Hello - Campers Parked since August 11, 2019 on El Camino - Hazard for kids/adults biking to school, and all drivers on El Camino

Since Aug 11, 2019 4 campers have been parked on El Camino Real, near Maybell Avenue, and kids on bikes can't see around these big 4 campers, VTA and Stanford Marguerite buses drive in two lanes to get around these campers:
3 campers Beige Color, CA plates: License # 5MES671; 1LCX192; 18BES052 and 1 camper Nevada plates: U18A1N. Doesn't Palo Alto have a 72 hour parking limit?

When are our tax dollars going to have these hazard parked campers moved"

This dumb idea just won't go away. Owning a broken down junk gas guzzling GHG emitting RV doesn't make someone any more special than anyone else. People living out of shopping carts are just as special as people in RVs. Broken down or brand-new deluxe Mercedes RVs, they are all the same-- they are co-opting public resources for private use. They should be parked on private land-- it is that simple.

Convenient proximity to public transit, shopping, scavenging, and possible employment is why certain parts of PA are congested with transient RVs.

An 'out of sight, out of mind' location in the boonies may not appeal to these 'homesteader/squatters' who are the modern day equivalent of travelers in covered wagons searching for a place to settle.

Also, a group encampment of multiple RVs could exacerbate social problems like the BV trailer park due to the close proximity of its neighbors & various personality conflicts.

I would rather see FEWER of them in general but parked along ECR seems less problematic even though they are eyesores & obstruct bicyclists & driver vision.

One RVer I spoke with said he was a 24/7/365 Stanford booster who never attended Stanford but enjoys the hospitality of the tailgaters who frequently offer him complimentary beer & brauts during home football games.

A nice gesture of the part of Cardinal fans...like feeding pigeons at the park.
Some of the non-RV homeless are also beneficiaries of this practice. All it takes is an old Stanford sweatshirt from Goodwill or a faded Cardinal 'S' cap.

The gaming is on.

Glad that some plan is being proposed to get the RV's off ECR. As soon as you go into San Mateo County you do not see RV's on ECR. PA should establish some locations and serve them up on a first come basis. Once the limit has been established then there is no further need to keep trying to address the growing number who chose to come to PA specifically.

PA has created it's own problems by trying to expand it's reach for all of these transients. The transients need to expand their "opportunities" for locations.

Housing the homeless is not a city problem - it is a collective County/State/National problem. Simply put: due to freedom of movement, any city that provides services above and beyond another nearby city will attract extra seekers of those services. This places an undue burden on the most generous cities and perversely incentivizes nearby cities to provide *fewer* services so that seekers of services migrate to more generous locales.

If Palo Alto has more generous services - where do you think social workers in nearby cities will encourage their clients to go?

Search "Homeless dumping free bus" on google.

The solution is to seek a county/state/national resolution so that proper services are distributed equitably.

@BadIdea, scale that up to freedom of movement between Nations.

This will not eliminate or even curtail RV parking on El Camino. It will only serve to draw not RVs into the city with hopes of getting a spot. If the lots are full they'll find a spot nearby to park.

You can probably expect more RVs in the area where they establish these safe parking areas.

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, no, not on ECR in Redwood City. On Old County Road/Stafford Street, along the west side of the street.

The conceptual RV park is a good idea in terms of accommodating the newer RVers to Palo Alto. With winter approaching, more are on their way.

The established RVers prefer to park right where they are due to certain conveniences and it would be very difficult having to resituate to a drab, barren lot near the baylands.

Parking near Stanford/Town & Country is like the Crescent Park of Palo Alto RV communities.

Location/Location/Location,

While this is a bit off topic, I have seen this concept successfully used in other ventures besides free food. A so called "dog trainer" who conned people into using her services, posing as a Stanford alum, complete with sweatshirt and cap. Did not deliver as promised. Always check.

I would not support this program as I believe anything done to support the current homeless population will only encourage more to come here (PA always seems to be a magnet for this and most people's good nature seems to be taken advantage)

I would like to see the city council and police make it a priority to get rid of the vehicle dwellers. In addition to violating the 72 hour ordinance I see several other behaviors they could likely be ticketed for to encourage them to leave. I either drive or walk by the RVs on ECR almost daily and see the following most of which I'm sure the police could find some code that is being violated:

1. Public urination
2. Public littering/dumping
3. Extending of RV "bump outs" nearly in to the lane of traffic
4. Having external, running generator sitting on ECR
5. Partially parking on the curb (to help level the RV), this partially restricts sidewalk
6. Right now at least 4 of the RVs on ECR are just trailers with no vehicle attached. I can't see how it is legal to leave your trailer in a public parking spot for an extended time
7. Leaving orange cones or personal possessions in parking spot

I'm sure there are more violations. It would only take commitment from the police and city council to get these RVs to move on but apparently neither police or council has the will.

