MOUNTAIN VIEW (KPIX 5) – Town of Mountain View is dealing with a federal lawsuit alleging a voter-approved measure which locations new restrictions on the place individuals dwelling in RVs can park their automobiles is unconstitutional and inhumane.
Attorneys filed the lawsuit on behalf of six plaintiffs who declare that Measure C, which was passed by voters last year, targets them as a result of they’re poor or disabled.
“They clearly are simply outlawing the housing insecure,” Janet Stevens, one of many six plaintiffs, informed KPIX 5.
When requested how she would react if the ordinance took impact, Stevens mentioned, “It could be a disaster. If I used to be to ask somebody, ‘If there’s going to be an earthquake and your own home falls down, what are you going to do?’”
At a rally outdoors Mountain View Metropolis Corridor on Wednesday, Celerina Navarro, one other of the plaintiffs spelled out what was at stake.
“Mountain View is my metropolis too,” Navarro mentioned by way of a translator. “I’ve a group right here. My kids go to highschool right here.”
Measure C prohibits outsized automobiles like RVs from parking on streets narrower than 40 toes. Housing advocates say town is making it just about unimaginable for a few of its poorest residents to seek out wherever to legally park in Mountain View.
“We predict that this legislation is each morally flawed and unconstitutional and that’s why we’ve raised a authorized problem to it,” says Sam Diamant, legal professional for the plaintiffs.
A spokesperson for town says Measure C is about site visitors security. In a ready assertion, the spokesperson writes, “Resulting from their dimension, an outsized automobile on a slim roadway can encroach into the automobile lane of site visitors, which will increase the danger of collisions for motor automobiles and bicycles.”
Housing advocates say site visitors security is merely the pretext for what quantities to a purge of the poor from town.
“Any argument by town that this can be a site visitors security ordinance is wrong. And that as a substitute, they’re attempting to cope with what they describe because the ‘RV downside,’” Diamant mentioned.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs mentioned they’re prepared to barter with town, however assume it’s doubtless it can take the courts to determine the difficulty.