News

Facing pressure, City Council drops plans to appoint rent control committee members early

Emily Ramos is one of three members of the Rental Housing Committee whose terms expire in April next year. Photo by Magali Gauthier

The Mountain View City Council will not add members to the city's Rental Housing Committee (RHC) later this year, following an uproar by residents who slammed the proposal as an attempt to subvert the will of the voters this November.

The proposal, put forth by Councilman John McAlister, suggested that the council should interview candidates and appoint members to the RHC on or before Dec. 8 -- before the newly elected council members are sworn in next year. The selection of RHC members is the most direct influence the council has on the city's rent control law.

With two council members termed out of office this year and two others facing a competitive council race, the election is all but guaranteed to have a significant influence on the council's picks for the RHC. A slate of council candidates and renter advocates say the "lame-duck" council shouldn't rush appointments to the committee, some drawing a comparison to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's push to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court prior to the presidential election.

McAlister retracted his proposal at the Oct. 27 council meeting, saying that he didn't want to be part of the "divisiveness" that is splitting the city and the country. He said his goal was to appoint members to the RHC that would take a balanced approach to both renters and landlords, and that he was troubled by some of the one-sided rhetoric on the campaign trail.

"I initially put that (proposal) up after hearing many candidates and the public talk about how they were interested in 'packing' the RHC, and I was concerned about fairness and equity for rent control for both sides," McAlister said. "It has to be fair to everyone."

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

On the campaign trail, council candidate Paul Roales suggested the idea of expanding the committee's roster to seven, with each member picked by individual council members. The proposal would require an amendment to the rent control law as it exists today. Other candidates, particularly John Lashlee, have argued that the council should not appoint landlords to the RHC, and that renters should be well-represented on the committee.

Council candidate Alex Nunez, in a letter co-signed by candidates Sally Lieber, Lenny Siegel, Pat Showalter and Lashlee, called the proposal "unprecedented and ill-advised," and said that there is no urgency to fill RHC positions that expire in April next year. Rather than wait until January -- which was the timeline for similar RHC appointments in 2019 -- Nunez said the city would be working on a compressed recruiting schedule right in the middle of the holiday season.

Nunez' letter also underscored that candidates have differing views on rent control, and that the public's opinion and perception of renter protections should be reflected in the upcoming appointments.

"To some degree the Nov. 3 council election is a referendum on the City Council's approach to rent control," Nunez wrote. "The election is underway. We should respect the will of the voters."

The Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance took a more aggressive stance, arguing in a letter that the council should be ashamed for trying to "ramrod" a critical vote on RHC replacements right before an election. The group said McAlister's proposed timeline would make Mitch McConnell proud, and that this is a clear attempt to pack the committee with appointees opposed to rent control.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

"Mountain View residents are well aware of the total disdain that some council members have for rent control, and their past successful attempts to pack the RHC with opponents of rent control," the letter states. "These same members now stand ready to push through a new slate of RHC members before the results of the Nov. 3 election are even known."

Mobile homes are not currently covered by rent control in Mountain View due to a decision by the RHC to explicitly exclude them from renter protections. Residents across the city's six mobile home parks have made a strong political and legal push to overturn the decision since 2018.

At the meeting, resident Edie Keating said renters will be relieved after McAlister withdrew his proposal, in part because they remember the council's past attempt to weaken rent control through Measure D in March. Keating suggested that McAlister may have proposed the idea after getting marching orders from outside groups.

"We wonder who suggested (the item) to councilmember McAlister," she said. "We wonder who connected the California Apartment Association to work with the firefighters to promote anti-renter council candidates. Renters are relieved, but their trust is not restored."

McAlister fired back, and said he acted on his own behalf. He reiterated that he took the item off the agenda explicitly to avoid divisiveness.

"I wanted to start a healing process," McAlister said. "There was no other force other than just common decency trying to make the city a better area. So next time, get your facts."

After the meeting, McAlister said he was concerned that residents in the city have become too deeply entrenched in their views on rent control. Based on the comments made on the campaign trail, he said he worries the incoming council may try to stack the RHC with members who ignore the needs of landlords.