So we're just going to accept that transients in RV's can park in our city free of charge and without recourse? (nobody is enforcing the law!) This is not helping the transients who currently have zero incentive to find an acceptable living space and it certainly is a disservice to the tax paying citizens who have to look at these eyesores and ride around the numerous behemoths on our streets. C'mon! We can do better!

Unfortunately, you anti-vehicle dwellers are not being heard by the city council. In this age, you have to be for the homeless. Otherwise, you will be branded as 'uncaring' and without sympathy and therefore your point of view is instantly discounted/discarded. Never mind the fact that the policies enacted to 'help the homeless' just invites more of these problems and does not fix the problem.

Here's a solution. People who take in a homeless non-relative are allowed to reduce their taxable income directly by the assistance they provide plus $3000. Allow this to happen both on federal and state income taxes and you can solve this situation. Allow corporations to do this and I bet Google/Facebook will build housing for homeless just to reduce their tax burden.

Given the current housing crisis, many of us are one banana peel away from homelessness. At least an RV gives people a roof over their heads.

Since tech created this problem (and others) with their insatiable growth, I propose that tech parking lots be used for vetted overnite parking, with toilets, showers and other services available. And they should pay for it.

I hate seeing these type of people take up our valuable resources. It's not our fault they failed in life enough to have to live in an RV. Get a job and buy a house like everyone else does. I didn't want to go to work but I did for a long time to afford to live here. They can blame themselves or God, but they better do it somewhere else. Wasting my tax dollars helping poor people who want help!

If we can ban plastic straws, we can enforce the law on vehicles illegally parked on ECR and other places. Politicians don't have the will or the guts to do it. Palo Alto will be looking like San Francisco within a year or two if nothing is done to these lawbreakers.

This morning, I attempted to pass a wide RV parked on Ross. Unable to pass due to multiple issues: kids on bikes, garbage truck, oncoming cars, street furniture. This would be a real issue for any emergency vehicle, even an EMT ambulance.

The RV/Car campers are a real conundrum.

On hand, we do not have sufficient low cost housing to support everyone who makes less than $80k/year. These folks keep the town running. They wash dishes, clean our clothing, rake our yards, cook our meals, fix our cars, build our homes, and many many other tasks for which our current economy only provides limited income.

On the other hand, for six years we have had a beat up huge RV sitting in front of our office with four (yes 4) decrepit cars (all owned by the RV owner). The RV dweller shuffles the cars position at night every few days to stick to the 72 hour rule. We have spoken to the police and they say that the City Council has told them it is not a priority. There are six parking spots now occupied by one RV camper that are not available to our staff and clients. This is not fair.

This single RV occupant has taken advantage of the City's lax enforcement and has carefully abused the law in a way that we cannot possibly fix. Furthermore, many of these RV's have expired tags. I would be happy for the city to put up parking meters and tow the offenders. BUT, there is a second problem.

For several reasons, there are almost no towing companies willing to tow the RVs. Firstly, they do not want to hassle with towing an RV while someone is inside. Secondly, the towing companies make money by charging storage and there are not may lots large enough to hold all of the RVs they would be towing. Lastly, absent of paying the storage fees, the towing companies make money by selling the RVs that do not pay storage. Unfortunately, the RVs are not worth much and there is almost no market for a beat up old RV (except if you are looking to live on the mean streets of Palo Alto). In the very unusual event the City does need to tow an RV, the charge can be as much as $5,000! Given the number of RVs to be towed, the City just does not have the resources necessary to do this.

So here we stand. The RV owners know that they can stay as long as they want and the City can do nothing. They literally thumb their noses at us.

None of this is fair.

So we're just going to accept that transients in RV's can park in our city free of charge and without recourse?"

We could always build enough affordable housing so that we don't have that problem. After all, we moved here, and so are hypocritical if we criticize others for doing the same. Not to mention pretty heartless and mean-spirited towards the poor.

Uncaring attitudes were not a part of the Palo Alto of times past, over which so many here wax nostalgic. Is that nostalgia real or feigned?

>>> I hate seeing these type of people take up our valuable resources. It's not our fault they failed in life enough to have to live in an RV. Get a job and buy a house like everyone else does. I didn't want to go to work but I did for a long time to afford to live here. They can blame themselves or God, but they better do it somewhere else. Wasting my tax dollars helping poor people who want help!

