Keep Outside Money Out of Local Politics | Town Square | Mountain View Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Keep Outside Money Out of Local Politics

Original post made by alarmed_citizen, Cuesta Park, on Oct 14, 2014

I follow the city council race closely because I care about the city very much. It is very important for me to have someone with the city’s best interest in mind to be on the city council. It turns out some candidates are secretly getting contributions from outside special interest groups and I don’t like that.

There is a $22,689 limit for campaign funds for the city council. However, on the city’s website I discovered that a special interest group called the “National Association of Realtors Fund” based in CHICAGO has been independently spending $26,680 on Ken Rosenberg’s behalf for mailers and polling outside of his $22,689 limit, which he claims he knows nothing about. Another group called the “Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition” from LONG BEACH has also been spending $12,293 on his behalf outside of his limit. I just got this expansive mailer from this N.E.C. group about Rosenberg this past weekend. The postage is from Long Beach.

Granted it is politics, but I found out that N.E.C. receives large contributions from PG&E (despite Rosenberg denies receiving money from PG&E), iron ship builders, CA apartment association PAC and large Indian tribes. Another SoCal resident named Timothy Dillion also contributed $20,000 in support of Rosenberg. Who would contribute that much money if they were not lobbyists? What are their motivations for doing this? Besides, is it fair to the other candidates who are still trying to raise that $22,689?? I care very much about the city and I would not vote for someone who has a secret agenda to please outside interest groups!

Comments (117)

6 people like this
Posted by Voter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm

Very interesting article , I went to see all the candidates web sites and one is really surprising for for the message it sends on donations !

" Please Donate to My Campaign
I can't change Mountain View without your help. Your donations of $99 or less will help me to get my message out and win in November.

Please note that I can only accept donations from Mountain View residents or those that own small businesses here. All other donations will need to be refunded. Thanks for your support!

Jim Neal

I think this shows who wants to represent the the residents of Mountain View and be free from all the special interest, that sooner or later will ask something in return for the support and money they put in the race !


5 people like this
Posted by concerned citizen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2014 at 1:03 pm

Could the person who posted this article please provide links for the sources of information?

If this is true, it's really over the top.

Editor of the Voice - You ought to be looking into this.


4 people like this
Posted by informed voter
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 14, 2014 at 2:24 pm

There is nothing here but an independent group supporting a candidate As the word independent suggests, the candidate is not informed of the groups decision to send out a mailer and does not need the candidates permission to spend money and support him. It may be seen as a loophole but in fact it cannot be banned by the city or the candidate except the reporting of the expenditure.

Several past candidates have benefited from independent expenditures.


14 people like this
Posted by unbelievable
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2014 at 4:28 pm

Even though it is independent you have to wonder why outside groups would put in so much money to support one candidate. The reason is these outside groups are mainly realtors, developers, and apartment associations that want more development and you better believe that they will be coming and asking for favors after the election.

Here are the links to money spent on Ken Rosenberg and Ellen Kamaie by the shady Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition. And by the way who is Timothy P. Dillon from Carlsbad and why is he contributing 20,000.00 to support Ken Rosenberg????????????

Ken - Web Link
Ken - Web Link
Ellen - Web Link


8 people like this
Posted by keepitlocal
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 14, 2014 at 8:05 pm

Web Link This is another local NEC contribution article from San Jose

Maybe Daniel DeBolt can do some investigative journalism piece on this very alarming MV City council Race development. I also received the very expensive looking mailing.
www.thedailyfetch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NeighborhoodEmpowermentCo460.pdf

thank you "member" for bringing this to our attention.
What are these groups lobbying for? NEC has PG&E money, but lots of other groups $, too.


11 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 14, 2014 at 8:31 pm

Linda Curtis is a registered user.

I have actually heard about these very donations to Ken Rosenberg's campaign from people I know, prior to reading this. There is some kind of loop hole that keeps this money from counting as part of the $22, 689 candidates are allowed.

Lisa Matichak refuses photocopies made for her, even if someone can get them for free, as they must be reimbursed market value for each and every single copy. That is honesty.

And I also know Jim Neal works to be elected to represent the people of MV from MV residents' donations only.

Another person who has refused corporate donations is Mercedes Salem. She is incredibly intelligent and always reads the fine print, which lawyers tend to do. This keeps her from being anybody's funky. And since she is a family law attorney, she truly knows what families deal with and she wants to help them. That is why she is running.

Just saying we need to run MV for MV so I've mentioned the three who absolutely will do so with no surprises or secret contributions!


6 people like this
Posted by no tricks under the hat
a resident of Gemello
on Oct 14, 2014 at 8:34 pm

This is one of the reasons i will be giving my vote to Jim Neal , He has no tricks under the cowboy hat !


6 people like this
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 14, 2014 at 9:22 pm

@informed voter,

It is interesting that Ken's website does not list the National Association of Realtors as Fund or the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition as endorsing him.

I prefer candidates whoa are endorsed by residents of Mountain View.

Ken could have told them that he didn't want their support, but obviously, he has accepted it.

What other skeletons are in Ken's closet?




5 people like this
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 14, 2014 at 9:26 pm

@Linda Curtis,


I agree, we need to run Mountain View for Mountain View, not the National Association of Realtors or the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition.
so I've mentioned the three who absolutely will do so with no surprises or secret contributions!


12 people like this
Posted by critical thinker
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2014 at 10:59 pm

I am quite disturbed by the seemingly general "acceptance" of the insinuations made in this post without doing their own research as to what an "independent expenditure" is in an election. Therefore, I have pasted the Code of Federal Regulations definition of what consists of an independent expenditure.

The Code of Federal Regulations defined independent expenditure as an expenditure for a communication "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party or its agents." 11 CFR 100.16(a).[3] The term was first introduced in the Code of Federal Regulations in 2003[4]


As the Federal Regulation states, the INDEPENDENT expenditure is made without any knowledge nor any connection to the candidate for whom the independent party is advocating.

Does anyone here honestly believe that Commissioner Rosenberg would risk prosecution for violating campaign law for knowingly accepting monetary donations that exceeded the legal limits? Seriously, I would have to say no.

I have to say that I am shocked to witness the lack of critical thinking that has been displayed in the responses to the blatantly obvious smear campaign by the person who posted this drivel.


7 people like this
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 14, 2014 at 11:17 pm

@critical thinker,

You are either very naive or a Ken Rosenburg fan, or maybe both.

Do you really believe that Ken didn't know about this?

Ken could have told them that he didn't want their support, but obviously, he has accepted it.

Why hasn't Ken explained this? Why is he silent?

Ken has made his bed, now he gets to lie in it!


8 people like this
Posted by Informed voter
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 14, 2014 at 11:49 pm

@ critical thinker. Great post . Sosnow and Curtis live to make misleading statements and make unsubstantiated comments. Rosenberg cannot stop people from supporting him and spending money. In the same way the candidates that sosnow and Curtis support are surely embarrseed by thier silly comments but cannot stop them from supporting them from bad mouthing Rosenberg.


9 people like this
Posted by Observer
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 14, 2014 at 11:58 pm

Thank you critical thinker. Candidates can't coordinate with independent groups and can't control what they do, so stop pinning that on Rosenberg. It's curious that these same people are not complaining about the AFL/CIO doing a mailer for three other candidates....


9 people like this
Posted by critical thinker
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2014 at 12:01 am

Mr. Sosnow,
Obviously, no one is going to change your opinion regarding Commissioner Rosenberg. The accusation without any supporting evidence is proof enough of your own willingness to slander a person who has worked for many years to help better the communities of Mountain View to be illogical. If you have any facts, then please present them.


12 people like this
Posted by Konrads M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 12:17 am

@critical thinker,

Now we all know why Ken supports build, build ,build in Mountain View, particularly along El Camino Real.

Ken has told us, the Cuesta Park neighborhood, that he doesn't care if the proposed project at 801 El Camino Real impacts the neighbors.

Ken has told us, the Cuesta Park neighborhood, that he doesn't care if the proposed project at 801 El Camino Real creates parking problems in the adjacent neighborhood.

Ken has told me that he doesn't care if high intensity development along El Camino Real affects traffic on an already congested artery.

It seems that all Ken thinks about is pleasing developers and the National Association of Realtors.



8 people like this
Posted by VEEEERY Interesting
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 6:26 am

If Ken comes out and explains himself he has a chance of getting my vote, but hiding this money from outside interests trying to make their buck by building in MV with no concern over the quality of life is at a minimum, somewhat suspicious. Ken, please explain this HUGE sum of money from OUTSIDE Interests. You cannot control who donates, but you can control who yo accept money from.
No vote for Ken until there is AT LEAST some explanation on how he is not selling out MV for his own personal gain.


6 people like this
Posted by informed voter
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 15, 2014 at 8:26 am

Great posts by critical thinker and observer.