While McAlister ultimately dropped the idea of appointing members early, he said the proposal felt like a preemptive way to curb the divisiveness in the community and bring people together.

"We've got a lot of division," he said. "What's interesting is the rent control people feel very righteous in what they're doing, and yet they're the ones who are using the slur tactics, destroying signs, marking them up or putting other disrespectful signs out."

Other council members did not comment on McAlister's proposal, which was formally pulled from the agenda. The Brown Act prohibits council members from discussing topics not on the agenda.

Assuming the council mirrors the timeline for 2019 RHC vacancies, the council will instead vote to fill vacancies some time in mid-January next year. Committee members Matt Grunewald, Emily Ramos and Nicole Haines-Livesay all have terms that expire on April 17, 2021.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Facing pressure, City Council drops plans to appoint rent control committee members early

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 12:34 pm

The Mountain View City Council will not add members to the city's Rental Housing Committee (RHC) later this year, following an uproar by residents who slammed the proposal as an attempt to subvert the will of the voters this November.

The proposal, put forth by Councilman John McAlister, suggested that the council should interview candidates and appoint members to the RHC on or before Dec. 8 -- before the newly elected council members are sworn in next year. The selection of RHC members is the most direct influence the council has on the city's rent control law.

With two council members termed out of office this year and two others facing a competitive council race, the election is all but guaranteed to have a significant influence on the council's picks for the RHC. A slate of council candidates and renter advocates say the "lame-duck" council shouldn't rush appointments to the committee, some drawing a comparison to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's push to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court prior to the presidential election.

McAlister retracted his proposal at the Oct. 27 council meeting, saying that he didn't want to be part of the "divisiveness" that is splitting the city and the country. He said his goal was to appoint members to the RHC that would take a balanced approach to both renters and landlords, and that he was troubled by some of the one-sided rhetoric on the campaign trail.

"I initially put that (proposal) up after hearing many candidates and the public talk about how they were interested in 'packing' the RHC, and I was concerned about fairness and equity for rent control for both sides," McAlister said. "It has to be fair to everyone."

On the campaign trail, council candidate Paul Roales suggested the idea of expanding the committee's roster to seven, with each member picked by individual council members. The proposal would require an amendment to the rent control law as it exists today. Other candidates, particularly John Lashlee, have argued that the council should not appoint landlords to the RHC, and that renters should be well-represented on the committee.

Council candidate Alex Nunez, in a letter co-signed by candidates Sally Lieber, Lenny Siegel, Pat Showalter and Lashlee, called the proposal "unprecedented and ill-advised," and said that there is no urgency to fill RHC positions that expire in April next year. Rather than wait until January -- which was the timeline for similar RHC appointments in 2019 -- Nunez said the city would be working on a compressed recruiting schedule right in the middle of the holiday season.

Nunez' letter also underscored that candidates have differing views on rent control, and that the public's opinion and perception of renter protections should be reflected in the upcoming appointments.

"To some degree the Nov. 3 council election is a referendum on the City Council's approach to rent control," Nunez wrote. "The election is underway. We should respect the will of the voters."

The Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance took a more aggressive stance, arguing in a letter that the council should be ashamed for trying to "ramrod" a critical vote on RHC replacements right before an election. The group said McAlister's proposed timeline would make Mitch McConnell proud, and that this is a clear attempt to pack the committee with appointees opposed to rent control.

"Mountain View residents are well aware of the total disdain that some council members have for rent control, and their past successful attempts to pack the RHC with opponents of rent control," the letter states. "These same members now stand ready to push through a new slate of RHC members before the results of the Nov. 3 election are even known."

Mobile homes are not currently covered by rent control in Mountain View due to a decision by the RHC to explicitly exclude them from renter protections. Residents across the city's six mobile home parks have made a strong political and legal push to overturn the decision since 2018.

At the meeting, resident Edie Keating said renters will be relieved after McAlister withdrew his proposal, in part because they remember the council's past attempt to weaken rent control through Measure D in March. Keating suggested that McAlister may have proposed the idea after getting marching orders from outside groups.

