|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Ahead of the November election, the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce held a forum last week to give voters an early look at the policy positions of eight candidates vying for a seat on the City Council.
The three candidates who win the most votes Nov. 3 will get the chance to weigh in on top issues for the community, like how to support small businesses, housing and economic vitality in the city.
More than 50 people attended the candidate forum at the Mountain View Community Center on Aug. 27. The candidates fielded about a dozen questions moderated by Peter Katz, CEO and president of the Chamber of Commerce.
The eight contenders aligned on several issues, agreeing that it should be easier for small businesses to open in Mountain View. They also expressed strong support for a ballot measure that seeks to increase the city’s hotel tax.
However, the candidates diverged on some hot-button topics, like adding more housing and office space in the downtown area. Their responses provide a glimpse of how each would shape the direction of the city if elected to the council.
Small businesses and economic vitality
The candidates expressed a strong desire to see more economic growth in the city, suggesting different ideas that could make Mountain View a more welcoming place for small businesses. Nearly all noted that the city’s permitting process could be more transparent and streamlined for applicants.
“We need to be better about getting out of business’s way, making things easier and faster for them to succeed,” IdaRose Sylvester, an entrepreneur and local activist, said.
Erik Poicon, a community advocate, suggested the city strengthen pre-lease assistance for applicants while also tracking retention and business closure rates more closely.
Silja Paymer, a Los Altos High School teacher, said that allowing for more “mixed-use” zoning in different parts of the city could benefit small businesses. Both Paymer and Poicon also said they would support a storefront vacancy tax for properties that sit empty for a long period of time.
Samuel Ali, a Google security specialist, emphasized the importance of the city partnering with businesses while also promoting them through the use of social media.
Alexander Amorso, a U.S. Army officer, identified employee turnover as a big issue and one that could be mitigated with more support for local businesses, including workforce housing.
Housing development
In opening statements, candidates expressed a desire to see more housing in Mountain View. However, they had mixed reactions when answering a question about where new homes should be built.
Last month, Senate Bill 79, a state law meant to increase housing density near major transit stops, went into effect. In Mountain View, the law applies to Caltrain and VTA light rail stations, including the downtown transit center.
James Kuszmaul, a software engineer and member of Mountain View YIMBY, a local housing advocacy group, expressed strong support for SB 79. More people should have access to housing near public transit, Kuszmaul said.
Similar to others, Kuszmaul also stressed the importance of the city continuing work on developing “objective design standards” for new residential projects. That will help set clear expectations on what the city wants to see from developers, he said.
Robert Cox, a retired Intel engineer and member of Livable Mountain View, a historical preservation advocacy group, expressed concern that SB 79 was “one size fits all” and could negatively impact the downtown area, which has a concentration of historic properties on the first three blocks of Castro Street, near the transit center.
Cox said he supports the idea of Mountain View coming up with a “local alternative plan” that could preserve the downtown area and shift more housing to other parts of the city.
Paul Donahue, a microprocessor engineer, also said that SB 79 was “not really right for the conditions on the ground in Mountain View.” He said he supported the possibility of a local alternative plan that could shift housing “around to places that are appropriate in [the] community.”
Other candidates who backed the possibility of a local alternative plan included Sylvester and Paymer. Sylvester noted that local businesses are part of the historic core of the downtown area and should be preserved.
Kuszmaul said he was not in favor of an alternative plan, expressing concern that it would divert staff time and resources from other city projects and might not produce better outcomes than SB 79.
Office development
Candidates also had different perspectives about whether more office space should be built in the downtown area. Ali, Amoroso and Poicon said they would support more development. Kuszmaul said “a bit” and Sylvester said “yes” depending on the type of project. Cox, Donahue and Paymer said “not right now.”
Several candidates’ answers changed when they were questioned about whether they would like to see large-scale office development in the North Bayshore. The area is slated for major housing and office growth over the next 30 years, as part of a Google-led project. The status of Google’s plans however are unclear, as the tech behemoth has recently pulled back on other big projects in Mountain View.
Ali, Cox and Poicon said “yes” to the question while Paymer said it depended on what else the developer was offering. Kuszmaul said “a bit” and Sylvester said “yes, with complete communities.” Amorso replied “no” while Donahue said “maybe.”
To watch a recording of the candidate forum, visit the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce website.
Most Popular
Blog: This Mountain View woman has delivered 102 lasagnas to strangers. Here’s why.August 27, 2026 5:56 pm
