this city. At the 10-1 ratio you suggested, that means 1000 At 1000 + RVs, we have a problem of scale.
And you will need to deploy resources in a deterministic manner
You can’t just hope the waste from 1000 + RVs gets disposed properly
Ignoring this issue/resorting to ad hominin attacks avoids the practical issue: if you
want to bring in 1000+ RVs, resources to support a large number of RVs is required.
Just saying park any where and hope for the best is not a plan.
I predict you will now start with another of your irrelevant, non-fact based crazy conjectures.
Safe Parking provides a location for RVs to go where they will be properly supported.
They will have a designated space as well as garbage, sewer, and social services.
JUstAWorkingStiff,
I totally agree that a “PROJECT” needs to be “PLANNED” out.
However the City has no real plan that is up to scale. “Who is the “RV Czar” in charge?
What is the complete Enterprise Resource Plan that Measure C is promoting?
Where is the “Plan” the “Organizational Chart”, the “Designated Responsibilities” and the “Accountability”. So far there is nothing.
So WHY would we vote for this?
Your talking about a “dream” that the city will be able to accomplish something.
I have some decent experience in Project Management and Planning. Imagine having an Intel Microprocessor plant operating while upgrading heir wafers from 20 to 30 cm. I was responsible for continuing the work while installing the new equipment in a “clean-room” environment.
Handling the piping of severely toxic chemicals, and maintaining an injury prevention environment as well.
You talk a good talk, but have nothing to provide the voters to support it.
When the City has the plan, we will vote for Measure C, but until then, there is no good cause to do it.
Please Vote Yes and don’t turn MV into San Francisco . With neughbourung cities shirking their responsibility – every RV will descend into this tiny city . Voting Yes will pave the way to finding a regional solution to. Regional problem
Is Bryant Avenue (which from Grant Road leads to Mountain View High School) wider than 40 feet? If so, RV’s could just be moved there if Measure C (the challenged city council ordinance) is YES approved. Then what?
“First, You and your friends claim that there was a MASSIVE human waste problem.”
Honestly Steven Goldstein, I don’t know what you foaming at the mouth and ranting about. I don’t have any “friends” here and this is the first time I’ve ever inserted myself into a Mountain View issue.
I guess I falsely assumed it was fairly common sense that permitting caravans of RVs is not compassionate nor good public policy.
You give a false dichotomy that Measure C needs to be perfect to be voted on. Ordinances can be amended. The community of Mountain View was told something similar about the CSFRA. That is is not “perfect”, but a living and breathing piece of legislation. Things like the methodology to account for what is a “fair” rent increase weren’t even hammered out at the time it hit the ballot.
I see likewise no reason why we have to throw Measure C out because it’s not perfect to Steven Goldstein. It is a “start” to good public policy, just as we were sold the CSFRA. I support keeping people in housing, not shanty towns.
In response to Well Wisher you wrote:
“Please Vote Yes and don’t turn MV into San Francisco . With neughbourung cities shirking their responsibility – every RV will descend into this tiny city . Voting Yes will pave the way to finding a regional solution to. Regional problem”
No it won’t it simply prohibits the “parking” pf RVs in the city. The only phrase it says is the City Council is “working” in the affordable housing problem. NO PLAN IN PLACE AND NOT SPECIFIC MILESTONES ARE INCLUDED. Thus is too incomplete to be of any use.
In response to How wide is your street? You wrote:
“Is Bryant Avenue (which from Grant Road leads to Mountain View High School) wider than 40 feet? If so, RV’s could just be moved there if Measure C (the challenged city council ordinance) is YES approved. Then what?”
Again good question, this ballot measure is so short and incomplete it does’t qualify as a approach to improve housing or quality of life for the city at all.
In response to MV Local you wrote:
“You give a false dichotomy that Measure C needs to be perfect to be voted on. Ordinances can be amended. The community of Mountain View was told something similar about the CSFRA. That is is not “perfect”, but a living and breathing piece of legislation. Things like the methodology to account for what is a “fair” rent increase weren’t even hammered out at the time it hit the ballot.”
BUT the CSFRA was a complete plan, it was abote 20 pages long with specific planning and proecdures established to get it to work. It was not perfect either, it was designed for “regulations” to be developed to implement Measure C does not contain any “work plan” or structure like when Measure V was on the ballot. What a false comparison You said:
“I see likewise no reason why we have to throw Measure C out because it’s not perfect to Steven Goldstein. It is a “start” to good public policy, just as we were sold the CSFRA. I support keeping people in housing, not shanty towns.”
It is not a “start” because it does not require ANY affordable housing to replace the RVs residents in the city. In fact it looks like a massive public funding rip off because the City will use public money to subsidize the local housing providers. Without any “CAPS” on what they will charge. This is nothing but a California Association of Realtors and California apartment Association rip off of the city of Mountain View.
Measure C needs to go back to the drawing board and be improved, but passing such an ill written approach is in my opinion not wise.
Steve Goldstein
You still avoid the issue of supporting 1000 RVs that you brought up.
And if you open it up MV to RVs from anywhere to go anywhere, the # can go up.
Now you’ve created a new goal post: Safe Parking needs to accommodate 1000 RVs
before you feel it is acceptable. But your alternative is to have them from anywhere, and anywhere on MV Streets.
So you are a smart guy and know that there are finite resources
Although I am not impressed by your throwing around irrelevant jargon.
After using ad hominin attacks and crazy conjecture in an attempt smear somebody
you disagree with. BTW, the $165 figure comes from dividing the $2.5 M the city spent
by the number of US Census #households circa 2014 because those are the only figures I could find. It has nothing to do with CSFRA. It is a non-credible smear tactic. You need to try harder in this department.
The MV tax payers should have a clear plan for what they are committing to.
Is it 1000 RVs from anywhere, located anywhere in the City?
Should they commit to 1000 RVs in Safe Parking so you will be happy?
Should each MV Household expect to pay $165, $200, $300, $500 extra per year per household for RV Support? What is the cost over 5 years and 10 years? Or should MV seek some sort of cost
sharing arrangement with other Santa Clara Country cities and spread out burden?
The good news is I think we’ve come to an understanding:
RVs need support
RV support costs money
RV not costing anything for MV citizens is an untrue statement.
City has spent $2.5 M from 2015 to spring 2020 for way fewer RVs (I am guessing less than 100)
You would like to see 1000 + RVs supported and have them anywhere, and located anywhere
Or Safe Parking should expand capacity to 1000 spaces.
This is a major decision worthy of a direct vote of the citizens of MV
But the citizens need to know what their financial commitments are.