^^^COLD-HEARTED. No one can walk in another man's shoes...nor should judge.

Funny nary a word on bearded hipsters living in uhuals in and around tech companies cause even they don't want to shell out the $$$$ for rent

While there are outliers with issues the vast majority of them (I ride my bike home from the med center every evening past the collections of RV and have never had an issue) most are simply trying to get by while working IN our community cleaning our homes, busing our tables etc.

While we cannot have every street crowded with RV's having a safe spot is a reasonable response.

They should show some sort of employment in the City to use one of the spots.

They should put the homeless people on Roof tops.

To answer the question Gennedy: No. Affordable Housing is the answer. Our city, county, state or country has not faced such a shelter crisis in our Nation. Ever. Not during abominable slavery, or the 1906 Earthquake, Great Depression or Hurricane Katrina . We need bold action not 30 parking stalls near rotting wast water or compost piles. Shame on our region for voting yes and not overturning Prop 13. We have spent 45 years treating taxes like a bad word and not the omen that 13 has bestowed on California. Keep pushing the solutions around in hopes the problem will disappear. Wishful thinking. 45 percent of California's are renters - very soon that will tip over to the 50% and watch what happens. Presently and out of desperation, People, Families, workers are forced to live in their vehicle. Yet this is only a fraction of a massive reality. Wages have not been this suppressed since 1942 - yet the cost of housing then was pennies on the dollar and in California too. What I can’t quite get my heart around - the horrible, mean spirited, wrong and discriminatory these above comments are not deleted as objectionable . Ir is Palo Alto revealing true colors?

NO to homeless encampments in or near the Baylands. Want a fire!? How will police supervise? This will be a never-ending draw. Encourage and support people to use various services or relocate to an affordable region, of which there are many.

[Portion removed.]

Help, empathy and compassion. Where is it?

"Owning a broken down ... RV doesn't make someone any more special than anyone else. People living out of shopping carts are just as special as people in RVs. Broken down or brand-new deluxe Mercedes RVs, they are all the same-- they are co-opting public resources for private use. They should be parked on private land-- it is that simple."

"I would not support this program as I believe anything done to support the current homeless population will only encourage more to come

Encourage and support people to use various services or relocate to an affordable region, of which there are many.

I hate seeing these type of people take up our valuable resources

[Post removed.]

@ Liz Gardner....wages not this suppressed since 1942 ??? You might want to get current on the news regarding record breaking low unemployment numbers and wages rising at a rate that is the best in a decade.

I agree with you on housing costs, but California is in it's own bubble. Put a 3 million dollar Palo Alto home in Nevada and it'll cost less than 6 hundred thousand dollars. There are many opportunities to live affordably all over the country.

Many of the "horrible, mean spirited, wrong and discriminatory" posters of the above comments are just decent Palo Altans fed up with people breaking the law and the city doing absolutely nothing about it.

Providing a'safe parking' program is nothing more than a feel good pipe dream measure, that if ever enacted by city council will only accomplish one thing. It'll serve as a magnet for more people flooding the area. One only needs to look north to San Francisco to see how their live and let live policies have worked out for them. Streets covered in human feces, the stench of urine and used syringes all over the place. Is that what you want? ECR is already resembling S.F.to a degree and it's only going to get worse.

Those of you who have consistently voted for "progressive" policies have ruined your community. You have nobody to blame but yourselves. Please stay in California. Don't bring your liberal voting to other states and communities. You will just end up destroying those communities as well. Maybe it's time to rethink your voting habits?

Posted by Jennifer, a resident of another community

>> Those of you who have consistently voted for "progressive" policies have ruined your community.

Consider that you might be over-generalizing. I vote for many "progressive" policies when I'm given the chance. I support reinstating the Eisenhower-era progressive income tax, and overturning Prop 13. I'm also in favor of some kind of nationwide automatic health care. I'm also in favor of removing RVs from public streets. People have all varieties of opinions about different issues. I approach each issue separately, rather than trying to divide people on issues.

>> You have nobody to blame but yourselves. Please stay in California. Don't bring your liberal voting to other states and communities. You will just end up destroying those communities as well. Maybe it's time to rethink your voting habits?

Liberals such as myself are in favor of as much personal freedom as is practical. I guess you are not? What do you mean by "Land of the free" in the National Anthem? Free as in freedom?