"We wonder who suggested (the item) to councilmember McAlister," she said. "We wonder who connected the California Apartment Association to work with the firefighters to promote anti-renter council candidates. Renters are relieved, but their trust is not restored."

McAlister fired back, and said he acted on his own behalf. He reiterated that he took the item off the agenda explicitly to avoid divisiveness.

"I wanted to start a healing process," McAlister said. "There was no other force other than just common decency trying to make the city a better area. So next time, get your facts."

After the meeting, McAlister said he was concerned that residents in the city have become too deeply entrenched in their views on rent control. Based on the comments made on the campaign trail, he said he worries the incoming council may try to stack the RHC with members who ignore the needs of landlords.

While McAlister ultimately dropped the idea of appointing members early, he said the proposal felt like a preemptive way to curb the divisiveness in the community and bring people together.

"We've got a lot of division," he said. "What's interesting is the rent control people feel very righteous in what they're doing, and yet they're the ones who are using the slur tactics, destroying signs, marking them up or putting other disrespectful signs out."

Other council members did not comment on McAlister's proposal, which was formally pulled from the agenda. The Brown Act prohibits council members from discussing topics not on the agenda.

Assuming the council mirrors the timeline for 2019 RHC vacancies, the council will instead vote to fill vacancies some time in mid-January next year. Committee members Matt Grunewald, Emily Ramos and Nicole Haines-Livesay all have terms that expire on April 17, 2021.

Comments

Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 28, 2020 at 12:59 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 28, 2020 at 12:59 pm
654 people like this

WOW,

We had another "SUPREME COURT" packing process occurring here in Mountain View regarding the RHC.

What I love to point out is that the RHC does not “require” any “property managers or landlords” to be members of the RHC board.

All you have to do is read this part of the city charter Found here (Web Link):

“Section 1709. - Rental housing committee.

Composition. There shall be in the City of Mountain View an appointed Rental Housing Committee comprised of Mountain View residents as set forth in this Section. The Committee shall consist of five (5) Committee members appointed by the City Council, and an alternate Committee member. The alternate Committee member shall be permitted to attend all Committee meetings and to speak, but not be authorized to vote unless a regular member of the Committee is absent at that meeting or is recused from voting on an agenda item. THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN TWO (2) MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY, OR THAT ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS. Anyone nominated to this Committee must be in compliance with this Article and all other local, state and federal laws regulating the provision of housing. Annually, the Committee shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson.”

Please notice the text only said there SHALL be no more than 2 members that OWN OR MANAGE ANY RENTAL PROPERTY, OR THAT ARE REALTORS OR DEVELOPERS. The language does not MANDATE or REQUIRE there be at least 2 members in those groups.

It is time to see if we can get a CLEAN RHC roster with no one having any “conflict of interest” like we did with Tom Means and Vanessa Honey, who were “ACTIVISTS” in the RHC trying to bend or break the CSFRA requirements. Tom Means outright was paid to work against rent control in another city by a part of the California Association of Realtors called SAMCAR.

This potential must be driving the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors crazy.


Mark
Registered user
Shoreline West
on Oct 28, 2020 at 7:03 pm
Mark, Shoreline West
Registered user
on Oct 28, 2020 at 7:03 pm
409 people like this

Council Member McAlister said,
"I initially put that (proposal) up after hearing many candidates and the public talk about how they were interested in 'packing' the RHC, and I was concerned about fairness and equity for rent control for both sides," McAlister said. "It has to be fair to everyone."

This is the very reason why the Voice endorsed 4 activist for city council. They want to continue the divisiveness in our city, in can never end. You can not have fairness to everyone in our city. Every 2 years the activits will bring up the issue of rent control, it will never end. It was Lenny Siegel's gang that wrote the rent control measure and the other side had zero input in writing it. They wrote the rent control measure exactly as they wanted it, but that is not enough.

Do not vote for Siegel, Lieber, Nunez, ShoWalter or Laslee.

We need grown up people on the council, not activists.

We have serious issues that need to be dealt with. Not where shall we open up the rest of the city to more RV parking, or tents along our sidewalks or in our parks.

Learn the lesson from Portland and Seattle of what extreme activists council members will do to a city once in office.