Because each household should make a decision as to how much they will
expend out of their personal budget.
The current Safe Parking program is a reasonable proposal.
Vote Yes on C
And support the collaboration with County Supervisor Simitian to add capacity in Santa Clara
Country
(BTW, your group chose to oppose putting this to a vote to all MV citizens. I strongly
disagreed with not allowing a city wide vote on such a major decision)
In respnse to JustAWorkingStiff,
First, I didn’t say the voters shouldn’t have the right to vote on it, I said it was such a poor idea, with no real planning to achieve anything but trying to exile people from the city you and your friends say are “disreputable”. I really hope the voters see this for what it is.
Second, finite resources is correct, thus the requirement of definition and procedure so that no money is wasted. You are in effect forcing RV people to live in apartments that are getting FREE money from the taxpayers of Mountain View. This is a massive theft of public money if it goes forward. The City Council is just trying to coerce people into a market that is in effect corrupting the City government. And ripping off the City.
In the City Council meeting Spring 2020 your group opposed bring it to a vote to all citizens of this City. That is fact and duly recorded in City Records. I said your group, not you. Because I have no factual understanding of your personal voting record.
At this point we can agree to disagree.
You want:
1000 + RV capacity in the Safe Parking Program
or 1000 + from anywhere located anywhere on city streets
I want:
RVs into Safe Parking sites
Where garbage, sewer, social services can be delivered to them
I hope the city also provide water, power, and WiFi communications to them also
100 spaces represents MV doing its fair share.
Recognition this all costs money in context of finite resources
Rejection of the untrue statement that RVs cost City of MV nothing- misrepresentation
Collaboration with County Supervisor Simitian will be more capacity online and bring
more non-MV resources to bear.
Disagreement:
I believe Transitioning RV to real housing based on building codes with up-to-code power, sewer, water, garbage, is the most reasonable alternative
I disagree with the argument that is ripping off the city. Anyway you look at it, there are subsidies in one form or another. Either the subsidies/tax avoidance of supporting them on the streets, or subsidizing them in what is effectively public housing. This is a poor quality argument. RV people get subsidized anyway you look at it. But putting them in real housing is better than leaving them on the streets.
Another point of disagreement is: If you really want 1000+ RVs, then propose it, approve it by a city wide vote, and resource and fund it. And disclose the costs in a manner any voter can understand. All you have is a non-plan at this point of time.
@How wide is your street: Bryant is a bicycle route as one would expect. It leads to a school. This class II bike route is part of the “no parking for oversized vehicles” rule that was not disputed by Lenny and his friends.
@JustAWorkingStiff,
Might I suggest a very appropriate old saying which is,
“Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
― George Bernard Shaw
The BM-StevenG person was out of work for the longest time. He never was a Business Man, as his screen name said for many years. He never had a business license, never managed a business, never ran anything. He has never owned any property or paid property taxes, he rents. He has no experience in how the actual world works. He is a government employee, yes he could not make it in the private sector.
He wants every tax proposal that increases taxes on people and businesses to be approved. He wants union power to be expanded, he will always be for ever more taxes so his government pension will be funded by the time he retires. He wants property rights taken away from property owners and turned over to others.
What the Voice has done by saying NO to measure C is, they showed they are totally out of touch with the residents in our city. None of the Editorial board lives in our city.
Vote No on C
and Vote No on Siegel, Showalter, Nunez, Lieber, all endorsed by the Voice and add Lashlee to that list.
If these people get elected they will be the majority on the city council. They think alike and have the same agenda and will push that agenda thru. Do not vote for them unless you want to turn our city into San Fransisco, Berkley, L.A, Portland, Seattle etc.
Siegel and Lieber worked to get the organization BlackLivesMatter to our city. Do people really believe that we need to defund the MTN.VIEW police? as BLM says. If you think so, then vote for those activists.
In response to JustAWorkingStiff you wrote:
“I believe Transitioning RV to real housing based on building codes with up-to-code power, sewer, water, garbage, is the most reasonable alternative”
RVs themselves are built to a construction code, granted they can break down just like any house or apartment. In fact you cannot prove that all homes in the City are in “up to code” condition. They were built that way, but you cannot prove they are in the same condition as when they were built. For example I live in a 60 year old apartment building. You said:
“I disagree with the argument that is ripping off the city.”
We can respectfully disagree You said:
“Anyway you look at it, there are subsidies in one form or another.”
Yes, the City creates a third party company called the Community Services Agency and uses it to funnel tax payer money into paying part or all rents to landlords that overcharge for housing. You said:
“Either the subsidies/tax avoidance of supporting them on the streets, or subsidizing them in what is effectively public housing. This is a poor quality argument. RV people get subsidized anyway you look at it. But putting them in real housing is better than leaving them on the streets.”
There are no subsidies if Measure C is rejected at all. The City DOES NOT make any PAYMENTS to those living in RVs. The RV residents pay sales taxes, and the registration fee per the ORIGINAL city ordinance. So, they are not given anything at all. This is just another misinformation claim that gets repeated over and over again. You said:
“Another point of disagreement is: If you really want 1000+ RVs, then propose it, approve it by a city wide vote, and resource and fund it. And disclose the costs in a manner any voter can understand. All you have is a non-plan at this point of time.”
In the NEXT election cycle, that just might or will happen, but passing such a poorly constructed measure like this is not a good “default” action. Sometimes doing NOTHING UNTIL the RIGHT solution is the smartest thing to do.
Gladys,
So nice to see you.
Playing the Donald Trump game still, you don’t have any argument other than to try to insult everyone that disagrees with you. when you wrote:
“The BM-StevenG person was out of work for the longest time. He never was a Business Man, as his screen name said for many years. He never had a business license, never managed a business, never ran anything. He has never owned any property or paid property taxes, he rents. He has no experience in how the actual world works. He is a government employee, yes he could not make it in the private sector.”
WOW, you really have a personal problem with me? In reality “So What”
Nice to see your working for either Jose Gutierrez, Margaret Abe Koga, Lisa Matichak, the California Association of Realtors or the California apartment Association still. Painting anyone that opposes them as trying to bring destruction to the city?
My hope is the VOTERS will never fall for this again, after voting for MAK and LM back into office, them trying to deceive the voters to pass Measure D, which failed miserably, and then the 2 used there office to exile those they wanted to get rid of. Thus creating a new state law to restrict City Council powers called SB330.
That’s all, stick to the subject and leave the personal attacks out.
@BM,
I will say this,you have gotten really fast in spamming your likes. In the first minute of your post, you gave yourself 34 likes. Not a personal attack, just another truth, people would call someone who does things like that a Loser.