The accusation that Ken is hiding something is ridiculous and obviously an attempt to smear him. Observer mentioned the union backing of the EPC candidates and one should also mention they have received donations and endorsements from pro housing groups. Apparently these independent expenditures don't bother Sosnow and Veeery Interesting.

Ken has no explaining to do. he is the best candidate running and will win easily.


4 people like this
Posted by informed voter with different opinion
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 8:56 am

Uh-uh. This appears unseemly.


13 people like this
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 8:57 am

I understand that "independent expenditures" are not illegal and are evidently the norm when it comes to elections. I am intrigued by the independent expenditures in the Mountain View city council race because clearly those organizations making these independent expenditures do so in hopes of either helping a candidate get elected or preventing another candidate from being elected. So the question is, why do these groups see Rosenberg (in this instance) as a candidate whom would benefit (or, not damage) their interests at the end of the day?

Web Link


10 people like this
Posted by keepitlocal
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 9:20 am

Ken Rosenberg should address this $58 000 investment in his candidacy. The organizations/individuals behind these efforts are expecting something in return. Ellen Kamei should also address her NEC connections.


5 people like this
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 9:28 am

@keepitlocal,


I think that all nine (9) candidates should explain their outside connections.


7 people like this
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 9:43 am

Konrad M. Sosnow:

