Enforcement of the 72- hour rule is long overdue. The same dilapidated RV has been parked at Latham and Showers for weeks with one or two newer model cars constantly present. Various men come and go. The other day, one was using power tools to do body work on a car. Sparks were flying everywhere. I have spoken to the MV police about this situation and received a sympathetic ear, but no action. It's time for the city council to authorize towing and impound of non-compliant vehicles.

I agree that enforcing parking rules and regulations is necessary to ensure that our streets are used fairly and safely. It's important that personal vehicles of local homeowners are not taking up valuable street parking spaces for extended periods of time, as this can inconvenience other residents who may need the space.

Enforcing parking rules equally and consistently will promote fairness and accessibility for everyone, regardless of whether they are a homeowner or renter. By authorizing towing and impound of non-compliant vehicles, the city council can help to ensure that everyone has access to street parking and that parking is not monopolized by a few individuals.

Parking personal vehicles on the street for extended periods of time may also create a visual disturbance in the neighborhood, which can negatively impact the quality of life for other residents.

In summary, enforcing parking rules equally and consistently is necessary to promote fairness, accessibility, and safety in our community. The city council's authorization of towing and impound of non-compliant vehicles will help to achieve these goals and create a better quality of life for all residents.

There is a significat 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, Id this going to be worth the money lost?

There needs to be an exception to allow residents to park in front of their own home if that vehicle is used, not ‘stored’ or inoperable Many homes have 1 or 2 driveway spaces and 3/4 cars. People want their cars in front of their homes for security, not 1000 feet away.

As a local resident who is passionate about justice and equal application of the law, I firmly believe that public resources should be shared fairly and equitably among all members of our community. It's important that there are no special carve-outs for the wealthy or any other privileged group, as this undermines the principle of equality before the law.

All residents should have equal access to public resources, including street parking spaces. Enforcing parking rules equally and consistently is crucial to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to park their vehicles on the street, regardless of their financial status. It's not fair for wealthier individuals to monopolize street parking spaces or to receive special treatment when it comes to enforcing parking rules.

Furthermore, carving out special public resources for the wealthy can create a sense of entitlement and privilege that is harmful to the overall sense of community and fairness. It's essential that we work together to create a level playing field where everyone is treated fairly and equally under the law.

In conclusion, the importance of equality before the law cannot be overstated. By enforcing parking rules equally and consistently, we can ensure that public resources are shared fairly and equitably among all members of our community, and that no one is given special treatment or carve-outs. It's essential that we promote fairness, accessibility, and equality in all aspects of public life, including access to street parking. This will help to create a stronger sense of community and promote the well-being of all residents, regardless of their financial status or social standing.

Susan: I’m not clear on what the problem is that you’re trying to solve. What harm is the RV doing? Are you upset about the RV’s presence, about it being dilapidated, about it being in the same spot for more than 3 days, about the power tools, or about the men?

Imagine that that RV moves after 3 days, and then imagine that it comes back to the same spot 24 hours later. Would that address your concerns? Or are you more concerned about things like its appearance than about enforcement of the specific 72-hours law?

@Jed. I want this vehicle, and others like it, out of my neighborhood permanently. They are health hazards if nothing else. Occasionally, they do move it and the associated vehicles, on to Ortega and then back again. The police are acquainted with the vehicle and the people associated with it. They are not benign "unsheltered" men. They are hostile to people walking by, particularly women. This vehicle has been in my neighborhood for years, but they have become bolder in the last 6 months and now run a body shop on the street. Many elderly folks and families walk in this area on the way to Walmart, etc. I do not understand why this is allowed to continue. And, yes, I know about the lawsuit that was settled by the city.

We’ve had a tool/gardening/storage trailer parked in front our property for over 2 years. The person who owns this trailer started harassing the residents in our complex by a) partially blocking our driveway with his truck, b) double parking on the street right at our driveway exit with his other truck while loading, unloading his trailer, c) and trying to take over a good portion of the block with his many vehicles. MVPD has been useless. They have made it clear that we can complain all we want and this guy and his trailer stays. He gets to violate the 72 hour rule with MVPDs blessing. They will not ticket, they will not tow. This even after the lawsuit was settled. By contrast, a tenant who lives in our complex was left a 72 hour notice on his car, so he moved his car. MVPD claims they never left that 72 hour notice. The tenant who got the notice disagrees.

SO - the guy with the trailer and three trucks wins. The tenants who live in my complex not so much.

@Jed, seriously? What's the problem??? A run-down RV with guys using power tools on city streets? If 3 people who own those cars live there they can rent an apartment. I wonder if that RV has ever been inspected for fire and septic violations? Of course, it hasn't, it's in Mountain View.

Trying to understand the real motives behind these changes.

Rule is still that every 72 hours a vehicle must move 1,000 feet. The only "clarification" is that for at least 24 hours , vehicle can not move back to same exact spot.
This could give a false sense of security for folks thinking they can part across the street or on the very next spot while overlooking the moving 1,000 feet rule.

How is moving 1,000 feet determined? In current and changed ordinance, MVPD's judgement.

Worse, the changed ordinance removes odometer reading language, the only remedy to fix potential enforcement errors.

Seems to me that the real motivation was to remove any mechanism to challenge potentially faulty enforcement of an ordinance that is still complaint driven and inherently discriminatory.

Not the best of looks, Mountain View.

Has MVPD released its promised revised guidelines for enforcing the 72hours parking rule?

There has been a 1960s era Dodge Dart on the curb of Annie Laurie and Devonshire for months! The police finally came out and were assured by the owner that they would move it and they were in the process of selling it. They have been saying this for years! The car has been inoperable the entire time. Realtors and neighbors complain but nothing has been done. The car is an eyesore and a safety hazard. Many people have to swerve around the car and cross the double yellow line into oncoming traffic to get around the car. If this car was parked in front of a city council member’s home or the mayor, I am confident this matter would have been addressed months ago.