Town Square

Post a New Topic

Rush of money puts Inks campaign near top of field

Original post made on Oct 26, 2018

Campaign donations are pouring in for John Inks in his bid for a third term on the Mountain View City Council. Just days away from the election, Inks reported a $10,000 surge of new fundraising, much of it from apartment owners and their advocates.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, October 26, 2018, 1:52 PM

Comments (66)

2 people like this
Posted by Ellie
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 26, 2018 at 2:10 pm

Whats the voluntary spending limit?


21 people like this
Posted by Hypocrisy Much?
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2018 at 2:28 pm

Every lover of Inks (who contributes to TownSquare) on this website has at one time or another blamed every elected council member of being in the pockets of developers. Oh, how the council always caves to developers and gives away another slice of our precious Mountain View to people who don’t live here but profit from our residents. Oh the horror of evil council members.

Never will I see another post about that, right, because your favorite libertarian John Inks has shown you, in his legally mandated financial disclosures, that he is not only in the pocket of the developers, but is right there shining their shoes, too. They want him sooooOOOooo badly, don’t they. So they can build Build BUILD in Mountain View. And you won’t complain, because he is your man, no matter how silly your old comments have been. Perhaps you’ve been wrong all along about council members being in the pockets of developers. Perhaps something else is to blame for your woes. But that would take self reflection and some introspection. I won’t hold my breath.


57 people like this
Posted by I am for INKS
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 26, 2018 at 2:58 pm

So, when Hillary raised 2 times the amount Trump did, should that have disqualified here from office?

Inks had to raise more money because the Lopez-Siegel camp was stealing their signs, spray painting others and writing "F.U" on them. It is very expensive to replace all those signs.

It is very telling when these very people who say they will not accept any big donations, yet they will try and silence the opposition in their bid for the same office that they hold.


21 people like this
Posted by Inks = Big tall buidings all over
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2018 at 3:01 pm

He is the developer's boy, doing their bidding.

Do you like all the huge developments around town that are currently in process?
Inks brought those to you last time he was on the council. We're only now seeing the damage he has caused since his last stint.
He does the "Yes" voting that his developer buddies demand.
Inks is for a big overdeveloped MV. Vote accordingly.


44 people like this
Posted by I am for INKS
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 26, 2018 at 3:06 pm

@INKs=Big tall buildings all over,

So where is your criticism for Lenny Siegel?

No one on the council wants more building than Siegel. In fact, about a month ago he asked the council to lower the city's housing fees to developers so that they will start building in the North Bayshore.


12 people like this
Posted by Inks for Sale
a resident of Castro City
on Oct 26, 2018 at 3:40 pm

Those landlords and developers know a deal when they see one - or two.


59 people like this
Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 26, 2018 at 3:50 pm

Greg David is a registered user.

I'll take big buildings over homeless RV encampments any day...


19 people like this
Posted by @Greg
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2018 at 4:08 pm

Greg...you do understand that more office buildings will equate to more homeless people, don't you?

Thank you for describing the problem. What's your solution?


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood

on Oct 26, 2018 at 4:18 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


54 people like this
Posted by Signs are expensive
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 26, 2018 at 4:49 pm

Inks needed the extra money for all the signs that Job Lopez, Lenny Siegel's 30 year friend and activist, who stole, vandalized and spray painted F.U on others.

Signs are expensive.


63 people like this
Posted by Hit Job
a resident of Castro City
on Oct 26, 2018 at 5:02 pm

A typical hot piece by the Voice. The Voice went out of its way to smear him in their endorsement article. How shameful. When he gets elected, I hope he refuses to talk w the voice. All council candidates receive money from special interest groups. Most of the times it's individual names that are asked by interest groups. write checks to candidates.
Because he is fair minded, he is supposedly in the pockets of the developers.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2018 at 5:25 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

My humble observation:

You look at the recent bomber suspect in the news. The libertarianists in effect advocate violence, not just protests.

Also Charlottesville, and the violence ant threats made against news people and politicians that are not complying with the authoritarianism of the current administration and the "alt-right-wing" groups.

If you try to compare this "anti-fa" action to those, I would say there is a dramatic difference. It is even interesting that one wants to criticize an “anti-fascist” movement in general.

In any way, I still want to wait for the courts to determine if this individual did this.

