Berkely style hypocrites are running this city now. They all want to look like they care about people while their actions are exactly the opposite.The moronic liberal dirt bag voters of this city deserve. I see crime rate going up and these morons impose more fee based system to squeeze the middle class and the rich.

Ok, well if Lucas Ramirez wants to help, how about setting up a soup line for the homeless? That's what they did in the 30s. Or should we build them a 5 star hotels? What does Lucas really want to gain?

Of course we should respect people and life, but this sounds like more liberal calp-trap that will cause the property crime rate to increase even more.

Easy to pay lip service to these sorts of things until it happens to you.

I resent the comments regarding liberals being called scum basically. Highly offensive! There are NO human rights in this town, just money rights!!

BIGGEST QUESTION: Is this going to make MV a better city for the legal, law abiding, tax paying residents?

"Human Rights" = Illegal rights.

Remember when we were told if we only invested in a building for the illegals, from which they could learn and get jobs, it would be better and safer for all? It would give the men somewhere safe to hang out while waiting for a job? So why are there still a dozen or so men standing on the corners of the Fresh Choice parking lot every day?

There's four times more homeless people here now... of course there are. And the better you make it for them - the more there will be in the future. It will become a magnet city for homeless and illegals.

Is this going to make our city better for all? or just better for homeless and illegal people?

Beautiful! Thanks to Ken!

Don't know why haters gotta hate. Wild to see such negative comments. What in the world would get a positive comment if prioritizing human rights doesn't??? I would be happy to hear valid concerns that we can address together as a community, but just calling officials hypocrites and your neighbors moronic really doesn't do anyone any good. Though a comments chain probably isn't the forum where much would happen anyway...

And Mr/Ms. "Hmm" help me understand why we are considering building 5 star hotels for the homeless? Shouldn't we first start with just basic shelter and a soup kitchen... a 5 star hotel really doesn't seem economically feasible. I appreciate the sentiment behind it of wanting to treat the poorest among us as no less than anyone else. It's true, "blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the earth." But a 5 star hotel... I'm just not thinking it's that practical of a solution.

Love the creativity though!

Love how the Scrooges leaving comments won't use their names. Life is not a zero-sum game. So we're not racial profiling, doesn't mean white people will be targeted. And if we include women in the hiring process, it doesn't mean men get excluded. Give these new policies a chance. Who knows, maybe your heart will grow 3 sizes that day.

Jessica, pretty sure that no one in this thread is against human rights, but we're skeptical (and rightly so) of "human rights."

My primary day-to-day concern is that property crime is out of control. This is far too affluent of a place to have my packages and furniture stolen off my porch, and my garage broken into. I'm nearly certain that it's not my Stanford-educated neighbors who work at Google doing this. Just a hunch.

I've reported each incident to MVPD, who have always been pleasant and seem to genuinely care, but they don't bother pretending that anything will be done about this or that I'll ever see my belongings again.

This a major QOL issue, and we pay way too much to live here to put up with this. Becoming a magnet for more people who don't face real consequences for their actions--and who are instead rewarded for breaking laws--will not improve this.

Cordelia, I'll use my name when we can go back to the era of people not being punished for thought crimes.

Jessica Williams and anyone else for whom the sarcasm was lost.

I might be wrong, but I believe the person asking about building 5-star hotels was being sarcastic or hyperbolic. These things always start out as a "just help the worst off" and then turn into much more expensive things for many more than the original number.

Punished for thought crimes? Rubbish, that's just the sound of your own shame.

Sorry to hear that your stuff was stolen, but try and keep things in perspective. That was just stuff. If the loss of everyday objects makes you wish for racial profiling, you're letting fear get the best of you. You keep going down that path and you're trading in your freedom for the promise of "safety".

I have no shame. Certain groups commit multiples of the amounts of crime than do others. The group that I am in (ethnically) tends to be in the lower-middle. To ignore this is unnecessary PC dancing, and is a product of the past few decades.

And, yes, people are being punished for thought crimes. Brendan Eich, many campus "rapists," fraternity members the past few weeks, etc.

I don't expect you to agree, but I assure you that I'm sincere.

And yes, it's just "stuff," but it was my stuff that was stolen from me, and the MVPD assures me for pennies on the Dollar to feed drug habits. I can argue with Nordstrom and UPS to replace a new shirt that was swiped from my porch; I can buy new furniture at Costco; I cannot replace sentimental items that were stolen from my garage.

"While sure they shot ya, but at least you didn't die!" Come on.

I respectfully object to the pursuit of a "human rights city" designation for Mountain View, because it implies that disagreement with any of the policies suggested in the article (i.e. rent control, sanctuary city for homeless and/or undocumented immigrants, and law enforcement training) means one is against human rights. If, for example, a person supports all the enumerated policies above except rent control, would it not be too easy to say that person is still opposed to human rights, since we have a policy that says consideration for human rights requires support of rent control?

Policies and decisions should be individually weighed and considered without the excess baggage of trying to comport with a larger philosophy of government that may or may not have the unequivocal support of a majority of the citizens of this city, and I urge against adopting something that would too easily allow dissenters to be unfairly tried and executed in the court of public opinion.

