News

Election 2018: Our recommendations

A roundup of endorsements from the Voice's editorial board for the Nov. 6 election

In the weeks leading up to Election Day this Tuesday, Nov. 6, the Voice has published endorsements on several local races and measures. Here is a list of our recommendations, with links to the endorsement editorials:

Mountain View City Council

With six candidates for three open seats, we endorse challenger Lucas Ramirez and incumbents Leonard "Lenny" Siegel and Pat Showalter. (See editorial, Oct. 26)

Measure P

Vote yes on Measure P, which would update Mountain View's business license tax structure and rate to implement a tiered tax system that would charge a headcount fee tied to the size of the business. Revenue generated would go toward transportation improvements and affordable housing. (See editorial, Oct. 12)

Measure Q

Vote yes on this initiative that would establish a tax of up to 9 percent on cannabis sales in Mountain View. Money raised from the tax would go toward general city services. (See editorial, Oct. 12)

Santa Clara County Sheriff

We endorse Sheriff Laurie Smith in this race. (See editorial, Oct. 26)

Mountain View Whisman School District Board of Trustees

With four candidates for two open seats, we recommend incumbent Ellen Wheeler and challenger Devon Conley. (See editorial, Oct. 19)

Mountain View-Los Altos High School Board of Trustees

With four candidates running for three seats, we recommend challenger Catherine Vonnegut and incumbents Fiona Walter and Debbie Torok. (See editorial, Oct. 12)

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

53 people like this
Posted by Vote For Inks
a resident of Rex Manor
on Nov 2, 2018 at 3:38 pm

The Voice has been against John Inks before he ever ran for City Council his first time and continues to print as much negative as they can get away with when its clear to the residents that John Inks is one of the better City Councilmember who truly cares about Mountain View. That's why I'm voting for

JOHN INKS FOR CITY COUNCIL

regardless of what the Voice thinks or writes.


49 people like this
Posted by AGREE!
a resident of Gemello
on Nov 2, 2018 at 3:57 pm

John Inks makes the tough calls whereas the others play footsie. Mr. Inks is a long time resident and engineer and has the qualifications and the heart to do what is right for Mountain View. That's why I support Mr. Inks.


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2018 at 4:16 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Vote For Inks you said:

“The Voice has been against John Inks before he ever ran for City Council his first time and continues to print as much negative as they can get away with when its clear to the residents that John Inks is one of the better City Councilmember who truly cares about Mountain View. That's why I'm voting for

JOHN INKS FOR CITY COUNCIL”

In response to AGREE! You said:

“John Inks makes the tough calls whereas the others play footsie. Mr. Inks is a long time resident and engineer and has the qualifications and the heart to do what is right for Mountain View. That's why I support Mr. Inks.

Lets look at the truth:

His fundraising information indicates otherwise, just observe:

“Although some of the candidates, notably Ramirez, began campaign fundraising early in the year, Inks raised the most of any candidate in the field since July 1, pulling in big donations from local residents, developers and apartment owners. His biggest contributions include $2,500 from Delmonico Apartments, a San Jose-based company; $1,400 from Washington Square; $1,000 from Calvano Development Inc., a San Francisco-based developer currently building Google offices and housing on Shoreline Boulevard; and $999 from the owners of 248 Pamela Drive, LLC. (Web Link) “

And:

“Inks, a Libertarian who framed his campaign largely around his opposition to rent control, has apparently become the candidate of choice for a variety of stakeholders. Large donations include $2,000 from Tod Spieker, who owns 2,900 apartments in the region; $1,250 from Mitra Oaks LLC, a Los Altos-based apartment management company, and $1,000 from the California Real Estate political-action committee. The California Apartment Association also gave Inks' campaign $999, an amount just one dollar shy of the $1,000 limit that requires immediate reporting. (Web Link)”

As well as:

“In addition, the California Apartment Association also spent $7,950 on a mass mailer promoting Inks. Those materials were listed separately as an independent expenditure.”

To me, this is evidence that simply does not agree with your claim.

[Portion removed due to excessively long comment/copying text from other sources/using all-caps]


42 people like this
Posted by Inks Supporter
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Nov 2, 2018 at 4:38 pm

In response to BM, I say "so what". We get it, you hate Inks. No amount of URL copying is going to convince us otherwise. Stop the hate.


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2018 at 4:42 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Inks Supporter you said:

“In response to BM, I say "so what".”

Simply put this is HIS CONDUCT AND NOTHING MORE. You said:

“We get it, you hate Inks.”

