Road repair status for Miramonte and El Camino.

It seems like a reasonable update to a very old law but we probably should go further.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

With the small houses in MV (small lots, big offsets), I see most of my neighbors using the garage for storage and parking in the driveways or street. And this is not bad; more cars in the street meant much slower local traffic = safer.
With this no return, I cannot imagine what a carousel would happen to all the cars in the neighborhood. And what does it mean, that I cannot have the same friend come over for coffee twice in a row? It seems the city is going insane.

You would think the city would have better things to do. That apparently isn't so.

In Red Manor, no one parks in their garages, as the houses and lots are too small. I used to have a truck, in addition my commute car and my wife's car. That means that one car needed to park on the street. I needed to move it all the time, but I did get several warnings and one ticket. It was annoying, but I could deal with it With this new law, I could never park it on the street and would have to sell the truck. Is this the intention of the law?

Also, the officer that I saw writing the ticket told me that I just needed to move the odometer 0.1 miles.

It sounds like I can't park in front of my home, which seems ridiculous. What do I do with my car when I leave on a vacation? May I park it in the City Hall garage?

Rather than spending time on this nonsense, why doesn’t the city of Mountain View try persuading Caltrans to fix the chuckholes along El Camino Real?

Sounds like we need to relax zoning to make it easier for people to build sheds instead of using their garages for storage.

Why play games like "you must move your vehicle 1000 feet?" Why not just ban camping on city streets? The RVs are an eyesore and a nuisance.

There is a significant problem going to arise from this action. This is called chalking vehicles, and yes a recent court ruled that you can chalk her is the information

(Web Link
Takeaways
This decision is important for cities and counties to continue to have a cost-effective method of enforcement of parking time limits. However, the “administrative search” requirement is not a catch-all to allow warrantless searches and any municipality should consider the guideline principles outlined in the decision whenever considering a search. The practice of tire chalking appears safe for now, and until a higher court says otherwise, cities and counties can continue using this method.”

But another circuit ruled differently, which means that this case can be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court the case info is here

(Web Link

that case stated:

“Ludington ruled after two appeals in the case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati. On the first appeal, the 6th Circuit ruled that chalking tires without a warrant is a search that is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. On the second, the appeals court said several exceptions to the warrant requirement do not shield the city.”

This means that there is likely going to be a MAJOR amount of litigation that the City WILL have to pay for, even going to the U.S. Supreme Court, Is this going to be worth the money lost?