For whatever it's worth, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found in full here: Web Link

Rent control, “sanctuary city” policies, and law enforcement training are not enumerated among the articles defining each human right. The rights themselves are quite broad. If the Council does adopt the UDHR as “guiding principles,” specific policy initiatives will still need to be deliberated in public hearings. Even if such policy initiatives are superficially consistent with the UDHR, they may not actually be good policy.

Of course, the Council has the discretion to adopt the proposed resolution as a symbolic gesture only, or to decline to adopt it entirely. The Human Relations Commission made no recommendation to the Council on how to implement the “Human Rights City” concept. The comprehensive approach taken by the City of Eugene is one of several possible options, and the Council will need to determine which, if any, is the most appropriate for Mountain View.

Moving towards being a human rights city is an exciting development, one that would help position Mountain View in a leadership role where it belongs. It puts some of these issues on the table and says that it is important to talk and think about them.

Some are worried - I notice in the comments - that there could be negative consequences. Open discussion of the issues, which our city council encourages and the Mountain View Voice supports, is the remedy for that.

Do we not already have a policy on this? As I recall the document is called "The Bill of Rights".

Covers the bases for citizens of the United States and legal immigrants quite nicely.

A number of quotes in the piece stand out...in rather bad ways.

The homeless tent city for instance...Is Mr Rosenberg willing to put that across the street from his house? How about Mr. Ramirez?

C'mon guys, put your money (via property value and personal/property security) where your mouth is.

If our growing homeless population is truly due to rising rents (I'd like to see some data on that) this simple fact is that those who've been displaced cannot afford to live here. If "we" are going to spend our money to address this problem the best solution would be to aid those folks in finding housing they can afford...and GASP! that might mean another municipality. But stealing money from me to subsidize someone elses housing...no thanks. Don't bother asking again.

The statement that "Corporations are not designed to solve the problems of poverty or water desalination" bothers me as well. The first part is wrong on it's face. The Governmental "war on poverty" has been going on since LBJ's Presidency. How's that going? I'm sure if we just throw a bit more money at it then....

Governments don't create jobs. Business does. There are over 5k facilities/support/services jobs that have been created at Google alone (think building/grounds maintenance, cafes, etc) that would not exist in this town w/o Google. Think about that the next time you complain about tech workers.

As to the second portion, Corporations are precisely the source of a solution to water desalinization. Mainly because government has a demonstrably horrible record as a Venture Capitalist. While the VC's on Sand Hill get it wrong often as well, they are using private capital, they aren't gambling with your money and mine. If the balance between a business case for developing desalination and the technology to do it is met, it'll happen. Until then I'm not interested in funding a soggy version of Solyndra....Don't bother asking again.

An anonymous resident of Whisman Station wrote, "My primary day-to-day concern is that property crime is out of control. This is far too affluent of a place to have my packages and furniture stolen off my porch, and my garage broken into. I'm nearly certain that it's not my Stanford-educated neighbors who work at Google doing this. Just a hunch."

Why does the Good Resident of Whisman Station believe his thief to be poor, and certainly not educated at Stanford and working at Google? Is the implication that the poor are less considerate and more selfish than the wealthy and secure? If so, it is an inaccurate assumption, as studies repeatedly find that the poor are more generous, giving, and selfless than those more fortunate.

Or does our Good Resident believe our town to be so unaffordable that the local poor cannot possibly survive here without resorting to theft? If so, I would urge him to turn his energies towards making our town survivable without theft or a Google job rather than propose harsher treatment for activities he believes are necessary for the survival of the poor.

For myself, I posit that if Stanford may be, like all great Universities (as informed by my experience at the University of Oxford), a breeding ground for kleptomaniacs, and propose that when our Resident next chooses a residence, he steer clear of all signs of Stanford alumni and opt for a home among the generous poor. (Said not completely in jest.)

@Rebecca Gorman

Entertaining bit of snark Rebecca. But if you pay attention to crime in MV you'll note that most of those apprehended, if they are from MV hail from the lower rent/income areas of town or are from other municipalities.

Simple logic. Criminals don't break into homes in the bad neighborhoods where they live, those people don't have good stuff. They break into homes in nice neighborhoods where there are valuable things to sell like good electronics, bikes, prescription meds, cash, jewelry and identities that are linked to actual credit ratings.

Dear True,

You write, "Criminals don't break into homes in the bad neighborhoods where they live, those people don't have good stuff. They break into homes in nice neighborhoods where there are valuable things to sell like good electronics, bikes, prescription meds, cash, jewelry and identities that are linked to actual credit ratings."

Clearly we should be keeping an eye out for men in green tights.

@Rebecca Gorman

I want to make sure I understand your POV before I reply again. Are you suggesting MV does not have a problem with property crime?

'True', my POV is that if you ask the wrong questions, you'll get the wrong answers.

The MV police has been posting pictures of people who steal packages, etc...

In our neighborhood, they look like this.
Web Link
Web Link

Looks like we need to be racial profiling white people. Ready to give up your freedom, neighbors? We already have a MV SWAT team capable of extreme violence, so it won't take long.

If Mr.Rosenberg is so dedicated to gender equality, maybe he could resign and allow the council to appoint another woman to the post.....