The ordinance says:
SEC. 19.92.4. - Parking prohibited—Street cleaning.
a. It is unlawful for any person to stop, park or leave any vehicle standing on a street or portion of street during those times reserved for street cleaning purposes.
b. The city traffic engineer shall designate any street or portion thereof where parking is prohibited for street cleaning purposes by appropriate signs giving notice of such prohibition.


I do not remember ever seeing any signs giving notice of such prohibition anywhere in town. I do not think that anybody ever moves their car for street sweeping in my neighborhood.

I believe Edgar and other residents deserve that our city officials and their hired staff obey the LAW as it is written, not as they would like. This whole mess - if it has been done as poorly as the Voice is reporting, smacks of "selective enforcement". Which is I believe legal grounds for the whole slew of tickets/towings to be challenged together.

Council ! Wake up! You will very shortly be hit by a lawsuit, to force you to correct the city staff and managers that REPORT TO YOU! How much will that cost us? Council put this on the agenda or call a special meeting, and get the city manager and the city attorney and the police chief on-the-hot-seat, in public.

Enforce the existing 6 foot law city wide!! Good lord, you mean we've had this law on the books all along during this explosion of street campers?!?! We have the tool, it was written into law for public safety DECADES prior to all this mess. Lets simply start enforcing the law regularly city wide.

What's the big deal? If they violated a parking ordinance, they're subject to ticketing like the rest of us.

If Ms Diaz is upset about confusing communications received from another City department, then she has a reasonable complaint about that department -- that's all. It doesn't affect her ultimate obligation to follow parking laws, or her responsibility to pay the fine if ticketed. (Nor is it the business of other City departments, City Council, or anyone else to tell police personnel to selectively overlook some of the laws they swore to maintain.)

@Starting Now, that was then and this is now and a hell of a lot has changed in that time span. Would be nice if life were that cut, dry and simple, but it's not. It's messy and liable to get a lot messier if we don't use some "common" sense (which really ain't all that common these days) and some "uncommon" heart (which is even more scarce these days than sense). Don't be such a tin man. An answer involving the brain and no heart is no answer at all.

there are still rv's parked on Terra Bella and on San Rafael. Shoreline is also lined up wth RV's. Will they just let them stay there? Hello parking control. Do something about it.

I’ve heard cases of the fire department being called on RVs for incorrect dumping practices; such as dumping their human waste down storm drains. They should know that their waste should be brought to a dump station. They should be asked to show proof that they have done so. A receipt of some sort.

There won't be any RVs on your streets if you just build more houses. It's disgusting that people just want to deal with the symptoms of the housing crisis, rather than the root cause, namely that rampant NIMBYism has made our city unaffordable for all but the wealthy and the lucky. When there are enough houses, no one will live in RVs.

Mountain View has built more housing than neighboring cities, yet we still have tons of RVs violating the law, so I'd say your "build baby build" solution is in fact a lie. If RV owners want to park their vehicle in the City of Mountain View then they need to follow all laws. That means no dumping sewage, adhering to parking laws, adhering to drug laws, adhering to prostitution laws, etc. That's not too much to ask.

So who are these RV dwellers? Were they born and raised here and then lost their housing? Or did they arrive from somewhere and decided to park here because it is warmer and closer to jobs?

RVs are here not because the housing is expensive and/or scarce, but because the jobs are abundant, the weather is nice, and the city is liberal. Why pay more or commute when you can just live like that.

"Shame" repeats a one-note mantra, never grappling with the other factors at play and vital to any real look at the housing crisis (mass hiring of well-paid employees at historically unprecedented rate; foreign buying-up of silicon-valley housing) -- that, per everyone who studies it seriously, will overcome even a radical increase in housing stock. All that's ignored, in favor of chiding people for failing to frantically build to accommodate all the new customers whose role "Shame" never questions or examines. Not to forget the new factor of rent control reducing availability of the least-expensive housing (by slowing tenant turnover, and prompting small owners to sell to redevelopers eager to build far pricier housing exempt, of course, from any rent control). Nor does "Shame" ever show evidence of the perspective that comes from having participating in the local housing market during past ups and downs in prices and vacancies.

It's a case of very selective awareness (assuming "Shame" isn't just one of those automated chatbots pushing its pre-programmed agenda).

You could build all the new housing that "Shame" ever advocated, and the people living in those RVs still wouldn't be able to afford it. The hell of it is, that'd be no surprise to anyone who looks seriously now, and asks the questions "Shame" doesn't want to acknowledge.

People living in vehicles on the streets are “residents”?

Humble observer, let me guess, you bought your house long ago, and are now sitting on a windfall that you did nothing to earn, and are paying far less than your fair share thanks to Prop 13.

These "customers" you're talking about are people who need houses. Full stop. They're living out of their cars and RVs now because we've been criminally underbuilding. Everyone who's studied this says precisely that. For example, read what the LAO has to say.

Finally, in what world does building more of something not decrease the price of it?

John, yes, they are.

No Logic, it's quite telling that you start by asking who the residents of the RVs are, and then in your next post you know exactly why they're here. Perhaps you should actually talk to some of them to understand their situation better?

Full stop. Mountain View is building more than any other city in the area, probably even overbuilding. You can't guilt shame the people of Mountain View because you aren't telling the truth.

If we're overbuilding, why are people living in their cars and in RVs? Why are rents so high?

