Am I to understand that Lenny is leading an effort to collect signatures to keep homeless people on our streets?

This is insane and offensive. How does supporting people living in a rundown RV make anyone's life better? I'm not just talking about the blight on our community, but those dwellers will still be struggling for a future next year and the year after and so forth.

Your understanding is incorrect, Bored M, but I think you knew that. The referendum is to stop the city from criminalizing homelessness and poverty. The fact that you call these people "a blight on our community" says a lot about you.

I'll sign that petition. Hope I can find them downtown.

Lenny, perhaps you can offer one RV dweller a parking spot in your driveway or outside your home on the street? Enough is enough! I certainly won’t be signing this petition! It’s ridiculous!

@Randy

Being fined or told not to inhabit a city street is not criminalizing anything... but I think you also knew that.

And yes, that is a blight to me as it is to many others. I don't think all the people in RVs are bad people. What I don't understand is why the "value" of those ~300 should intrude on the right to park, use playgrounds without fear, or any other quality of life issue that tens of thousands of hard working people have earned through years of education, effort and sacrifice.

Time to get Valerie off the Bike/Ped committee. She obviously doesn’t ride much. RV’s are a total hazard to bikes. I praise Council for this action.

Great! If RVs can be parked anywhere and not just in RV parks, it can make a nice cheap vacation. Move your RV near downtown of any city you want to visit, close to all main attractions. Santa Monica,Beverly Hills, Hollywood, here I come. Then further down south - no need to arrange a transportation from RV park to, let say, San Diego Old Town or La Jolla - just park your RV there!

Bored M, is your understanding that the ordinance they passed is just about being "told not to inhabit a city street?" Your misunderstanding is worse than I thought!

Good luck to all as we work through the legal process. Please, though, no stay of this ordinance

thank you council for listening to your constituents and working to keep our neighborhoods and streets safe and clean.

If there is any group working to spread truths about Lenny and what he stands for I would love to know about it and volunteer to help. Lenny has proven he does not have the better interest for majority MV residents.

They’re not being criminalized. Don’t be a drama queen.

We just insist you can’t park your broken down wreck on the street in front of my house for a month and dump you septic tank in the sewers in the middle of the night. It’s not a radical idea.

We voted Lenny out of office already because of this and he didn’t get the message I guess.

Dear City Council

It sounds like four of you would like to make being poor an illegal act - at least in Mountain View. Homelessness and R.V. living is a new part of living in the Bay Area. At least those living in an R.V. have a roof over their heads.

Since our President decried any form of socialism in his last State of the Union Address then your actions seem perfectly clear - any attempt to help those who have less is viewed as socialistic. Therefore, as our President would advise, "Let 'em rot."

You could provide parking and services for these folks even though they pay no property tax. It wouldn't take much and would not only solve a lot of problems but would send a message that Mountain View CARES about all its citizens.

Remember that a fair and good society takes care of ALL the folks, not just those with beaucoup d'argent (lots of money).

Thanks for listening.

By allowing people to store their RVs on the street, the city is unfairly competing with licensed businesses that rent space for storing RVs as part of their business model. Prices for outdoor parking start at $89/month.

Seems like a funny thing to take actual pride in, but hey, wherever gives you that feeling...

About the petition, unfortunately i think the people trying to get signatures are in for an eye opening realization that most all residents here do not support it.
I honor your efforts though. Everyone is due equal process.

Even SF and Berkeley have banned RV’s in many parts of their cities. We have homeless programs and many of the dwellers do not participate in these programs. A vote will be good as Lenny and Co will finally be shown the door. We do not want MV turned into a ghetto. We would all like to live on an estate in Atherton but we cannot afford it. Just like if someone cannot afford to live in MV they need to live elsewhere. Most campgrounds charge $50 - $100 a night - why do they not live there. I know why. It is because to live on the street is free. Apologies for this stream of consciousness but letting people live in RV’s on the street is not doing them a favor.

Old Mtn View, I think you are misunderstanding the ordinance as well, if you think all it does is "insist you can’t park your broken down wreck on the street in front of my house for a month and dump you septic tank in the sewers in the middle of the night." It's so strange how so many of you don't understand what the council voted on!