"I think that all nine (9) candidates should explain their outside connections."

~~~~~~~~~~

If I understand the thrust of the rules governing candidates and independent expenditures...there is explicitly NO outside connection to the donors, at least not at the time the donations are made. Not sure if there are any rules governing interaction with these donors - or their agents - once the election has been held.

I suppose you are free to infer what you will based upon the filings which detail the origins of the independent expenditures, but to imply any wrongdoing or nefarious intent on the part of any candidate receiving said independent expenditures seems wrong, to me.


15 people like this
Posted by not illegal, but...
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2014 at 10:03 am

It's not illegal to have campaign activities funded through soft money. That is not the question. The real issue is WHY this money is being spent on Rosenberg's behalf? It is not proof of wrongdoing, incompetence or conspiracy. However, it is a flag.

So, why do you think he is receiving this support?


6 people like this
Posted by Mountain View Mom
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 15, 2014 at 12:27 pm

I know Ken Rosenberg well and I am stunned at this attempt to insinuate that his integrity is in any way lacking. Mountain View will be better off with Ken on the City Council.

I’ve served with him on a board and he was always fair minded, thoughtful and open to others’ input. He was never in anyone’s pocket, real estate interests or others. If you ever attended one of the Mountain View Civility Roundtable discussions he organized, you would have seen his diplomacy in action. He dedicated years to the Human Relations Commission and is a volunteer with a local children’s theatre, neither a hotbed of surreptitious business dealings, you’ll agree.

I echo the comments of Critical Thinker. If Konrads M. Sosnow doesn’t like the existing Code of Federal Regulations’ on independent expenditure, than he should work to change the law rather than try to attack a highly qualified City Council Candidate who is abiding by that standing law.

Konrads will not be swayed by my comments, but neither should residents and voters be swayed by his empty accusations against Ken Rosenberg.


7 people like this
Posted by Lilly
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 15, 2014 at 12:35 pm

@ Mountain View Mom

Since you know Ken Rosenberg well can you replay to the simple question from not illegal, but...just above your post ?

So, why do you think he is receiving this support?


12 people like this
Posted by hmmm...
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 15, 2014 at 3:00 pm

I think we need to show outside interest groups that Mountain View doesn't tolerate this kind of independent spending and outside influence in our local politics. There is nothing illegal about the independent expenditure, at least as far as I know. But I still don't like it.

Mountain View City Hall should be influenced by mountain view residents not by special interest groups pouring tens of thousands of dollars into one or two candidates. I don't want special interests supporting Mountain View City Council candidates. I'm going to send a message to these outside special interest groups with my vote. I am going to vote for candidates that don't get money from outside of our area.

If we vote for candidates that are supported by special interest group then these groups will continue to pour in money to our city and will continue to have influence over our neighborhoods.

I don't think any of the candidates did anything wrong but I still don't want council members that have received thousands and thousands of dollars of support from outside groups.

Nothing is for free and they will definitely want something later down the road.


4 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 15, 2014 at 3:47 pm

I wish we could vote to keep a council seat empty, that'd be the best option of all. Strip the council of most of its responsibilities.

The city council does way too much micromanaging. The precise plan that causes all this angst is way too precise. Set some simple zoning rules, and let people decide how and what to build. I'm really tired of these committee designed cookie cutter developments that are filling up mountain view. I'd love to see the city grow organically, house by house, rather than fifty condos at a time, all of which look the same. We have no choice, we're getting denser because bay area population is growing, and state laws force housing to be permitted. It would be nice if our city grew more like, say, NY or London versus LA.


4 people like this
Posted by Mountain View Mom
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 15, 2014 at 4:39 pm

Lilly:

I have no way of knowing the motivation of the outside group. Why did the AFL-CIO do a mailer for other candidates? I suppose common sense, or more likely political sense, tells us it is that they prefer that candidate. All that said, Ken is an intelligent person and dedicated community member. One mailer will not sway him one way or another. It is unwise to discount the value of what Ken brings to our town because we don't understand the group's motivation; instead judge Ken on his own merits, which are considerable.


5 people like this
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 5:07 pm

@Mountain View Mom,

It is clear to those of us who have talked to Ken why the National Association of Realtors Fund" supports Ken.

When residents of Cuesta Park told Ken about our concerns that a 4 story building was too massive for the corner, that they didn't want renters looking into their back yard, and that we are also are concerned about traffic and parking, Ken told us he didn't care about us, as building housing was more important to him than our needs. He basically told us to F___ Off!

As a result, we have been working hard to make sure that Ken does not get any votes from residents of Cuesta Park!


6 people like this
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 5:13 pm

@Mountain View Mom,

Let me spell it out for you!

Ken is i the race for one, and only one reason - M-O-N-E-Y.

BTW, why are you hiding behind a pseudonym, are you ashamed of supporting Ken?


9 people like this
Posted by concerned citizen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 15, 2014 at 5:28 pm

Looking at the documents in the links from "unbelievable", above, it looks as though the "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition" has spent $38,000 to help Ken. The money is itemized for 2 mailers, a voter list, and polling. Please check the links, and comment if you think I have misinterpreted them. Actually, I would like to think I'm wrong.

It's hard to figure out what the "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition" is all about, or why they would want to spend money supporting Rosenberg. The NEC's funding appears to come from several casino Indian tribes, and from the "Fraternal Order of Police". The NEC website (Web Link) states that their mission is to promote "local control and neighborhood empowerment". That seems kind of ironic, when they are funneling this kind of money into a local election, from Long Beach.

So, why this much money, from this particular entity?

Here's a link to a story about NEC money that went into a San Jose city council race: Web Link

Voice Editor: Could you ask one of your reporters to try to shed some light on all this?


7 people like this
Posted by Lilly
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 15, 2014 at 7:33 pm

@Mountain View Mom,

I've stated in some previous posts that my vote was going to Jim Neal , Lisa Matichak, and Ken Rosenberg , this because I see the integrity and honorable nature in Jim Neal , Lisa Matichak really listens to the community , and Ken Rosenberg because he gave me the idea that he really cared for the community , now all this money coming from special interest makes me wonder why , why somebody from Long Beach wants to put so much money in the Mountain View city council race?

You said " I suppose common sense, or more likely political sense, tells us it is that they prefer that candidate."
My question is why they prefer that candidate ? Nobody puts so much money ( unless donating to a charity ) into a campaign unless they expect something in return !

If Ken is able to explain this satisfactorily I'm still prepared to vote for him !



11 people like this
Posted by Christopher Chiang
a resident of North Bayshore
on Oct 15, 2014 at 8:44 pm

I don't blame Mr. Rosenberg for independent expenditures, which often candidates do not control or at times even know about.

I fully blame our state legislature for being so weak on regulating and reporting interest group activities.

Who is organizing the “Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition” is a story I too hope the MV Voice explores.

All that I could uncover is that the Long Beach address belongs to Crummitt & Associates, the political firm handling the paperwork for the interest group.

The state reports the group's past donors is a conglomeration of Native American tribes, an apartment owners’ PAC, an union, and PG&E. Web Link

Given that list of donors, it makes the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition's Web Link incomplete website even more disingenuous. The website is registered to a Maclean Zilber. Web Link Maclean Zilber is a recent graduate of UCSD who has registered many Democratic campaign sites in his name, likely for his employer Shallman Communications of Encino.

Given all this intentional obfuscation, the “Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition” deserves public scrutiny, but I don’t relay that to the candidates they support, nor do I adopt the logic of guilty by association.

My wife and I as teachers, rarely give to political candidates, yet we are still glad to have given a small donation to both Ken Rosenberg and Pat Showalter, the focus of the interest group’s mailers. At least that small donation isn’t such a Nancy Drew mystery.


8 people like this
Posted by critical thinker
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2014 at 10:02 pm

So it seems to me that the angst experienced by Mr. Sosnow and others, is due to the objection of building an apartment complex that would help to solve the housing shortage. Mr. Sosnow, have you offered up any other solutions to the housing shortage? Have you scoped out any other vacant parcels and created designs that would accommodate apartment complexes? Have you participated in the planning of Mountain View, or have you just decided it was time to get involved now because it's now your backyard that is being affected, and prior to this, you thought, "screw them"? You want to have your cake and eat it to? Mr. Sosnow, what you done, for the residents of Mountain View?

Does anyone remember this little excerpt from 2008?


June 15, 2008
‘Affordable housing’ bad for quality of life – Mountain View

Mountain View Voice Mountain View Voice: Letters to the Editor (June 13, 2008)
‘Affordable housing’ bad for quality of life

Editor:

My wife and I moved to Mountain View 40 years ago because of the quality of life. Now, after making mortgage payments for 30 years, our home, our largest asset, is being threatened. Advocates of “more affordable housing” want to turn Mountain View into a place of multi-family tenements.

If I wanted to live in a slum, I would move there. Instead I chose to live in Mountain View. I say if affordable housing supporters want to live in a high-density slum, so be it. However, don’t turn Mountain View into a slum.

Konrad M. Sosnow

Trophy Drive

Well said! Bravo! It’s time the Real Bay Area took a stand against against affordable housing. The more affordable housing becomes, the less special it becomes. Let’s fight back!

Cheers to Konrad for having the courage to make this statement! By the way, Konrad paid just $2203 in property tax last year, while some of his neighbors probably pay $13,000. Which makes sense since Konrad paid $106,500 for his house in 1977, and other people in his area just paid $1.3 million.

Now if only we could get rid of some of the jobs that Mountain View has. That’s clearly the biggest problem.


Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Mountain View Mom
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 15, 2014 at 10:17 pm

Konrad M. Sosnow: Why use a pseudonym? So my children don't feel unsafe when someone like you "attacks" their mom on a message board. You are clearly angry so I don't want you to know who I am or where I live. My opinion is no less valid and, you will note, I do not use anonymity as license to be rude or slanderous.

If you must exaggerate to win an argument, it is a hollow victory. Ken would NEVER tell someone that he doesn't care, even if he disagrees he does so respectfully. And running for money? Do ANY of our council people serve for money?! That's just a silly thing to say. They get a pittance for their countless hours of work.

During election season and all year-round, kindness and rational communications go further than vitriol, neighbor.


6 people like this
Posted by Ken Rosenberg
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2014 at 11:08 pm