Gladys makes a really good point. If you support Black Lives Matter, vote for Lieber, Showalter, Nunez, Lashlee, or Siegel!
If you oppose Black Lives Matter, vote for their opponents, Matichak, Abe-Koga, or Gutierrez.
A clear choice!
“… because it does not require ANY affordable housing to replace the RVs residents in the city. ”
Or maybe because that is not good public policy. Mountain View has been incredibly progressive on many issues.
The bottom line is every other city in California has parking restrictions similar to those of Measure C for good reason.
If Steven Goldstein is the poster child of the opposition to Measure C, I suggest you guys find a different cheerleader. You are not coming off as one to be sympathetic with at all with your attacks. I know nothing about this political nonsense being talked about on this comment section. All I see is one name dominating the comment section with rude rebuttals.
In response to NV Local You wrote:
“If Steven Goldstein is the poster child of the opposition to Measure C, I suggest you guys find a different cheerleader. You are not coming off as one to be sympathetic with at all with your attacks. I know nothing about this political nonsense being talked about on this comment section. All I see is one name dominating the comment section with rude rebuttals.”
And like the comments I am “REBUTTING” are not “RUDE”. I am just pointing out the false information that keeps being repeated over and over again. Maybe you should also read the “RUDE” comments made in “FAVOR” of Measure C? These people constantly denigrate contently the people living in the RVs is all of the discussions on the MV Voice. When I provide proof that they are OVEREXAGGERATING their arguments, you call it “RUDE”. I simply cannot stand bullies, and the people in the RVs deserve an equal say regarding these topics.
People get used to being able to push everyone around when they really are not in the position to do so. I will stand up to anyone trying to get away with it.
If its so simple, why can’t you get it right?
Steven, I’ve found this discussion really helpful for clarifying the stances of the different candidates. Here, the supporters of Lisa Matichak and Margaret Abe-Koga, like Gladys, clearly understand that they won’t support Black Lives Matter. I generally find listening to the supporters of a candidate much more revealing about the policies of a candidate, since it strips away all the careful political communication and reveals the message they are signaling. Like in this case, opposition to Black Lives Matter.
Frank Richards,
I understand what you talking about. But BLM is not the topic of this news article.
Did this webpage go through a lot of changes lately?
It appears that some discussion was edited. So it was only containing content about Meeasure C.
That is good.
I got the following flier in the mail today:
“Trusted Leadership to Keep You Safe: Endorsed by Mountain View Fire Fighters
Margaret Abe-Koga Jose Gutierrez Lisa Matichak
for Mountain View City Council
Because they support Measure C and full funding for Public Safety”
Because I am a schoolteacher, I support Measure C and I thank our firefighters for not only being
physically brave, but also having the moral courage to stand up for Mountain View residents who
want Safe Streets For All! I am so glad that you have our back!
Schoolteacher, which school do you teach at? How many of your students, or your peers’ students, will Measure C lead to being removed from Mountain View? With his support of Measure D and now Measure C, it’s no wonder Jose chose not to run for school board reelection, as he clearly values his own political advancement over the best interests of the students in the school district.
Needless to say, it’s very disappointing for a teacher to be in favor of removing the poor students from their school.
Frank Richards,
Given the lengths taken by the Astroturfers her. Many admit to creating multiple identities to post on different stories, there is good reason that Schoolteacher is Gladys.
Unlike you, Lenny, and many others like me, we are not posting under a pseudonym. We are REAL people.
However she does have a right to her opinion, we must not “attack” her, just continue to provide unbiased facts and well designed logic to support it. It eventually will make people listen.
In the long run, to the readers my message never changes:
“Do Your Own Homeowork!
Make up you OWN mind!
and VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!”
Mr. Goldstein,
I am a real schoolteacher, and my name is not Gladys. I don’t want to tell you what school I work at, because I don’t want a lawyer bothering my family or my employer.
But I will tell you that I work at a school in a neighboring city. They do not allow parents to make their children live with them on the street in an RV. So no children in my school will be affected.
The Yes on C people told me that there are no more than 17 children living in the streets in RVs in Mountain View, and that there is are available spaces for them in the safe parking lots now. So I would tell those parents, go to the safe parking lots with your children and work with the counselors to get your children into a stable housing situation. Your children deserve it!
In response to Schoolteacher you wrote:
“I am a real schoolteacher, and my name is not Gladys. I don’t want to tell you what school I work at, because I don’t want a lawyer bothering my family or my employer.”
Why would you be bothered by a lawyer? You are simply expressing your First Amendment rights here. As long as you comply with the terms of use, and do not write anything libelous here. To me I understand that Idea, but it seem almost paranoic given you have done nothing wrong. Right?
You said:
“But I will tell you that I work at a school in a neighboring city. They do not allow parents to make their children live with them on the street in an RV. So no children in my school will be affected.”
Please provide what records you have to determine the extent of children living in the RVs in Mountain View? Given you do not work here, you really don’t have those records do you? And if you did, they better be the PUBLIC records, because PRIVATE records in your hands may make you in trouble requiring an attorney? You wrote:
“The Yes on C people told me that there are no more than 17 children living in the streets in RVs in Mountain View, and that there is are available spaces for them in the safe parking lots now. So I would tell those parents, go to the safe parking lots with your children and work with the counselors to get your children into a stable housing situation. Your children deserve it!”
So you answered my question, 17 children out of the ENTIRE city of Mountain view doesn’t seem like the problem you make it out to be. What evidence is there for you to determine that the Children are NOT well cared for? You know if that was the case, they would be taken into the custody of the State. Unfortunately, like me when I was 6. My family was admittedly a very bad one. But you just aren’t scoring any merit by convicting their parents of not providing their children with adequate care without any EVIDENCE to prove it.
To me this is just another attempt to distract from the real questions we are voting about.
Let’s unpack what “Schoolteacher” is saying. They think it’s better for these children to have their parents fined and their homes seized. It’s better for these children to be removed from our schools. That’s all that Measure C does.
The proponents of Measure C have shown they have no issue lying to the public in their crusade against the poor.
Vote No on C. Stop this cruel ban.
I have to say it: the idea of letting people live in RVs / tents in MV is one of the most racist, discriminatory, and exploitative policies I have heard of.
What it does is it sanctions the development of favelas housing workers that then can provide cheap services to the better off residents. I cannot think of ONE city where favelas have led to more equality and happiness.