Remember, we VOTED OUT council members Siegel and ShoWalter just a few years ago. That rarely ever happens to an incumbent council member. We do not want to wait another 4 years before we can vote them out again.

Do not forget what a pomp-ass, arrogant, rude council member Siegel was to both his fellow council members and to the public, when he was on the Dias.

Do not forget that Siegel is responsible for the current RV parking on our streets, and for getting signatures to force the council to put on the ballot Measure C. Siegel wants the narrow street parking ban to be voted down so RV's can park on narrow streets and create a safety hazard for people. If Siegel should get elected to the council, and Measure C is passed by the voters, you can be assured that the arrogance of Siegel will seek to overturn the will of the voters.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 28, 2020 at 8:18 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 28, 2020 at 8:18 pm
652 people like this

This is a long one, I try to keep it short, but this situation became rather complicate, if you bear with me and read, I really appreciate it?

In response to Mark you wrote:

“This is the very reason why the Voice endorsed 4 activist for city council. They want to continue the divisiveness in our city, in can never end. You can not have fairness to everyone in our city. Every 2 years the activits will bring up the issue of rent control, it will never end. It was Lenny Siegel's gang that wrote the rent control measure and the other side had zero input in writing it. They wrote the rent control measure exactly as they wanted it, but that is not enough.”

Mark, it was the California Apartment Association, John Inks and the MeasureVTooCostly, and the actions of Jose Gutierrez, Margaret Abe Koga, and Lisa Matichak that KEEP bringing up Rent Control, and you know it. You wrote:

“Remember, we VOTED OUT council members Siegel and ShoWalter just a few years ago. That rarely ever happens to an incumbent council member. We do not want to wait another 4 years before we can vote them out again.”

The voters were CONvinced to vote for others because they made a “SALES” argument that they thought they could rely on. Namely that these two would represent the City Citizens. What did we get. The three of them JG, MAK, and LM trying to CONvince the voters to let them take over the CSFRA with Measure D with lies like I couldn’t count.

Then they used their position to EVICT renters that PAID their LAWFUL rent by expulsion in favor of more wealthy “HOME BUYERS” so they could ENGINEER the voting population of the City. The STATE had to enact a new law SB330 to prevent this from occurring anymore, thus the two made the City have less discretion regarding land use. It was THEIR fault..

[Post shortened due to excessive length.]


Mark
Registered user
Shoreline West
on Oct 28, 2020 at 8:56 pm
Mark, Shoreline West
Registered user
on Oct 28, 2020 at 8:56 pm
593 people like this

There also is another problem with Lenny Siegel.

He runs the organization now called the "Mountain View Housing Coalition"

There is a conflict of interest when you have a community organizer on the council, who gives orders to his members to come out and protest against any issue that Lenny Siegel either disagrees with or wants pushed thru. This group was outraged last night in what the city council proposed to do.

Several people who spoke out in the San Jose council chambers also have spoken out in the Mountain View council chambers. Pictures from the local papers prove that. Who knows were they really live, but they are part of the community organizers that go up and down the Bay to speak out on issues in different cities.

6 to 8 weeks ago, our city council voted to purchase new firearms for the police. There was an organized group who came out and spoke against the council doing this, and many spoke up and said they wanted the police to be de-funded.

What group wants the Police de-funded, BLM. Check their website if you do not believe that.

What 2 council candidates have publicly stated that they worked to get the BLM to come to our city? Lenny Siegel and Sally Lieber.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 28, 2020 at 9:14 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 28, 2020 at 9:14 pm
638 people like this

In response to Mark who wrote:

“There also is another problem with Lenny Siegel.

He runs the organization now called the "Mountain View Housing Coalition"”

First what evidence do you have especially given you used the wrong NAME of the organization it is the “Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition” and you can read what they are about here (Web Link) This organization is not funded by a group of commercial interests like the California Apartment Association that appears to have broken the FPPC standards here in MountainView. You wrote:

“There is a conflict of interest when you have a community organizer on the council, who gives orders to his members to come out and protest against any issue that Lenny Siegel either disagrees with or wants pushed thru. This group was outraged last night in what the city council proposed to do.”