Berkeley, at $100 a night, the rent would be $3K a month, which could only be considered affordable for someone making $120K per year. Weren't all of you claiming that you weren't criminalizing poverty?

After dismissing concerns people expressed, in comments to yesterday's related "Letters to the Editor" article, that opinions differing from his invite attack, here's Randy Guelph again, on schedule, to promptly stomp on comments supporting for the Council action. (Three times already, and counting.)

First, people like you aren't even willing to speak publicly about your desire to criminalize homelessness and poverty. Now, you don't even want others to be able to speak against it! You really do reveal a lot about how you expect society to work.

I stand corrected. Four times, and counting.

"your desire to criminalize homelessness and poverty" is a good illustration of the kinds of attack rhetoric employed for this purpose.

Humble observer, with two posts and counting.

Banning people from living in their vehicles when there is no alternative available, as we are in a shelter crisis, is best described as criminalizing poverty and homelessness. That's a simple fact, and no amount of your becoming indignant at that changes it. The major tell that it's accurate is every defense otherwise by people posting here ends up inaccurately stating what the ban does.

If you want to see "attack rhetoric" I suggest you look at the things people defending the ban say about the people they disagree with!

Does anyone really think that these RV dwellers are homeless? Get a clue.

The ordinance does not prevent people from living on the street as long as they live in small camper/vans. It doesn't totally prevent those in larger campers from living on the street either: it just limits what streets they're allowed to park on.

Does anyone think these RV dwellers are in poverty? Get a clue.

Thank you council for listening to your constituents and for taking steps to keep Mountain View clean and safe

Pushing RVs away from home owning streets to streets with apartments/renters. Disappointing. So many vacant commercial properties, shame that idea of using those for the short term couldn't get traction.

Rather than gather signatures, they should ask residents if they can park in front of their home or in their driveway.

4 horsemen of the apocalypse.
Lenny and the Voice (same thing really)
TBM
Randy
LOL
Jobs, recently thrown under the bus by Lenny, otherwise would have been 5 horsemen.

Let everyone vote their ballot or their feet.

May the council stay strong and not succumb to the noise of a few Lennyites.

It's easy for Lenny to energize a few people looking for free "non identified dwellers" RV street parkers while promising OMV residents free parking permits for themselves and a guarantee of no RV's in his neighborhood. Bike Lanes, narrow streets, RV barricades already installed at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and on going maintenance costs (traffic calming devices:) and time restricted parking will keep OMV safe. All they need do is support his candidacy.

Lenny is strong with his politicking. Pandering to both the rich (OMV quid pro quo) and the poor while promising to keep them apart.

He's also promised OMV no high density (SB50, should it pass) in OMV or near the transit center also in OMV. RV's are welcome so long as they are near high density areas, wide streets or in commercial zones.

Will OMV and Livable Mountain View vote for no growth and parking permits while kicking the can down the street for RV's to satiate Lenny? Time will tell.

If Lenny makes it this go around, better hope you vote or live in OMV or have a bike lane out front.

Sigh...

Hey Humble Observer, how's that post by "he's back" for "attack rhetoric"?

People here let the vitriol spew forth under their anonymity, but balk at having their name associated with it out of fear of criticism. Now, you even want those criticizing the anonymous posters to be silenced so you can have an echo chamber here.

What I’m wondering is how do these vehicle dwellers enroll their kids in school? Can you just drive to the neighborhood of your favorite school, park there, then claim that street as your residence? And use all the city services, including the schools, without paying any taxes? How does this work?

It's insulting to me, having lived here all my life to have people think that I'm heartless because we do not want people to live on the streets in their mobile homes. I understand that these people are homeless because of high costs etc. to live in Mountain View.
It's a good thing that they have the mobile home over their heads. Why can't the city provide a space for these homes, that are not on the streets. There is a lot of open space out by Google, or Moffet. Create an area for them with all funding you seem to have for this cause. Maybe charge these people a small fee to help keep up the property and such.
I am not heartless, I am just kine of tired of carrying the cost of this situation, when we life on a fixed income ourselves.