I am sure that people who oppose C do not view it this way, but they show a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works. Allowing favelas makes available a large work force that competes with itself and keeps costs low. It is surely convenient to pay only $100/month to have your lawn cut, but we should see it for the exploitation it is.
If instead we force all residents to be properly housed, or else to move, this in the short term will be painful. However, note that there is no “right to live where you want”; I also cannot afford Beverly Hills. Once a good number of people move (enforcing not only no RVs but also occupational limits in rentals), that work force will become scarcer. And it will drive up prices. Once my gardener moves, I will go talk to the neighbor’s gardener and offer them $150 or $200 to do my house. Competition will increase and drive the salaries up. If you have ever lived in a decent place (think at many nice European cities), services there are far more expensive than here in the US, and as a consequence, they do not support the creation of an exploited share of the population living in favelas conditions. Higher service prices also results in more income redistribution.
I am sure that opponents of proposition C have their heart in the right place, but it’s their understanding of the dynamics that is completely wrong. Again, I do not see how favoring the formlation of favelas is going to lead to a more egalitarian and happier society. It’s just convenient for the cheap prices that the upper middle class pays.
Luca, how magnanimous of you to offer up these people to experience even more “short-term pain”, as if living in their vehicles isn’t hardship enough. You want to punish them even more, so that folks like you won’t have to see the effects of rising inequality. Don’t you feel a little bit ashamed of that, especially when you try to shame your opponents as “racist” and “discriminatory”? Seems like a large amount of projection to me.
In response to Luca you wrote:
“I have to say it: the idea of letting people live in RVs / tents in MV is one of the most racist, discriminatory, and exploitative policies I have heard of.”
WOW, what a great leap from reality? Because you provide no evidence to support this crazy idea. You wrote:
“What it does is it sanctions the development of favelas housing workers that then can provide cheap services to the better off residents. I cannot think of ONE city where favelas have led to more equality and happiness.”
Please tell us where there is a favelas here. This is just another term for “Shanty Town” but trying to use a term used in Brazil. Yes they are defined as “low-income” settlements. But people like yourself do not build low income housing in Mountain View. In fact the City does everything it can to avoid that. You wrote:
“I am sure that people who oppose C do not view it this way, but they show a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works. Allowing favelas makes available a large work force that competes with itself and keeps costs low. It is surely convenient to pay only $100/month to have your lawn cut, but we should see it for the exploitation it is.”
The reality is that this does not exist in Mountain View, it is more likely that “short-term” tech contract workers use RVs because they can’t afford to pay rent in thecity, nor will landlords provide more affordable rents here. Where is your evidence to support this conclusion. You make a conclusion and back it up with more concluusions with no evidence. You wrote:
“If instead we force all residents to be properly housed, or else to move, this in the short term will be painful. However, note that there is no “right to live where you want”; I also cannot afford Beverly Hills. Once a good number of people move (enforcing not only no RVs but also occupational limits in rentals), that work force will become scarcer. And it will drive up prices. Once my gardener moves, I will go talk to the neighbor’s gardener and offer them $150 or $200 to do my house. Competition will increase and drive the salaries up. If you have ever lived in a decent place (think at many nice European cities), services there are far more expensive than here in the US, and as a consequence, they do not support the creation of an exploited share of the population living in favelas conditions. Higher service prices also results in more income redistribution.”
You know this is pure fiction, the “purchasers” have the power to dictate “prices” thus those “prices” will never change unless the ”buyers” consent to it. You know that won’t happen. You wrote:
“I am sure that opponents of proposition C have their heart in the right place, but it’s their understanding of the dynamics that is completely wrong. Again, I do not see how favoring the formlation of favelas is going to lead to a more egalitarian and happier society. It’s just convenient for the cheap prices that the upper middle class pays.”
Your story with no evidence to prove it is completely without any merit. Again, if we want to REALY get rid of RVs, we should build more low income housing. But that simply won’t happen unless funded by the Public sector. The Private sector only builds high cost housing and everyone knows it. But since land is short, that means the Public sector will have to take away available land from the Private Sectors. Now that Commercial and Residential Units are going into Foreclosure, this is the chance to get that land CHEAP.
I have worked with children for a long time and understand what they go through. Children who are living in RVs can be teased and shamed by their fellow students at school. No child will complain openly about this, for fear of being taken away from his parents. It is a really sad situation, one any good parent will avoid. To make their children live this way so their parents can have some extra spending money is quite sad. The city of Mountain View is reaching out to these families to help them find a better way. Please, this living on the streets should not continue! For the children’s sake!
In response to Schoolteacher you wrote:
“I have worked with children for a long time and understand what they go through.”
But you work for a different school system, NOT Mountain View, you wrote:
“Children who are living in RVs can be teased and shamed by their fellow students at school.”
That is the responsibility of the TEACHERS to control or prevent that. You are in effect not doing your job if you don’t intervene. You wrote:
“No child will complain openly about this, for fear of being taken away from his parents.”
BUT if there is any evidence of poor health, and a record of behavioral problems, then you would get the school nurse or guidance councilors in the situation. They by law would have to file a report to Child Protective Services. You are not making any sense here. You wrote:
“It is a really sad situation, one any good parent will avoid.”
So you are convicting a parent living in an RV as a “BAD PARENT” with no evidence, just your personal bias, just like the Law and Order SVU episode Poison, which a judge acted on class bias to give preferential treatment to his “good people” and abused his position for the “bad people”. Should the readers listen to one that has demonstrated BIAS. I am worried if you do not take proper care of any RV living students in YOUR school. You wrote:
“To make their children live this way so their parents can have some extra spending money is quite sad.”
Again, a CONVICTION without due process or tribunal. Your class BIAS is really bad. You wrote:
“The city of Mountain View is reaching out to these families to help them find a better way.”
I would like to see evidence of this before just taking anyone’s word for it. Please bring forth an RV family to testify how good the program Mountain View is doing? Otherwise this is an unsubstantiated claim again. You wrote:
“Please, this living on the streets should not continue! For the children’s sake!”
An RV is not “ON THE STREETS” it is a shelter with heat, plumbing, and food. You really have no idea what it is like to be “ON THE STREET”. In that place you may have a blanket and cardboard boxes. You really know how to mislead the readers.
“Schoolteacher”, no wonder you’re afraid to tell us the school you work at. If you are actually a teacher, you are seriously failing your students.
You claim to know about rampant bullying and teasing, yet do nothing to stop it! Instead, you blame these children and their families for their situation, implying they are bad parents and are doing it for “extra spending money.” Sad and disgusting.
All I can say is thank God you aren’t responsible for children in my kid’s school!
