Candidate threatened, campaign signs defaced Around Town, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Sep 19, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Several of Mayor Mike Kasperzak's re-election campaign signs have been defaced along Cuesta Drive, with the words "liar" and "no" spray painted on them -- possibly by the same folks who have been making threatening calls to him, he says.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, September 19, 2012, 1:32 PM
Posted by Won't be voting for Matt K., a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 3:15 pm
@ Matt K. - Why don't YOU give it up? Leave the Annex alone. Some of us ARE happy the way it is. It appears me that YOU are the one who is always unhappy with the way the annex is. And no, I didn't mess with your sign. BTW - All those signs along Cuesta are littering and an eye sore in front of the Annex. They should be removed.
Posted by Old Steve, a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 3:23 pm
How about the vocal minority opposing the Water District Flood Protection take up a collection to fund the flood insurance premiums of those 3,000 impacted properties? Since it might take 100 years to do that, the design flood could have possibly occured by then. The reason "it has never happened" is that in December of 1955, a lot less of the Valley of Hearts Delight was paved than in present day Silicon Valley. If that rainfall event were repeated today, folks would be stunned as to where water would run.
Posted by Jim Neal, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 3:48 pm Jim Neal is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online
Although Mayor Kasperzak is one of my chief rivals in the race for City Council, I want to unequivocally state that I find this type of behavior to be reprehensible! I don't care what he has done or said there is no excuse for defacing or removing his signs or making threats!
The Mayor and I do not see eye to eye on any number of issues, but I absolutely support his right to free speech, which is what his signs represent. I have zero tolerance for anyone who tries to suppress free speech no matter what the perceived provocation.
That being said, those that are truly unhappy with the Mayor have 5 alternatives on the ballot and can vote for 4 out of the 5. The best way to express your opinion is to show up on Nov 6th and vote!
Posted by Go Away, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 11:11 am
The whole sign vandalism thing happens all the time all over the country, but to call a man's home and make threats? That's terrorism and I hope in this day and age they can find out who the enemies of MV are. If you think making threats is OK to get what you want in MV, I don't want you in MV, I want you in JAIL!
Posted by Jim Neal, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 1:23 pm
I am very sorry to hear that you disagree with my views on the first amendment. I was very up front about my thoughts on the matter and just like the mayor, I have a right to free speech. We will be at a forum at the Mountain View Public Library on Monday (All the candidates, not just me) and I hope that you will come to hear our positions on the issues.
Posted by bfree, a resident of another community, on Sep 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm
vfree: I think this is news because it's against the law to deface or remove campaign signs. There's a very strict hands off policy when it comes to these signs. Seems every election season people need to be reminded about this law.
Posted by Paul Ries, a resident of another community, on Sep 21, 2012 at 12:40 am
Interested in this discussion about political signs ... am not an MV resident though (live in PA but close to MV), so don't care so much about the particular candidates in question (good luck to you all!)
1) Is it illegal to remove or deface a political sign?
2) Is it legal to place a political sign on public property?
Which trumps which? I remember seeing some "Yes on Prop. 8" signs back when that was on the ballot on the cloverleaf to get on 280 at El Monte and really wanted to tear them down ... but didn't do anything on that occasion. It would be nice to know for the future. In any case, if it is legal to remove them (since they shouldn't have been there in any case), that seems like a better solution to defacing them which is essentially adding to them ... condoning their placement in a way.
Posted by Responses to some, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2012 at 8:40 am
It is not legal to deface or remove a political sign. It is legal to place them on public property. Just because you do not believe in a candidate to a proposition does not give you a right to remove/deface a sign. It IS freedom of speech.
Posted by fixer upper, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2012 at 9:07 am
Mike's large sign (on the permitted public-space corner near the new homes on Grant Rd.) was also uprooted, bent and thrown in the bushes over the weekend. Waverly Park also needs to watch out for political vandals.
Posted by Insider, a resident of another community, on Sep 24, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Legal to place on public property.(specific locations)
SEC. 3.23. - Public property—Prohibition on placement: Exception.