I find the "fluorescence” of the video of the persons face questionable. The skin is not naturally fluorescent. However many materials used in making masks are. I again want the public to compare the videos of these:

A REAL video of Job Lopez found here (Web Link)

And compare it to this video (Web Link)

Simply put, the resolution of the security video is so poor (most characteristics of the face are not visible i.e. the wrinkles that Job has on his face), the apparent loss of as much as 20 pounds of weight regarding the one on the security video, the apparent significant strength exhibited by the suspect, and the “glow” of the face makes for a possible “reasonable doubt”. Job is over 70 years old, it can be clear that his body strength can be far less than the suspect on the video.

All I am saying is there needs to be more “forensic evidence” than just the video. I think many here are too quick to try to judge the situation.

The simple reality is that John Inks is a professional politician, he makes his living via the very donors he is receiving money. He refuses to disclose his income as required under state law and the City lets him get away with it. We voters must not condone this unethical, and potentially illegal political action.


37 people like this
Posted by @BM
a resident of Shoreline West
on Oct 26, 2018 at 5:58 pm

Your kidding. You are so out of the loop. The actual pictures are clear and not fuzzy as the ones printed in the paper. Mr. Lopez has already confessed to the police. His longtime dear friend Lenny recognized him and removed him as an endorser. Others that know him recognized him. Not one of his friends has come forward to say it isn't him.

Where is your proof that libertarians support violence. Most L's that I know are pacifists and against all wars because they object to all involuntary exchanges.

Finally, your claim about Inks not reporting his income has been addressed and you still make the same baseless claim. If you think he failed to fill out his form 700 correctly, file a complaint with the FPPC. You wont because you know you are lying.


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2018 at 6:46 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to @BM you said:

“Your kidding. You are so out of the loop. The actual pictures are clear and not fuzzy as the ones printed in the paper.”

My response, show the clear pictures, provide a link with a clear shot that is not how I have shown it? You said:

“Mr. Lopez has already confessed to the police.”

Again, no proof of a “confession” exists. Where are you getting this information? He is currently charged with a citation and nothing more. You said:

“His longtime dear friend Lenny recognized him and removed him as an endorser.”

I simply state that I cannot see the clear evidence. Lenny can do what he chooses to do. You said:

“Others that know him recognized him. Not one of his friends has come forward to say it isn't him.”

The case in court has not been done yet. And it is the burden of the prosecutor to prove by all reasonable doubt that it was him. That’s all. You said:

“Where is your proof that libertarians support violence. Most L's that I know are pacifists and against all wars because they object to all involuntary exchanges.”

What about the “trumpenkreigers” that have been arrested seen here (Web Link)

In effect, there are “violent” libertarians out there. And Trump in effect instigates such violence. You said:

“Finally, your claim about Inks not reporting his income has been addressed and you still make the same baseless claim. If you think he failed to fill out his form 700 correctly, file a complaint with the FPPC. You wont because you know you are lying.”

Please, I have copies of the filings and he refuses to provide the schedules C, D, E. He hasn’t in the past and still will not provide this information. Please provide us with evidence that this was done? I will be happy to apologize. The facts are I have official copies of his submissions from his past elections. I will be happy to get his up to date submissions. You just don’t want anyone to ask these questions don’t you?


17 people like this
Posted by @BM
a resident of Castro City
on Oct 26, 2018 at 8:29 pm

Just because you don't know something doesn't make it not true. That's why I said you are out of the loop. I'm not your personal research assistant. Ask Job if he has confessed. as usual you fail to,provide any proof of your claims. The link does not identify libertarians. And as usual you fail to substantiate any claim that Inks has not filed his forms correctly. You failed to answer my question. Why don't you file a complaint w the FPPC? You won't because you know you'd be a fool.

Try to do more research before you make outrageous claims.




14 people like this
Posted by Not surprised
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2018 at 8:37 pm

The best thing that ever happened for Inks’ campaign was when Job defaced his signs. I’m not at all surprised donations shot up after that. That’s democracy. Hate him all you want but one way to show you disapprove of Job’s actions is to donate to Inks.


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2018 at 9:45 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to @BM you said:

“Just because you don't know something doesn't make it not true. That's why I said you are out of the loop. I'm not your personal research assistant.”

BUT YOU DO NOT PROVIDE ANY PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS AS WELL. You said:

“Ask Job if he has confessed.”

Why should I ask if it was not reported in the news? Why did YOU claim he confessed? It seems that you are making significantly outrageous claims yourself without proof. You said:

“as usual you fail to,provide any proof of your claims.”