For the record...this was my response to the ONLY Cuesta Park Neighborhood Association question asked. We had 150 words for their newsletter: "What is your view of the balance between preserving existing neighborhoods and the demand for new housing?"

Mountain View, indeed Silicon Valley, is growing. In view of this, it is important to identify and protect those aspects of our community we collectively most cherish. I strongly value the varying neighborhoods in the city and will work to preserve their character. In 2012, a new General Plan was adopted after significant public input. It identified change areas in the city that will be the focus of new development. The precise plans for these areas, including the El Camino Real Precise plan near the Cuesta Park neighborhood, will address how new developments will interact with surrounding neighborhoods. I support provisions that are sensitive to existing residents while allowing for the intent of the General Plan to be realized. I believe that moderately dense housing, properly designed and integrated, in our core change areas and near key transit routes is part of the solution to our current housing imbalance.


7 people like this
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 11:12 pm

@critical thinker,

Thanks for reprinting my 2008 letter.

Yes, I believe that Ken Rosenburg wants to turn Mountain View into Taipei in order to make more money.

i am glad that there are candidates, Lisa Matichak, Mercedes Salem and Jim Neal, who respect and protect our neighborhoods.

Obviously, you are jealous that we were bright enough to buy our home when we did. However we were not as smart as out neighbor, as we paid twice as much as our neighbors who were original owners.




s


11 people like this
Posted by Ken Rosenberg
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2014 at 11:13 pm

As a first-time candidate, I've learned some new things about both Mountain View and local politics. As I walk our neighborhoods, I've met for the first time many new residents who impress me with their talent, optimism, and love for our community. They are why Mountain View is such a great place to live and raise a family.

I've also learned that like national and state politics, local candidates are sometimes opposed or assisted by outside forces known as independent expenditures. These efforts operate outside the campaigns that are run by us, the candidates. We frequently don't know much about them and have absolutely no control over their actions. In fact, they are legally required to operate independently.

I'm among the candidates in Mountain View who are being assisted by an independent expenditure (along with Lisa, Ellen, Pat, and Margaret...thus far). To date, mailers on my behalf and on behalf of the other candidates have been positive and civil. As I have no control over these expenditures or their content since I cannot legally coordinate or even talk with these with groups, I can only hope to influence them by making a public appeal.

I publicly urge all independent expenditure committees spending money in Mountain View, whether they are supporting me or other candidates, to produce materials that are fact-based, honest, respectful, and positive.

I'm running my campaign in this fashion, as I pride myself and our city on being civil, inclusive, and collaborative. For the sake of all candidates and the City of Mountain View, I hope the independent expenditure groups will do the same.


6 people like this
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 11:20 pm

@Ken Rosenberg,

Ken, what commitments have you made to the National Association of Realtors in exchange for the $26,680 spent on your behalf for mailers and polling. Why don't you come clean?

Ken, what commitments have you made to the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition from LONG BEACH, which spent $12,293 on your behalf? Why don't you come clean?

Why did you tell me that building a lot of housing along El Camino Real was important and that the increased traffic was not your concern? Why don't you come clean?


6 people like this
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 11:24 pm

@Christopher Chiang,

How can you be sure that Ken Rosenburg does not control, or even know about, the National Association of Realtors and the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition spending large sums on his behalf?


4 people like this
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 11:31 pm

@Mountain View Mom,

Obviously you don't think that I have a right to state my opinion.

Are you telling me that I should be concerned about my safety because I use my real name?

Like John Hancock, I don't feel a need to hide.


12 people like this
Posted by hmmm....
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 16, 2014 at 12:38 am

@ Konrad Sosnow
We can not be 100% that there was no communication between Rosenberg and the Realtors or Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition but we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

@Ken Rosenberg
The fact remains almost 40,000.00 dollars was spent in support of you from interests that are outside of our area.

Do you really think they are supporting you out of the goodness of their heart? No.

Because they are charitable and have money to burn? No.

They are supporting you because they want things from you, things they know you will give them. They want to make decisions for our city and they know you are the person they can get it from.

As a voter, the point isn't if Rosenberg knew or didn't know. The point is that a very large sum of money was spent on him by groups that have an agenda for our city.

There is no denying it - it is a fact that the money was spent and it is a fact that the groups are spending it in a very deliberate way.

I don't want any interests outside our area influencing our city.


6 people like this
Posted by critical thinker
a resident of another community
on Oct 16, 2014 at 8:14 am

I think people are missing the obvious. Mountain View needs housing. That's it, in a nutshell. So who is going to want a candidate that supports constructing new housing? All the businesses that are in the business of construction and real estate. The analogy is parents who want a good education for their children. They put together a coalition and put out information for the candidate who believes in a strong educational system. In either case, the candidates have nothing to do with the information being sent to the homes. It really is this simple.

Many businesses have offices located throughout the state, and their main office is located in a city, which translates into all business decisions are finalized from that one office. Hence, the reasoning for the Long Beach office.

I also believe people are forgetting how contracts are awarded. Correct me if I am wrong, contracts are not awarded through City Council but through the appropriate departments who are in charge of the projects. City Council has to approve the proposed money, but the work is awarded by the departments.


9 people like this
Posted by hmmm....
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 16, 2014 at 9:01 am

@critical thinker

So now you are making justifications for shady soft money in our local politics.

The point is keep outside money out of local politics. Nothing is for free and shadowy groups like the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition don't go around spending tens of thousands of dollars for nothing.


11 people like this
Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 16, 2014 at 10:05 am

Jim Neal is a registered user.

I am happy to say that so far, the special interests have gotten the message where my campaign is concerned. I have made it crystal clear to all special interests groups that I do not want their endorsements or money, even if I answer their questionaires. All the donations to my campaign are from Mountain View residents. I am sure that the special interests have also seen in the City Council meetings the last 3 years, that I have been unwavering in my support of residents and Mountain View small businesses, so they have not invested a single penny on my campaign.

I am not running for State or National office, but to become a member of the Mountain View City Council, so it never even occurred to me to raise money from other cities, let alone other states! How on earth could I say that I want to represent the interests of the residents of Mountain View if I was getting money from special interests and/or people and groups all over the country?

This election, residents can send a clear message as to who they want to represent them and what role special interest money and big money politics will play in elections to come. I have put in a lot of hard work and hard earned money to get my message out, and win/or lose I am proud of the 100% local campaign that I have run. The final decision is yours.


Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
Web Link (Campaign Website)


14 people like this
Posted by Lisa Matichak
a resident of North Whisman
on Oct 16, 2014 at 10:39 am

I've lived in Mountain View for 15 years. This is the first time I have seen independent expenditures like the ones we are seeing for this election. The scale, secrecy and tactics, as well as the location of one organization are concerning. I'm wondering if reputable organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Chamber of Commerce approved of the use of their logos. I am endorsed by the Sierra Club and they provided me with the "Sierra Club Endorsed" logo if I wanted to use it. They specifically said that use of their general logo was prohibited. And who is behind the Long Beach-based Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition and why are they making large independent expenditures supporting 3 candidates? I'm thankful they have not done anything for me.

The South Bay Labor Council is the only organization that has made an independent expenditure supporting me and it was for $1,615. The SBLC represents residents/workers in Mountain View and the majority of the candidates sought their endorsement through a lengthy questionnaire and interview. Their mailer clearly identifies the SBLC as the one sending it and it does not leverage other organizations or make questionable statements/promises.


5 people like this
Posted by R u for real
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Oct 16, 2014 at 11:10 am

Assuming the above comment is from Ms. Matichek, she is uniformed about previous elections. There have always been indendent expenditures from outside groups besides unions. The SBLC represents only some resident workers and not all workers in Mountian View. It also represents members who are not Mtn. view Residents. They are a special interest group and I won't embarrass you like Mr. Sosnow and make false insinuations about their endorsement of you and what they want in return. Let's just say the SBLC does not represent all workers in Mtn View and pursues policies that are not in the interest of all Mtn View residents. They don't support a workers right to vote on whether or not they would want to join a union, they support MW which raises the cost of low skill workers relative to their members in order have a cost advantage. Finally they support binding arbitration and prevailing wages which removes the right the right of cities to control labor costs.


5 people like this
Posted by concerned citizen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 16, 2014 at 11:39 am

"R u for real" - You are misquoting Ms. Matichak. She did not say that these are the first outside expenditures that have ever occurred in MV, but rather,

"This is the first time I have seen independent expenditures like the ones we are seeing for this election. The scale, secrecy and tactics, as well as the location of one organization are concerning."

As for the labor endorsement of the 3 EPC candidates, obviously the organization felt that those candidates will tend to help their policies in one way or another. The source of the expenditure is stared clearly on the mailer.

The "NEC" expenditure on behalf of Rosenberg is comparatively huge, and the source of the money seems to have been obscured. Also, it is not clear what the NEC's motivation is for spending this kind of money to get Rosenberg elected. As far as I know, outside money has not come in on this scale in previous elections. If anyone knows of a precedent, I hope they will let us know with a comment.

Again, I hope the Voice will look into this.


7 people like this
Posted by Whatever
a resident of another community
on Oct 16, 2014 at 12:03 pm

this conversation is tiring.

The same organization that did a flyer for Ken also did one for Ellen and Pat. I'm guessing they'll do one for Lisa, too. All these posts will be for naught if that is the case and I'll just laugh because the motives here are clear: to take down a qualified candidate (Rosenberg). Lisa, you should be ashamed at your supporters. Konrad is a listed endorser on your election filings. Let's see you renounce his words. He is a bully, he doesn't like new people in town and he hates people who don't have the same financial advantages he enjoys. He is a case study in egocentricism.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think this reflects poorly on Lisa Matichak. She is clearly in support of ideas that are so unpopular that her surrogates (and now she, herself) have to attack. Welcome to negative campaigning in the era of the internet. So sad for Mountain View.


