Town Square

Post a New Topic

Six square off in heated City Council race

Original post made on Oct 23, 2018

It's a pivotal time for the city of Mountain View, and the stakes have become abundantly clear in this year's City Council election.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, October 23, 2018, 1:57 PM

Comments (29)

Posted by Time to clean out the city council.
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 23, 2018 at 2:28 pm

I believe that the current city council is headed in the wrong direction and it is time that the council members needs to start listening to ALL of the residents.

Vote Yes on

Time for a change!

The other 3 candidates would only be more of the same, if not worse.

Posted by It's about the RVs
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2018 at 2:45 pm

How do we know they'll be a change on street dwelling policy if we vote for them? They all seem to be silent on the issue. Can we get more choices with people who aren't afraid to say "RV's must go"?

No more "Kick the can down the road" politicians needed around these parts. We're already flush with them.

Posted by from MVV
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2018 at 3:02 pm

Inks, who said he had previously been an "urban camper," pointed out that many residents are losing patience with people squatting in their neighborhoods, and he suggested the city needed to stop "subsidizing habits."

Posted by Re-elect only Siegel
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Oct 23, 2018 at 3:10 pm

Re-elect only Siegel is a registered user.

Renters of rent controlled apartment buildings should note that only two candidates for City Council supported rent control Measure V: incumbent Lenny Siegel and Lucas Ramirez. The alternative to Measure V placed on the November 2016 ballot by the pro-landlord City Council (including Pat Showalter) was a scam designed to draw votes away from Measure V. And remember that Showalter supported the VTA's taking the left lanes on El Camino Real for BUSES ONLY - having just told voters otherwise when she ran in 2014.

Posted by Maher
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Oct 23, 2018 at 3:11 pm

VOTE FOR the only true independent running for city council, Alison Hicks. She has the skills, the credentials and the smarts to guide our city through the challenges of this massive growth spurt. Plus, she is not beholden to ANY of the money players. Siegel also refuses to sell himself or his votes to big contributors. INKS sold out long ago. So if you really want independent, ethical people making decisions on the city where you live and how livable it will be... Study who has accepted money from whom. Don't vote theory; vote practice.
I worked on Capital Hill for 10 years in my youth, I can spot a phony from a mile away. Watch the body language... or learn how to read it. Go online and find the instruction videos.

Posted by Love my city
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 23, 2018 at 3:47 pm

I too am ready to replace the incumbents. Our city has been for sale to the highest bidder for years now. We have allowed Google and others in the Tech Industry to roll over our Council. The Candidates who believe that Google has been a good corporate citizen are naive. Google created our jobs/housing crisis, our infrastructure crisis, our soon to be resources crisis. Our Council should be demanding Google (with $$$ BILLIONS in assets) do there part to support our city.

Mr Inks states that MV has too many restrictions and cost pressures on development. MV has built more housing than any city on the Peninsula! More housing won’t lower rents. Less offices will.

This term I’m voting for a Candidate with urban design and planning knowledge and experience before it’s too late!

Posted by Focus on today's issues
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2018 at 4:07 pm

Measure V was the issue 2 years ago, it was voted on and passed by the voters.

Measure V has langauge in it that provents any council from changing it.

Only another ballot measure and people passing it can change Measure V.

Stay focused on today's issues.

I, for one will vote for a change and vote them all out. Rameriz is to young and inexperienced to be on the council.

Posted by Cuesta Park Res
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 23, 2018 at 4:12 pm

Cuesta Park Res is a registered user.

Other than supporting ruinous rent control and supporting the incredibly idealistic and ignorant myth of "affordable housing", my next hot button issue is ENCOURAGING AND SUPPORTING economically and mentally "marginal at best" "street people" to infest and clog MV streets with RV's, vans, and even automobiles. As a pragmatist with the future quality of life in MV as my main issue, MV SHOULD STOP WASTING MONEY ON SOCIAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR ANY STREET PEOPLE --- whether living rough, living in tents and huts, or on streets in RV's, vans, and even automobiles. Give them a strong economic incentive to move to other cities who are more generous. MV doesn't need them. It needs productive, responsible residents. MV could learn a LOT from Los Altos' approach to the homeless.

Posted by MV Res
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 23, 2018 at 4:17 pm

MV Res is a registered user.

