Does anyone know how many of these RVs are actually occupied by people who really have no other option, versus well-paid high-tech engineers who just don't want to spend the money for housing?

Any program to provide parking zones for RVs should also come with some sort of vetting process to ensure that the program benefits only those who really need it.

In response to the question "Where are they supposed to go?" Like every family and responsible adult, you go where you can offord to live. There are many places in California and around the country where the cost of living is significanly less expensive. I have moved for financial reasons multiple times. The City Council shoud stop trying to turn our streets into low cost housing. I plan to vote against all councilmembers who continue this misguided policy.

How is this article even making the paper? The city does more than any neighboring city. So instead of all the fantastic things we do, we focus on red tape of parking lots to house vehicles? Such a joke.

In response to the question "Where are they supposed to go?" To the place you can afford to live, instead of violating regulation and impact other residents’ quality of life. Nobody is entitled to live in any place. I want to live in Atherton too.

"If you build it, they will come"

They'll come from all over and the number of RV's will multiply

Many comments are quite cruel. Remember what John Bradford said: There but for the grace of God go I.

These are working folks that simply cannot afford to pay for housing. Many of them have multiple jobs. I have met quite a few of the R.V. folks on Crisanto Ave and they, to a one, are responsible families that do their best.

The greed and avarice of many of our landlords / property owners is THE primary cause of this scenario. So don't blame the people living in the RV's. Blame the money hungry denizens of Silicon Valley that caused this situation.

When I see multiple listings for single houses in Palo Alto going for over $6 million and hear of "new billionaires" buying multiple lots in order to form a compound I fear for us all. My heart goes out to the people who are struggling to make daily rent and to put food on the table.

To the "greed infected" people living here simply remember that Karma can be very powerful.

Thanks for listening.

If it's easier to put your RV here than in Sunnyvale or Palo Alto, people will come.

Why are we still having this discussion? A vocal minority is trying to stop the will of the voters who said in the last election that they want an overnight ban enforced and they want their city representatives to do it.

It seems clear if we don't get these vehicles off the street soon there will be a stronger backlash.

The council brainstormed thats a good one they came up with nothing

a vocal minority (like the anti-pot one). We are just trying to have the Council majority, reflect the compassion of our better side in this community. Advancing a registration -> enforcement process and especially coming up with UNUSED OFF-STREET CITY CONTROLLED LAND for controlled and temporary RV residential use, is what we want.

Not Wild West conditions, but controlled and regulated AND A REALISTIC 200+ site solution. The city allowed conversion of the only existing RV park near 101 (North Wagon Wheel). So let the city find and develop a replacement on Public Land. [BMR space rental rates apply - or market rate for contractors, construction workers and others with more income]

Come on, this is a 'housing emergency' like the World War II influx of workers to SF, Oakland, Richmond and Sausalito shipyards.