This is a nice plan. I think though that Google, LinkedIn and others (though especially Google) should pay residents a monthly stipend as they are the reason the rents have increased so fast and so outrageously high. They pay their new employees 10K plus to move here so they obviously know that it now costs an arm, a leg and a couple ears to live here. I don't dislike Google. The free shuttle bus is nice, but I do think they need to start helping those of us, especially those who have lived here for so many years, and our kids have grown up here, to continue living here. My grown kids can't afford it here and have to move away. I'm going to have to retire elsewhere. I'm now taking from our food budget to pay the increased rent since our landlord is so into making money and going on more vacations now. Google's motto is to do no harm. Then help your community that you've taken over and do more good.

I'm glad the City Council is taking this matter seriously and working with CSA and the faith-based community to find solutions and provide services to those who need them. Just wondering, logistically, how would the RV-dwellers get themselves to CSA to do their laundry and shower, do they drive their RVs over, park nearby, and then return to Latham/Rengstorff Park/Crisanto Ave? Similarly, for the churches who offer their parking lot, will the RVs be asked to move on the weekends when they have church programs? And where do they go during those times? I do believe parking restrictions need to be enforced consistently. For instance, the stretch of Latham closer to Showers Drive where the business buildings locate does not allow vehicle taller than 6' to park, but the residential stretch does. Shouldn't that be consistent?

I believe the survey results show 70% earning less than 1,000/month. That does not seem consistent with being recently displaced because of rising rents in mountain view...which is the group I would find most deserving of our city resources.

Further, only about 50% of respondents identified as being mountain view residents.

Right! And how about those "relatively well-paid employees from Google & NASA"? Will they move into a homeless shelter? Or will they continue to live in their cars to game the system?

"Councilman Inks warned that the proposed services would turn Mountain View into a magnet for the homeless"

Sounds like it already is.

That money can buy a lot of shipping containers to be used as housing which is how Hawaii is handling their suddenly homeless population ( money and high housing pricing is there too ). Turning the shipping containers into housing happens fairly quickly and the containers are mobile, too. So what is stopping this working system that solves the homeless problem? Politics? Shipping containers from Oakland?

Where to start. @whismanian, I truly empathize, it's not easy when you can no longer afford to live in the area you've spent most of your time. but this attitude of "they should pay me so I can keep living here" just isn't reality. I absolutely love it here, I've lived in several different countries and many different US cities and this by far is the best place I've ever lived, the weather, the access to Bay trails and biking etc. but I also know there is no way I can afford to stay here upon retirement, we will have to move. I don't expect anyone else to pay for me to stay here, I truly don't understand where this expectation that it's a right to live here is coming from.

And I don't understand why all these resources are spent just giving money to people....can't we come up with more jobs, more ways for people to EARN this money? people need to feel valued, that they make a difference, wouldn't this money be better spent in job training, career counseling etc?

@I-Got_Mine:
Our housing problem is nationwide and worldwide. I wonder sometimes why we always think everything is just MV specific.
Web Link
We do not have look out of state. LA has been innovative about homelessness and short term rentals (AirBnb). We just have to collaborate and learn.
@mvresident2003:
We are known in our surrounding cities as car dweller friendly city, more will come. The fellow who recently moved here from Texas to Oak Lane/Bay St drives a very pimp truck and lives in a very expensive RV, he avoids paying $ 1800 to $2000 for a monthly RV park by using our public streets. Offering services is a first step, not regulating ( registration or permit system) the car dwellers is a mistake.

I was not at the city council meeting when this subject was discussed, but I did read the staff report, including the Vehicle Survey Summary, and I was wondering if the item on page 10 of this report (see below) was discussed:


Observations Noted by LifeMoves:

- "At least 15 RVs parked along Crisanto are being rented out by “landlords.” One landlord pays for a mobile waste disposal truck to periodically pump the waste from the RVs he owns. Monthly rents cited were $200, $300, $500, and $800.

- "Some RV dwellers renting RVs along Crisanto do not have the keys to operate the RV. Instead, they only have keys to open the door to the dwelling part of the RV; as a result, the landlord is the only person able to operate or drive the RV."

Who is operating a business - renting housing - along Cristano? Is this person licensed and paying appropriates fees and taxes? I am sure this practice opens up a host of other questions, but those should suffice as starters.

Well, wait, how about...why isn't the city ask these questions, and why didn't the Mountain View Voice report that this was happening???



Hit the link, then go to item #5 Vehicle Survey Summary and scroll down to page number 10...it's all there.

I thought I posted the link. Let me try again:

Web Link

@Survey Says: So the landlord shows up every 72 hrs and moves his rig? Or are we turning a blind eye on that MV vehicle parking restriction, too?

@Polomom - for Latham street and Crisanto street (the road between Rengstorff Park and Central), MVPD doesn't enforce the move-your-vehicle-every-three-days law *unless* they receive a complaint from a citizen about a specific vehicle overstaying its welcome.

But even when there's a citizen complaint, that doesn't result in a *ticket* or any kind of actual "enforcement" that might serve to dis-incent the law breaker. The cops just give a verbal or written request to move along. At least that's all I've personally seen. Full disclosure: I'm friends with a Latham Street condo owner that is pissed their front walk has become a van dweller's bathroom.

I wonder if one of these crackerjack Voice reporters can get get stats on how many 72-hour-limit-exceeded parking tickets have been written by MVPD and compare that to the average park time of RVs on these streets? Betting the numbers don't jibe.