I will work on scanning my research and providing a link to the scans so you cannot proclaim my failure of proof. It might take a day or so. You said:

“The link does not identify libertarians.”

BUT EVERYONE KNOWS TRUMP IS A LIBERTARIAN. As far as your claim of libertarians being pacifists here is he Future of Freedom Foundation, a libertarian group whose mission is defined here (Web Link it states:

“MISSION

The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy.

The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.

This is a good article from the Future of Freedom Foundation(Web Link): It specifically states:

“Libertarian political violence today

Murray Rothbard wrote in For a New Liberty, “IF, AS LIBERTARIANS BELIEVE, EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN HIS PERSON AND PROPERTY, IT THEN FOLLOWS THAT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY VIOLENCE TO DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST THE VIOLENCE OF CRIMINAL AGGRESSORS,” and furthermore, “WHILE OPPOSING ANY AND ALL PRIVATE OR GROUP AGGRESSION AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF PERSON AND PROPERTY, THE LIBERTARIAN SEES THAT THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND INTO THE PRESENT DAY, THERE HAS BEEN ONE CENTRAL, DOMINANT, AND OVERRIDING AGGRESSOR UPON ALL OF THESE RIGHTS: THE STATE.” Jacob H. Huebert wisely notes in his 2010 book Libertarianism Today, “MORE GUN FREEDOM AND MORE WIDESPREAD GUN OWNERSHIP WOULD NOT FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO FULLY RESPECT LIBERTARIAN RIGHTS — IT DID NOT DO SO EVEN IN THE FOUNDING ERA — BUT IT WOULD SERVE AS A PREVENTATIVE MEASURE AGAINST THE WORST POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT OFFENSES.” Radley Balko and Will Grigg consistently document that the militarization of domestic police hasn’t ceased in the years since the modern militias formed for that exact grievance.

Fellow libertarians would be mistaken to look back on the history of libertarian political violence in America and conclude that the events should be uniformly celebrated or denounced, as comprehensively detailed by Churchill’s To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant’s Face. The history of taking up arms against the state is multifaceted, as Churchill notes, “THE INVOCATION OF THE PAST TO JUSTIFY PRESENT ACTION IS A PERPETUAL THEME IN AMERICAN POLITICS. IT NEED NOT, HOWEVER, COMMAND OUR DEFERENCE. IF THERE IS A POINT AT WHICH THE PRACTICE OF HISTORY DEPARTS FROM THE PRACTICE OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY, IT IS IN THE RECOGNITION THAT NO WORD OR DEED FROM AGES PAST CAN IN AND OF ITSELF JUSTIFY THE RECOURSE TO VIOLENCE IN THE PRESENT.”

MINDFUL OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND PRESENT CONCERNS OF STATE VIOLENCE, LIBERTARIANS WOULD BENEFIT FROM OPENLY DISCUSSING THE PARAMETERS OF PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY WITH VIOLENT FORCE AGAINST THE STATE’S USURPATIONS. Although an example not covered in the text, libertarians should consider Lysander Spooner’s 1858 call to arms in A Plan for the Abolition of Slavery (and) To the Non-Slaveholders of the South, where he outlines a plan to reclaim the liberty of the enslaved by means of asymmetric warfare against the slaveholders of the South, carried out by black slaves, free southerners, and northern abolitionists. A BALANCE MUST BE STRUCK, HOWEVER, BETWEEN PRINCIPLES, MORALITY, PROPORTIONALITY, AND PRACTICALITY AS LIBERTARIANS REFLECT ON THIS AND THE JUST USE OF FORCE TO DEFEND LIBERTY AGAINST TYRANNY. Perhaps Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler’s oft-quoted 1935 pamphlet War Is a Racket is another good starting point for deliberation, as he wrote, “There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.”

In effect, the modern libertarian embraces mob mentality, like the political rallies that Trump has used. In effect, Trump has embraced violence as a justified response to resistance or questioning of his authority or those he champions. You said:

“And as usual you fail to substantiate any claim that Inks has not filed his forms correctly.”

This will be done very soon, you will simply have to accept that I did my homework. You said:

“You failed to answer my question. Why don't you file a complaint w the FPPC?”

I am in the works on it. But the state of California is sufficiently very corrupt by both the Democrats and the Republicans. I am a registered Independent. The institutionalized politics are simply a for profit business. So the FPPC is unlikely to take any actions because it is dependent on the two parties for its existence. You said:

“ You won't because you know you'd be a fool. “

Yes it is currently foolish to expect the FPPC to actually enforce the state laws and codes of conduct because California politics is a for profit industry by both parties. You said:

“Try to do more research before you make outrageous claims.”