To follow up on my previous comments:

Vote against anyone who has supported " Socialistic welfare state for all in MV" --- Lenny, Showalter, and Ramirez. That leaves:


They're the "best of the worst". Face up to reality and not blind idealism.

Posted by Angry voter
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Oct 23, 2018 at 4:35 pm

The city is headed in the wrong direction and city policies have contributed to traffic, congestion, and homelessness. Consider the following with your vote:

- Kamei
- Inks
- Hicks

Seigel (incumbent), Showalter (incumbent), and Ramirez are just more of the same.

Thank you and regardless of your beliefs, please vote!

Posted by Another candidate
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2018 at 4:47 pm

Based on name recognition, I suggest Job Lopez as a write- in candidate for city council. He's immoral unprincipled and willing to do anything to have his way. He'd be a fine council member.

Posted by Follow The Money
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2018 at 9:39 pm

I heard from people who attended a recent candidate forum that Pat Showalter stumbled miserably through and -- essentially evaded -- the question about accepting campaign donations from developers. (Clearly, she did.). She's taken a lot of blowback, justifiably, from when she flipped, post-election, on that ridiculous VTA "rapid" bus plan for El Camino but of more immediate concern is developers funding her campaign and what they expect to get from their investments.

Attn. MV residents: Where the candidates' campaign money comes from should be a HUGE factor in who gets our votes!

Posted by @Follow the Money
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2018 at 9:59 pm

You said, regarding Showalter,
"but of more immediate concern is developers funding her campaign and what they expect to get from their investments."

I noticed that Showalther and Siegel vote the same way on developers issues.

So I take it from your post that you also oppose Siegel and Showalther because they vote the same way.

Posted by NOT MY MAYOR
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2018 at 10:03 pm

It’s time for change. Why is it that Lenny Siegel’s full page MV Voice re-election ad and his website make NO mention of safe parking for RV dwellers, an issue he has put at the top of his agenda, an issue he is passionate about? Is he sidestepping this issue in the interest of keeping his seat? Clearly yes! He has yet to go on a ride-along with Mountain View police to see what they’ve seen with the homeless population. Our Mayor won’t engage with MVPD? Council members are not social al workers, they represent ALL residents of Mountain View.

Time for change. KAMEI-INKS-HICKS

Posted by Please Don't Waste Your Votes
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 24, 2018 at 9:22 am

A little advice, voters: You don't HAVE to cast three votes. If you vote just for your favorite(s), he/she/they stand a better chance than if you were to "throw in" a vote(s) just to match the number of open seats. In that latter, scenario, by voting for a candidate(s) you may not otherwise support simply because you get three votes, you could be inadvertently pushing your preferred candidate(s) lower in the final tally -- and perhaps out of a council seat.

Think about that before you go to the polls.

Posted by No More Destruction to MV
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 24, 2018 at 12:24 pm

@Angry Voter. Cannot agree more!

Seigel and Showalter are leading our city to destruction. They need to be GONE!!
Ramirez is just more of the same.

Vote for
- Kamei
- Hicks
- Inks

Posted by Love my city
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 24, 2018 at 7:40 pm

I appreciate why several of you reccomend voting for Ellen Kamai and Alison Hicks on November 6th. However, John Inks is a surprise as a third choice.
John Inks, who has already had two terms on Council several years ago, is not offering a new vision for MV. Mr. Inks is partially responsible for many of the poor development projects we will now be forced to live with for years to come. Mr. Inks is clearly supporting development of any kind. He believes the market solves all ills.

When we cast our votes for Council Candidates, we must be informed of their past voting records, who is paying for their election and who has the vision and experience to guide our city’s growth into the future? MV deserves to be the best city in California. Our thoughtful votes on November 6th are critical.

Posted by Billy Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 24, 2018 at 11:04 pm

Clearly Siegel and Showalter need to go they are out of touch and dont represent the people who put them in office . Now with Siegels friend Job Lopez vandalizing election signs and new low we need change people .

Posted by No 2 Inks!!!
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 25, 2018 at 8:45 am

Love my city: Correct. I can't understand how anybody could get behind Inks. His campaign platform, if you can call it that, is packed with tired generalities but short on vision or any understanding of today's Mountain View.

Oh, and let's not forget his highly offensive, if not patently bigoted, statement he uttered recently -- in a public forum, no less! -- about the "cheap Chinese restaurants" downtown. I'm not Chinese but still was offended by that.

