This is definitely not the right decision. If you want more of something, you subsidize it. I don't think there are any Mountain View residents paying their rent or mortgage thinking that they really want more broken down RVs clogging the streets and producing more detritus. The bottom line is if you can't afford to live in an area, you move to a less expensive area that you can afford. That is being a responsible adult.

Dan is correct. I had some sympathy for longtime residents. But the story told me there is a college student who chose to go to college here without a place to live. Hmmm

To apply Dan's statement to the housing shortage in Mountain View would suggest that providing subsidies for housing could help alleviate the shortage. This can take various forms, such as direct subsidies to builders or developers, rental assistance programs, or tax breaks for affordable housing initiatives.

By offering subsidies, builders and developers may be incentivized to construct more housing units, thereby increasing the overall supply in the area. This can help address the shortage and potentially create a more balanced market.

Subsidies can target specific income groups or promote the construction of affordable housing units. This can make housing more accessible to lower-income residents who might otherwise struggle to find affordable options in the area.

A healthy housing market contributes to overall economic vitality. By subsidizing housing, Mountain View can attract more residents, potentially leading to increased economic activity, job creation, and a more diverse and vibrant community.

Subsidizing housing can contribute to reducing income inequality and promote social equity by ensuring that people from different socioeconomic backgrounds have access to suitable housing options within the city.

SalsaMusic, if a college student can't afford to live where they go to school, should they only choose to expand their horizons, education, and opportunity at schools they can afford, housing and all? This would seem to perpetuate generational inequality. Do we not have an obligation as a city to house the people that are here to improve their lives?

“I am hearing from residents that this is a hardship and a threat to their safety as they walk to and from their cars in the dark,”

Hardship? Is the area really that unsafe that people don't feel comfortable walking around? I thought these safe parking lots had security guards? This statement seems like hyperbole.

Some people in this world are against social safety nets. They like to make statements about “personal responsibility”, they basically blame the poor for being poor. This approach is consistent with “blame the victim” mentality, a psychological phenomenon that helps people feel safe, that certain “bad things” would never happen to THEM because they are behaving in ways that are more virtuous than the victims did.

Criticizing a student for trying to make a better life for themselves because they are living in an RV? A person who is a full-time student and gets up at 5:30 am in order to get to their part-time job? I don't get it. What is the preferred alternative?

I noticed that additional parking IS NECESSARY for low-income people who live in RV, and contrasted that to pressure put on the City Council to reduce parking requirements in affordable housing projects. There is a myth that low-income people cannot even afford cars, this is apparently not even true for RV dwellers.

@Clarence, Have you changed your mind? I find your words here to be inconsistent with what you posted very recently on another thread:

“Allocating funds directly to developers and landlords may not effectively address the needs of the broader population or address systemic issues related to housing affordability.

The transfer of tax dollars to developers and landlords exacerbates existing wealth inequalities. These subsidies or incentives primarily benefit individuals and entities who are already financially well-off, potentially widening the wealth gap and perpetuating a system that favors the privileged.” - Web Link

Now you seem to think that subsidies ARE a good idea? If so, I’m thrilled to hear it.

“This expansion will bring Mountain View’s program capacity up to 114, which is the largest safe parking program in Santa Clara County.”

I used to think that I am compassionate but now I think I am just being taking advantage of.

Mountain View has only about 4% of Santa Clara County’s population and there are several cities much larger than Mountain View in Santa Clara County.

Yet, Mountain View has the largest safe parking program!

When Mountain View wanted to ban large vehicles parking on narrow streets which the city council passed and the residents voted for, the city was being sued!

Mountain View is the city that is doing the most to help, not only in Santa Clara County but in the whole Bay Area! I saved article links that reported data on that.

But everything we do is not enough, these people keep wanting more and more and more!

Leslie, since you asked both here and in a different article, I appreciate your engagement and attention to my previous comments. It's important to note that as a resident and community member, I'm constantly learning and adapting my perspectives based on new information and evolving discussions.

In the context of the previous thread you mentioned, it's crucial to recognize that discussions around complex issues like housing shortages involve numerous factors, and there is rarely a one-size-fits-all solution. Different approaches may have their merits and drawbacks, and what may seem effective in one context might not be as viable in another. The intricacies of the housing shortage in Mountain View may also influence the effectiveness of certain strategies.

Furthermore, it's important to acknowledge that there are diverse opinions on how to address housing shortages, and no single viewpoint can claim to have all the answers. As an individual, I'm still navigating the complexities of the issue and seeking a well-rounded understanding.

I believe constructive dialogue and open-mindedness are essential in finding the most appropriate solutions. By engaging in discussions, we can exchange ideas, challenge assumptions, and collectively work towards a better understanding of the challenges we face.

Therefore, it's important to approach these discussions with an open mind, acknowledging the complexities of the issue and embracing the potential for personal growth and evolving perspectives.

MV does not have the county's largest low and very low income housing program (per capita). This is a very specific temporary housing supply program (low income and permanent is better - and more costly). Do we have a new tiny temporary house program (think so). Do we have a 'tent city' with services program (don't think so).

-So, like UC Santa Cruz past 'student RV lot' this site can help support low-income college students. Great!

Jut hard to hear the city administrator/spokesperson hemming & hawing!
Provide more on-site parking in-this-instance.

For those without vehicles, a section of Mountain View should be set aside for tent residencies.

MVgo shuttle's East Bayshore route stops at Google's building at the end of Crittenden Lane. If it also stopped at the Safe Parking lot, it would offer residents an alternative to commuting by car. Add another stop at Montecito/Stierlin, and it could accommodate kids going to school and grocery shoppers.

MVgo ridership is languishing along with Caltrain, and needs something to justify its existence.