The people are living where conveniences are, like the gal in the 5th wheel with extending sliders outside the laundromat and gym.

They can work out and shower and shop and do everything right from their "Yard".
They would not willingly go out to the Moffett area.

CHW -- TELL us how you know the vehicle dwellers are not homeless or in poverty -
seriously - have you visited and spoken to them

Regarding the post suggesting that Lenny host an RV at his home:

- is it indeed permitted to keep an occupied RV in one's private driveway?

-if so, are there enough people in MV willing to do this to absorb the RV's now street parked? -

- would the RV dweller's, in general, 'like' to have this option? I

- if occupied RV's are indeed permitted on ones own property, and a number of MV residents stepped up to host, would the community then see Mountain View as compassionate and having done our part, even if the RV's are not allowed to park on some streets?

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Lee Ann, that's a wonderful constructive position. Thank you for being level-headed in the midst of the other posters. You should naturally support the referendum because City Council has acted in opposition to your values, since they chose to enact the ban without providing any alternatives to these people. They've declared a shelter crisis, but explicitly rejected tying the ban to lifting the crisis, as suggested by Ramirez, Hicks, and Clark.

We should reject this ban and tell Council to come back when it reflects our values as a city.

"Illegal RV sewage dumping in Seattle pollutes waterways and poses a public-health hazard."
Read story here,
Web Link

Funny how no one ever thought to check our water ways here, if it is happening in Seattle it would seem that it would also be happening here. We already had one woman open up a 5 gallon bucket that was on the sidewalk in our city, only to find it filled with human waste, poop for those of you who are not sure what I mean.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Hi Randy? ,
Is TBM a real name?
How about LOL?
How about Curious?
No too many Randy Guelph's in Mountain View. Only TBM has given his real name.

Go to any City Council meeting on this topic and you'll find an abundance of people like myself who are willing to publicly put their names and faces out there to speak out for their less fortunate neighbors. Compare that to people commenting here who lack anynsuch conviction in their beliefs, going so far as wanting to silence any criticism of their anonymous vitriol.

It is absolutely a hazard to have all these tall vehicles parked along the street. I don't bike, but it's dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. Sightlines are severely diminished. In our neighborhood I've seen Middle Schoolers walking home almost get hit because they decided to cross the street in between these large parked vehicles and the driver of the oncoming car could not see them standing there. A car is easier since it's shorter. This is obvious!

It is also not ok to to leave people sleeping on the streets. Hard decisions need to be made at some point. Move in with family, get a roommate, move out of state. Public streets belong to everyone, not just those who have taken up the space with their RV. This is not compassion, it's insanity.

@Randy

I know that honestly I would be bullied and social outcast here in Mountain View if I attended a meeting and spoke out in favor of the RV van. Many people here say they are open minded but they are not unless you agree with them. I spoke out once on nextdoor and was called all sorts of names from people who don't even know me. I don't want that for my kids. I post here because people like you will never accept my viewpoint at a meeting.

You prove my point pretty well. You're a grown adult scared of being "bullied". Rather than reflect and reassess, you go online and post anonymously so you don't have to grapple with any criticism of your beliefs.

For any situation where I've been in opposition to the majority opinion, I reflect and reassess, and if I still believe it, I speak out publicly anyway. That's what being a moral adult with convictions is all about.

"Huh?", the RV dwellers may not be paying property taxes, but most of them are the working poor and are most definitely paying sales and other taxes.

If the council did not actually vote for the precise ordinance(s) on first reading that were presented (as if approved earlier) on second reading, the ordinance(s) were not duly passed. Did anyone object?

This ban seems pretty extreme to me. I understand that there are some RVs that are broken down and leaking sewage, but didn’t we already have laws against that? There are a number of RVs that trade off parking outside our house. None of them cause any problems. Maybe some RVs are causing problems, but these guys aren’t. And for the ones that are problems, do you really think sanitation will improve if you force these people into mini-vans or tents? As a frequent pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist, I really don’t see RVs as a bigger problem than SUVs.