Absolutely, no to Inks!

Posted by Inks brought you current developments
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2018 at 9:24 am

When he was last in office Inks was directly responsible for creating the development boom currently going on in MV.

Some may see this as a reason to vote for him, some may see it as a reason not to. The fact remains unchanged so people can now be informed and can vote for how they would like to see MV.

Posted by love my city
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 25, 2018 at 9:30 am

No 2 Inks: Yes, I heard about Mr. Inks unfortunate characterization of our small beloved business owners. It seems Mr. Inks is inspired by the destructive rhetoric that has become so pervasive in this election cycle. He should absolutely apologize. What we need most urgently are Council members that respect and represent ALL of us.

Posted by @love my city
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2018 at 9:46 am

No one has attacked more businesses or business owners than Siegel.

He has such a hatred toward them that he does not need another term in office to "finish that job" as he said.

Being a council member means you represent all the residents here, which Siegel does not.

Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 25, 2018 at 9:55 am

Pretty interesting perspective, @. That means the candidates should represent the RV dwellers, since they are, after all, residents of Mountain View. I wonder where your opinion falls on that matter...

Posted by Too Funny
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2018 at 11:38 am

Define "resident" a person who lives somewhere permanently or on a long-term basis.

I guess Lenny and Pat and the rest of MVCC should make an announcement prior to election-maybe in their campaign material too. "RV residents are here to stay-permanently". You may thank us by voting for us.

Maybe "interloper" is the better term "a person who becomes involved in a place or situation where they are not wanted or are considered not to belong"

RV's are in violation of our city ordinances, they are not considered residents, they are considered guests of City Council for the time being. If they are considered residents by MVCC, Council is clearly out of their depth.

#notmyguests, Yes on Inks, no on Siegel and Showalter

Posted by Inks Supporter
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 25, 2018 at 12:09 pm

A lot of inks haters, but they obviously don't know him. Or what he supports. A lot of made up innuendo. Inks is fair minded. A lot of people like his approach to allow individuals the freedom to develop their property within the zoning requirements that are set in the General plan.

Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 25, 2018 at 12:19 pm

Oh, "Too Funny", thanks for clarifying that you think city council should only represent property owners. Fortunately, not many people agree with you, but I appreciate your candor in setting up different tiers of residents that are entitled to different levels of respect.

I'm about to blow your mind, though: those folks in RVs have the right to vote as residents of Mountain View.

Posted by out the incumbents
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 27, 2018 at 1:36 am

Not sure where this explosion of RVs came from, but I don't recall this many over a year ago. Incumbents have really dropped the ball. Top voting issue.

Posted by No Nimby
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2018 at 10:34 am

Hello, Lenny Siegel is a NIMBY. I agree with some of his general positions but in practice, he lobbies his neighbors to advocate for what would minimize any impact on his street, without consideration for the impact to surrounding neighbors.

Posted by Lies of omission
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2018 at 2:33 pm

Despite the MV Voice’s clear bias towards certain candidates who appear to share similar agendas that align with that of the editorial board of the Voice. Imho, its unseemly for a newspaper (news organizations, in general) to be so clearly biased in their journalistic ‘reporting’ after day after day.

It’s been this way for years.

I have attended numerous city council meetings only to be flabbergasted when I read articles published summarizing a particular agenda topics hat was discussed...the facts as selectively reported may have been accurate, but the facts that were NOT reported - omitted - left readers with in an entirely different take on what went down in those meetings. It’s very disappointing to read this kind of reporting on a consistent basis, and as someone who attends council meetings and/watches online regularly...this does happen with relative consistency.

I bring this up simply to remind that this forum, Mountain View Voice, is not objective, nor unbiased. My experience has also been that comments here will be censored, not necessarily for profanity or harassment, but for simply being provocative - in terms of thought provoking.

Please educate yourself about the issues, and vote your conscience.

Above all...please vote.

And, not only that but those who hold

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


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Mountain View Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Marriage Interview #17: They Renew Their Vows Every 5 Years
By Chandrama Anderson | 11 comments | 2,142 views

Tree Walk: Edible Urban Forest - July 8
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,404 views

New Zealand-inspired savory pie bakery coming to Montara
By The Peninsula Foodist | 2 comments | 1,247 views