9 people like this
Posted by Lenny Siegel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 16, 2014 at 12:21 pm

I do not like the way political campaigns are funded in this country, but I'm not on the Supreme Court.

As a Council candidate I am keenly aware of the campaign process. And I have seen no evidence that any candidate - whether I agree or disagree - has done anything inappropriate to receive outside support.

Since the campaign began, we candidates have been deluged with questionnaires and interview requests. Most of us have filled out most or all of the questionnaires. Most, but not all of us, have been interviewed individually or in groups. I have done "endorsement interviews" with organizations that I did not expect to endorse me simply to keep the lines of communications open. As far as I know, all of the engaged organizations have members who live, work, or do business in Mountain View. However, many of them make their endorsements based on factors that are not the primary issues in our campaigns.

As a result of such questionnaires and interviews, we have received endorsements. Some of those endorsements brought contributions, which as far as I know we all reported. For example, I received a $500 donation, more than I expected, from the League of Conservation Voters.

In addition, independent committees associated with some of the organizations have started sending out mailers in support of the candidates they endorsed. To my knowledge, no group is sending a mailer on my behalf, but the grassroots Mountain View Voters for Housing Diversity has been going door to door in support of me and two other candidates.

The key thing about the mailers is that the independent committees are by law forbidden from coordinating with the candidates' campaign. The committees extract information and photos from the candidates' web sites.

I believe it is a good thing that candidates meet with special interest and public interest groups. [I define public interest as the groups I agree with. :) ] It's up to voters to evaluate candidates based upon who is supporting them.

Those who send mailers are required by law to identify themselves. I suggest that we should all be suspicious of groups whose names and web sites obscure which interests they represent. For example, I don't know who the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition really represents. So I am unlikely to support or oppose a candidate based upon its mailing.

Finally, though most of my contributions have been small donations from Mountain View residents. To the best of my knowledge, I have not sought nor accepted financial support from businesses that depend upon city approval for their activities. (One developer actually offered to donate.) I have, however, accepted small donations from old friends and family members who live outside of Mountain View.

Lenny


9 people like this
Posted by Please, Help us Voice
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 16, 2014 at 1:08 pm

This question of Lisa M's must be answered: "who is behind the Long Beach-based Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition and why are they making large independent expenditures supporting 3 candidates?"

Please investigate! This is very troubling.


5 people like this
Posted by Mountain View Mom
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 16, 2014 at 1:53 pm

MV Voice: If you opt to pursue this story idea, please also quantify investments being made by AFL-CIO and other groups, which are also investing in our local campaign.


6 people like this
Posted by yes whatever
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 16, 2014 at 2:32 pm

@whatever

"Lisa, you should be ashamed at your supporters. Konrad is a listed endorser on your election filings. Let's see you renounce his words. He is a bully, he doesn't like new people in town and he hates people who don't have the same financial advantages he enjoys. He is a case study in egocentricism"

Great comments. Of course Ms. Maticjek cannot control Mr. Sosnow any more than she can control independent PACS spending money on her campaign. However, its time for Mr. Sosnow to put up or shut up. If he really thinks Mr. Rosenberg violated the elections laws as he somehow claims to know, he should file a complaint with the FPPC. Otherwise he is just blowing a lot of smoke.


5 people like this
Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 16, 2014 at 2:43 pm

It is nice to know where Konrad has been coming from. Keep everything the way it was! The political term for that is not conservative - it's reactionary. So, rant on Konrad! I'm pretty sure the extremely informed Lisa M. will not get outside - independent support from this NEC group. Did anyone pay attention that these is a More Development - more density/ Less or No Development - less density split?
But Lisa is great! Highly informed, well spoken and seems a good thinker. Ken is also highly informed, well spoken and seems a good thinker! They would obviously be splitting votes on some development issues. FANTASTIC. Good discussion, back and forth etc. Did you see how many of the "anti-growth" (supposedly) council people voted for high density El Camino urban corners? Love my council- and will love the next.


6 people like this
Posted by another MV mom
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 16, 2014 at 2:44 pm

Regarding "outside" money and endorsements, where exactly is the line between inside and outside of MV? Most of our MVPD officers and MVFD firefighters live outside MV, such as in Fremont. If you don't live in MV and don't vote in MV, does that make you an outsider? What about endorsements from local politicians, such as city council members of adjacent communities, county supervisors, state legislators? Is Joe Simitian, for example, an insider or an outsider? Lots of organizations have their headquarters elsewhere. Are we saying that Google can contribute only to MV candidates, Apple to only Cupertino candidates, etc? Even though both commercial and non-profit organizations may have offices/facilities in numerous different geographic locations? In this global society and Bay area region, who's an insider and who's an outsider?


8 people like this
Posted by hmmm....
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 16, 2014 at 4:25 pm

@another mountain view mom
You clearly don't know much about local officials - Joe Simitian represents Mountain View, we are a part of his district. MV Fire and Police are clearly not outsiders regardless of where the individuals reside because the organizations are integral to the city of Mountain View.

Out of the area means - out side of the area like Long Beach and Chicago.

When a company donates you exactly who they are and why they are doing it.

The Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition is exactly the opposite of that. They have purposefully hidden who they are and why they are spending this money in our town.


4 people like this
Posted by critical thinker
a resident of another community
on Oct 16, 2014 at 9:25 pm

to hmmmm...

I believe you are mixing up "justification" with "explanation" for how a process occurs.


11 people like this
Posted by outrageous
a resident of Slater
on Oct 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Outrageous amounts of money being spent by the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition. Who are these people?? And what do they want with our city??

We know one thing - they know that by supporting Ken Rosenberg, Ellen Kamei, and Pat Showalter they will get what they want. They know these candidates will do as they say.

Money already spent by outside groups on these people:

Ken Rosenberg - over 42,000 dollars by the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition and National Association of Realtors Fund

Ellen Kamei - over 16,000 dollars spent by the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition

Pat Showalter - over 12,000 dollars spent by the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition


11 people like this
Posted by Time to say no !
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 17, 2014 at 6:15 pm

It's time to say a big loud NO to special interest groups that are trying to buy our city , don't vote for the people they are supporting !


3 people like this
Posted by Not a fan
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 17, 2014 at 6:27 pm

"Outrageous amounts of money being spent by the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition. Who are these people?? And what do they want with our city"

It's easy. Go to their website and read up on what they support.


7 people like this
Posted by concerned citizen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 17, 2014 at 8:34 pm

By all means, check their website. Here it is: Web Link

Here's a quote from the "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition" page that is linked to above:

"Local elections are rarely an even playing field, and in recent years, lopsided spending in local elections has prevented many local campaigns from being a fair representation of local needs. Special interest spending tends to overlook the true need of the constituency. Local elections should be about the issues not about who raised the most money."

Ironic, isn't it?

Here are the NEC’s sources of money: Web Link

I really hope to see an article in next week’s Voice that will shed some light on all this.


3 people like this
Posted by Christopher Chiang
a resident of North Bayshore
on Oct 17, 2014 at 9:27 pm

Can someone who is making those exact dollar amount claims regarding how much independent groups are spending on MV candidates share a link that verifies those dollar amounts.

Until we see a link, those numbers see very high.


6 people like this
Posted by Lilly
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 17, 2014 at 9:57 pm

@ Christopher Chiang, This is the link look at the forms 496

Web Link


7 people like this
Posted by concerned citizen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 17, 2014 at 10:40 pm

@Christopher Chiang,

Looking through the forms 496 on the City website (see the link in Lilly's post above), I misread the numbers in my earlier post. The "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition" did not contribute $38,000 to elect Rosenberg. On the 496 filed on October 16, the NEC's "cumulative to date" is listed as $16,390.66.

The National Association of Realtors at first (Oct. 8) reported their support for Rosenberg as $26,680.50, but later (form 496, Oct. 16) amended that to $18,930.50.

Total outside support from these organizations to date is $35,321.16. It's still a lot of money. My apologies for the earlier inaccuracy - I hope I got it right this time.

The other candidates' forms are at same place on the city website. I haven't looked closely at them yet.


9 people like this
Posted by no outside $$
a resident of Rex Manor
on Oct 18, 2014 at 9:38 pm

Over $35,000 is still a very big amount of money especially since he couldn't raise the limit of $23,000.00 on his own..


6 people like this
Posted by Lilly
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2014 at 10:51 pm

From the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition web site ( under "Our Agenda" ):

" The NEC weighs in on campaigns all over California on behalf of candidates who stay true to our mission statement."
Web Link


I thought the candidates are supposed to stay true to the voters of Mountain View that they are asking to represent. Also how do these people know that Ken Rosenberg, Ellen Kamei and Pat Showalter will be true to the NEC "Agenda"? Have they made an oath?

The more I dig into this, the worse it gets !


9 people like this
Posted by argh
a resident of Slater
on Oct 21, 2014 at 5:18 am

I keep getting mailers from the purposefully ambiguous neighborhood empowerment coalition that tell me to vote for rosenberg, kamei, and showalter. The more mail I get from this group the more sure I am that I will not be voting for the 3 candidates they are pushing.


4 people like this
Posted by Sparty
a resident of another community
on Oct 21, 2014 at 6:01 am

Sparty is a registered user.

"Posted by concerned citizen


"R u for real" - You are misquoting Ms. Matichak. She did not say that these are the first outside expenditures that have ever occurred in MV, but rather..."


You are misquoting as well. R u for real didn't give a time frame...the last 15 years in this case. Only that there were outside expenditures.


8 people like this
Posted by argh
a resident of Slater
on Oct 21, 2014 at 8:21 am

Remember this article: Council race: phone survey raises questions
"The phone surveys have become a topic of discussion around town, with some people contacting the Voice to say that they find the surveys "disturbing" and an intrusion." Web Link

So now we know who did this disturbing poll. It was the National Association of Realtors Fund and they did it to support Ken Rosenberg. According to the records they spent almost 8,000.00 to do the poll.

Another reason not vote for candidates that are backed by outside interest groups. The National Association of Realtors Fund is from Chicago.


9 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 21, 2014 at 5:29 pm

