|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View elected leaders will be forced to retract a citywide large-vehicle ban that was accused of being a thinly veiled crackdown on the homeless.
On Monday, officials with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters announced that a referendum petition had successfully collected enough signatures to overturn the vehicle ban. If a majority of the Mountain View City Council wishes to pursue the ordinance to ban large vehicles, it must go before voters to decide.
The announcement was hailed as a victory by members of the Housing Justice Coalition and the Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists of America. The two groups had coordinated a campaign in November to collect the needed signatures in less than a month.
While many Mountain View residents are deeply troubled by the area’s growing homelessness, they also don’t want a superficial solution that just pushes poverty elsewhere, said former Councilman Lenny Siegel, speaking for the Housing Justice Coaltion.
“The community is split on what is means to have people living in vehicles, but most people in Mountain View want a real solution,” he said. “I’m hoping that we can go beyond the restrictions and come up with something that works for the vehicle residents.”
The referendum takes aim at an ordinance passed on Oct. 22 that banned all vehicles more than 7 feet high, 7 feet wide or 22 feet long from parking along most city streets. The ordinance explicitly avoids any mention of homelessness, and it was instead written to focus on traffic safety issues.
Under the proposed rules, this ban is expected to close most of Mountain View’s suburban neighborhoods to large vehicles, including RVs and trailers. The city has not released final details on which streets would be affected.
Ever since the parking ban was first proposed, Housing Justice advocates warned they would work to overturn it. Under city rules, ordinances approved by the City Council do not take effect for 30 days, and they can be overturned through a citizen petition process. To qualify, a referendum petition must include signatures from about 10% of the registered voters in Mountain View, which equates to more than 3,700 individuals.
Last month, activists delivered a petition with nearly 5,000 signatures to City Hall. Elections officials say nearly 15% of the signatures analyzed were found to be invalid, mainly because the voter names were not registered. Nevertheless, the petition was still signed by 4,179 legitimate voters.
As part of the certification process, elections officials verify only a fraction of the total names that were submitted — 500, in this case.
The petition results will be considered by the Mountain View City Council at its Jan. 14 meeting, according to City Clerk Lisa Natusch. At that time, the council must decide whether to repeal the ordinance or bring it to voters at the next regular election. Since the deadline for the March ballot has already passed, that means the ordinance would have to wait until November.
“Petition to overturn RV ban succeeds”
The petition forces a vote, it did not “succeed” in “overturning” the RV restrictions that Council recently passed (which this headline, in turn, spins as a “ban”). The petition would only overturn Council if that were the result of an election, which is months off.
Your headline and first paragraph are not accurate and mislead your readers. Please stop writing with bias and just share the facts.
The Voice has joined the ranks of Fake News. Too bad.
I’ll be EXTREMELY disappointed in my city leaders if they don’t present this to the public for vote in November.
In fact, it should be 7-0. Isn’t that a vote for true democracy on the issue?
And the ballot statement should be clear this was not a “ban”. There are still a fair number of legal places to park.
The article is correct—the council’s ban on rv’s has been overturned. If the council wishes to try again, then they must go to the voters. If they don’t go to the voters; then the default is no ban.
The wording in the first sentence — “a thinly-veiled *crackdown* on the homeless — betrays a bias. “Crackdown” is what we do to wrongdoers.
Why didn’t Mr. Noack write, “a thinly-veiled *assault* on the homeless?” Whether it is or not, that’s a more accurate representation of the view of those who oppose the ban, no?
Regardless, we shouldn’t crackdown on our homeless brothers and sisters, we should HELP them.
This is ridiculous! Who is even behind those RVs? The sketchy people I see in Rengstorff park do not look like a constituency… so, why? Qui prodest????
The solution is for everyone who signed the petition to invite an RV to park in front of their home where the occupants can dump urine and feces, do drug deals, and reduce the quality of life for residents.
The article failed to include the facts that Lenny Siegel is a socialist who was bot
Ed our of Office in the last election.
I support the “RV” Ban. It has nothing to do with homelessness for me but when you try to turn on a street that has a line of large vehicles to the left, there is no safe way to do so. Also in the condition some of these vehicles are in, the residents that have spent over a million dollars on a home shouldn’t have to walk out to such an eye sore every morning.