Where are you getting this information? If you look at the webpage, there isn’t even a picture of him on it. You are just making up stories to try to discredit him because your candidates have conducted hemselves in such a deceptive way, and there is a trail to prove it. You wrote:

“Several people who spoke out in the San Jose council chambers also have spoken out in the Mountain View council chambers. Pictures from the local papers prove that. Who knows were they really live, but they are part of the community organizers that go up and down the Bay to speak out on issues in different cities.”

OK, please show more proof? Because you qualify as a hearsay witness unless you have collaborating evidence. Please produce it? Otherwise again instead of discussing the story, you are in fact persoanly attacking your “opponents” based on no evidence.

[Post shortened due to excessive length.]


Frank Richards
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 28, 2020 at 9:15 pm
Frank Richards, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 28, 2020 at 9:15 pm
523 people like this

There Gladys/Mark goes again with unhinged conspiracy theories.

Mountain View residents expressing their opinions to council? Dangerous outsiders and activists! Be afraid of Black Lives Matter!

Out-of-town landlords bankrolling candidates and attempting to pack the Rental Housing Commission prior to an election? Why, to Gladys/Mark and the other Matichak/Abe-Koga/Gutierrez supporters, that's just "fairness."


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Oct 29, 2020 at 8:47 am
Gary, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Oct 29, 2020 at 8:47 am
410 people like this

The article reports that John McAlister withdrew the effort to pack the Rental Housing Committee "at" the Tuesday October 27 City Council meeting. The city website does not yet include "media" showing the meeting. I assume landlord-backed candidates Margaret Abe-Koga and Lisa Matichak kept quiet. In looking at the October 27 agenda (this Thursday morning), I see the first item at 4pm was a closed session on appointing an "interim city clerk." Has the city lost yet another city clerk? What is that story?


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2020 at 10:40 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 29, 2020 at 10:40 am
7 people like this

Gary,

The meeting was on the Youtube Mountain View City Council Channel.

The topic cam up at 2:35:00

MAK and LM was totally quiet


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 30, 2020 at 5:33 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 30, 2020 at 5:33 am
403 people like this

@MARK - and we (rather the Electoral College) voted in Donald Trump as President of the United States of America starting early January 2016. So we The Electorate can't change our collective mind?
:-)
I don't think so! Same principle applies to the local elections / MV City Council.
Go Pat, and Co.

I totally forgive Councilman McAlister (I supported in last election with vote and campaign $$$ and lawn sign). He made 'a massive blunder' in my opinion with his 'public trust' folly - but such is the way of mortal politicians - even the smartest, alumni of UC Berkeley!


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 30, 2020 at 6:02 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 30, 2020 at 6:02 pm
343 people like this

Again I am glad we are going to have a chance to get rid of anyone trying to use the RHC to advance their political or financial interests. Margaret Abe Koga and Lisa Matichak were trying to “stack the deck” regarding the RHC and they know it. The fact is that the California Apartment Association (CAA) is getting more angry, which is why they are forced to pull so many stunts like the one with the Mountain View Firefighters PAC (MVFPAC) is their biggest CLIENTS are losing so much money right now. They are Essex Property Trust and Affiliated Entities; Equity Residential; and AvalonBay Communities.

CNBC recently published a report titled “Earnings for apartment owners show the pain of urban flight” Found here (Web Link). The report indicated the NO ON 21 funders are in real trouble now. These groups are Essex Property Trust and Affiliated Entities; Equity Residential; and AvalonBay Communities.

Equity Residential, stock is down about 43% year to date. Occupancy and average rent rates fell and will likely drop further in the coming quarters. AvalonBay, stock is about 35% year to date. Essex Property Trust is a private company. But it is reported here (Web Link) they have lost Significant income from $239M income in the 2019 3rd qtr to $194M in the last 3rd qtr. That is a loss of $45M and it makes a percentage loss of 18.8%.