Big money coming to a candidate's support, whether they know of it or not, is stimulated by what the candidate stands for. In the case of Ken Rosenberg, Ellen Kamei, & Pat Showalter, one-to-one conversations of sufficient length and depth with each of these individuals will reveal what they want done in MV, and what all three support in MV is the construction of lots of housing developments.

Big money stands to gain from doing this. Rents all over MV will soar and the rich will get richer. Infrastructure will fail to stretch as far as magical thinking assumes it will and we'll be in a messed up city gone wrong. Concrete flanking us along all arterials, glass reflecting into our eyes from the walls of windows, traffic at a stand still, and worse.

And when insightful and honestly outspoken Konrad Sosnow speaks this truth that he discovered from speaking directly with a candidate, a few shallow thinkers go for his throat. Wake up and see the obvious motivations of the out-of-the-area financial supporters of the stack 'n pack 'em, high density, high rise construction and vote accordingly.

It is increasingly clear to see who isn't rushing to build us into a hell on earth, but rather supports wise, intelligent, and well considered construction, that others have mentioned above in they support of: Mercedes Salem, Jim Neal, and Lisa Matichak, who obviously received a pittance of workers' union support because her plan for sustaining older neighborhoods preserves some housing that working class people can afford to live in.


8 people like this
Posted by concerned citizen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2014 at 9:09 am

Outside money for Ken Rosenberg now totals $46,729.16.

There is a new filing (10/21/14) on the city's website that updates the "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition" expenditures in support of his candidacy. The new NEC total to date is $27,798.66. Add to that the $18,930.50 from the National Association of Realtors.

Again - Could the Voice please look into this? What exactly is the NEC, and why are they pouring this money in?


7 people like this
Posted by Lilly
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2014 at 11:34 am

@ Concerned citizen,

There is a new form 496 filled on oct 17 from NEC, also for Ellen Kamei total expenditure to date $19,242,67

Web Link

And Pat Showalter Oct 17 from NEC total expenditure to date $15,505,67

Web Link


7 people like this
Posted by R. U. Kidding
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2014 at 12:37 pm

Why would the Voice want to look into anything? They've got their favorites whom they go out of their way to support. I'm surprised they even admitted this.


6 people like this
Posted by Chris
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 22, 2014 at 12:39 pm

@Lilly and even if they spent $ 500 000 on a candidate, it is not illegal, the candidate has no say in it, they can't even stop it. The good news: in MV we have only seen positive mailings. It could be a lot worse, IE mailers have done negative ads in other cities and elections.


5 people like this
Posted by concerned citizen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2014 at 1:02 pm

@Chris, Of course, you are right that it is not illegal, and the candidates probably could not stop it even if they wanted to.

The candidates may be shutting their eyes on this, but they probably could find out exactly what the NEC is, and why the money is being directed in, if they wanted to. Ken and Ellen, in particular, seem to be politically well-connected.

If they do look into it, I hope they will let us know.

Maybe it's too much to expect from the Voice, but reporting on these contributions would be the responsible thing to do. I can always hope.


8 people like this
Posted by Lilly
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2014 at 1:33 pm

@Chris,

I never said that is illegal, but this quote from the NEC web site makes me very suspicious on the nature of The relationship the Candidate has with the NEC " NEC weighs in on campaigns all over California on behalf of candidates who stay true to our mission statement. " Web Link

If they stay true to the NEC, how they can stay true to the residents of Mountain
View ?

You stated " The good news: in MV we have only seen positive mailings. It could be a lot worse, IE mailers have done negative ads in other cities and elections."

Is it really good news that the people that are trying to manipulate the elections in our city for obscure reasons, and with a lot of money, are doing it using a good dose of lubricant ,so we will be screwed but happy?

It seems that some people will make any excuse for their candidate, even with hard evidence staring them in the face.


11 people like this
Posted by Obvious Truth about It
a resident of Slater
on Oct 24, 2014 at 6:09 pm

Lilly:

I agree with your candidate choices of Lisa Matichak (knowledgeable of every part of MV and of all projects coming down the pipeline + not afraid to speak out to make these proposed projects better to fit in the neighborhoods they are proposed for), Mercedes Salem (catches the fine print & is not easily fooled by the "tail wagging the dog" since she is an attorney in Family Law, which also puts her in touch with real people and families).

But look to Jim Neal as your third candidate. He attends all the city meetings. He reads & studies their reports. He cares about the residents of MV. He is bold enough to speak up when we need him to stand against idiocy from our so powerful city council.

Ken Rosenberg is nice enough to fool anybody, but as he is backed by big money and concerns from afar, short of him making deals with them, he must already be doing their will as the thinking for MV's future he actually came up with himself. What else but these possibilities would entice them to donate to his campaign? Either they bribed him, but more likely, THEY LIKED THE IDEAS HE WAS PROPOSING as beneficial to their big money profits and therefore backed him. We do not need either of these possibilities! Definitely stick to the three candidates I've explained above, not Ken!


10 people like this
Posted by outraged
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 26, 2014 at 9:05 pm

The best way and the ONLY way to speak up is to not vote for the people getting the outside money. That way these outside special interests will know that they can't by us and that their money is the kiss of death for a candidate.


10 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 28, 2014 at 1:12 pm

I agree completely with "Outraged" and "Obvious Truth About It" (both posted immediately above).

We needn't debate if Ken Rosenberg even knew about donations coming to his campaign from far away cities like Chicago and/or Los Angeles, etc., as the red flag to us would be that these donors selected him, not visa versa. His enabling attitudes to big developers' goals set them up to want to help him, whether he actually encouraged that help or was completely unaware of it.

The point is to vote for and help those candidates who state from the get that they accept only LOCAL donations from local people, NOT CORPORATIONS! Hence I'm with "Obvious Truth About It" in selecting Lisa Mercedes, Jim Neal, and Mercedes Salem! They represent the silent majority of MV in their stand on protecting the quality of life around here by careful, thoughtful growth, not just anything developers want to throw at this city.

Monstrous project do not make appropriate infill to a neighborhood, as it so overwhelms them that it wrecks them, plus overwhelms the support infrastructure, further gridlocks the traffic snarl, etc. The big builders who want to build big, no matter what happens, will donate to the candidates who they believe will let them do the most of this.

And do not fall for the "simple supply & demand" argument that more building is always good since it will reduce demand for housing. It actually increases it. The more modern new stuff that goes up, the more new people want to come to live in MV!

So, again, who the donation comes from is the point, not whether it was solicited or even know by the candidate! See who the outside $$ comes to and take that as a cautionary tale and just avoid them. In addition to a possible conflict of interest with the Water Board if she were elected to city council, the "source of donations problem" goes for Pat Showalter also, as well as some others, I hear. Look into it for yourselves!


6 people like this
Posted by Only Neal
a resident of Rex Manor
on Oct 28, 2014 at 4:22 pm

If people are not going to vote for candidates that have received endorsements or spending from outside groups, that leaves only Jim Neal to vote for. Everyone else has accepted money, or endorsements from outside groups.


4 people like this
Posted by Irony
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 28, 2014 at 7:49 pm

This argument to vote for people who don't attract interest of anybody except MV residents is funny on its face. Most of these candidates aren't viable for a reason.

Linda, why are you in favor of Lisa? She fails your litmus test of being selected by outside groups spending thousands of dollars on her behalf. Clearly they want something in return, yes? You should either renounce your own statement or publicly say you aren't supporting her.




9 people like this
Posted by Not so ironic
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 28, 2014 at 8:26 pm

The difference between the money Lisa has received is that she actually went and sought out those endorsements and then those groups gave her money. Plus those groups are local and are completely transparent. You can go on their website, you can see who is running them, and you can see what they stand for.


5 people like this
Posted by Not so Ironic if
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Oct 28, 2014 at 8:59 pm

Not so ironic if the candidate is not asking, or better yet has a statement in his web site that tells he only accepts donations from Mountain View residents like Jim Neal did from the very beginning of the campaign!

Please Donate to My Campaign
I can't change Mountain View without your help. Your donations of $99 or less will help me to get my message out and win in November.

Please note that I can only accept donations from Mountain View residents or those that own small businesses here. All other donations will need to be refunded. Thanks for your support!

Jim Neal

Web Link


10 people like this
Posted by concerned citizen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2014 at 12:11 am

@Irony - you wrote, "Linda, why are you in favor of Lisa? She fails your litmus test of being selected by outside groups spending thousands of dollars on her behalf."

Let's get some facts straight, my friend. Matichak has received just $1,615 in outside support, from the AFL-CIO. That's it.

Ken Rosenberg's campaign has been supported with $58,576 in outside money, to date - $31,896 from the ironically-named "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition", plus $26,680 more from the National Association of Realtors.

Ellen Kamei received $19,243 in support from the NEC, and Pat Showalter $15,506. These figures are all from City records (Web Link).

The NEC is a "shadowy" organization (as described in a recent Voice article), that seems to exist mainly for the purpose of obscuring the actual source of the disbursed funds. Sources of funding for the NEC include the California Apartment Association. The CAA, in turn, is funded by developers and landlords, including many Bay Area companies, among them MV apartment heavyweight Prometheus.

Matichak will bring some sense to the council. Rosenberg, Showalter, and Kamei could be counted on to vote for faster, denser development, if elected. That's why the NEC and NAR have spent so lavishly on these three candidates.

I'm voting Matichak, Salem, and Neal. They are our best bet.


5 people like this
Posted by Just Curious
a resident of Whisman Station
on Oct 29, 2014 at 9:53 am

@ concerned citizen

What is the threshold for your decision? Clearly, it is acceptable to you that Lisa has received some outside dollars. What if she got $5,000? $10,000? $50,000?

You do know that this is 100% out of her control, right? So if a group came forward with a huge advertisement in the Mercury News and also a TV commercial to be aired during the World Series (i.e., very expensive) on Lisa's behalf, would that change your mind? If so, why? Would you then consider her 'bought'?

I bet this wouldn't change your mind at all. You have your candidates and you wish to support them. No problem, that's called democracy. But to disparage other candidates for actions they had no control over is intellectually dishonest.

Lastly, I find Jim Neal's pledge to only accept money from Mountain View laudable and laughable at the same time. I think it's fine to only accept campaign donations from people/organizations that are local. But how would Jim (or his supporters) react if this NEC group spent $10,000 on a mailer for him? He'd have no control at all. Then what would he say? He'd condemn the mailer...and...what? The mailer would would be out, no way to stop it. By the definition of the various people on this thread, he'd be as tainted as the other candidates. But of course he wouldn't, because that's just silly. He'd still be the same guy, same values, same ideas, etc. And you'd still support him.


9 people like this
Posted by Dumb Curiousity