No person shall erect or display, or cause or authorize any person to erect or display, any political sign on any public property.
Exception. Notwithstanding the prohibition on placement of political signs on public property, the city council shall designate by resolution, public properties upon which political signs may be placed. Political signs placed on public property pursuant to this section shall be posted no sooner than seventy-five (75) days prior to an election, and such signs must be removed within ten (10) days following the election. Each candidate or position on a ballot measure shall be limited to one (1) sign for each public property location designated, and each sign shall comply with the placement and size limitations of this article.
Copies of the resolution shall be available from the Mountain View city clerk.
Illegal to deface
SEC. 3.26. - Unlawful removal or interference.
Except as otherwise provided in this article, it shall be unlawful and in violation of this article to deface, remove, alter, make additions to or conceal a political sign without the consent of the candidate or, in the case of ballot measures, the sponsor of the particular ballot measure position.
(Ord. No. 24.95, 12/12/95.)
SEC. 3.27. - Violation as misdemeanor.
In addition to the remedies of this article relating to the removal of improperly posted political signs, any violation of this article shall be deemed a misdemeanor and shall be punishable pursuant to Sec. 1.7 of Chapter 1 of this code.
Posted by CallerID, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Crank phone calls from blocked numbers are not easy to trace. It require you to have AT&T turn on a service that you must invoke immediately after a call by pressing some buttons. Then, in order for AT&T to do the trace, you need to submit a police report to them. AT&T will then do the trace and provide the number and related info to the police. It's doable, but not easy.
Posted by jupiterk, a resident of the Gemello neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Mike must have done this to gain some publicity and sympathy. Just another tactic to get elected. This guy is a career politician. I don't trust him. Unlimited benefits , high salary and cushy job for doing nothing. who can blame him...
Posted by Neighbor, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2012 at 10:14 am
Re: jupiterk, john, roger, and observer
As GSB states, council members get very little compensation for a job that requires enormous commitment of time. There are no benefits and the accusation of kickbacks is absurd. If you don't like the decisions being made, you should get involved (and get informed before spouting nonsense).
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2012 at 10:33 am
You're right. Politicians are never connected to corporate interests, under pressure from lobbyists or unions, and never, ever, ever have have other outside business and real estate interests that can be looked out for while serving in public office. And there's never any news on corrupt politicians. And they certainly have thick skins and small egos. Whew! I'm glad we've got that all straightened out.
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm
"You're right. Politicians are never connected to corporate interests, under pressure from lobbyists or unions, and never, ever, ever have have other outside business and real estate interests that can be looked out for while serving in public office. And there's never any news on corrupt politicians. And they certainly have thick skins and small egos. Whew! I'm glad we've got that all straightened out."
"Mike must have done this to gain some publicity and sympathy. Just another tactic to get elected. This guy is a career politician. I don't trust him. Unlimited benefits , high salary and cushy job for doing nothing. who can blame him...
There's a different burden of proof when making general statements, and specific ones.
Saying all lawyers should drown at the bottom of the sea vs. advocating that Johnnie Cochran should be drowned in his bathtub are not the same levity.
One will get you laughed off, while the other can get you arrested.
Both are still inane, if you have no supporting information to backup your statements.
Posted by Mike Kasperzak, a resident of the Gemello neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2012 at 7:05 am
If you'd like to talk with me about this or any other issue, why not come to Mocha with the Mayor. I will be at the Starbucks at El Monte and El Camino this Monday from 10:30 - 11:30 AM. I meet with residents on the 1st and 15th of each month.
Posted by Political Insider, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 29, 2012 at 7:59 pm
I have heard through some staff members that a few council members are occasionally bothered by crank calls from 2-3 Cuesta Annex people unhappy with the water project.
As to the Mayor, check out his income/gift filings (FORM 700) and you will find he is a trust fund baby. He doesn't need the small salary (except the PERS and health care benefits) and like most politicians does crave attention and feel entitled.
He wants to be a career politician, but will need to step up his game to party officials. A RINO at heart, the Dems dont take him seriously.