As a community we should have a sense of responsibility and compassion for those in need. To what degree is the question and challenge. As a smaller, local community our primary focus and consideration in my opinion should be on those who have some legitimate ties to Palo Alto, ie: they grew up here, lived and worked in PA but are now un-housed, etc. This would certainly narrow our scope of responsibility, and perhaps provide a greater sense of local ownership and motivation to address the challenge without having to carry the regional burden of providing homeless services. Although our surrounding communities have been more proactive in this regard, historically Palo Alto has been a consistent leader in providing a myriad of homeless services including being host to the Opportunity Center which serves a wide range of people in need. We have and continue to carry a bulk of the load, and other communities truly need to make a greater contribution.

This is especially important because this challenge isn't just a simple matter of helping people who find themselves relegated to living on the street. Some are responsible, law abiding people who by unfortunate and difficult circumstances find themselves in that situation. We can't be naive however and must acknowledge the fact that a disproportionately high percentage of this population are there because of extremely poor life choices, substance abuse, criminal backgrounds, mental illness, all of which can contribute mightily to running out of options. Our community needs to be equally mindful of this reality, and should not be ridiculed or made to feel guilty if they have an expectation to have public safety and quality of life concerns addressed appropriately.

Again, we should balance compassion and care with a reasonable expectation of self-reliance. Let's do our share, especially for those that stemmed from our community, but not at the expense of enabling unacceptable behavior or being one of the primary portals for the entire region.

Isn't semi-homeless residents in RVs better than homeless people roaming the streets in Palo Alto?

Posted by Count Your Blessings, a resident of South of Midtown

>> Isn't semi-homeless residents in RVs better than homeless people roaming the streets in Palo Alto?>>

You mean like the couple who live in Modesto IIRC and live here in their RV on week/workdays? They aren't semi-homeless, they are just making an economic choice like everyone else. You can have a really nice house over in the Central Valley for what a small condo costs here. Why do they get to park their RV rent-free on city streets? Enforce the code and they will make a different choice.

Yes, I've said it before: Having an RV doesn't make you "special".

I am referring to the 'whack-jobs' roaming the streets of PA talking incoherently or intoxicated or on meth. These individuals pose a greater risk to the 'peace' of PA than the RV dwellers.

The street wandering homeless should be locked up in county jail for vagrancy.

These people are too stubborn to commute like the rest of society. Why can’t we, the residents, vote on this? Then council members will be relieved from appearing insensitive. Our homeless problem will explode because there is no loitering/camper/car dwellers enforcement.

If the City blocks where our City Council members and City Manager live were packed with a rotating cast of 72 hour live-in vehicles, the City's municipal code bocks would be fully enforced. But, not til PA Weekly lets us post those block numbers and street names, or the City Mayor's and Council's dedicated parking spots in the City Hall garage are removed will "some animals not be more equal than others."

This is all co-dependant enabling of illegal behavior but for the writer above who listed license plate numbers of overstaying vehicles. Thanks, City Council. Your contining failure to enforce our City Code is creating a posse wanting our City code enforced,

If we are serious about low income housing we'd change the City code to encourage boarding houses and SOR zoning. But, we already know from The President Hotel saga our City Hall prefers more hotel tax revenue to housing low income residents.

Meant to type "SRO" for single room occupancy zoning above.


"A Palo Alto Parking Performance Art" mockumentary plot:
Park a dirty car in front of the house of your nearest City Council member. Surround it with decrepit orange traffic cones. Leave it there for 3 days. Get ready to film the police ticketing it on the dot after 72 hours. Use a camera with a motion sensor to record the police work or better yet, plan to move the car a few feet before it can be ticketed and/or towed away. Repeat. If enough residents do this, guess how long it takes Council to amend our municipal code on overnight residential street parking.

I think the city should also explore again the idea of working with faith communities. The last time this came up, the city made it clear that faith communities were on their own in dealing with neighbor complaints and in creating a program. If the city were committed to a partnership with faith communities in a program with resources, including responding to neighbors' concerns, then several faith communities would likely be able to make it work.

How about placing the RVs & their transient dwellers on barges & set them adrift on the SF Bay.

Eventually they will reach the swift channel beneath the Golden Gate Bridge.

Bye Bye... Now it's a Coast Guard problem.

To Set them Adrift:
I usually wonder, when I encounter someone who is so deprived of empathy, how they became that way.

Were you an unloved child, or did your father beat you?
That's how I explain the heartlessness of our political leader - an unloved child, so that human connection is to be avoided.

>> I am referring to the 'whack-jobs' roaming the streets of PA talking incoherently or intoxicated or on meth. These individuals pose a greater risk to the 'peace' of PA than the RV dwellers.

>> The street wandering homeless should be locked up in county jail for vagrancy.

