Somehow there is no proposal to establish homeless shelters or subsidized housing for the homeless in or near the homes of the members of the Board of Directors of the Water District or its highest paid employees. It is nice that the Water District's politicians want to do something for the homeless - just not in their own home or backyard. Not everything or every program belongs in every neighborhood. Skateboards do not belong on 101. The 7 members of the Water Board are elected in seven large districts in the county. Incumbents are rarely challenged. Our local Water Board Member may listen but he is 1 of 7. You folks need a strategy to head off this planned disaster for your neighborhood. Good arguments are important but insufficient.

They're not proposing it because the water district only owns these houses. This is really sad NIMBY nonsense by residents of Waverly Park who simply want to prevent poor or homeless people from living near them. Sad, but pretty standard here in the Bay Area.

@Nimby. I do not understand your comment. Are you offering a room or place for a tent on your property to help curb homelessness? If so, post your address and get ready for suitors. Then, you can credibly criticize others who do less.

Thanks for the clarification, Gary. I see where the miscommunication is coming from.

The Water District isn't going to be housing these people on your, or anyone else's, property in Waverly Park. Instead, they'll be using the property owned by the Water District itself.

I, too, would be pretty upset if they were going to forcibly occupy my house! Thankfully, that's not the case.

@Nimby. Thanks for the clarification. Do you care who lives next door to you? Before discussing who is homeless statistically, is there anyone you would not like moving in next door to you? Should neighbors ever have a say in who resides in the neighborhood? What do you think?

Are you asking if something should be Not In My BackYard?

This country, and even California, doesn't have a great track record when it comes to neighbors "having a say" in who lives in their neighborhood: Web Link

@Nimby You did not answer my question except to provide a Web Link to an article in The Atlantic about race discrimination in ownership housing. What race is a homeless person? How about criminals? What race are they? Persons who cannot afford to buy a house in Mountain View. They are what race?

The lady doth protest too much...

I'll make as clear a statement as possible then: neighbors should not be allowed to discriminate as to who lives in their neighborhood.

Unless, I suppose you would agree, the neighbors are doing something illegal. Yes?

Committing a crime should not forfeit your house or force a willing landlord to evict you.

Excellent point. No one has any business objecting to criminals living next door. Hookers, drug dealers, child molesters, terrorists. If they are not locked up, they should not even be evicted from a rental (if the landlord is a "willing" customer)- you contend. Got it "Nimby." You just lost your few adherents. But the matter of where to offer housing to a tiny percentage of the homeless will remain on the agenda of local pseudo-liberals who want to use public resources (not their own) to make themselves look good and feel a little better.

I'm sorry, but I will not stand for these poor families that are down on their luck being called as "hookers, drug dealers, child molesters, terrorists." It's sad to see people labelling some of the most vulnerable people in society so badly, but again, it's pretty standard out here.

Thankfully, you've put your bigotry on display for everyone to see. These people just want a second chance and are trying to improve their lives, but they still need to someone to stand up for them.

@Nimby Of course, I did not refer to homeless persons as criminals at all. I just asked whether, as a matter of principle, residents ever have any business trying to control who lives next door and asked, as an example, about criminals. You then took the position that even criminals should not be excluded from any (residential) neighborhood. Most folks surely and rightly disagree with you. I then noted that we still need to deal with the politicians who want to look good and feel a little better using public resources to help a tiny percentage of the homeless. How many homeless persons do you want to support with public resources in the county, the state, the nation and the world? Somehow I suspect you will not be answering that question.

I see, now that you've been called out on your disgusting labelling of these people you're going to backpedal. At least that means you've realized you said the things you really believe that you shouldn't be saying in polite company, I suppose.

Baby steps of progress, I guess.

We've seen this game play out over and over in this country and California. Busybodies such as yourself protest "those people" from being let in to their good, "clean" communities. Even though you elected Donald Trump, that doesn't fly in this day and age.

@Nimby. Anyone who reads our back and forth will see what was actually stated. You are welcome to imagine that you won the debate.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Nimby. If you someday visit the neighborhood involved and notice that it is far from "lily white," you might want to then hit the local library (or use a searvh engine) and look up the legal term "nuisance." Neighbors are authorized by law in every State in this country (your.country may be different) to sue and compel the abatement of a nusuance maintained on nearby private property. That includes the criminal activity you say is just the preoccupation of "busybodies." Are homeless persons criminals? Some.[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Tell me, Gary, what did these families do that would give you the right to bar their residence in these houses owned by the Water District? I'm sorry, but I don't think "being poor" or "not having a house" qualified as a nuisance. Well, maybe it does for NIMBYs that don't want to live near poor people, but I doubt that'll hold up in court.

I know our law enforcement is great, but I don't think they have a pre-crime division yet.