A recent article concerning Apple Corporation moving street dwellers off their property, pointed out some quite obvious (but rarely exposed) problems with rehousing many people in this situation. Several refuse the restrictions of regular housing, some have mental, physical or criminal issues that make it difficult to find housing, and many merely moved here from out of town (and some from out of state) for the free services. A large percentage of the RVs are owned by out of town landlords, who rent them out at a profit - and pay no taxes for our schools, police, library, etc. Many RVs are so junked that they are not drivable.
Mountain View deserves thanks for all our Council has done: safe lots, sewage and trash removal, partnership with CSA to help with employment and housing - among the many other attempts to aid the street dwellers. I am astounded that the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley is suing Mountain View - the one city in the area that has done MORE than any other to help the street dwellers. Do they not see the blazing inconsistency in this lawsuit, when Los Altos, Sunnyvale, LAH, Menlo Park, etc. outright PROHIBIT RVs on their streets and offer NO aid of any kind? I hope a judge would be aware of this inconsistency, and treat it as the baseless harassment to MV, by this law firm, that it is.
The voters of Mountain View have spoken, yet our Council is too cowardly to institute the law that passed - with this delay bringing in more onto our streets. We can only (as we have) help those who want to be helped - but we cannot pander to a criminal element, out of town landlords nor those who refuse to be helped. It's past time to enforce the law.

[Portion removed] Haven't you seen the RV's on the streets of Sunnyvale and Palo Alto?

People living in RVs is a predictable result of having too much parking and not enough homes.

My neighbors on Crisanto don't deserve to get harassed by the city.

Mountain View has been not only extremely tolerant, they have been very progressive! A LOT has been done for our RV dwellers - and many have been helped to move into housing and off the streets. The problem is that we are the only city providing services, so we get quite an influx from out of town (as well as the out of town landlords who park junk RVs and rent them out here) and there will never be enough City funds to house everyone who wants to live here. This is where other cities must step up. Palo Alto and Sunnyvale cannot do anything about people parked on El Camino, as it's a state highway (#82) and the state has governance - but they block their residential streets. It cannot be only MV working for others this way. We cannot be all things to all people (those who refuse assistance have the right to do so) and there is no perfect solution. This has to be a cooperative deal, and if the RV owner will not cooperate, that is unfortunate, but the decision is theirs and they live with the consequences like we all do in life. This isn't heartless, it is reality. If you are hard and fast that MV OWES everyone a place to live no matter the circumstances, then please open your home or driveway and show you mean it!

[Portion removed] A lot of people respect and trust you, so it's particularly important that you not repeat misleading information. Palo Alto does NOT prevent oversized vehicle residences from parking on city street. On my bike ride this morning, I counted 13 such vehicles in one section of Palo Alto, far from El Camino Real.
You're entitled to your opinions, but not your own "facts."

Re: Local
Very well said and I couldn't agree more and I don't need to add anything. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to poster's repeated violations of TOS -- personal attacks and disrespectful comments]

Crisanto has been cleared of street campers, forcing them to take their RVs and relocate. This is good news. This should not have been a surprise to anyone, nor should it have been any kind of inconvenience to those who choose to park there. Our city street were not designed as camping sites.

@ Local (the Voice keeps deleting your name) I just confirmed that there are oversized vehicles residences on Sunnyvale city streets (that is, not El Camino Real), some in highly visible locations. Please acknowledge the truth. Then we can debate policy.

Local makes errors of perspective that can be argued about.

But one thing that Local says is that CSA provides social services on behalf of just the city of Mountain View. It's the CSA of Mountain View, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills and it raises a lot of support from the 2 areas outside of Mountain View.

Furthermore, rightfully, the County of Santa Clara Social Services Agency has a housing assistance program and other services located in Mountain View. This provides more assistance than does CSA, and it is funded by the county as a whole plus the state. So at least some of the incentive to potentially seek out Mountain View for services is different than Local says. MOST of the county social services efforts are provided from offices in San Jose, but we all pay for those services too, not just Mountain View residents.

Finally, in the North county of Santa Clara there is a lot of private social services assistance that are provided out of Palo Alto. Palo Alto has had an Opportunity Center for homeless located just off El Camino Real on Encina Avenue FOR DECADES now.

Yes... there are RVs on some streets in cities, even though those cities prohibit them. Lenny2, that doesn't mean that these cities openly allow this - they do move some, but then they come back after 72 hours, and some just refuse to move until towed. However, none of these cities (even though they have people flaunting their regulations of no street dwelling) are able to keep their streets completely free. The fact is that some still persist on the streets of cities that prohibit them. That doesn't change my argument.
You appear to be a big advocate for RVs on city streets in Mountain View. Then, why did you have signs installed at both ends of your street prohibiting RV parking? However, since you are so ardent....I suppose you could offer your driveway to a few? When do you anticipate doing that?
I would rather not write directly to you - and I wouldn't be so disrespectful to use your name, unless you list it here - but you do so. Please continue with your own comments - and l will have mine.

I have to agree with "local": Mountain View has done at least as much as any other city around to find a humane solution. I don't have any data on who is moving to Mtn View because it's the only place they can park, so I can't comment on that. Low income housing is a regional, if not statewide, problem and it seems like we're shouldering more than our fair share. What can we do to help the people who need to live in vehicles that doesn't involve unsafe, unsanitary and unsighly junkers parked on the streets and blocking sight lines? How can we tax the absentee owners of the RVs to get them to contribute their fair share? (We'd certainly tax slum lords offering low end housing).

In the north county only Sunnyvale and Mountain View are significantly adding to gentrification by adding such high wage jobs, and a lot of them. They get the property tax revenue from the added valuation built into the Tech campuses. Other cities have much less revenue growth, if any, that can be attributed to commercial real estate development. They both did way more than their share of shouldering the difficult job of spending all the revenue that comes from this "run away" commercial growth.

It's interesting, that RV parking outside these Tech campuses has been illegal and enforced dating back 10 years..... don't want to upset the goose that lays the golden property tax eggs. The lawsuit didn't block enforcing RV's not being allowed to park outside Google buildings.