When my scans are complete, you will not be able to make such a claim.


24 people like this
Posted by Siegel rubber stamps dev projects
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2018 at 10:20 pm

Lenny Siegel has never seen a development plan he didn’t like. He has rubber stamped every project with parking Lite (aka not enough parking). Downtown is a mess. Unclear how Inks can do much more damage than Siegel, at least Inks will do Something about RVs


4 people like this
Posted by Libertarian Greed in MV
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 26, 2018 at 10:54 pm

Libertarian Greed in MV is a registered user.

Inks wants to destroy rent control for the working class and people of color in Mountain View in order to continue the trend of gentrification. And its clear that he is getting money from corporate landlords who want to make the most money possible off the backs of hardworking people. Libertarian Greed is attacking our city - KEEP JOHN INKS OUT OF THE COUNCIL AND IN RETIREMENT WHERE HE BELONGS!


7 people like this
Posted by @BM
a resident of Castro City
on Oct 27, 2018 at 5:19 am

A long rant that fails to adequately address my points. some of your responses are evasive. You need to do more research before you respond.


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2018 at 5:38 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to @BM you said:

“A long rant that fails to adequately address my points. some of your responses are evasive. You need to do more research before you respond.”

Your points were:

“Your kidding. You are so out of the loop. The actual pictures are clear and not fuzzy as the ones printed in the paper.”

My response, show the clear pictures, provide a link with a clear shot that is not how I have shown it? I directly addressed this point. What is evasive about this? You said:

“Mr. Lopez has already confessed to the police.”

Again, no proof of a “confession” exists. Where are you getting this information? He is currently charged with a citation and nothing more. I directly addressed this point. What is evasive about this? You said:

“His longtime dear friend Lenny recognized him and removed him as an endorser.”

I simply state that I cannot see the clear evidence. Lenny can do what he chooses to do. I directly addressed this point. What is evasive about this? You said:

“Others that know him recognized him. Not one of his friends has come forward to say it isn't him.”

The case in court has not been done yet. And it is the burden of the prosecutor to prove by all reasonable doubt that it was him. That’s all. I directly addressed this point. What is evasive about this? You said:

“Where is your proof that libertarians support violence. Most L's that I know are pacifists and against all wars because they object to all involuntary exchanges.”

What about the “trumpenkreigers” that have been arrested seen here (Web Link)

In effect, there are “violent” libertarians out there. And Trump in effect instigates such violence. As well as:

BUT EVERYONE KNOWS TRUMP IS A LIBERTARIAN. As far as your claim of libertarians being pacifists here is he Future of Freedom Foundation, a libertarian group whose mission is defined here (Web Link it states:

“MISSION

The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy.

The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.

This is a good article from the Future of Freedom Foundation(Web Link): It specifically states:

“Libertarian political violence today

Murray Rothbard wrote in For a New Liberty, “IF, AS LIBERTARIANS BELIEVE, EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN HIS PERSON AND PROPERTY, IT THEN FOLLOWS THAT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY VIOLENCE TO DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST THE VIOLENCE OF CRIMINAL AGGRESSORS,” and furthermore, “WHILE OPPOSING ANY AND ALL PRIVATE OR GROUP AGGRESSION AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF PERSON AND PROPERTY, THE LIBERTARIAN SEES THAT THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND INTO THE PRESENT DAY, THERE HAS BEEN ONE CENTRAL, DOMINANT, AND OVERRIDING AGGRESSOR UPON ALL OF THESE RIGHTS: THE STATE.” Jacob H. Huebert wisely notes in his 2010 book Libertarianism Today, “MORE GUN FREEDOM AND MORE WIDESPREAD GUN OWNERSHIP WOULD NOT FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO FULLY RESPECT LIBERTARIAN RIGHTS — IT DID NOT DO SO EVEN IN THE FOUNDING ERA — BUT IT WOULD SERVE AS A PREVENTATIVE MEASURE AGAINST THE WORST POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT OFFENSES.” Radley Balko and Will Grigg consistently document that the militarization of domestic police hasn’t ceased in the years since the modern militias formed for that exact grievance.