^^^ There should be state mandated conservatorships for mentally-ill vagrants falling under this category...the problem is the funding & locating a containment site.

Nothing worse than having to encounter (or listen to) a loud obnoxious mentally-ill person talking to his/her inner voices. It's disturbing, frightens children & puts women on edge/alert.

These people should be rounded-up & removed from the streets to ensure public safety & quality of life concerns.

It is not very difficult to identify them either so 'profiling' should not be a civil rights issue. If they are diagnosed mentally ill, then these individuals should be removed from mainstream society for the greater good (including their own personal safety).

In doing so, you will have eliminated at least 30%-50% of the street homeless problem...the drug/alcohol abusers would be next but they should be forced into treatment centers.

These people due to the threat they pose to society have no civil rights other than fair treatment in court, diagnostic sessions & humane incarceration.

Posted by Empathy deprived, a resident of Barron Park

>> To Set them Adrift:
>> I usually wonder, when I encounter someone who is so deprived of empathy, how they became that way.

Empathy, I would assume that "Set Them Adrift" doesn't actually intend it literally. (I hope.) . However, a mentally ill person in an RV is no more deserving of help than a mentally ill person with a shopping cart. But, RVs are much more of an environmental and civic menace than are shopping carts.

I don't think there are all that many mentally ill transients living in RVs.

How would the mentally ill qualify for a CA DMV driver's license let alone taking care of auto insurance & vehicle registration?

There are two types of homeless...those with RVs or trailers & those on the streets who sleep in parks, behind strip malls or down by the creeks.

Most RV dwellers are not mentally ill...just down on their luck or gaming the system.

The street homeless are in a league of their own...due to mental illness, drug/alcohol issues or economics.

The dangerously mentally ill homeless need to be under conservatorship as an earlier poster noted.

There are certain laws enforced strictly in Palo Alto, Mountain View, while this RV parking law is not at all enforced, why is that? If the law enforcement department can choose which law to enforce, especially at the cost of residents benefit, the law enforcement team should resign.

My understanding is that Stanford is responsible for enforcing the 72-hour parking ban on the Stanford side of ECR, where many of the RVs are illegally located. They apparently choose to enforce this ban prior to Stanford football games but not the rest of the time. Their inaction may reflect the presence of Stanford contractors (who live elsewhere but commute to Stanford during the work-week) among the ECR RV occupants.

The transient RV dwellers pretty much keep to themselves & one rarely sees them loitering outside of their vehicles

The street homeless are everywhere...begging for money, inebriated or on drugs, talking/yelling incoherently & oftentimes bothering passersby.

These individuals need to be rounded-up like stray dogs by the police & removed from the sidewalks, back lots, & parks of Palo Alto FIRST & ASAP...then deal with the transient RVs.

Parts of Palo Alto & Mountain View are starting to look like downtown Santa Cruz...a mecca for unwashed bums and the 'humanity' factor involves removing & sequestering these people somewhere else where they can be fed & regularly tended to...including FORCED mental health & substance abuse treatment (if legally conserved).

Homelessness due to economic misfortunes happen but rampant homelessness due to mental-illness and/or substance abuse issues should not be tolerated as both a public safety concern + they contribute absolutely nothing of value or worth to the city.

Criminy...at least they should learn to play an instrument or something. It beats begging & bothering people.

Essentially, it sounds like the city is giving this land to vehicle dwellers (an environmentally unsustainable, unsafe and inefficient way to house people). Why not gift this valuable land land to the county to build truly affordable housing? RVs are not designed to house people long term. RVs, tiny houses, portable buildings are all stupid, short-term solutions to a profoundly important long-term problem.

As to people working at SU - the RV dwellers are not employees of SU but of contractors who are working at SU on either short or long term projects. SO the contractors are at fault if they are encouraging their employees to live in RV's - some inoperable.
- Time for the police to canvas who the RV dwellers are - hopefully no child molesters/ abusers in the mix - who they work for and who owns the RV that they are living in.
- Time to remove the inoperable RV's and take them to the east side of 101 where the owner can arrange to get the hunks operable - I would think that is a minimum requirement for existence on ECR.
- Time then for the contractors to negotiate with SU to have the RV's with workers moved to the back side of the campus. There is a work area off Foothill where the golf course is - a road in with multiple use vehicles.
- Time to police ECR the night before a game to make sure ECR is clear of all vehicles in the "commute lane". Haul off any inoperable RV's so that some consistency of policy is enforced.
Lack of consistency in policy is an invitation to the same type of mess we see in the SF city. And we are not going there - come hell or high water. This city is not going to lose control of the overall scene. By demand.