Thank you, Luca for spelling out what the Yes on C people have said all a long: Supporting the Vehicle housing to expand is inhumane. We can do better. MV has shown the Bay Area what can be done. Transitional Housing is the answer. Not a city wide campground with no services.
In response to Polomom you wrote:
“Thank you, Luca for spelling out what the Yes on C people have said all a long: Supporting the Vehicle housing to expand is inhumane.”
There is no policy or program that does anything like “SUPPORTING” Vehicular Housing. In fact, there is a registration FEE that must be paid by the RVs under previous ordinances, and they still pay an equal share of Sales taxes. There is no money spent to “support” RV living, except for any used to “Transition” them out of an RV. You wrote:
“We can do better. MV has shown the Bay Area what can be done. Transitional Housing is the answer. Not a city wide campground with no services.”
Again, what an example of magnification to the absurd. This is just a means of scapegoating “non-traditional” housing because these people cannot or refuse to spend the outrageous cost housing in the city. The PUBLIC roads are not PRIVATE until the CITY becomes a complete “GATED COMMUNITY”. And must dissolve the City Charter. Too much of this kind of argument gets spoken without a reality check.
Polomom, an interesting choice of names, so you play Polo, an expensive sport involving horses and a hammer and a ball? This is clearly an indication of “CLASS” bias running amok.
@Steven Goldstein. No, I don’t have anything to do with horses. But that is irrelevant.
Schoolteacher, thank you very much for your factual information (and I’m glad you are not letting the bullying by Goldstein stop your contributions). In one post, Goldstein said there was no reason for you to feel threatened by a lawyer – then merely two paragraphs later, HE threatened you with a lawyer!
Goldstein bullied you for using the pen name “Schoolteacher”. He even appeared to boast, “Unlike you, Lenny, and many others like me, we are not posting under a pseudonym. We are REAL people.” I found that amusing, as he used the pen name “The Businessman” from his beginning on this site, and only recently went to his real name. Along with his real name, he also found a way to manipulate the system and gives himself scores of UpVotes in a very few minutes – all the while stating it’s a ridiculous thing to do and means nothing (except to himself, evidently!).
You also never stated the (up to) 17 children living in oversized vehicles were not well cared for… but Goldstein falsely accused you of that. You also never said these children would be kicked out of Mountain View when Measure C is enacted… you clearly said you wanted them in our Safe Lots, where they get power, water, trash and sewage removal, and even food assistance.
I know you’re new here, but those of us who have been here a long time are used to the odd and disconnected logic of Goldstein, who makes senseless statements like “an RV is not ON THE STREETS and is a shelter with heat, plumbing and food”. If anything proves Goldstein has no idea of the facts… that is it! RVs do NOT have running water, plumbing, flushing toilets and heat (unless with a noisy auxiliary generator). That’s why sewage is sometimes dumped in the streets, in gutters and sometimes on neighbor’s front lawns, – and water is taken from neighbor’s hose outlets. Safe Lots were developed so people are actually helped, respected and can live with more dignity while being assisted to stable housing.
Now.. predictably, Goldstein Business Man will post endlessly, confusingly and falsely about what I have said. Rest assured nobody reads it – which is why he is so industrious about upvoting for himself.
“Local”/Shari Emling, this is pretty funny coming from you; maybe sit out the “lawyers” conversation. Weren’t you saying your representatives were going to contact me? Haven’t heard from them yet. I didn’t expect to, since bullies like you are cowards at your core.
We all remember the Mean Girls like you, Lisa Matichak, and Margaret Abe-Koga. That’s why you have to lie repeatedly about Measure C and about the people living in vehicles.
In response to Local to Schoolteacher you wrote:
“Schoolteacher, thank you very much for your factual information (and I’m glad you are not letting the bullying by Goldstein stop your contributions). In one post, Goldstein said there was no reason for you to feel threatened by a lawyer – then merely two paragraphs later, HE threatened you with a lawyer!”
No I Did NOT! However I did say that as long as he was not doing anything that could be considered against any “school policy” that in fact she did NOT NEED A LAWYER. BUT then she told us that she had to be an eyewitness to bullying to children living in RVs by the other children. By knowlingly being aware of it and doing nothing about it makes her liable for INACTION. Why don’t you understand that. She in fact confessed to failure to uphold zero tolerance of bullying in a school or other locations. This is NOT bullying, just information to consider. Nice try to claim she is a victim, when in fact the children she “witnessed” abuse are the REAL victims. Period. You wrote:
“You also never stated the (up to) 17 children living in oversized vehicles were not well cared for… but Goldstein falsely accused you of that. You also never said these children would be kicked out of Mountain View when Measure C is enacted… you clearly said you wanted them in our Safe Lots, where they get power, water, trash and sewage removal, and even food assistance.”
I actually was saying the opposite if you can understand my sentences. I said that the 17 children MUST be WELL CARED FOR. I said if the WEREN’T , then they would be investigated for some kind of neglect. But NO EVIDENCE OF ANY INVESTIGATION took place. Thus, they must be WELL TAKEN CARE OF. You really do seem to intent to redefine my sentences into a completely different meaning, but if you read it back it did not say anything like your claim. You wrote:
“I know you’re new here, but those of us who have been here a long time are used to the odd and disconnected logic of Goldstein, who makes senseless statements like “an RV is not ON THE STREETS and is a shelter with heat, plumbing and food”. If anything proves Goldstein has no idea of the facts… that is it! RVs do NOT have running water, plumbing, flushing toilets and heat (unless with a noisy auxiliary generator). That’s why sewage is sometimes dumped in the streets, in gutters and sometimes on neighbor’s front lawns, – and water is taken from neighbor’s hose outlets. Safe Lots were developed so people are actually helped, respected and can live with more dignity while being assisted to stable housing.”
Actually, they have LARGE water storage tanks installed along with a water pickup, or they can be adapted to use a large water tank. The heat can be produced and is produced by a propane tank. And electricity can be produced by a Honda electric generator. You really are trying to mislead the readers.
Case closed.
Oh Goldstein…. you twist MY words, when you try to cover for what you have said. You add your own re-interpretations to what you say, to cover for your factual errors. I wonder why being wrong is such a deathly fear for you??
At one time, the City offered sewage removal, but so few took the opportunity, that the service was discontinued. How many of these vehicles have large water storage tanks? How many have a propane tank or electric generator? Perhaps the well paid Google engineers who live this way (while paying no property) tax do – but few others. Give me a number to prove your claim? Do you honestly think the junk RVs dumped here (also paying no property tax), to be rented out by landlords, have those? Do you even think a majority do?