This ban also seems to rule out many use cases that I imagine many home owners would want to take advantage of. We have friends who live in an RV outside their house while it is being remodeled. Do we really want to outlaw this? Another friend used an RV for weekend trips, and parked it in front of his house during the week. Friends or relatives who are traveling around the country In an RV can’t stop and visit? I don’t see the narrow streets ban fixing problems that couldn’t be fixed by enforcing the previous law, while at the same time it puts an undue burden on people who are not causing any problems.

I'll sign the petition. I'm a bike commuter and find no trouble with RVs.

Anything that can make our community miss inclusive and welcoming had my support.

Out with RV’s in with tents and tent cities. In case our SV residents have blindfolds on I’ll be blunt. There is a humanitarian crisis in our very midst. Think about the dark ages when Europe’s great Kingdoms (Google headquarters) lived lavishly and everyone else existed in squalor and swine outside the heavy fortressed wall. As for home owner tax payers. Are you considering the next to nothing Prop 13 pre 1979 homeowners are paying? Or the sales tax and other that everyone pays in or out of a RV, tent, house, apartment, garage . . . The most heartbreaking: that a property owner is given the right to build “virtual” walls around a town rather than vote in good housing for all.

The city has no idea who is living in the RVs, these housing ‘units’ are not up to code. If I put a portable toilet in my garage and rented it to a low income family I would be fined and shutdown immediately. Yet if I bought a decrepit RV and rented it to a family I would have Siegel’s blessing.

@CamperVan: Agreed. Granted in this case the city gets a lot of money from Google and refused millions more out of spite. Even with the amount they can take in, it's usage limited by how much this area cost. Part of the reason it cost how much is how much local government to limits supply. Part of it is that normal workers need to be paid more because they are being priced out. Having a city where normal people cannot afford to live is a good way to make people suffer. I also agree that the main property tax issue is not RVs. Prop 13 and friends made an intergenerational landed elite. It's not fair when the price they pay in property tax for a house is less than what a newcomer would be taxed on enough land to place a RV. If they paid tax on the fair value of the property, instead of having the privilege of not paying because of who they were born to, it would more than cover the cost of revenue lost from RVs.

@Lee Ann, your idea is a good one except that the outlining areas you're talking about are far from food, shops, school, and public transit. People need access to these things in order to improve their situation. Considering the amount of money the city has, they could run a free shuttle to such areas. In practice they don't, and many would not trust them to start doing so. The city does not have a good reputation for long-term anti-poverty efforts.

@Randy Guelph: Standing up against the majority opinion is not what makes people feel unsafe. The issue is standing against a minority opinion supported by those willing to bully others into submission. A good example of this is acceptance of a permanent RV presents in working neighborhoods with streets. It's important we live in that place where intelligent discussion and voting can happen without fear of reprisal.

Edgar, people criticizing you or telling you you are wrong isn't "reprisal." The only people at risk of reprisal here are the homeless people who will be forced out. People here want to be able to use the power of the City and police to oust these people while never being criticized for this, and it's frankly cowardly.

I will not sign anything! Unfortunately I’m not ok with this. I seen a man walk outside his trailer and pee on the side of someone’s house, trash around trailers, a used condom!! Yes I have pictures to prove it. Also they are blocking traffic so we can’t see when crossing over some side streets. The people who are signing obviously don’t have to deal with any of this, I really truly feel bad for the people who can’t afford it here. Why should our city be a dumping grounds? I will admit it’s not all of them, but the people who do it ruin it for everyone else.

It's clear that public sentiment is strongly against RVs in Mountain View, so even if this goes to a ballot, voters will side with the referendum.

I suggest that if it is going to ballot, there should be an even stronger form of the ban up for vote: most voters would like a total ban on all city streets, not just select ones.

Maybe it can include a ban on Lenny and his thug Job? Evidently massively voting him out of office and arresting Job (with a community service slap on the wrist) wasn't enough to send them the message.

Impressive to see that the people terrified of hearing criticism of their opinions are now advocating using the power of government to force the removal of their political opponents from the city. Please continue to insist it's the supporters of the ban who are at risk of reprisals.