HIS CONDUCT IS HIS WORST ENEMY, I JUST DEMONSTRATE IT TO THE PUBLIC. I DO NOT HATE INKS. I “HATE” HIS MISCONDUCT. You said:

“No amount of URL copying is going to convince us otherwise. Stop the hate.”

PLEASE PROVE THAT MY EVIDENCE IS FALSE, THAT’S ALL.


4 people like this
Posted by Peter C Fung, M.D.
a resident of another community
on Nov 2, 2018 at 4:51 pm

He Did It Once. Would he do it again?

I respectfully refer you to article “Four candidates for El Camino Healthcare District Board” by Allison Levitsky of Daily Post. Nov 1, 2018:

In the 1990s, Ting served on the strategic alliance task force that recommended taking the hospital private. He was also chief of staff and encouraged medical employees to accept the plan.

“I believe the underlying premise was sound: to create a permanent partnership between the hospital and its own physicians,” Ting said.

Fung recalled that the hospital’s privatization led to “turmoil, complaints and negative press with deteriorated patient care.” “El Camino Healthcare finances and operations worsened. This is what happens when the number one concern is profit,” Fung said. “Thanks to the district board, the hospital returned to district control and public oversight.”

"This would not happen on my watch," Fung said, "I will see to it that we remain an innovative, quality-driven, publicly accountable and locally controlled comprehensive health care organization."

Ting has never been asked by the reporters why he's defending his leadership role in selling out the hospital at that time - just to increase physicians' pay, including his? and why he is now opposing any move to merge or sell out, as well as publicly criticizing the Board plan - solidifying and integrating its physician base.

Voters should question his motivation in running for a board seat at this point. His supporters are mostly from outside the District. I will let you come to your conclusion. Beware.


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Nov 2, 2018 at 5:48 pm

mike rose is a registered user.

[Post removed due to poster being banned for repeated violations of terms of use]


15 people like this
Posted by Q
a resident of Waverly Park
on Nov 2, 2018 at 6:20 pm

Q is a registered user.

City Counsel No. Anyone but these socialistic fools.

Measure P: NO. The money just will be wasted on useless public transport and not on road improvement for automobiles. Concentrate on autos and roads. Improve auto traffic. It's 90% of Mountain View traffic. Duh, stupidos.

Measure Q? YES AND MORE. Increase the Pot Tax until it drives all drug dealers out of Mountain View. Our children, and our brain dead adults, don't need easy access to illegal drugs. Let them go to other cities for their drug fixes.

Laurie Smith: She is corrupt and incompetent and must be destroyed.

School Districts: All candidates are totally incompetent. We need lawyers and accountants running school districts, not just a bunch of ignorant, poorly educated recycled teachers and administrators. It's time to run schools like legal businesses, and not just welfare for idiots --- the students, the teachers, and the parents.





2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2018 at 6:46 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Q you said:

“City Counsel No. Anyone but these socialistic fools. “

I respect your choice, but what evidence do you have of the candidates being “socialists”? This simply reminds me of the McCarthy Era. What specific issue does disqualify them? You said:

“Measure P: NO. The money just will be wasted on useless public transport and not on road improvement for automobiles. Concentrate on autos and roads. Improve auto traffic. It's 90% of Mountain View traffic. Duh, stupidos. “

It does more than that if you read it completely it states (Web Link)) :

“Ballot question

The ballot question is as follows:[2]

“Shall the measure to fund critical City needs such as reducing traffic congestion, enhancing bicycle/pedestrian friendly routes, PROVIDING HOUSING AFFORDABLE FOR A RANGE OF INCOMES/HOMELESS SERVICES, by imposing a business license tax of between $8 and $149 per employee on average, with larger companies paying more per employee, generating about $6 million yearly for unrestricted general revenue purposes, until ended by voters, with independent yearly audits, be adopted?[3]”

It appears you didn’t read it completely. I respect your opinion, but you also wanted to omit the portion I highlighted. I will assume it was honest mistake. But I only ask you to reconsider it, nothing more. You said:

“Measure Q? YES AND MORE. Increase the Pot Tax until it drives all drug dealers out of Mountain View. Our children, and our brain dead adults, don't need easy access to illegal drugs. Let them go to other cities for their drug fixes. “
I respect your opinion here also. But you do not appear to address the complete measure again. It states (Web Link)):

“Ballot question

The ballot question is as follows:[1]

“Shall the measure to maintain and protect essential public safety services, including 9-1-1, police and fire protection, emergency medical response; reduce traffic congestion and repair roads; and provide other critical City services, including library, park maintenance, senior services, by levying a tax of up to 9 percent on gross receipts of cannabis businesses, providing about 1 million dollars per year, for unrestricted general revenue purposes, until ended by voters, with independent yearly audits, be adopted?[2”

I actually voted for this one based on that text. But I also clearly state it is every VOTERS choice. You said:

“Laurie Smith: She is corrupt and incompetent and must be destroyed.”