A simple discussion with a local police officer will show you how wrong you are, but you’d rather just post your fact-free assumptions.
This is NO way for anyone to live – which is why MV opened Safe Lots, will have 100 more temporary housing by the end of this year, and City Council set up a program for RVs to work with Community Services Agency to help them move forward with their lives. Street living is not “good enough” for anyone. They all deserve better.
To educate Local to Schoolteacer, please read this:
“How are bullying and cyberbullying defined in California anti-bullying laws and regulations?
California anti-bullying laws and regulations include the following definitions of bullying and cyber sexual bullying:
“Bullying” means any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, including communications made in writing or by means of an electronic act, and including one or more acts committed by a pupil or group of pupils as defined in Section 48900.2, 48900.3, or 48900.4, directed toward one or more pupils that has or can be reasonably predicted to have the effect of one or more of the following:
(A) Placing a reasonable pupil or pupils in fear of harm to that pupil’s or those pupils’ person or property.
(B) Causing a reasonable pupil to experience a substantially detrimental effect on his or her physical or mental health.
(C) Causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial interference with his or her academic performance.
(D) Causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial interference with his or her ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a school.
“Electronic act” means the creation or transmission originated on or off the schoolsite, by means of an electronic device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, wireless telephone, or other wireless communication device, computer, or pager, of a communication, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(i) A message, text, sound, video, or image.
(ii) A post on a social network Internet Web site, including, but not limited to:
(I) Posting to or creating a burn page. “Burn page” means an Internet Web site created for the purpose of having one or more of the effects listed in paragraph (1).
(II) Creating a credible impersonation of another actual pupil for the purpose of having one or more of the effects listed in paragraph (1). “Credible impersonation” means to knowingly and without consent impersonate a pupil for the purpose of bullying the pupil and such that another pupil would reasonably believe, or has reasonably believed, that the pupil was or is the pupil who was impersonated.
(III) Creating a false profile for the purpose of having one or more of the effects listed in paragraph (1). “False profile” means a profile of a fictitious pupil or a profile using the likeness or attributes of an actual pupil other than the pupil who created the false profile.
(iii)
(I) An act of cyber sexual bullying.
(II) For purposes of this clause, “cyber sexual bullying” means the dissemination of, or the solicitation or incitement to disseminate, a photograph or other visual recording by a pupil to another pupil or to school personnel by means of an electronic act that has or can be reasonably predicted to have one or more of the effects described in subparagraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, of paragraph (1). A photograph or other visual recording, as described above, shall include the depiction of a nude, semi-nude, or sexually explicit photograph or other visual recording of a minor where the minor is identifiable from the photograph, visual recording, or other electronic act.
(III) For purposes of this clause, “cyber sexual bullying” does not include a depiction, portrayal, or image that has any serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value or that involves athletic events or school-sanctioned activities.
Cal Ed Code § 48900 (2016)
Do California anti-bullying laws and regulations cover cyberbullying that occurs off-campus?
Yes. California anti-bullying laws cover off-campus conduct encompassing any electronic act where the creation or transmission originated on or off the school site.
What are the policy requirements for schools to prevent and respond to bullying behavior?
California school districts are required to adopt a policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation, or bullying. School district policies must contain key policy and procedural elements, including, but not limited to:
Statements prohibiting harassment, intimidation, or bullying;
Procedures for reporting and investigations;
Publications of antidiscrimination, anti-harassment, anti-intimidation, and anti-bullying laws;
Resources available to support LGBTQ and other at-risk students; and
Protections for complainants from retaliation.
California school districts are encouraged to maintain documentation of complaints and their resolution for a minimum of one review cycle.
Do California anti-bullying laws and regulations include protections for specific groups?
Yes. California anti-bullying laws require districts to adopt a policy that prohibits discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying based on actual or perceived characteristics including immigration status, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.
California schools that receive federal funding are required by federal law to address discrimination on a number of different personal characteristics. Find out when bullying may be a civil rights violation.
Do California anti-bullying laws and regulations encourage or require districts to implement bullying prevention programs or strategies?
Yes. California anti-bullying laws direct the department of education to display information, curricula, and resources that address bias-related discrimination, harassment, intimidation, cyber sexual bullying, and bullying. California anti-bullying laws encourage school districts to inform pupils regarding available information and resources on the state department of education website regarding the dangers and consequences of cyber sexual bullying.
California anti-bullying laws also direct the department of education to develop an online to assist all school staff, school administrators, parents, pupils, and community members in increasing their knowledge of the dynamics of bullying and cyberbullying. The online training module shall include, but is not limited to, identifying an act of bullying or cyberbullying, and implementing strategies to address bullying and cyberbullying.
Do California anti-bullying laws and regulations encourage or require districts to train teachers and other school staff on how to respond to bullying incidents?
Yes. California anti-bullying laws also direct the department of education to develop an online to assist all school staff, school administrators, parents, pupils, and community members in increasing their knowledge of the dynamics of bullying and cyberbullying. The online training module shall include, but is not limited to, identifying an act of bullying or cyberbullying, and implementing strategies to address bullying and cyberbullying.
Do California anti-bullying laws and regulations encourage or require districts to provide safeguards or mental health supports for students involved with bullying?
Yes. California schools are encouraged to refer students involved with bullying to a school counselor, school psychologist, social worker, child welfare attendance personnel, school nurse, or other school support services personnel for case management, counseling, and participation in a restorative justice program, as appropriate.
Do California anti-bullying laws and regulations involve parents in efforts to address bullying behavior?
Yes. California school districts must inform parents or legal guardian when a student is involved in an act of harassment, intimidation, cyber sexual bullying, or bullying, and must make available information on statewide resources to parents or legal guardians regarding harassment, intimidation, cyber sexual bullying, and bullying.
For More Information
Visit the California Department of Education’s “Bullying and Hate-Motivated Behavior Prevention” webpage and/or view the California sample policy for bullying prevention on bullying and harassment.
The key component framework used in the analysis of state laws is based on the review of legislation presented in the “Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies – December 2011” (U.S. Department of Education).”( https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws/california)
Also:
“California Parental Responsibility Laws
California’s parental liability laws hold parents liable for the willful misconduct of their minor children. Specifically, the California statute states as follows:
Any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person, or in any injury to the property of another may be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages.
The California statute also states that the custodial parent or guardian may be held jointly liable with the minor for the minor’s willful misconduct, for an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each wrongful act. While this $25,000 limit can include compensation for medical bills and treatment, it cannot include compensation for non-economic damages like pain, suffering, emotional distress, or mental anguish.
