The comments in here are about to be interesting.

If you want to sign the petition tonight (Thursday, November 21), show up at Panera between 7 and 9 pm. Your last chance will be 4 pm tomorrow (Friday, November 22) outside City Hall when we turn in the petitions.

Why not have the petitions signed in the back of nob hill where the stench of urine is so pungent and strong that you can smell it 100 feet away from the rotting RV source, also leaking out massive puddles of oil to be washed into the bay.

Without exaggeration, it's a public health issue.

@ In back of Nob Hill:

Because the council's ban affects street parking, how is the problem behind Nob Hill related? Isn't that private property, controlled by whatever organization owns/manages that shopping center?

Regardless of what you may think regarding homelessness, the RVs are a public nuisance, because of their size. There have been multiple times where I have been unable to safely navigate our streets because of their presence. The ordinance specifically legislates vehicle size, not use. The ordinance mentions nothing about living in a car, van, etc.

We need to challenge every signature on this list. I saw them collecting signatures at the train station and they were not checking whether people were Mountain View voters.

By having the petition signed in the back of Nob Hill, the voters will have an understanding of what to expect. Sort of a "Here's what you can expect on the street. This is what you'll be voting for."

Petition probably signed by those who don’t have to live, walk , drive by them everyday.

It is thoughtless and cruel to establish a paradigm where people live in the streets. It may sound virtuous to give up the streets for people to live-in.

But providing slumps will make it so that employers have to pay less for workers and they will be trapped in this dismal life.

It is better to provide rent subsidies for reasonable accommodation in special cases and have some people move away. Employers will need worker and will pay more.

Anyone who signed this should personally welcome RVs parking in front of their own homes - [portion removed] human waste into the streets and storm drains, "borrowing" water from their hoses, using MV taxpayer funds to police and clean around them [portion removed.] The street dwellers do not pay property tax to Mountain View, so this is a hefty expense to those of us who do pay property tax.
The over $2M in our taxpayer funds already spent on this problem, would be much better spent towards housing the few actual previous MV citizens who now live this way. Those from other cities, should have their cities helping them - we cannot save the entire Bay Area. For example, the Sunnyvale police suggest to their RV dwellers that they should go to MV, as we don't prohibit street dwelling. So, if Mr. Siegel wants to threaten MV with a lawsuit, it will go no where because only suing MV will be thrown out of court. It is inconsistent to sue only one city, when most of the Bay Area is even more restrictive.

[Portion removed.] The city itself states that most of the vehicle dwellers are employed in the city or were former residents who were priced out, so where are you getting your "facts"?

Frank Richards, [portion removed] perhaps you could give why you're in favor of RVs on the street, and welcome them to your address?
The police who cover the RVs will give you the information on the criminal element [portion removed] and the numbers of out of town (and some even out of state) living in this way. Even newspaper articles have interviewed people from out of state and many from out of our county. [Portion removed.]
The City has NOT stated that the majority work here or formerly live here, you are wrong again. That's why the proposed vetting process, which is part of the new proposal, is so important. With the vetting, we can get a manageable number of local residents that we can work with to be housed. Nobody should have to live this way on the streets.

[Portion removed.] You can check the meeting packets, nowhere did any city staff cite your [portion removed] figures about criminals [portion removed.] What they have said is that the vast majority of vehicle residents are employed here or are former residents.

I think we should ask our local charity leagues what they think about criminalizing the living situations of the most vulnerable members of our community in the midst of a city-declared shelter crisis! Surely they would be shocked!

[Portion removed.]

I have been to the meetings as well as I have talked directly to the two policemen monitoring this situation. I suggest you do the same [portion removed.]

All signatures must be from Mtn View registered voters in order to be valid.
If they get 1000 of those it deserves to be on the ballot, but I don't give it much hope of getting a majority of voters to vote for it if it ever makes it there.

I doubt that either Frank Richards or Lenny Siegel have allowed the squatters to inhabit their immediate residential area. Taking the word of the police as to the types of people living in these RVs is too much for either of these men. It doesn't fit their narrative. They are much happier living in their bubble, thinking the RV dwellers are all noble. [Portion removed.]

Santa Rita Mom, the police have explicitly stated that these "types of people" commit crimes at a lower rate than the average single-family home dweller in the city. Folks like you stomping your feet and insisting otherwise shows how you have no facts supporting your position. Show me a single statement from the Mountain View police that supports what you're saying.

It speaks volumes that you think that these people, who the city admits are mostly employed in the city or former residents, don't "pull their own weight."

@ Frank Richards:

Regarding RV dweller crime, how's this?

"Teenagers had recently been harassed along Crisanto Avenue by people living out of their vehicles, she wrote, and a woman living out of an RV near Cuesta Park was arrested on Wednesday for selling heroin." Web Link

@Waldo

Thanks for the information. I suppose Frank Richards will commence stamping his feet, since this information goes against his desired narrative.

As for pulling their weight, if they don't pay property tax, they don't. And don't say other renters are the same. They pay taxes through their rent. School, fire, police. All free and the ACLU forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.

Must be nice, especially for the ones who are saving for retirement.

I frequently bike to work or to the store. RVs do block some bike lanes but the *vast majority* of blocking is from other vehicles, e.g. along California street. The worst are uber/lyft who will unexpectedly pull out and are thus dangerous. Stationary RVs are ... predictably static.
Let's bulldoze that golf course along hwy-237, boom, lots of space to park.

Waldo,

Regarding single-family home dweller crime, how's this?

Web Link
Web Link

I suppose Santa Rita Mom will commence stamping her feet, since this information goes against her desired narrative.

@Frank Richards

How are your posts at all relevant? Neither article supports your(incorrect) contention that RV dweller crime is less than crime committed by others or that the police have said anything that supports your (again incorrect) claim that RV dwellers are all innocent of all criminal activity.

All your data does is confirm that we already have enough crime in the area from people who are actual residents and at least pay, in part, for the police who have to deal with them. We don't need to import more from out of the area who don't even partially defray the costs of dealing with their criminal activity.

I don't need to stamp my feet. I'm busy shaking my head at your foolishness.

Even today, here's yet another event in the scourge of single-family home dweller crime: Web Link

As a more reasonable person not fear-mongering, perhaps we shouldn't judge people's inherent criminality based on their living situation.

How's that, Waldo, Santa Rita Mom, Local?

@ Frank Richards:

Really? Your latest submission proves something? You do realize that the number of people living in oversized vehicles is relatively small, while the number of Mountain View residents living in (tax paying) real homes is relatively large...right? It's a ratio of about 80,000 to 400, or two hundred to one. In other words, to prove your point, you need to provide 200 examples of permanent resident criminality for every example of RV dweller criminality. Maybe you already knew this, and are simply trying fool Waldo, Santa Rita Mom, and Local. You kidder.