[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

It’s unfortunate that MV City Council couldn’t provide a means for homeowners who have lost the right to park a vehicle in front of their homes with a means of getting a permit or exception that allows one to park an oversized vehicle at their home. In my case I’d like to be able to work on my RV at my home and would like to park it there for a week or two while I work on it. But there is no mechanism for this and I have lost a right as a property owner with no recourse.

The 72 hour rule and the 'leaking NOT water' California vehicle rules should have been enforced all along.

Don't trash your environment (all) people!

3 miles of RV / oversize vehicle parking is at least some compromise. Note that does not apply to sleeping in cars, and pickups with low camping shells.

peace and love

That's good news. It was a long time in coming, but good news nonetheless.

Yet another delay.. October 1 will come and go and Crisanto Avenue will still look like a shanty town.

The 72 hour rule and leaking sewage alone should clear out Crisanto. Not to mention expired registrations.. front license plates. They could clear that street today if they really wanted to.. but they don't.

I used to live in the church courtyard on Cambridge in Palo Alto with a couple other guys. They'd be out panhandling on El Camino early in the day. A bottle of cheap wine was $2. The church was very kind but eventually they couldn't stand the smell and asked us to leave. You have a street full of RVs which use the bathroom and showers at Rengsdorff Park. It's not fair to residents. Why not just build an RV park?

To expand on the point Ron made, my daily driver is a small Sprinter van that has a footprint about the size of a typical car, yet stands a few inches over seven feet tall. Although I don’t expect to be targeted, theoretically I could come out any given morning to find it gone and faced with a huge towing bill. How is this fair to homeowners and renters? The people actually paying the bills for this city.

It's telling that people are lamenting their "rights" as homeowners and renters to the public streets. The council's justification for this was road safety, why would it matter if the person making the roads more dangerous owns property in the city?

At least now I know one place to start calling in oversized vehicle complaints. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

Ron, you have no rights to a “public RIGHT OF WAY” to reserve space to fix your toys. I hate to say it, but the truth hurts. I as a taxpayer, I paid for that road to be built, pay to sweep it and repair it. That said, if you want to rent from your fellow taxpayers for $50 a week, it’s not a bad idea. You should write that in to the council.

Why not build an RV park? This is a good reminder that nothing is free, especially land, since they stopped making it.

Land is $12,000,000 an acre in Mountain View. Why should my tax money go to buy expensive land? There is plenty of cheap land in Gilroy.

And don’t give me that “oh I want my kids in this MV school nonsense”. Millions of kids move every year. (Hello Army kids!) They survive and adapt. I am not coldhearted. The logistics of getting to work for people is a legit issue. But there is cheaper land (Santa clara? Gilroy?) with moderate commutes.

SalsaMusic I also pay taxes and I also have a business - not toys. I’m not asking for an exclusion; I’m asking for a mechanism to allow me to continue doing what I had been allowed to do previously. I understand the council has based their decision on street safety- I’m not pushing back on that. There are ways to satisfy and even support residents who live here and take care of the RV parking issue as well. I’ll point out that it wasn’t a safety issue for decades until now.

Frank, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I didn’t say I had a right to the street. I said that I have a right to perform an ACTIVITY I was able to do has been taken away. I understand the basis of the councils decision. I do not accept that it must be completely exclusive and there is no mechanism to allow temporary parking on a short term permitted basis. Obviously every case is different - that’s why I’m asking for something more nuanced.
I’m not sure what is so “telling” about this; perhaps you can help me understand better?

Ron, the city determined that oversized vehicles, such as your RV, pose a threat to road safety on narrow streets and bikeways. That you were endangering the public for years doesn't change that, and I'm not sure why property owners should be allowed to endanger the public.

This ordinance is WAY WORSE than I realized. The article says "The city defines narrow streets as being 40 feet wide or less, a definition broad enough to include 470 of the city's 525 public streets", implying that 10% of the streets are available. But when you look at the map, parking is restricted on many other streets for other reasons. It looks like only 1-2% of the street mileage is available for RV parking, almost nothing. Huge sections of town have NO streets where an RV can park. South of El Camino, there are only a few blocks where RVs are allowed to park. Look at the map. It's terrible.

A former city council member who opposed the voter approved measure relating to RV parking is quoted in the Mercury News regarding the pre-ordinance situation as a “market solution that didn’t cost the government much at all and now we’re going to be forced into a more contentious situation where the government’s only solutions might be spending more money to put up signs or do safe parking.”. Yes, after several city council members left office, Mountain View set up several safe parking lots and quickly (less than six months) a whole new housing complex for people to move out of RVs and cars. Thinking about the RV fire a few days ago in Pioneer Ave, it does seem a more compassionate approach is not a “market solution” but moving as the new city council did to expand safe parking and other measures to help people move to safer situations.

About time, the people voted for the removal of RVs and finally it is going to happen. A couple of homeless people have RVs used for living and storage parked on Pamela Drive behind the City Sport off Grant for months. The street is narrow and it is dangerous to maneuver between the RVs with garbage, extra tires, broken bike leaning against the RVs.
If this madness had not been stopped the misguided would have demanded the 2nd tier homeless, ones without RVs but tents should be allowed to put their tents up on sidewalks.