Please, please, Please, bring this before the voters. And give us an option and opportunity to enact a “TOTAL CITYWIDE BAN” instead of the proposed restricted ban. I look forward to the day when Lenny and company regret this silly petition when it comes back to bite them….
It’s. Not. About. The. Homeless.
It’s about safety. And waste. And the environment. And safety. And safety.
So, are we waiting for a pedestrian or bicyclist to get hit by a turning car before we improve safety? That’s what I’m seeing.
Please let us vote. BAN this madness. Mobile parks are fine but not on our streets. Hazardous human waste cannot be dumped on our front yards. Huge RVs will cause lots of traffic accidents, and yet Lenny wants residents to be responsible. I suggest RV owners park on Lennys street and dump poop on his yard. To be fair. I petition for that.
Mountain View is only so big. Trying to cram extra people in the city who live in cars is awful for many many reasons.
No one wants to hurt these transients, but the reality is they need to move somewhere where cost of living and housing is cheaper. That’s the humane thing to do.
Let’s just vote this council out of office if that’s what it takes. We don’t want RVs and people living in cars on our streets. Time to send another message at the ballot box. Apparently Lenny still doesn’t get it.
So can we start another petition, get 3000 signatures and ban the ban of the ban?
I don’t want a bunch of RVs on mountain view streets.
I live near a street that has 12 rvs parked on it, I seen trash , a used condom , one guy pee on the side of someone’s house and literally a bucket of piss sitting outside one rv. I’m truly sorry for the people who can not afford it here, Who wants people living on the side of your house. We don’t know these people! They set up close to schools!! How is a few random guys living close to a school ok?? They block intersection to where it’s hard to see when pulling out. If your ok with this you literally don’t see it or it’s not next to your house. I’m not ok with these RVs and will never be.
Congratulations to those groups who stood up to the callous and indifferent city council that passed the ridiculous homeless ban, caring more about property value than human lives.
The RV dwellers don’t live in rvs just because they enjoy it, and kicking them to the other cities is not a solution. It’s not a crime to be poor, and making things harder for the least powerful people in our community isn’t a solution.
It boggles my mind to hear people talking about kicking hundreds of human beings out of the entire city and framing it as though it were nothing more than a concern about parking availability. Give me a break.
If you want to make poverty invisible so you can continue living in this rich city and jot have to think about it, just admit that. But burying your head in the sand does not fix anything.
Here what’s happening: RV BAN sounds like a crime against humanity. If you support the bill, it automatically makes you look and sound like Trump, Hitler or Nazzi – YOU are against the homeless people, heartless greedy residents.
Nevermind, that some of these homeless people are not homeless at all. Nobody will hear you.
Nevermind that many choose the RV lifestyle by choice: as a way to house hack, to save on rent/mortgage and live for free.
Nevermind, that some make money and biz thru RV rents, and a few have primary residences somewhere else.
No one will hear your arguments, don’t waste your time.
RVs block the roads and cause accidents? RVs leak hazardous human waste? RVs stay for years in spot littering and polluting the neighbourhoods or bread drugs and abuse? It does not matter…
Every time you mention RV ban you give Lenny an upper hand – he will come to the rescue of poor people, who struggle paying the rent. Just elect him. And we know how it goes. We already have the largest mobile park in Cuernevaca and people peeing during the day light and dumpig sewage on the streets.
INSTEAD we should focus on REAL problem – we need to address the parking situation for ALL. Nevermind if it’s RV, sedan or any type of vehicals. We should propose the limit on parking like 2 hour max parking and overnight ban on streets because it’s overcrowded, because its packed for ALL, especially in a dense neighborhoods like Cuernevaca with multiple apartment complexes.
PARKING SHALL BE REGULATED FOR ALL, INCLUDING RVs. And every time you say BAN the RVs it will be used against you, by politicians and their very active group who just collected 5K signatures.
People of Mountain View, we must get organized and stop this madness. No one shall park on streets for days or months, and turn our streets into toilets. We started a conversation on Nextdoor in MV. Join us.
“ As part of the certification process, elections officials verify only a fraction of the total names that were submitted — 500, in this case.”
So how many of the 5000 petition signers were actually registered voters? The article says 15% but if they only verified mv 500 how can they legitimately extrapolate that number? I certainly hope the RV dwellers haven’t signed the petition as obviously they’re ineligible since they don’t have an address. Oh yeah, and they also pay zero in taxes so contribute nothing for the city services they use.
