In the first significant federal hearing in a case that will decide the fate of Mountain View’s controversial RV parking ban, a judge indicated Wednesday that he has no immediate plans to throw out the legal challenge as requested by the city.
Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on Wednesday heard arguments from attorneys representing the city of Mountain View, who are seeking to have the case dismissed, and lawyers speaking on behalf of the city’s RV dwellers, who requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the immediate displacement of hundreds of low-income residents struggling to survive amid an affordable housing crisis in one of Silicon Valley’s largest cities.
After hearing from both sides, Cousins said he was “not inclined to grant the motion to dismiss (the case) in its entirety” but that he would consider a preliminary injunction. He is expected to issue a written decision on the matter within the coming days or weeks.
“The issues are real and significant to each of the individual plaintiffs and also to the people in the community of Mountain View,” Cousins said during the hearing. “And I will treat them with the seriousness they deserve.”
The lawsuit, which was filed in July in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, was brought by six Mountain View residents who live in RVs and fear that they could lose their homes and possessions if the ban remains in place. They are represented by attorneys from the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Disability Rights Advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.
They filed the lawsuit nearly two years after the city first adopted two separate ordinances to restrict where owners of RVs and other oversized vehicles — defined by Mountain View as those measuring more than 7 feet high, 7 feet wide and 22 feet in length — could park. The ordinances ban oversized vehicles from parking on streets that measure 40 feet or less in width and on roadways with protected bike lanes, which effectively keeps them off approximately 89% of Mountain View streets, according to the lawsuit.
Less than two months after the ordinances were enacted, residents and housing advocates launched a successful petition to suspend the new laws from taking effect until voters could decide their fate on the November 2020 ballot. Garnering support from about 57% of voters, Mountain View’s ban officially went into effect after the election, and the city last summer began installing “no parking” signs at the cost of nearly $1 million and enforcing the new rules.
The ongoing lawsuit argues that the city’s new RV parking ban, which makes it illegal for RVs to park on the vast majority of Mountain View streets, is invalid and unenforceable because it banishes low-income and disabled people from the city, therefore violating multiple provisions in the constitution, including the right to free movement and protection against excessive fines and fees and unlawful seizure of property by towing.
Under the request for a preliminary injunction, the RV dwellers’ attorneys have asked the judge to legally require the city of Mountain View to issue at least one warning before handing out a citation and provide residents with information regarding alternative locations where they can park within the city and clear instructions on how to contest a citation if they are unable to pay it. They have also asked that the judge mandate Mountain View police officers provide at least three written citations for parking on a street where it is prohibited before towing any vehicles.
Mountain View officials adamantly deny that the ordinances are meant to boot low-income residents from their city. They insist that it is meant to address safety concerns, such as oversized vehicles encroaching on bicycle lanes and making it hard for drivers to see around them.
A letter submitted by Mountain View Police Lt. Scott Nelson as part of the court documents lays out the city’s metered and education-based approach toward enforcing the ban, including notifying residents parked on a street two weeks before they plan to install “No Parking” signs and handing out written warnings prior to a citation.
Margaret Prinzing of Olson Remcho, an attorney representing the city of Mountain View, argued Wednesday that the city had already implemented the protocol that the plaintiffs and their attorneys were asking for, therefore negating the need for an injunction. She refuted the idea that RV dwellers would face “irreparable harm” if the city continued its enforcement of the ordinances as planned.
“Because of the city’s progression approach and because of its plans to provide adequate notice so that people have time to move their vehicles in order to avoid a tow, the only thing that plaintiffs are at risk of losing here is their preferred parking spot,” Prinzing said during the hearing.
Organizations like the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, on the other hand, have argued that the ban was unconstitutional from the start, saying that that the city’s definition of a narrow street was “arbitrary and not based on data regarding traffic safety issues.” Despite Lt. Nelson’s promises of a measured approach toward enforcement, the organizations say the city cannot be trusted.
“They’ve had the opportunity to modify the ordinances, to issue an official police department policy or even some sort of directive from the chief of police but instead they’ve submitted a declaration from one of the officers in the department about how the city intends to approach enforcement,” said Michael Trujillo of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. “That approach is subject to change at any time.”