Fellow libertarians would be mistaken to look back on the history of libertarian political violence in America and conclude that the events should be uniformly celebrated or denounced, as comprehensively detailed by Churchill’s To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant’s Face. The history of taking up arms against the state is multifaceted, as Churchill notes, “THE INVOCATION OF THE PAST TO JUSTIFY PRESENT ACTION IS A PERPETUAL THEME IN AMERICAN POLITICS. IT NEED NOT, HOWEVER, COMMAND OUR DEFERENCE. IF THERE IS A POINT AT WHICH THE PRACTICE OF HISTORY DEPARTS FROM THE PRACTICE OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY, IT IS IN THE RECOGNITION THAT NO WORD OR DEED FROM AGES PAST CAN IN AND OF ITSELF JUSTIFY THE RECOURSE TO VIOLENCE IN THE PRESENT.”

MINDFUL OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND PRESENT CONCERNS OF STATE VIOLENCE, LIBERTARIANS WOULD BENEFIT FROM OPENLY DISCUSSING THE PARAMETERS OF PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY WITH VIOLENT FORCE AGAINST THE STATE’S USURPATIONS. Although an example not covered in the text, libertarians should consider Lysander Spooner’s 1858 call to arms in A Plan for the Abolition of Slavery (and) To the Non-Slaveholders of the South, where he outlines a plan to reclaim the liberty of the enslaved by means of asymmetric warfare against the slaveholders of the South, carried out by black slaves, free southerners, and northern abolitionists. A BALANCE MUST BE STRUCK, HOWEVER, BETWEEN PRINCIPLES, MORALITY, PROPORTIONALITY, AND PRACTICALITY AS LIBERTARIANS REFLECT ON THIS AND THE JUST USE OF FORCE TO DEFEND LIBERTY AGAINST TYRANNY. Perhaps Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler’s oft-quoted 1935 pamphlet War Is a Racket is another good starting point for deliberation, as he wrote, “There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.”

In effect, the modern libertarian embraces mob mentality, like the political rallies that Trump has used. In effect, Trump has embraced violence as a justified response to resistance or questioning of his authority or those he champions. I directly addressed this point. What is evasive about this? You said:

“And as usual you fail to substantiate any claim that Inks has not filed his forms correctly.”

This will be done very soon, you will simply have to accept that I did my homework. I directly addressed this point. What is evasive about this? You said:

“You failed to answer my question. Why don't you file a complaint w the FPPC?”

I am in the works on it. But the state of California is sufficiently very corrupt by both the Democrats and the Republicans. I am a registered Independent. The institutionalized politics are simply a for profit business. So the FPPC is unlikely to take any actions because it is dependent on the two parties for its existence. I directly addressed this point. What is evasive about this? You said:

“ You won't because you know you'd be a fool. “

Yes it is currently foolish to expect the FPPC to actually enforce the state laws and codes of conduct because California politics is a for profit industry by both parties. I directly addressed this point. What is evasive about this? You said:

“Try to do more research before you make outrageous claims.”

When my scans are complete, you will not be able to make such a claim. I directly addressed this point. What is evasive about this? You said:

“Finally, your claim about Inks not reporting his income has been addressed and you still make the same baseless claim. If you think he failed to fill out his form 700 correctly, file a complaint with the FPPC. You wont because you know you are lying.”

Please, I have copies of the filings and he refuses to provide the schedules C, D, E. He hasn’t in the past and still will not provide this information. Please provide us with evidence that this was done? I will be happy to apologize. The facts are I have official copies of his submissions from his past elections. I will be happy to get his up to date submissions. You just don’t want anyone to ask these questions don’t you? I directly addressed this point. What is evasive about this? You said:

It would appear that you have the OPINION that you’re free to make PERSONAL ATTACKS. IT is only your OPINION that I did not address you. BUT the PUBLIC if they read my response will simply make up THEIR OWN MIND. YOU cannot DICTATE their POINT OF VIEW.


8 people like this
Posted by @BM
a resident of Castro City
on Oct 27, 2018 at 7:38 am

Another long rant that fails to adequately address my points. some of your responses are evasive. You need to do more research before you respond.

Calling Trump a libertarian is funny. Is that what you are trying to do?

All of Inks' form 700's are on line w FPPC. Why are you not able to obtain all of his forms. If a category is not listed then it means that he had nothing reportable for that category. You make a pathetic excuse for not registering a complaint to the FPPC.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2018 at 8:21 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to @BM you said:

“All of Inks' form 700's are on line w FPPC. Why are you not able to obtain all of his forms. If a category is not listed then it means that he had nothing reportable for that category. You make a pathetic excuse for not registering a complaint to the FPPC.”