Mountain View actually has a Haz Mat budget for taking care of any “leakage” of “hazardous waste or fluids- by the way, anti-freeze and oil are considered Haz Mat” yet only only a couple of instances were actually responded to in Fiscal 2018-2019. The unfortunate statements in news articles only feeds this myth and creates a false narrative for those inclined to be against vehicle dwellers. The REAL issue is poverty in the Silicon Valley. I perform Social Work with this population and interact with them daily. How many of you NIMBYs can say that? Most of these folks do not want to be in vehicles yet cannot afford the cost of living in this area. Displacement of seniors and disabled living on fixed income (SSI avarages $870/month, SSDI $1200/month), service workers living on 2-3 minimum wage jobs, single parents, most of them women, with children eking out an existence, and unskilled documented, undocumented and asylum seekers (the horrors occurring in Latin America is another topic most of the ostriches with their heads in the sand would like to continue to ignore).
The scandal is that this pocket of prosperity has totally missed the boat of unaddressed poverty in our midst. The responsibility is widespread- local and state governments, churches, temples, mosques- are reactive and have failed to be proactive. Homelessness has increased by over 30% in this County in the last two years. Perhaps its time to revisit how the Depression era accommodated the homeless while more permanent solutions were enacted. Perhaps we need regulated and supported tent cities and RV parks for a season, despite the NIMBY’s . These are our neighbors, after all. And someone wiser than I commanded “Love thy neighbor:….
@Gary- how can an RV dweller register to vote without an address? You’re supposed to provide proof of residency when you register to vote. Since they’re “mobile” they could claim to be residents of any city they choose and vote in their local elections. Also, every resident of a legal address pays local taxes either directly through property taxes or indirectly through their rent. A transient is not entitled to vote for policy in a locale in which he/she contributes nothing. If their voting is legal the socialist republic of California has gone completely bonkers. The lunatics are truly running the asylum. Furthermore if voter verification is based on a small “representative” sample that’s an open invitation to commit voter fraud. If they’re only checking 10% of the voters there’s a 90% chance you won’t get caught.
Do Not forget to Ban Lenny Siegel and Pat Showalther from next years city council elections in ou city.
They are responsible for this mess, do not vote them back into office or things will get far worse.
> how can an RV dweller register to vote without an address? You’re supposed to provide proof of residency when you register to vote. Since they’re “mobile” they could claim to be residents of any city they choose and vote in their local elections.
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/publications-and-resources/guide-vr-drives/ says:
“Courts have ruled that a homeless person may register to vote at a location they state is the place where they spend most of their time. The person must provide a description of the location that is clear enough for the elections official to establish that person’s right to vote in a particular precinct. This ensures accurate elections materials can be provided to this voter. In these instances, a mailing address needs to be provided in order for the voter to receive election materials.”
> Also, every resident of a legal address pays local taxes either directly through property taxes or indirectly through their rent. A transient is not entitled to vote for policy in a locale in which he/she contributes nothing. If their voting is legal the socialist republic of California has gone completely bonkers.
You’re literally talking about poll taxes or property requirements to vote. They used the same logic to defend those things in the Jim Crow south. “Why, these black sharecroppers don’t own land in this area, so they have no incentive to make sure that the policies they vote for are good for the area because they can just pick up and move. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to let non landowning people vote.” And when you consider that the people who are living in RVs are much more likely to be people of color, advocating their mass disenfranchisement looks that much more similar.
Those things were bad then and they’re bad now. You shouldn’t have to have money to have a say in a democracy — that is the whole point of a democracy.
Personally, I do not to bring us back to a 19th century, landed aristocracy lording over everyone else. It’s happening anyway but I’d like to slow that down if I can. And I don’t think most other people would agree with me. So, I guess I can consider us lucky that we still get a vote.
LETS VOTE ON THIS ISSUE
We need to do more for the real homeless
The motor homes parked on the street is a totally different issue which needs to be solved but not by allowing the parking to continue
I don’t think any actual residents of MV would be looking forward to having a RV semi-permanently parked in their front yard. This issue should be voted upon by registered resident voters in the fall.