What kind of reputation these groups have?. The Equity Residential apartments in Mountain View found here (Web Link) are rated only 3.5 out of 5 stars, which is just a passing grade if you count a star as 20% in grades. Avalon Bay has only an average between 3 to 3.5 star on Yelp. They have multiple buildings in the city feel free to look it up on Yelp. Essex Property Trust has a 2.5 star rating and the comments are not good seen here (Web Link).

Some landlords aren’t in yelp at all because they are too small. I simply ask this question, WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE OF EXCELLING IN YOUR HOUSING SERVICES? So many times, these people claim to be such GREAT service providers, but they offer no PROOF of it.

If you think that the RHC should be “protecting” landlords when they perform so poorly regarding their business? My simple question is WHY?

There should be no one representing the interests of the landlords, real estate, or developers in my opinion, it should be held by those with no interest to provide any special rights to anyone. I hope we can clean up the RHC with a group that WILL act without any bias, but also, NOT TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES to try to bend or break the CSFRA like Tom Means and Venessa Honey did.


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Oct 31, 2020 at 7:12 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Oct 31, 2020 at 7:12 pm
48 people like this

A neighbor received in the mail today a two-sided piece "paid for by Gutierrez for City Council." It emphasizes that "Jose" was endorsed by the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce PLUS the CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce PLUS the chair of the board of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. That is pretty much everyone! And yet if the candidates endorsed by the editorial board of the Mountain View Voice did not distribute the endorsement to the majority of voters (who do not subscribe to the Voice), Mr. Gutierrez could finish in the top 4 and thereby grab a seat on the City Council. Even if 60% of MV registered voters who will vote already have voted, that still leaves 40%. Two years ago, the winners were only a hundred to a few hundred voters ahead of the
next candidate.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 31, 2020 at 8:17 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 31, 2020 at 8:17 pm
36 people like this

Thank you Gary,

I wish that the MV Voice will not delete this posting, now that at least I have someone discussing this part of the story

It is interesting that the “Chambers of Commerce” crown are getting walloped because of the stunts pulled by the Silicon Valley Organization. It is indicative of the problems we have in elections in the state.

The Merc News is indicating that membership is being dropped regarding the “Chambers of Commerce: because of the fat that many are a part of an Organized group of co-conspirators regarding their power over public policy. Please read the story “Comcast, San Jose Sharks among members ditching Silicon Valley Organization in droves after racist ad “ found here (Web Link)

This really shows to the City of Mountain View that the “Chamber of Commerce” are not our friends. It was only that one person slipped up and said something I know all of these groups agree with. And the California Apartment Association and their members are part of the Mountain view Chamber of Commerce. In effect the Chamber of Commerce worked with political candidates to try to remove rights won when the CSFRA passed by trying to pass Measure D.

And who is supported by the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce? Margaret Abe Koga, Lisa Matichak, and Jose Gutierrez.

These people are not FRIENDS of the city, they collectively tried to lie to get us to pass Measure D. And 2 of them used their position to expel people living here. Why should they be elected?


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 31, 2020 at 8:21 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 31, 2020 at 8:21 pm
4 people like this

By the way, where is there going to be any place for the citizens that live alone to be able to at least with social distancing still be together regarding the election results?


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Oct 31, 2020 at 8:37 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Oct 31, 2020 at 8:37 pm
6 people like this

Thanks Steven for reporting on the Chamber of Commerce in San Jose. Chambers are for businesses and profits - not people or well-being. And yet, if they join up with local government employee unions, they can often get their chosen candidates elected. So, the issue I raised is that the Mountain View Voice does not reach most voters - without the help of candidates. In a game of musical chairs, there are not enough seats for everyone. It's every child for himself or herself. But in politics, sometimes coalitions are needed. The landlord-favored candidates got together. The candidates endorsed by the Voice resorted to a joint literature drop but I don't think they put out broadly either the Voice editorial endorsement or the article about the FPPC case against the firefighters' union (PAC). Time is running out.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 31, 2020 at 8:43 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 31, 2020 at 8:43 pm
4 people like this

Gary,

it is really bad that the MV Voice isn't printed now, this is going to be a bad election because of it.

The voters are not getting half the information they need to make the right choices THEY want.

I am VERY scared about it too.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.