That seems a little harsh, I think you meant she should not get any votes. Please provide us with any investigative news that demonstrates corruption and incompetence? That’s all. You said:

“School Districts: All candidates are totally incompetent. We need lawyers and accountants running school districts, not just a bunch of ignorant, poorly educated recycled teachers and administrators. It's time to run schools like legal businesses, and not just welfare for idiots --- the students, the teachers, and the parents. “

I respect your opinion. But what do lawyers’ and accountants’ education provides evidence of sound educational management? What evidence do you present to demonstrate that the teachers and administrators are “poorly educated”? In what way is running a school similar in character to a law practice? I just need you to explain it to me, please?


45 people like this
Posted by Mike_
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2018 at 9:01 am

Mike_ is a registered user.

We voted today, mail in ballot.

The clear choice of the 6 candidates for city council, is

INKS
Kamei
Hicks

The reason against the other 3 candidates, I have made clear in the thread which is titled The Voice Editorial endorsement. Post #1 & 2. Link below.

Web Link

I will not repeat those reasons here. I do not wish to be a repeat post spammer here. One of those is more than enough for this site.


2 people like this
Posted by Waldo
a resident of Waverly Park
on Nov 3, 2018 at 2:36 pm

Waldo is a registered user.

Does anyone read the comments of TBM?


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2018 at 8:49 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

My observation regarding the latest PPIC study:

In the latest PPIC report found here (Web Link) , the results are inconclusive. Why?

Because as I demonstrated in the past the question was designed to influence the results:

THE QUESTION ASKED:

16. [likely voters only] Proposition 10 is called the “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.” It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 10?

Their results 25% yes, 60% no, 15% don’t know

It is on page 25. OK lets look how it is loaded and designed to create a false result.

First, the question is based on “residential” properties. Specifically it stated “It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. “ ANY unit for rent is NOT a residential property because a “residential” property is one where one lives in who owns it. The only way this qualifies is that the “residential” property owner must “live” in that unit, NOT RENT IT OUT TO ANOTHER. If it is rented out, is is NOT a residential property, but a “commercial” property. YOU KNOW THIS.

Second, the question is loaded with a threat that the anti proposition 10 campaign uses to argue against it namely “The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local re4venues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term.” The reality is that the property values will drop regarding the raising Fed rates to 3% by 2021 which will cause a serious reduction in property values, thus resulting in the loss of tax revenues. This information is simply designed to intimidate and manipulate the results of the study. This means that proposition 10 cannot be held responsible alone for this assumption, but it is used to manipulate the results of the study. YOU KNOW THIS.

Third, the question poses the following premise “Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more.” Again given the reality that real estate values are poised to drop without even with proposition 10, this information is used simply to intimidate and mislead the one be asked the question. YOU KNOW THIS.

Another question asked:

17. [likely voters only] How important to you is the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10—is it very important, somewhat important, no too important, or not at all important?

Their results: 46% very important, 35% somewhat important, 11% not too important, 2% not at all, important 7% don’t know

GOOD QUESTION

Another question:

19. [likely voters only] How much of a problem is housing affordability in your part of California? Is it a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem?

Their results: 66% big problem, 23% somewhat of a problem, 8% not a problem, 2% don’t know

GOOD QUESTION

Their results also pointed out on page 11:

“How important to you is the outcome of the vote on Proposition 10?”

46% stated it was “Very Important” of that 45% Democrats, 53% Republican, and 46% Independent. Of that group the study indicated that 49% would vote Yes, and 48% would vote No.

35% stated it was “Somewhat Important” of that 39% Democrats, 27% Republican, and 34% Independent. Of that group the study indicated that 42% would vote Yes, and 34% would vote No.

11% stated it was “Not Too Important” of that 11% Democrats, 7% Republican, and 11% Independent. Of that group the study indicated that 7% would vote Yes, and 14% would vote No.

2% stated it was “NOT AT ALL Important” of that 1% Democrats, 4% Republican, and 4% Independent. Of that group the study indicated that 2% would vote Yes, and 2% would vote No.

