Hello. Thank you for
responding. Several of us attempted to set up a meeting with you but did not
hear back. My name is Eric John Diesel. I am the former owner of Palo Alto
Mercedes BMW Volvo Saab. I am a real estate developer owning 43 properties in
the Santa Cruz Mountains.
The City of Palo Alto proposed this ordinance as
a reaction to the vehicle ban in Mountainview. The argument they gave was that
since Mountainview banned vehicle dwellers, this made them all move into Palo
Alto, and they are an unwanted class of people.
Last year, the Palo Alto City Council tabled the
vote on the ordinance, while we tried to get Mountainview to considering repeal
of their own ordinance banning vehicle dwelling. We were not successful in
getting a meeting with you over the last year.
My receptionist at Palo Alto Mercedes was a full
blood Gipsy from Romania. Gypsies, like my own Apache ancestors, are
traditionally nomadic vehicle dwellers. Forcing her out of a city by passing ordinances
is called "Antiziganism" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiziganism.
I let a close friend of mine live in his vehicle
parked outside my business, European Auto Center, after he lost his residence.
His presence decreased crime in the area, not increased it. And in any
case, I rented the building, then rented then owned the next building on El
Camino Real. Before I bought it, the landlord initially prohibited me having a
vehicle dweller as a nighttime security guard. I should be able to have anyone
I want do lawful activities on my own premises, especially as I see fit for the
conduct of my own business operations.
The arguments used to pass the ordinance used
words that were almost identical to arguments used by President Andrew
Jackson's people in passing the "Trail of Tears" laws that moved
Native Americans (my own ancestors) out of their areas, because "their
lifestyles were incompatible with European culture", "increased
crime", "they don’t shower enough”, “were dirty", "they are
unsightly", etc., exactly the same words and arguments used in the Palo
Alto City Council for passing the ordinance, and all without any scientific
foundation. It is a Civil Liberties violation even if the minority group I and
my friends belong to is, in fact, "dirty".
Tonight, I will be attending a Libertarian Party
fundraiser for Sheriff Paul Schrader, in San Bernardino County. I will be returning
next week to the Bay Area. Would it be possible to meet?
(I am copying Aram James, and attorney and
former public defender who lives and works in the Palo Alto and Mountainview
area, and who worked hard fighting this ordinance, because he will likely want
to attend. I am also copying John Bechtol, who like me, was unsuccessful in
setting up a meeting with you.)
From: John Inks <[address removed]>
To: Starchild <[address removed]>; Eric Diesel <[address removed]>
Cc: Kevin Takenaga <[address removed]>; Mark Hinkle
<[address removed]>; Elizabeth Brierly <[address removed]>;
Scott Lieberman <[address removed]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21,[masked]:43 PM
Subject: Re: Ban on people living in vehicles
I don't get the gripe
about me not opposing a ban on sleeping in cars and the email below from Eric
Car sleeping ban at
the former Cubberly High School is a Palo Alto issue. There is no current
car sleeping ban issue in Mountain View.
If freedom and liberty
were fully restored in Mountain View, I might find time to help in Palo Alto.
However, I'm fully engaged in helping (and actually succeeding) Mountain
View business and property owners hurdle zoning and project approval hoops to
serve their customers and tenants.
From: Starchild <[address removed]>
To: John Inks <[address removed]>
Cc: Starchild <[address removed]>; Eric Diesel <[address removed]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21,[masked]:16 PM
Subject: Ban on people living in vehicles
I was disappointed to read the message immediately below.
If this is true, I can't really blame Eric for his reaction. Prominent elected
Libertarians like yourself not standing up on this kind of thing costs us the
support of people who should be loyal Libertarians and passionate advocates of
Bans on people living in their own vehicles are a prime
example of government overreach hurting poor people and violating property
rights. The libertarian position could not be more clear.
Please meet with the activists working on this issue, and
look into what you can do to repeal the ban in Mountain View. Let me know if
there's anything I can do to help.
I realize you are busy, but your response to this message
is politely requested as soon as you get a chance.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Begin forwarded message:
Date: August 21,[masked]:56:02 PM PDT
Subject: Re: [lpsf] WikiLeaks trial: Bradley Manning shows no
reaction to prison sentence
Re "Love & Liberty"
I have been leading a life of loving it and liberty for the past three months
or so. I have been in the Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico desert on Navajo
reservations or BLM land most of that time. Not many rules and regulations out
here, but not much in the way of internet, either. I'll be back at meetings
when I get back. Disappointingly, "Libertarian" mayor John Inks did
not lift a finger to try to stop the ban on living out of your own car, or
wherever and however you want, and did not meet with any of us to discuss the
ban in his own city of Mountainview, next door. So much for electing
"Libertarians". The reason I left the Libertarian Party when I was a
teenager, after joining, was this kind of abuse of the word by people in
the party. That's why I whined about linking with any anti-abortion or
religious groups at the first meeting I attended.
I don't think there's a single, magic-bullet answer to that
question. I think we just have to keep up the struggle for freedom, by whatever
ethical means seem most effective at any given point in time. Seek to find ways
to advance the cause that seem effective to you, and that you find enjoyable or
rewarding, so that your efforts are sustainable.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
On Aug 21, 2013, at 2:22 PM, Eric OoPs Diesel wrote:
> Re the quote you sent, "something is seriously wrong with our justice
system", the question is what to do about it?
> From: Starchild <[address removed]>
> To: [address removed]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21,[masked]:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf] WikiLeaks trial: Bradley Manning shows no reaction to
> It is a sad and shameful sentence. This quote from the
Baltimore Sun article ( http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bradley-manning-sentence-20130821,0,3733379.story
) sums it up well:
> > "When a soldier who shared information with the press and public
is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed
civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system," said Ben
Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberty Union's Speech, Privacy and
> Bradley Manning remains a hero and martyr to the cause of
justice, and his continued imprisonment will be a continuing stain on the honor
and reputation of the U.S. government (what little it has).
> Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Eric OoPs Diesel wrote:
> > http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-wikileaks-bradley-manning-prison-sentence-20130821,0,5559721.story