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2014 at 10:28 am

@Just Curious.. Are you curious? Your message doesn't seem to indicate any curiosity--just a lack of intelligence.

NEC is an organization that is funded by property developers wishing to profit on the reduction of livability of communities. When they endorse a candidate by spending tens of thousands on their candidacy, it is fair to assume that they share a similar ideology to the candidate.

There may be nothing personally wrong with the pro ultra-high density development candidates, but they are not going to get my vote. That is not a disparagement. Just a fact.


4 people like this
Posted by Just Curious
a resident of Whisman Station
on Oct 29, 2014 at 10:45 am

Oooh, it's sticks and stones time!

You've just proved my point. Thank you.


6 people like this
Posted by Only Neal
a resident of Rex Manor
on Oct 29, 2014 at 10:47 am

Great comments especially by Just Curious. The claim that candidates can control independent expenditures or knew about them is pure hyperbole. Candidates can control who they post as endorsements. Public Unions dont endorse unless they get promises from the candidate to support Union concessions at the expense of city residents. I will not vote for any candidate supported by Unions


6 people like this
Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2014 at 12:00 pm

Jim Neal is a registered user.

Here is a very good question that someone asked:

"Lastly, I find Jim Neal's pledge to only accept money from Mountain View laudable and laughable at the same time. I think it's fine to only accept campaign donations from people/organizations that are local. But how would Jim (or his supporters) react if this NEC group spent $10,000 on a mailer for him? He'd have no control at all. Then what would he say?"

Here is my answer:

I would say that they are wasting their money! In the last election and this one, I have made a point to tell every special interest group (most of them in writing) that I am not interested in their endorsements. I have spent the last 3 years standing up to special interests at City Council and Planning Commission meetings and telling them I am only interested in representing residents. The fact that not one penny of special interest money has been spent on my campaign should prove to anyone that it can be done!

Once you allow one special interest to support you, they call all their other special interest buddies and say "Hey, this candidate is with us, we need you to spend some money to get her/him in, only don't say anything to him/her so they legally can stay under the spending limit".

I find it amazing that people say there is too much money and special interest influence in politics, and then when someone comes along that rejects them, that person is criticized for lack of same.

If people elect candidates like me, that have not had any special interest money spent on their behalf, it won't take long for them to get the message that Mountain View IS NOT FOR SALE! However, if the candidates that received the most special interest money are elected, what kind of a message do you think THAT will send? In a few years, we could get to the point where only the affluent are able to run and will have to purchase TV time just to compete. It's your decision Mountain View.

Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
Web Link ( Campaign Website )


8 people like this
Posted by concerned citizen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2014 at 12:27 pm

@Just Curious - Those are good questions. Let me see if I can answer them:

My decision to support Matichak, Salem, and Neal had nothing to do with outside funding, and was made before these rather massive expenditures for Rosenberg/Showalter/Kamei came to light.

I decided to support Matichak, Salem, and Neal on the basis of their public statements in print, on their websites, and at the candidate forums.

In the case of Lisa Matichak, her track record on the EPC makes her an obvious choice for those of us who do not want to turn the city over to developers. Neal has been making public position statements for years, most of which (not all) I agree with, and is deeply knowledgeable about city government, having attended nearly every Council and EPC meeting in the last three years. Salem is a newcomer to city politics, but I like her positions on development and neighborhood preservation, especially her proposal to cut in half the amount of new office space proposed for North Bayshore.

Rosenberg and Showalter I rejected because they (along with Siegel and Unangst) have been crystal clear about their intentions to radically increase housing development, building as much as possible, as quickly as possible, in what I see as a futile, destructive effort to “balance” jobs with housing. Kamei (along with Capriles) has a record at the EPC of going along with developers’ agendas. In Kamei’s case, I think she may have longer-term political ambitions, and does not wish to offend those with economic and political clout.

The revelations about outside funding only confirmed my views about Rosenberg/Showalter/Kamei. Rosenberg has received $58,576 in outside funding, an amount that makes a mockery of the $22,689 voluntary limit that the candidates agreed to. The source of this money is apparently largely realtors/developers, but much of it is hard to track, as it has been routed through the cynically-named “Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition”. Ellen Kamei has received $19,243 in support from the NEC, and Pat Showalter $15,506.

If Lisa Matichak, Mercedes Salem, or Jim Neal had received nearly $60,000 in outside money from these sources, I would not support them. If any of them had received $15,000-20,000 in support from these sources, I’d do some serious rethinking.

I have never blamed or “disparaged” Rosenberg, Showalter or Kamei for receiving the funding, or suggested that they had any personal role in obtaining it. However, I think that those who provided the funding are pretty certain that these candidates will support their interests. Again - the source of much of this money has been deliberately obscured, but seems to have come from developers. It is not a trivial matter, and is worth considering, when trying to foresee what we can expect from a candidate if elected.


4 people like this
Posted by BayAreaBill
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 29, 2014 at 5:06 pm

The US Supreme court repeatedly has ruled that political speech is the highest form of protected speech under the US Constitution's 1st Amendment. They also have ruled that spending money on advocacy advertising is politically protected speech. So, for all of the uneducated idealists out there who think that such speech should be curtailed, guess what? It can't --- unless you can convince Congress and the States to ratify an amendment to the US Constitution. Guess what? You won't. Live with it. It's the law.


7 people like this
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 29, 2014 at 5:35 pm

Speaking of the 2010 SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, which is what I believe BayAreaBill is indirectly referring to in his post up thread....

Snipped from a Sept. 2014 Jeffrey Rosen Sept. interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

"JR: What’s the worst ruling the current Court has produced?

RBG: If there was one decision I would overrule, it would be Citizens United. I think the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be. So that’s number one on my list. ..."

It's a fascinating interview. Here's the link to the entire interview if anyone wants to read it...

Web Link


5 people like this
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 29, 2014 at 5:59 pm

Random: I just received a mailer paid for by the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition imploring me - via a voice chip embedded into the mailer - to NOT vote for someone using a sound byte from the candidate they are negatively campaigning AGAINST

That is one EXPENSIVE negative campaign mailer.


9 people like this
Posted by Hmm...
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2014 at 7:46 pm

Does anyone else wonder if Google is behind the Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition?


3 people like this
Posted by Lilly
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2014 at 8:20 pm

@ MVResident67

Can you be more clear please as to which candidate they are campaigning against ?


5 people like this
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 29, 2014 at 9:52 pm

@Lilly:

The negative campaign mailer with embedded voice chip was related to the race for Santa Clara County Water District. I am reluctant to say who the ad was attacking because it seems like doing so would only further the agenda of the attack mailer, and I don't want to participate in that sort of thing, regardless of who the candidate is.

Watch your mailbox as you may be receiving one of those mailers soon, too.


8 people like this
Posted by rainbow38
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 7:32 am

About the use of "talking" campaign mailers, how many of the batteries attached will end up in the trash? Not very environmentally friendly!


4 people like this
Posted by Anti Union
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 30, 2014 at 9:48 am

If the Union is supporting someone, that is a tipoff that they are for corruption and not for the taxpayer.



9 people like this
Posted by Fed up with negative campaigning
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 9:56 am

The Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition is sending out an extremely negative mailer - with an audio clip - about the Santa Clara Valley Water District campaign. The saddest part is that Gary Kremen's supporters are harming the very institution Gary seeks to help run. Gary may not have anything to do wiyh this directly, but it is indicative of the crowd with whom he runs.

Ironically, the NEC claims to oppose big money in local campaigns, but Gary is spending more than any other Water District candidate in history and so they are supporting a candidate who is not even consistent with their own stated mission. Seems fishy to me.

Brian Schmidt is running a clean campaign, which is a rarity these days.


8 people like this
Posted by NEC go home!
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 10:57 am

I've received two "talking mailers" that contain a voice chip and two button batteries each, from the mysterious NEC of Long Beach.

The first one, supporting Ellen Kamei, was merely misleading, as we'll certainly have 10,000 more cars on Highway 101 if all these new employees have to drive in every day.

The second one states that Brian Schmidt wants us to drink toilet water. This is so ridiculous that one can only infer it is an out-of-context quote about treating wastewater so that it meets the standards of drinkable water, a far cry from drinking straight from the toilet as pictured.

What I do know about Gary Kremen is that he registered the domain name Sex.com and is spending almost a quarter million dollars for a spot on the water board, and said of Silicon Valley "You're nobody here
at $10 million."

Web Link

Why is NEC spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on MV elections when their goal, as stated on their website, is "working to keep local dollars at the local level."

Since I can't toss the mailer in the paper recycling, what the hell do I do with the electronic components? I know how to dispose of batteries but what about all the other stuff?

Can the Voice find out exactly who is behind all this nonsense?

I wish they would just get out of our election and go home.


7 people like this
Posted by NEC go home!
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 10:58 am

I've received two "talking mailers" that contain a voice chip and two button batteries each, from the mysterious NEC of Long Beach.

The first one, supporting Ellen Kamei, was merely misleading, as we'll certainly have 10,000 more cars on Highway 101 if all these new employees have to drive in every day.

The second one states that Brian Schmidt wants us to drink toilet water. This is so ridiculous that one can only infer it is an out-of-context quote about treating wastewater so that it meets the standards of drinkable water, a far cry from drinking straight from the toilet as pictured.

What I do know about Gary Kremen is that he registered the domain name Sex.com and is spending almost a quarter million dollars for a spot on the water board, and said of Silicon Valley "You're nobody here
at $10 million."

Web Link

Why is NEC spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on MV elections when their goal, as stated on their website, is "working to keep local dollars at the local level."

Since I can't toss the mailer in the paper recycling, what the hell do I do with the electronic components? I know how to dispose of batteries but what about all the other stuff?

Can the Voice find out exactly who is behind all this nonsense?

I wish they would just get out of our election and go home.


9 people like this
Posted by NEC go home!
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 10:59 am

I've received two "talking mailers" that contain a voice chip and two button batteries each, from the mysterious NEC of Long Beach.