10 "Randy Guelph" comments, and counting. One out of every five comments to date.

Edgar Ramirez, thank you for putting it eloquently: "Standing up against the majority opinion is not what makes people feel unsafe. The issue is standing against a minority opinion supported by those willing to bully others into submission. . ."

If the people defending RV squatters acknowledged the established realities (only some RV residents are homeless former MV residents: some are midweek employees of contractors; some have middle-class jobs; some were in nearby cities but moved to MV when word got out; some are doing criminal activities; their presence causes some genuine problems for nearby dwellers and street users) then they'd earn due respect, and we could all move forward with rational dialog and humane policies. But they refuse to deal with the reality, instead promoting false claims of down-and-out local people, dismissing anyone who questions their dogma as "wanting to criminalize homelessness and poverty." Ultimately they'll reap the consequences of such disdain for truth.

"Humble" observer, with three faux-neutral, content-free posts and counting. Why are you trying so hard to stifle discussion?

I suspect the most vocal advocates for RVs are the RVs owners that make money by renting these RVs to people. Shame on you, slum lords!

Neighborhoods were not built with people living in vehicles in mind. It's not a good long term solution to the specific problem of a lack of affordable housing or the general problems surrounding homelessness. If Mountain View were being built from scratch today, I'm pretty sure RV residency on public streets would not be a part of the city plan. I'm supportive of measures that prevent RV residency becoming a permanent fixture, but recognize the utility of RVs as an ad-hoc solution for some people (low wage workers) at the present time. I think I'd be in favor of a general ban on the practice with special carve outs for designated locations, and provisions to not overburden regular residents, and with sunset provisions to force reconsideration going forward.

How much does it cost to provide sufficient services to accommodate RV residents? Are sufficient services being provided for sanitation, law enforcement, and transportation? How much of those cost do the RV residents pay? Do they pay "rent" to the city to live on public streets?

Housing and apartment residents pay a tremendous sum of money to reap the many benefits that come with living here. It's definitely not fair to those people to foot the entire bill.

Are children living in RVs? That's an uncomfortable thought.

@Connor -
A) We don’t know how many are working and how many are poor. As has been mentioned many are contractors etc who simply desire a cheaper living space. It doesn’t mean they can’t afford to rent alone, share rent, commute to a cheaper location, stay in a shelter, etc. There are lots of alternatives to living in vehicles on the street and we shouldn’t assume that those alternatives are not options for every one of them.

B). We don’t know how many are paying any taxes other than sales tax and sales tax doesn’t pay for city services and certainly not for schools. This applies not only to the dwellers but to the “landlords” that are raking in the bucks by renting the dumpy vehicles that are parked on the street.

As for Randy Guelph I suggest we treat him the same as TBM- just scroll past his posts without reading and do not respond. It just eggs him on so we’ll never hear the end of his virtue signaling.

Since when violating regulation is encouraged and attracting sympathy, and the violaters are considered as being criminalized?

HeyHumble Observer:
You may notice that in all my (occasional) posts on this subject, I acknowledge that some RV dwellers are not very sympathetic and that I believe in such cases previously existing laws can and should be used to deal with them. What I don't see is any recognition from you are anyone else that there are plenty of people who do have reasons for owning RVs, parking them on the street, and even living in them. It is pretty clear to me that there are many different reasons RVs are on our streets; some RVs really need to be removed and others RVs should be allowed to stay. I think it would be great if this discussion were about where to draw that line. However, the City Council seems to have completely eliminated the "should be allowed to stay" category, which I find deeply troubling. I would hope that, based on your comment proposing that we move forward with rational dialogue and humane policies, you would agree.

The place for RVs is in an RV park. I propose that all you people who feel that the RV dwellers should be allowed to remain parked on the streets start a philanthropy that can purchase land in the area for a park. Then the RVs can park there and the Park owners would be responsible for sanitation, electricity and water hookups etc.

It’s easy to pontificate on how others should relinquish their demand for safe and sanitary streets while personally doing nothing to remedy the situation. Also easy to pontificate on how others should spend their hard earned tax dollars. Put your own money and energy where your mouths are.