: Definition of ‘Willful Misconduct’
Under the statute, “willful misconduct” means that the minor did something on purpose and requires that the minor child intended to act “beyond the level of mere negligence.”
California law also subjects parents and guardians to potential criminal liability for the acts of their minor children. Specifically, the law requires parents to exercise reasonable care, supervision, protection, and control over their children, and failing to do so can result in a misdemeanor criminal charge and a potential jail sentence.
Parental Responsibility for Injury or Death Caused by a Minor Child
Under California law, a parent may be liable for an injury or death caused by a minor child if both of the following circumstances hold true:
The parental negligence made it possible for the child to cause the injury.
The parental negligence made it probable that the child would act in the way he or she did.
Evidence of parental knowledge can be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence at trial.”( https://bclawoffices.com/can-you-hold-parents-liable-for-bullying-at-school/)
Just FYI
Local, are your children bullying ahnyone?
In response to Local to Goldstein you wrote:
“Oh Goldstein…. you twist MY words, when you try to cover for what you have said. You add your own re-interpretations to what you say, to cover for your factual errors. I wonder why being wrong is such a deathly fear for you??”
I used your words VERBATIM, you just don’t like that the record was not what you claimed it to be at all. And now you are on an attack to me for just demonstrating false information? Not a good argument. You wrote:
“At one time, the City offered sewage removal, but so few took the opportunity, that the service was discontinued. How many of these vehicles have large water storage tanks? How many have a propane tank or electric generator? Perhaps the well paid Google engineers who live this way (while paying no property) tax do – but few others. Give me a number to prove your claim? Do you honestly think the junk RVs dumped here (also paying no property tax), to be rented out by landlords, have those? Do you even think a majority do?”
All of this INQUISITION with no evidence to prove anything. I already discussed that there were only 7 incidences of “dumping” sewage in the city spread in 2 years. The MV Voice article titled “ A waste bucket cracks open a foul problem “ (https://mv-voice.com/print/story/2018/11/16/a-waste-bucket-cracks-open-a-foul-problem) And that the City is more responsible for pollution of public waters as demonstrated by a lawsuit against it. The article is titled “Lawsuit alleges city’s sewage is leaking into creeks “ (https://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2020/03/13/lawsuit-alleges-citys-sewage-is-leaking-into-creeks). Please you are not really giving us enough EVIDENCE to prove your OPINIONS. You wrote:
“A simple discussion with a local police officer will show you how wrong you are, but you’d rather just post your fact-free assumptions.”
Your statement would be and your argument is hearsay. Without ANY evidence to support it. In effect if I did ask a “police officer” he would be also committing hearsay. it is defined as:
“(a) “Hearsay evidence” is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.
(b) Except as provided by law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
(c) This section shall be known and may be cited as the hearsay rule.” (https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/evidence-code/evid-sect-1200.html)
You also wrote:
“This is NO way for anyone to live – which is why MV opened Safe Lots, will have 100 more temporary housing by the end of this year, and City Council set up a program for RVs to work with Community Services Agency to help them move forward with their lives. Street living is not “good enough” for anyone. They all deserve better.”
That is your opinion, BUT you have no right to DICTATE the lives of others simply because you look down on it. I am sorry we don’t live in that kind of government or state. I will simply wait to see if Measure C fails. If it does fail, then what are you going to do? If it succeeds then you will see the RVs leaving.
This issue is just mind boggling. Sit at Crisanto for a few days , and experience who these dwellers truly are. The majority simply don’t want to pay rent and/or live elsewhere . Ie East Palo Alto, East San Jose. Give me a break. People who support these RV dwellers, clearly have not sat at Crisanto for a significant length of time. Of course, I support helping the homeless but the MAJORITY , are there for various reasons. These people not only are undocumented and don’t pay taxes but they are LEASING, these RVs that someone bought and parked there.
I’m sure I cannot publish their license plates but a few own single family homes elsewhere, such as Salinas. There is a meth addict who lives in his truck and another in his car. They are there because they are addicts. The guy that is in the RV by Target, works and makes $25/ per hour. He does not want to pay rent nor live with people so he lives in the RV. This is so ridiculous. The minority are folks who truly need assistance. I support that.. but the majority do not. They lease the RVs and/or don’t want to live elsewhere or with other people. People who support the RV dwellers have no idea who these people even are.
@HN LNG so true! The majority do not want help or answer the door for the survey which to me is a red flag. I used to live close to Rengstorff park before, it was good before but it changed a lot. At one time, someone asked me if I wanted to smoke marijuana with him in public. I don’t smoke weed so I felt offended and unsafe.
Someone has to say this, if we don’t know who are the RV dwellers, we have no way of learning if they are registered sex offenders. By law, they are required to register an address, what will stop a pedophile from registering an address and yet lives in an RV near Rengstorff park? A park with a lot of children! It’s difficult to gather evidence but the fact that they won’t answer the door is a red flag. This happened to someone in EPA, that’s how I got the idea of the possibility.
I remember seeing a comment here where the RV dweller was a fugitive from a different state.
In response to HN LNG you wrote:
“People who support the RV parking do not live at or near Crisanto , Rengstorff. i.e. Showalter. She lives on the west side , polar to the Crisanto area. The MAJORITY who reside on Crisanto, are undocumented. They are not residents of Mountain View. They simply don’t want to live elsewhere.”
OMG here we go now again with the “undocumented” people. Another Donald Trumpet spewing the same language as this:
““When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” You wrote:
“Two sets of couples I spoke with, own a single family home. The people who live in the RVs’ , pay someone rent. Someone bought the RVs, placed them there so people can rent it.”
Yes that is true, but do you even know if the owner lives in Mountain View, MAKING money from them? It may be your neighbor making money off this practice you simply can’t tolerate? You wrote:
“The two RVs, by Walmart and by Target , don’t want to pay rent . They don’t pay taxes. I spoke to them as well. Showalter and supporters have not.”
Yes, the don’t pay “property taxes”, but they pay all the others especially sales taxes in the City of Mountain view. Thus, they feed the local economy. You know it. You wrote:
“The minority, are truly in need of housing and cannot move due to lack of means, health or other reason. Again – this is the minority. at Rengstorff park , by Crisanto, there are piles of trash, alcoholics and meth addict ( 2 I’m aware of).”
Pleas provide the police reports? Your story coming from an anonymous poster has no merit, it is hearsay. You continued:
“ These folks are not residents of Mountain View. Its easy for people to state how empathic they are towards the less fortunate , without critical thinking, reasoning and evidence.”