7% stated it was “Don’t Know” of that 6% Democrats, 8% Republican, and 6% Independent. Of that group the study indicated that 0% would vote Yes, and 2% would vote No.

Lets do a weighted average of the previous information:

Yes computation (“VERY IMPORTANT” PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIED BY YES PERCENTAGE) +(“SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT” PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIED BY YES PERCENTAGE) (“BOT TOO IMPORTANT” PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIED BY YES PERCENTAGE) + “NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT” PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIED BY YES PERCENTAGE) + (“DON’T KNOW” PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIED BY YES PERCENTAGE)

(46% TIMES 49%) + (35% TIMES 42%) + (11% TIMES 7%) + (2% TIMES 2%) + (7% TIMES 0%)

(22.54%) + (14.7%) + (.01%) + (0%) + (0%) = 37.25% Yes

No computation (“VERY IMPORTANT” PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIED BY YES PERCENTAGE) +(“SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT” PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIED BY YES PERCENTAGE) (“BOT TOO IMPORTANT” PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIED BY YES PERCENTAGE) + “NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT” PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIED BY YES PERCENTAGE) + (“DON’T KNOW” PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIED BY YES PERCENTAGE)

(46% TIMES 48%) + (35% TIMES 34%) + (11% TIMES 14%) + (2% TIMES 2%) + (7% TIMES 2%)

(22.08%) + (11.9%) + (.02%) + (0%) + (0.01%) = 34.01% No

This would indicate that if these results were normalized regarding possible voter turnout, than the sum of the percentages will result the total vote which is (37.25 Yes) + (34.01 No) which comes to 71.26. Then you divide those raw results by the total proportion which results in

(37.25/71.26) Yes and (34.01/71.26) No which should come to 52.27% Yes and 47.73% No.

There seems to be some really significant problems with the consistency of the results of the PPIC study.


3 people like this
Posted by mike rose
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2018 at 6:31 am

mike rose is a registered user.

TBM,
This is total BS and you know it.
Apartments are residential properties as people reside in them.
You are purposefully confusing readers by claiming that only owner occupied property is a residential property.
This is another blatant lie of yours.

Second, the question asked is NOT loaded. It is exactly as the prop 10 reads, including the potential fiscal impacts.
This is another blatant lie.

Third is the same as second lie.

Listen, prop 10 is going to lose big, no question about it in anybody's mind except yours.
I think we should focus on the next steps after this fiery demise of prop 10.
I personally think that since the voters are now educated about negative effects of rent control, the offensive should be mounted for banning any new rent control in 2020 election.
Otherwise the homeowners in the state will be always on defensive, the activists and liberal legislators will never stop attempting to steal their equity and diminish private property rights.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2018 at 6:12 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“But you had only 3.25 GPA from a mediocre college, that is not making you an expert by any standards, just a student who barely got by.”

As far as “just barely got by”, here is some information. Any grade above a 3.0 in college is equal to 85% proven competency. In order to get a degree you must show at least 2.0 or 75%. My proficiency was 87.5%. That means out of 100 tasks in the real world, at least 87.5 of them would be sufficiently done to a degree that it would be considered reliable.

As far as San Jose State University being a mediocre college? Please read the following from U.S. New and World Report (Web Link ):

Overview

San Jose State University is a public institution that was founded in 1857. It has a total undergraduate enrollment of 27,778, its setting is urban, and the campus size is 154 acres. It utilizes a semester-based academic calendar. San Jose State University's ranking in the 2019 edition of Best Colleges is Regional Universities West, 33. Its in-state tuition and fees are $9,850 (2018-19); out-of-state tuition and fees are $9,850 (2018-19).

Students who attend San Jose State University, or SJSU, are situated in the scenic California Bay Area and booming Silicon Valley. The campus is located in downtown San Jose, and there are a variety of on-campus housing options, including student apartments and suites. Freshmen are not guaranteed university housing, though there is usually enough room for all who apply. There are more than 350 student organizations to check out at SJSU, as well as a Greek system that prides itself on its diversity. Students can also get involved by joining or cheering on the school’s Spartans athletics squads, which compete primarily in the NCAA Division I Mountain West Conference. The San Jose State football team competed in the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision.

For graduate students, the school offers programs through the Lucas Graduate School of Business, among other schools. The university also operates unique research centers that study the lives and works of Nobel Prize-winning author John Steinbeck and legendary composer Beethoven. About three fourths of SJSU alumni stay in the Bay Area after graduation. Some of the school’s most notable graduates include musician Stevie Nicks and author Amy Tan. More than a dozen Olympic medalists have also graduated from SJSU, including runner Lee Evans and boxer Chuck Adkins.