The 3rd or 4th RV "in" from Rengstorff on Crisanto has not moved in weeks (there is stuff under the RV that hasn't been moved). The Voice should setup go-pros and "prove it" with some fancy-pants investigative reporting.

Don't know why City Council isn't interested in "moving people along" -- if you don't keep the environment nice, you end up in crazy homeless hell like SF tenderloin.

Polomom: "So the landlord shows up every 72 hrs and moves his rig? Or are we turning a blind eye on that MV vehicle parking restriction, too?"

The LifeMoves 'Vehicle Survey Summary' used the word "landlords" plural, which indicates to me that there are multiple persons operating businesses, specifically, renting housing on Cristano. The survey indicates that at least 15 RV's are not "owner occupied" but being rented out by various "landlords"...that means there are multiple persons operating what one would think are illegal businesses. I don't know, is it legal to own an RV and rent it out on a city street and not allow the tenant to have the keys to move the RV? How about any business licensing, taxes, insurance? I'm sure it's all good. Right?

I should buy a fleet of mini-vans, tint the windows and set them up all over town. I can charge below market, say $350 a month, all cash. Everybody wins.

My guess is the voice didn't report it, not because of any an oversight, but because this practice is a very gray area legally speaking, at best, and most likely, those "landlords" are violating multiple laws with their business operation.

And yeah, the city should not be turning a blind eye to the practice since they have been put on notice that this is ongoing and the city has been duly notified in the report that landed on all of their desks.

MTC.

I hope the city is digging into the legality of the businesses these "landlords" are running on Cristano, and perhaps other places in the city? Essentially, it's like running an air bnb on city streets, only a long term version. Well, I think air bnb probably has a little more regulation than this cash under the table, no regulations, no city regulatory oversight, no licensing, no fees business. Yeah, not a problem at all.

Our city streets We're never intended to be used as short or long term rental properties by "landlords" operatining unlicensed businesses so someone can make a profit by renting out RVs parked on city streets.

It seems that while the City Council actions are tended be caring and good at heart, they do not do anything to solve the situation. Providing services without providing any method or enforcement to improve the situation may seem like the kind thing to do but doesn't teach the people how to fish for themselves. It just gives them fish.

On another issue, the City Council approved 500+ condos on San Antonio. Did they consider requiring that maybe 1/4 of these should be reserved for they people at prices they can afford?

If it is true that these RV's are rented out, then the landlords should be dealt with by the law swiftly. This isn't any more proper and not much more different than popping up a tent in Cuesta Park and then renting it out.

If the street dwellers are from out of town before, why does Mountain View have to take care of them?

If they work in Mountain View, why should they have a right to live in Mountain View. There are far more workers in Mountain View than there are places to live and sleep. Mountain View City Council and City Staff has allowed Mountain View to be turned into an urban working city and workers should expect to commute like in all other such places.

If these street dwellers are working at Google or other large companies, why can't the city tell them and Google that these Google employees need at the very least to house their RVs on one of Google's many parking lots throughout the city. At least Trapper John parked his RV on the hospital's parking lot.

Just a thought: If Google real wants to solve a useful hard issue, then maybe they should work on really hard problems like designing a convenient, efficient, safe and friendly city that doesn't need cars whether autonomous or not.

Everybody has advice for google, it would seem

maybe the business license tax is the first place to start - a vehicle 'living space' rented out for cash is a business

i guess the No Driving rental scheme is a way for "the landlords" (misnomer) rather "the STREETlords," to gather income on the living areas of the RV, but not incur liability for someone else actually driving the vehicle

if a tenant of a STREETlord vehicle, cannot show vehicle driving keys, obviously the STREETloard (vehicle owner) is operating a business Mountain View
operating a small businesses in Mountain View requires a small business license from the city

Big Issue
I think the public compassion, shown by our publicly elected council members is commendable. Remember back a few years - when our more wealthy neighbor-to-the-South tried to arrest on principal Day Workers? Those neighbors, got them selves hauled into court over the issue. How did MV work on the same issue? Permanent DAY WORKER CENTER. Yeah us. The 6:1 majority.

So, all I need is a business license and then I could do what someone mentioned above; purchase several used vans or maybe small rv's (for example) tint the windows and then rent those out on a nightly, weekly, or monthly basis -- as long as I move them every 72 hours? Totally legal?

No requirement for safe conditions for the 'tenants'? Dont need to pay any occupancy taxes to the city? No special proof of insurance required for renting out space for people to live? All cash? No 94x filing? No SE payments?

If indeed this is legal, and our public streets can be used as either short or long term rental housing by anyone who has an available RV or van or whatever, then a lot of people should be jumping on this business opportunity. As long as there is free parking...there is money to be made, shelter to provide.

Some silly responses from our resident republicans.

All this fake concern over safety... yeah, right!

Look st the local car and pedistrian fatalities... almost always a homeowner behind the wheel!!!

Read in the Mercury that the state recently passed a law that allows cities to experiment with non-traditional housing (like microhousing) to address homelessness. Article here on San Jose's plans to use the new law to address homelessness Web Link

Starting with experimenting with most needy, $200,000 could go along way in spurring new innovations that address the broader housing crunch.

I fear $200,000 spent in supporting traditional services and programs under our current view of housing won't make a dent, though innovative use of those funds to spur new ideas may.

If San Francisco's Proposition Q passes, will they give all their homeless a bus ticket to Mountain View? The proposition says police must provide homeless a room and bed or a bus ticket out of town.