And where is your evidences? Sorry an anonymous poster making up stories doesn’t count. You know it, You wrote:
“They don’t live at or near Crisanto. They don’t observe, study, take logical count of the so called residents there. Through the MV Day Worker Center , the minimum , paid is $20 per hour. We have to pick them up and drop them off. The men by Walmart/Target, ask for $25-$35/ hour”
Wait, you are using “undocumented workers” and using them while you criticize the idea that they are here and available. What hypocrisy. You know this. Maybe that’s why your anonymous, we can’t call you for violating the law regarding hiring undocumented workers. You wrote:
“They don’t pay taxes and they simply don’t want to pay rent. Those who are truly in need of housing, have solutions but they are the minority. Its so easy for people to be up in arms and support the RV dwellers but, they don’t live there and they haven’t researched based on facts.”
Again, the “THEY” arguments. Please if anyone wants to be taken seriously by the readers here, NO MORE ANONYMOUS POSTINGS. Every time I see one I will call you out on it from now on..
In response to HN LNG you wrote:
“People who support the RV parking do not live at or near Crisanto , Rengstorff. i.e. Showalter. She lives on the west side , polar to the Crisanto area. The MAJORITY who reside on Crisanto, are undocumented. They are not residents of Mountain View. They simply don’t want to live elsewhere.”
OMG here we go now again with the “undocumented” people. Another Donald Trumpet spewing the same language as this:
““When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” You wrote:
“Two sets of couples I spoke with, own a single family home. The people who live in the RVs’ , pay someone rent. Someone bought the RVs, placed them there so people can rent it.”
Yes that is true, but do you even know if the owner lives in Mountain View, MAKING money from them? It may be your neighbor making money off this practice you simply can’t tolerate? You wrote:
“The two RVs, by Walmart and by Target , don’t want to pay rent . They don’t pay taxes. I spoke to them as well. Showalter and supporters have not.”
Yes, the don’t pay “property taxes”, but they pay all the others especially sales taxes in the City of Mountain view. Thus, they feed the local economy. You know it. You wrote:
“The minority, are truly in need of housing and cannot move due to lack of means, health or other reason. Again – this is the minority. at Rengstorff park , by Crisanto, there are piles of trash, alcoholics and meth addict ( 2 I’m aware of).”
Pleas provide the police reports? Your story coming from an anonymous poster has no merit, it is hearsay testimony. You continued:
“ These folks are not residents of Mountain View. Its easy for people to state how empathic they are towards the less fortunate , without critical thinking, reasoning and evidence.”
And where is your evidences? Sorry an anonymous poster making up stories doesn’t count. You know it, You wrote:
“They don’t live at or near Crisanto. They don’t observe, study, take logical count of the so called residents there. Through the MV Day Worker Center , the minimum , paid is $20 per hour. We have to pick them up and drop them off. The men by Walmart/Target, ask for $25-$35/ hour”
Wait, you are using “undocumented workers” and using them while you criticize the idea that they are here and available. What hypocrisy. You know this. Maybe that’s why your anonymous, we can’t call you for violating the law regarding hiring undocumented workers. You wrote:
“They don’t pay taxes and they simply don’t want to pay rent. Those who are truly in need of housing, have solutions but they are the minority. Its so easy for people to be up in arms and support the RV dwellers but, they don’t live there and they haven’t researched based on facts.”
Again, the “THEY” arguments. Please if anyone wants to be taken seriously by the readers here, NO MORE ANONYMOUS POSTINGS. Every time I see one I will call you out on it from now on..
Thank you Steve, for putting as much time as you do into saying many of the words I would. I am at least one of the people who votes up your posts, so while I can’t speak to the origin of all the hundreds of other votes, at least ONE of them is a real person.
40 feet has NOTHING to do with safe navigation. Measure it out. Easily wide enough for 2 RVs AND two 18 wheelers.
This is a thinly disguised move to simply push anyone in an RV out of the city.
We are kicking out the woman who teaches pre-school and yoga in town.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11842966/mountain-view-measure-c-would-push-rv-dwellers-off-city-streets
We are kicking out 74 year old Ida Seclen who has lived in town or nearby her entire life.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/11/07/mountain-view-rv-dwellers-fear-displacement-after-voters-decide-they-cant-park-on-narrow-streets/
Some use the fig leaf of “this is compassionate, because it will force the city to help these people.” That is the same “compassion” as dismantling pre-existing conditions insurance protections in the ACA ‘because then congress will be forced to pass better healthcare reform.’ To be self consistent, these people must also support that rationale for overturning the ACA.
Call the measure what it is: we do not want homeless people in our city and we wish them to be shipped out. Own it for what it is instead of equivocating around a painful truth.
@David Theil,
You gave 2 examples of people you say who will be kicked out because of Measure C passing.
Question, why did not those 2 people that you are referring to, sign up for the safe parking lot program? I know it did not fill up all that fast.
To your point about the 40 foot street restriction, and less.
A typical RV is 8 feet wide, plus 1 foot for the mirror extending out on one side only. You can legal park I believe 12 or 18 inches away from the curb. That is 10 feet in width of an object protruding out from the curb. 10 feet times 2 parked RV’s is 20 feet. It would be impossible for 2 additional driving RV’s or 18 Wheeler’s to be driving on opposite side of the street, that’s another 20 feet in width, without hitting every mirror of the parked RV’s, if you are lucky enough to just hit the mirrors and nothing else.
Then figure that 40 feet is the maximum street width covered under Measure C, would do you think will happen on streets that are 36 feet in width?
It just does not work.
Mark,
OK.
Do you know whether the funding of the “transitional” housing services are perpetual, or have an estimated length of time, or a cap on how much money can be spent?
What we do know is that there are only 63 passenger type parking spots in the city and 67 RV spots allocated in the Safe Parking programs if you look at the city website here (https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/preservation/safe_parking_program.asp)
The website claims that:
It offers stability, but does not indicate HOW, and it excludes so called transient workers or professionals who choose “living in their cars to save money.” Even though they may not have the money to afford housing in the city.
It claims to offer supportive services, but does not indicate what they are.
It CLAIMS that 30-50% of passenger car slots attain interim or permanent housing, and NO record of any RV transitions.
That is a failure regarding standard grading because it is less than 50% of a subset of 50% of the spots allocated.
The reality is that the CSA does not have the funds to actually achieve an acceptable rate of at least 70% of ALL participants
Too bad I didn’t point this out prior to the election, BUT this will be proof that the so-called services are not meeting the demands in court. Thus, this will be good cause to render the RV ban as unconstitutional.