As far as ranking with other colleges:

2019 Rankings

San Jose State University is ranked #33 in Regional Universities West. Schools are ranked according to their performance across a set of widely accepted indicators of excellence.

#33 in Regional Universities West out of 140 schools. Does that sound mediocre? Here is the list in ranked order:

Santa Clara University, Trinity University, Loyola Marymount University, Gonzaga University, Chapman University, University of Portland, Mills College, Seattle University, St. Mary's College of California, Whitworth University, University of Redlands, California Polytechnic State University--San Luis Obispo, St. Edward's University, University of Dallas, California Lutheran University, St. Mary's University of San Antonio, Point Loma Nazarene University, Mount Saint Mary's University, Western Washington University, Westminster College, Abilene Christian University, Pacific University, Pacific Lutheran University, George Fox University, Dominican University of California, California State University--Long Beach, Regis University, California State Polytechnic University—Pomona, LeTourneau University, Oklahoma City University, University of St. Thomas, California Baptist University, San Jose State University. It goes on from there.

Does being a peer in this group mean that San Jose State is a mediocre Institution?

#18 in Best Colleges for Veterans out of 34 schools. OK that one is not so great, but far from basic. This list included in order:

Santa Clara University, Loyola Marymount University, Gonzaga University, Seattle University, Whitworth University, California Polytechnic State University--San Luis Obispo, St. Edward's University, California Lutheran University, St. Mary's University of San Antonio, Point Loma Nazarene University, Western Washington University, Westminster College, Abilene Christian University, Pacific Lutheran University, George Fox University, Regis University, LeTourneau University, San Jose State University. And it goes on from there.

Does being a peer in this group mean that San Jose State is a mediocre Institution?

#52 in Best Value Schools, given that this list only contains 58, it does not look that good, but if you look at the schools in the list in order they are:

Trinity University, St. Mary's University of San Antonio, Mills College, University of Dallas, Whitworth University, Gonzaga University, Westminster College, Pacific Lutheran University, University of St. Thomas, Abilene Christian University, LeTourneau University, Oral Roberts University, Saint Martin's University, Santa Clara University, Seattle University, University of Portland ,George Fox University, Point Loma Nazarene University, California Baptist University, Dominican University of California, Holy Names University, St. Mary's College of California, St. Edward's University , Loyola Marymount University, California State University--Los Angeles, Northwest University, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor ,La Sierra University, Notre Dame de Namur University, Corban University, Regis University ,Mount Saint Mary's University, Texas Wesleyan University, Oklahoma City University, University of the Incarnate Word, Concordia University, The Master's University and Seminary, California State University--San Bernardino, Chapman University, Woodbury University, Fresno Pacific University, Western Washington University, Hardin-Simmons University, Northwest Nazarene University, California State University--Monterey Bay, Walla Walla University, Pacific University, Chaminade University of Honolulu, Texas A&M International University, Central Washington University, San Jose State University and a few more.

Does being a peer in this group mean that San Jose State is a mediocre Institution?

FINALLY, TOM MEANS, THE CHAMPION OF THE ANTI-RENT CONTROL EXPERTS WAS AN INSTRUCTOR AT SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY. You said:

“Anyway, I have to go, I and couple of my landlord friends decided to have an early champagne celebration tonight for the prop 10 anticipated failure.”

Given the current situation, you can go ahead, but I am not making any predictions, only wanting the PUBLIC TO VOTE. You said:

“Weekend works best for us, this is why tonight.

We will make also a toast for you, wishing you best in finding your future housing in the Bay Area, after the MV rent control gets repealed.

Cheers!!!!!”

Simply put another act of Misconduct.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2018 at 9:34 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Why should voters vote to protect landlords profits when they do this reported on ABC news regarding Air BnB scams:

(Web Link)

Why should we be allowing this kind of fraud and scams by landlords?

We must allow the local governments to be able to protect their citizens.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

After experiencing harassment, owner of Zareen's restaurants speaks out about Islamophobia, racism
By Elena Kadvany | 28 comments | 6,436 views

Don't Miss Your Exit (and other lessons from an EV drive)
By Sherry Listgarten | 12 comments | 2,164 views

Goodbye Food Waste!
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 2,064 views

"Better" Dads and "Re-invigorated" Moms: Happier Couples
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,484 views

 

Register today!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More