The first one, supporting Ellen Kamei, was merely misleading, as we'll certainly have 10,000 more cars on Highway 101 if all these new employees have to drive in every day.

The second one states that Brian Schmidt wants us to drink toilet water. This is so ridiculous that one can only infer it is an out-of-context quote about treating wastewater so that it meets the standards of drinkable water, a far cry from drinking straight from the toilet as pictured.

What I do know about Gary Kremen is that he registered the domain name Sex.com and is spending almost a quarter million dollars for a spot on the water board, and said of Silicon Valley "You're nobody here
at $10 million."

Web Link

Why is NEC spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on MV elections when their goal, as stated on their website, is "working to keep local dollars at the local level."

Since I can't toss the mailer in the paper recycling, what the hell do I do with the electronic components? I know how to dispose of batteries but what about all the other stuff?

Can the Voice find out exactly who is behind all this nonsense?

I wish they would just get out of our election and go home.


9 people like this
Posted by Lilly
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 30, 2014 at 11:47 am

The only way to send the NEC home and keep them out of our City is to vote for the people that are special interest free!

My vote is for Jim Neal, he is 100% Mountain View supported no special interest supporters !
Lisa Matichak , and Mercedes Salem .

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by @ critical thinker
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 30, 2014 at 11:57 am

"So it seems to me that the angst experienced by Mr. Sosnow and others, is due to the objection of building an apartment complex that would help to solve the housing shortage"

Obviously, you are not a critical thinker but a google thinker!

What resident would want more people and more traffic to move in to this small town? NONE!!

We do not want this town to look like the slums of googleville or Mumbai.


4 people like this
Posted by Robert
a resident of another community
on Oct 30, 2014 at 12:49 pm

@ @ critical thinker

"What resident would want more people and more traffic to move in to this small town? NONE!!"

Well how do you address the fact that if you live in Mountain View, YOU did exactly that? YOU are one of those "more people"


4 people like this
Posted by NEC go home!
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 2:27 pm

@Lilly, the problem is I personally know some of the candidates who are being endorsed by the mysterious NEC and I have to take them at their word when they say they have had no contact with this group and were as surprised as anyone when they opened their mailbox and saw their own smiling face on these flyers. Much as I'd like to vote against NEC, I can't punish the candidates for the unsolicited actions of some shadowy group.

Thanks, US Supreme Court, for the most corrupt elections that money can buy.


9 people like this
Posted by Lilly
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 30, 2014 at 6:19 pm

@ NEC go home!

I see your point, as you say "the problem is that you know some of the candidates!"
I have lived here long enough to know some of them too, and I do not doubt their word when they say they do not know the NEC and were surprised when they saw all this support for their campaign.

My "problem" is why the NEC has decided to pour in such large sums of money in order to heavily influence the outcome and determine which candidates are elected if not because they are certain they can somehow influence the decisions of these candidates afterward?

My problem is that I know that the decisions that will be made in the coming years will be about things that can not be easily changed once done, or can never be undone.

My responsibility as a voter is not to punish the candidates, but to make sure that my choices do not punish my fellow citizens in the future and do not cause the loss of the identity that we love so much in this city.

I'm sure that candidates who have found themselves in this ugly and ambiguous situation despite their best efforts will agree with me that the common good always comes before our ambitions; and that even if they are not elected because we wanted to send a clear message to those who are trying to buy us and decide our future, that we are not for sale, and that we want to be the ones to decide our future. I am sure those candidates will find a way to continue to give their precious contributions of time and talent to the city!


9 people like this
Posted by Kathy
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Oct 31, 2014 at 4:11 pm

It's all about money. The 'Who We Are' on NEC website is blank, I guess that says it all. Web Link


9 people like this
Posted by hmmm....
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Nov 1, 2014 at 5:29 pm

"I publicly urge all independent expenditure committees...to produce materials that are fact-based, honest, respectful, and positive." This is a direct quote from Ken Rosenberg on Oct 15, 2014 at 11:13 pm.

Well, guess what? The Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition has gone negative in the Santa Clara County Water District race. It's only a matter of time that they will do the same in Mountain View.

We need to keep this group out of our city. The only way to do that is to VOTE NO on Rosenberg, Showalter and Kamei.


10 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 2, 2014 at 3:47 pm

I agree with Lilly's city council picks.

Jm Neal would never receive campaign donations because he would never be any developer's or organization's puppet. Nor would he ever attract them, as he clearly is always standing up only for us, the citizens of MV, to preserve our quality of life and avoid letting the government shove junk down our throats. Where would the big guys make any money on financing him to office? They wouldn't so they won't. Talk on the streets of MV is that Jim Neal is very popular as a candidate. You go, Jim!

We MV citizens know we love Lisa Matichak's respect for us, which she proved everyday on the EPC, and that she knows her way around this town and what's coming down the pipeline that will affect us all. Another very popular candidate to vote for. You go, Lisa!

And Mercedes Matichak is a quick study and displays real genius in her fresh ideas to help the citizens. As an attorney, no one can pull the wool over her eyes in the fine print. She;s working to serve nobody but us. Read her impressive background in government work and her ideas at: [email protected] You go, Mercedes!

I also agree with everythng "Concerned Citizen" has said above. Recall these words:


"@Irony - you wrote, "Linda, why are you in favor of Lisa? She fails your litmus test of being selected by outside groups spending thousands of dollars on her behalf."

Let's get some facts straight, my friend. Matichak has received just $1,615 in outside support, from the AFL-CIO. That's it.

Ken Rosenberg's campaign has been supported with $58,576 in outside money, to date - $31,896 from the ironically-named "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition", plus $26,680 more from the National Association of Realtors.

Ellen Kamei received $19,243 in support from the NEC, and Pat Showalter $15,506. These figures are all from City records (Web Link).

The NEC is a "shadowy" organization (as described in a recent Voice article), that seems to exist mainly for the purpose of obscuring the actual source of the disbursed funds. Sources of funding for the NEC include the California Apartment Association. The CAA, in turn, is funded by developers and landlords, including many Bay Area companies, among them MV apartment heavyweight Prometheus.

Matichak will bring some sense to the council. Rosenberg, Showalter, and Kamei could be counted on to vote for faster, denser development, if elected. That's why the NEC and NAR have spent so lavishly on these three candidates.

I'm voting Matichak, Salem, and Neal. They are our best bet." You are correct, Concerned Citizen!


12 people like this
Posted by Curious Observer
a resident of Jackson Park
on Nov 4, 2014 at 6:30 am

Curious Observer is a registered user.

I'm disappointed with Rosenberg's response to this. I want a candidate who's concerned with where the money is coming from, not someone who sticks his head in the sand and says I have nothing to do with this. It's time to send a message to these interlopers and let them know that their money isn't going to buy a candidate outside of their area. Anyone backed by their money should lose soundly and then maybe the next time a candidate will say "I don't want your $ or endorsement."


5 people like this
Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 4, 2014 at 11:53 am

Jim Neal is a registered user.

That is exactly why I decided not to have any special interest endorsements or donations from the very beginning! People have said it's not possible to keep special interests and big money out of campaigns. I think that I have proven that it is absolutely possible! Not one special interest has spent a single dime on my campaign and win or lose I will remain proud of that fact.


Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
Web Link


3 people like this
Posted by floored
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2014 at 12:12 pm

i'm disgusted

this is a summary of 2 posts from: NEC finances "toilet water" attack ad in Water District race" Original post made on Nov 3, 2014 www.mv-voice.com/square/2014/11/03/nec-finances-toilet-water-attack-ad-in-water-district-race

- NEC's treasurer Gary Crummitt has 2 violations and 1 warning from the FPPC this year alone! see here: Web Link
- in addition, NEC also paid 5,000 dollars to Barry Wyatt Associates
- Barry Wyatt Associates was until recently (it's still in Google's cache) part of Robinson Communication's team see here: Web Link
- and guess who's running Kremen's water district campaign.... Rich Robinson
- Ellen Kamei also used Robinson. She paid Robinson close to 18,000.00 (according to her campaign)for that awful mailer.
- There is a NEC mailer supporting her regarding traffic and then she sends out that mailer about traffic that was created by essentially the same people.
-Gary Kremen and Ellen Kamie share an office space and are having their election night party together.

This is all making sense.

WOW. This is bad.

Maybe the expenditures are truly independent but what a series of coincidences...


3 people like this
Posted by Greg Perry
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 10:48 am


Despite all this, it didn't seem to change the outcome. Candidates with similar policies had similar vote totals. Third place went to a very low budget campaign.





6 people like this
Posted by BvP
a resident of another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 12:45 pm

Didn't seem to change the outcome? Huh? How can you make that statement? Agreed that Siegel was relatively low budget, but both Showalter and Rosenberg received contributions from NEC, likely as a result of their policies. If anything, this would suggest that outside contributions did have an effect.


6 people like this
Posted by Cuesta Neighbor
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:33 pm

This outside money business smells of corruption. Groups using false fronts promoting candidates that will later make decisions that provide large financial benefits to those groups? The same group being used to run dirty campaign tactics for a rich candidate in the water district race? This NEC group appears to be a front for the highest bidder. Everyone involved -- operatives, funders, and beneficiaries -- they are all tainted by this. Will the city council members who have received these financial benefits recuse themselves when those paying come before the council with projects?


4 people like this
Posted by Looks like Outside money worked
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 6, 2014 at 4:23 pm

Looks like outside money and google money worked. More building will be built, more people = more traffic and our infrasture is going to the dogs.

But, for each million dollar 2 bedrooms sold, the property tax will be 10k per year, with a yearly 2% increase. Only google upper class will be able to afford that. So much for affordable houses.

Like the saying goes, build it and they will come. Well that is so true, we could build to the skies like NYC and it still wouldn't be enough. Plus there is no guarantee that the people that buy these new buildings will work in MT. View. So really all we are doing is making more traffic and life miserable for the residents. But MONEY Talks, maybe someone should follow the money trail and find out who put up the money for these Outside mailers.


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

Email:


Post a comment

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

Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

Palo Alto's Mayfield Bakery & Cafe permanently closes after 11-year run
By Elena Kadvany | 18 comments | 15,230 views

City staff is running Palo Alto
By Diana Diamond | 26 comments | 3,263 views

Couples: Are you Committed to your Vows or Dysfunction?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,621 views

Kids and sugar: A cautionary tale
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 1,614 views