See CA Elections Code section 9237. The City Council must “reconsider” the ordinance, and if the Council still wants it, the matter must be put to voters. Meanwhile, the ordinance is suspended.
Until we as a city can find a better solution of finding safe parking for RVs with toilet and bathing facilities, the status quo should continue. Our rents and prices have out paced the ability of service people to work here. For many RVs are the solution. We (all who want a pristine RV free community) are the problem and we can also be the solution. 1) more low cost housing 2) safe clean places for RVs 3) enforcement for the few RV bad actors, 4) efforts to get to know our neighbors in and out of RVs and not vilify them.
Well Steve, there generally are three types of formal “direct democracy” petitions in California: (1) initiative, (2) referendum and (3) recall (of elected officials). You can initiate an ordinance (or general plan amendment – or charter amendment in a charter city or county) with an initiative petition. There are also nominating petitions for candidates. Use any petition you like.
Oh boy, here we go. Suddenly the harsh reality of the housing crisis is too gross to handle. If NIMBY is how everyone feels, then focus on a solution. Push and vote for more affordable housing that is actually regulated with a greater income verification process.
It’s lazy to complain and ban. That’s what everyone does and passing the buck is, again, one of the many reasons why things got to this point.
RV dwellers can register to vote. I do not know if any have done so. The process of verifying large petitions is to sample and determine the percentage of valid signatures – and apply that percentage to the total. If the total (gross) would exceed the signatures required by a significant percentage (I am too lazy to check the code section at the moment), then the petition is declared sufficient. It is the lawful procedure.
If you Google CA Secretary of State for (2) random sampling of petition signatures and (2) homeless can vote, you will find legal citations. Adult citizens can only vote in one place but they are not disenfranchised just because they have no real estate on which they live. Random sampling is probably used across the country. It is perfectly valid.
See Collier v. Menzel (1985) 176 CA3d 329. Homeless can vote.
CA Elections Code section 9240 regarding a city referendum petition calls for verifying signatures as provided in sections 9114 and 9115 which, in turn, provides for random sampling if over 500 signatues.
As expected, Lenny has once again messed with the will of the people of this city to advance another of his pet causes. Never mind that he hasn’t PERSONALLY done squat to help homeless people. I hope everyone keeps that in mind the next time this guy runs for office. He is NOT interested in doing what is best for the people of this city. He is just interested in having a large pool of money available to direct at cause he chooses to support.
This issue needs to come before the voters. When the ban is voted in, I fully expect Lenny and his cadre to sue to have it overturned again (so much for the Will of the People). If that is allowed, we know for certain that the lunatics are running the asylum.
If you can’t afford to live here, then you should move somewhere else. That is what “Reasonable Human Beings” do when faced with their economic limitations. There are 7 MILLION available jobs in this country and they are not all located in this city, or even this state. If you can’t afford to live here, then go elsewhere, get a job and become a contributing member of that community.
This city is spiraling in on itself. It is becoming a mini version of San Francisco with all of the problems and none of the cache. The only thing we are missing is the needles in the street and the ocean breeze. It isn’t an example to aspire to any longer. Eventually, the people who are paying the bills but are having their rights ignored will get fed up with the situation. Lenny wants this to be San Francisco. If he gets his way with all his ill-conceived “social programs”, what he is going to get is Detroit. That is what happens when you excuse people from being responsible for themselves. The bigotry of low expectations isn’t doing anyone a favor. It is just the reverse Midas touch – taking something golden and turning it into garbage.
We don’t yet know “the will of the People” as to the ordinance passed. The current city council majority voted for it, many voters signed a referendum petition challenging adoption and next the law requires the city council to “reconsider” and either withdraw the ordinance or put it to voters. Maybe the ordinance will be challenged if it ends up on the books. A challenge would need to be based on a superior law or laws – such as the city constitution (called a “charter”) or a state statute or state constituional provision or a federal statute or the U.S. Constitution. Maybe the ordinance would violate a treaty between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Another possibility is that the city staff will tell the city council another ordinance addressing the issues would be better. Stayed tuned.
From the perspective of recently moved to MV from the east coast: for the first time in my life I actually helped get signatures, for the overturning of the ban. Why?
1) the normal humanitarian reasons,
2) hedging bets: even if the worst is true about RVs, there’s an upside. Hazmat garbage is the only thing depressing prices so I can have a hope of buying in a few years.