So if drive into town and park my RV on the street I can consider myself a “resident”?
Then when I violate parking regulations and my vehicle gets towed I’m being “evicted”?
Truly an alternate universe

If it's the only place you live, it's your primary residence. This isn't a very difficult concept. Do you know what the word "reside" means?

People live in RVs everywhere for various reasons. The fact that people live in RVs doesn't mean that Mountain View isn't building enough housing. People live in RVs at Yosemite... Yosemite should build more housing.

Are you seriously contending that people in Mountain View live in RVs for recreational purposes? You can ask any of them if you actually care. The vast majority will tell you they live there because the rent is too darned high.

How many of these RV dwellers actually lived in Mountain View before moving into RVs? How many actually work in Mountain View? I'm wondering if many moved RVs here because Mountain View is lax in enforcing the existing laws? You don't see this in Los Altos or Los Gatos, or many other cities.

I feel sorry for the people who worked hard to make enough or save enough to rent or buy near where these RVs are now parked. How is this fair to change the landscape for these people? The RVs damage the property values of surrounding neighborhoods - the very neighborhoods where people worked or saved to live. What is the rationale for doing this to these people?

"Shame" can make all the false statement he wants, but the facts don't fit his argument. It is impossible to simply build to build and think that solves the problem. Anything built now will be out of range of the budgets of RV dwellers, and Mountain View cannot solve everyone's problem. I cannot move to Atherton or San Francisco because I cannot afford rent there. Does that mean I have a right to camp on the street and pour waste into the gutter in those cities? NO. You cannot have something just because you want it - we have to live in a real world.

Now with rent control, we see many affordable buildings will be converted to "for sale" condos, making the available rentals even more scarce. Rent control advocates thought they were getting something for nothing, too, and that is just simply not how the economy works. I do feel sorry for the children who would have to change schools, but the parents should move where they can afford. It is insane to expect a city to destroy it's future, traffic, and atmosphere by overbuilding. Again... these apartments would be out of reach of the RV dwellers. Wishes won't overcome facts.

Nothing I have said is false, and that you assert that without evidence shows just how weak your argument is.

I'm glad to hear you oppose converting apartments under rent control into ownership housing. On that, we can agree, and I hope you will fight against council when they keep approving such shameful projects.

As you said, though, let's look at economics: when you increase the supply of something, the price goes down. If we built enough housing for everyone, not just the landed gentry and tech millionaires, rent would be affordable.

@ Shane:

"Finally, in what world does building more of something not decrease the price of it?"

In *this* world. It's called greed.

I appreciate your conviction sir, but you seem to assert that all problems and their solutions make logical sense given a simple set of factors.

That's not always the case.

If you contend that adding more houses will not reduce the price of housing, do you mean to imply that removing housing would cause the price of housing to decrease?

Or do you believe that housing prices are entirely disconnected from the number of houses there are?

Neither of these are supported by any sort of evidence, but I'm just trying to figure out what you believe.

@ Shane

I believe more housing is needed, as you assert. But I do not believe it will drive down the prices.

My suspicion is that increased density will attract residence, therefore increase demand; therefore the best we can hope for is a stabilization of prices, not a reduction.

For evidence, I can only site our 2010 population at 74,066 and 2016 population estimated at 80,447. Increase of supply in the city has resulted in increased population.

My point is that a logical discussion based solely on facts can be (I do not say "is not") fruitless. We're talking about human beings and their habits and preferences and desires. People *want* to live here.

I don't happen to think there are cut and dried solutions. It's not as simple as the facts might spell out.

Rents are high for the same reason housing prices are out of control, supply and demand, companies need to build more campuses outside of the SF Bay area, youg families will follow. Without a household income of 500K there is no quality of life here anymore. And even you are one of those 'high net worth' individuals, you are still stuck in traffic like everyone else. And now with the GOP tax proposal, buying a house is going to be impossible, and if you can buy a house the prop tax will decimate your budget. It's a fine place to live for the lucky few who hit the IPO jackpot and for those lucky enough to inherit their parent's property tax Web Link

MyOpinion, that is precisely my point. It doesn't have to be this way, and everyone can afford to live here. We just need to build enough houses. It's a problem we can solve together, and the solution doesn't involve punishing the less fortunate that are suffering due to our decision as a community to not build enough.

@Shame, yeah, the rent in MV is high for some people, the rent in Los Altos Hills or Atherton is too high for me. Based on your logic, I need to park my RV on the street in Los Altos Hills or Atherton. Thanks

In the article, I have 3 questions. Who authorized the City’s public works department to waiver the parking law in Mountain View? If everyone selectively enforce law, it’s not only conspfusing, but also dangerous.
Why the RV dwellers are called residents? Do they pay city tax, property tax like other residents in Mountain View?
The lady who was ticketed 80$ needed a Spanish translator. Is she a tourist driving RV for recreational purpose?

Sophie, it's hard to know where to start with your questions. Unless your job is in Atherton or Los Altos Hills, what would you get by parking an RV on the street there? Do you just enjoy views of mansions? Why is that not a choice you've made so far?

Your neighbors living in RVs and their cars are, in fact, residents of Mountain View. What else would they be?

Finally, many of your neighbors do not speak English at all, or speak English as a second language. This does not make them tourists, or in any way less of a member of our community. The quality of the grammar in your posting indicates English may not be your native tongue, are you a tourist?

@ shame, sure, English is not my native language, but to reside in this city, at least I taught myself how to communicate in English. Do you have problem with it?

Fortunately, there's no requirement to speak English to be a resident of Mountain View. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to judge your neighbors in the future.

Now how about the other questions I raised?