| Opinion - Friday, October 10, 2008
Macias, Means, Kasperzak and Crank for City Council
Mountain View voters are fortunate to have nine candidates to choose from when they decide who should fill the four open seats on the City Council Nov. 4.
They are also fortunate to live in a well-run city, which makes the choosing that much easier. Two of the candidates, Tom Means and Laura Macias, are incumbents seeking second terms, and another, Mike Kasperzak, is seeking a third term following a two-year break (required of all council members after two consecutive four-year terms).
As we do in all city elections, the Voice invited the candidates to participate in one-on-one interviews with the publisher, editor and city beat reporter. Seven of the nine candidates responded, and we based our endorsements on those interviews, as well as our continuing coverage of city issues.
Given the state of the national economy and the possible fallout from it on local decision-making, the next four years could be a stressful time for the city. Mountain View is very much a part of the Silicon Valley economy, with tenants like Google and Microsoft firmly ensconced here. Strong, experienced leadership on the council is needed to lead the city though what could be some challenging times.
With that in mind, the Voice is endorsing the candidacies of three experienced council members — Tom Means, Laura Macias and Mike Kasperzak — who we believe have the knowledge to keep the city on course. In our interviews, all exhibited a thorough understanding of city operations and a willingness to make tough decisions on the budget and other matters if need be.
Alicia Crank is our fourth choice in this race. Although she did not receive our endorsement two years ago, this time around Crank has shown us more maturity and knowledge of the issues, gleaned from her ongoing interest in local government and long service on the Human Relations Commission. Like the other endorsed candidates, she will continue to support sensible housing development, believes the city is on the right course in halting gang violence by appealing directly to our youth, and will protect the city's already healthy budget.
We believe the city will be in good hands with Tom Means, Laura Macias, Mike Kasperzak and Alicia Crank, and urge local residents to support them on Nov. 4.
Sweeley, Fallaice for MVLA district board
A normally sleepy school district election received a shot in the arm this season thanks to Colin Rudolph, a newcomer who decided to challenge highly experienced incumbents Susan Sweeley and Phil Faillace for one of their four-year seats on the Mountain View-Los Altos High School District board.
While the board has suffered a few distractions this year — most notably over term limits and "transparency," false issues being put forth by two Los Altos City Council members — we believe experience remains the key factor in this race, especially with a bumpy state economy and some tough issues facing the board in the near future.
Although Rudolph is intelligent, articulate and sincere, he did not demonstrate his opponents' grasp of the issues during debates and candidate interviews with the Voice. We believe Susan Sweeley and Phil Faillace should continue to be trustees of the Mountain View-Los Altos High School District, and urge local residents to vote for them.
Paul Fong for state Assembly
Democrat Paul Fong, a longtime college professor and trustee, is our choice to fill the state Assembly seat of Sally Lieber, who is termed out.
Fong, who faces Republican Brent Oya in this heavily Democratic district, supports the proposed state health plan, and is a strong backer of requiring alternative fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We recommend Paul Fong for the District 22 Assembly seat.
Yes on Measure A: $840 million for medical facilities
Approval of this measure would OK sale of up to $840 million in bonds to retrofit Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and replace the closed San Jose Medical Center to meet state-mandated seismic upgrade requirements. It is estimated that county property owners would pay an additional $13.90 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, or about $70 a year for a home valued at $500,000.
This measure will shore up or replace the only medical facilities in the county that serve welfare clients. These hospitals must not be allowed to close or disappear. We recommend a yes vote on Measure A to issue $840 million in bonds to keep these facilities viable.
Yes on Measure B: 1/8th cent sales tax for BART
In 2006 the Voice opposed an additional quarter-cent sales tax to support county health needs and the BART-to-San Jose project. Most voters agreed that it was not a good idea to give county officials a blank check to remedy a myriad of problems, and said so by voting no.
This time around, the Valley Transportation Authority, with strong support from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, has done its homework and is back with a one-eighth cent sales tax dedicated to funding BART operations for the project — but only if federal and state funds are released and the project is built. Conversely, federal regulators will not back the project without approval of the additional funds for BART operations.
Although we continue to be concerned about how North County transit projects would fare if the $6 billion-or-more BART project ever does get a green light, we respect transit leaders who are willing to go before voters for approval of this 30-year tax, which must pass by a two-thirds vote. There are built-in safeguards on when and how the money can be spent, which should reassure voters who might be nervous about backing a project that has yet to be approved.
Transit improvements are sorely needed throughout Santa Clara County, and if approved, the 16.1-mile BART extension will allow riders from the East Bay to travel all the way to Santa Clara, where they can then connect with Peninsula-bound Caltrain or VTA Light Rail lines.
We recommend a yes vote on Measure B, the BART sales tax.
No on Measures C and D: VTA housekeeping items
Measure C is an advisory vote on a VTA wish list of bus, light rail and train transit projects as required every six years by legislation passed in 1976 and amended in 1990.
However, the list noted in this measure has not been approved by the VTA board and lacks adequate detail. Although this is an advisory vote, we recommend a no vote on Measure C.
Measure D goes a step further, and asks voters to waive the requirement that the VTA conduct an advisory vote every six years by substituting a vote by the Citizens Watchdog Committee. While this committee does some good work, we believe the VTA should continue to submit its projects to a full — and better detailed — advisory vote every six years. We recommend a no vote on Measure D.
| 
Send this story
Print this story