The simple fact is he checked that “NONE- NO reportable interests on schedule”

THAT IS ILLEGAL.

He has financial interests involved with the recent ballot intiative to reverse Measure V.

He was paid to post a website called “MEASUREVTOOCOSTLY.COM” which clearly states:

“Paid for by Mountain View Residents for Renter, Homeowner & Taxpayer Protections,

SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION. COMMITTEE MAJOR FUNDING FROM:

TOD SPIEKER & SPIEKER COMPANIES INC.

MARIPOSA CLUB”

Simply put, this was a fraud, and it is illegal to submit false disclosures. He IS A PAID REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, TOD SPIEKER & SPIEKER COMPANIES INC. AND THE MARIPOSA CLUB”

His refusal to disclose is exactly the same as Donald Trump’s refusal to disclose his taxes. Simply put, you are not aware that it is illegal to withhold any disclosures under form 700. Also he must be given singinficant money because of the following news report from the Mountain View Voice, Landlord Group Spent $260,000 on Ballot Measure (Web Link) specifically:

A landlord-backed campaign spent more than $260,000 in an unsuccessful effort to weaken Mountain View's rent control law. That money was primarily spent on collecting signatures for a measure intended to be placed on the November ballot that was criticized as a sneaky attempt to overturn renter protections.

The campaign spending was revealed Tuesday in mandatory financial reports filed by the "Mountain View Residents for Renter, Homeowner & Taxpayer Protections." The group, better known as Measure V Too Costly, has been working for most of the year to lay the groundwork for a political campaign by coordinating a social media effort, web presence and political rallies.

Presenting itself as a grassroots effort, Measure V Too Costly took aim at the city's rent control program that was approved by voters in 2016. The landlord group portrayed rent control as an expensive mistake, arguing that it rewarded a small minority of renters to the detriment of everyone else.

In March, the group revealed its plans for a November 2018 ballot measure, which representatives described as a softened version of rent control. Tenant advocates immediately called out the measure as a Trojan horse, pointing out it had buried language that would have nullified nearly all renter protections except under rare conditions.

The financial disclosures show that despite being billed as grassroots, Measure V Too Costly was actually being directed by the California Apartment Association, a lobbying group. Since the start of the year, the landlord-backed group raised more than $265,000, mostly from large apartment companies with a strong presence in Mountain View. Major contributors included Spieker Companies ($55,000), Prometheus Real Estate Group ($65,000) and Acco Management ($36,950). The California Apartment Association (CAA) was frequently listed as an intermediary, meaning it made the contributions on behalf of specific members with the understanding that CAA would be repaid.

Nearly $220,000 of those funds went to a focused effort to collect signatures, which picked up steam starting in April. Nearly all that money was paid to Arno Petition Consultants, a Rancho Cordova-based company specializing in on-the-ground politicking. To get the initiative on the ballot, the group needed to collect 5,150 signatures, preferably with a few hundred extra to offset any invalid names.

As previously reported in the Voice, the signature-gathering campaign began to generate complaints as it became more aggressive. Signature gatherers pitched the initiative as a pro-tenant policy, falsely saying it would extend renter protections to more of the city's housing, or prevent the law from sunsetting. Many residents who signed the petition later said they felt duped.

The Mountain View Tenants Coalition began an opposition effort to encourage people who felt misled to withdraw their names from the initiative petition. Nearly 300 requested their names be rescinded, according to the City Clerk's Office.

In its own financial statements, the Tenants Coalition disclosed it was operating on a shoestring budget of $7,600 -- a fraction of the sum raised by their adversaries. Tenants Coalition spokesman Steve Chandler described it as a David-and-Goliath situation.

"They've accumulated so much money, and now they turn around and want to take away our rights and protections," he said. "Naturally, they had to purchase these signatures because few people would look at this measure and support it."

Last month, the Measure V Too Costly group announced it was suspending its effort to place the initiative on the November ballot, with spokeswoman Laura Teutschel saying the campaign was short by a few hundred signatures. Last week, California Apartment Association Vice President Joshua Howard announced he was taking over press inquiries about the measure, but he declined to say how many signatures had been gathered.

Any signatures collected would be used to place the measure on the 2020 ballot, he said. Those signatures remain valid for 180 days, meaning the group has until mid-October to submit them to the city, he said.

"We find voters are eager to sign the petition once they understand this measure protects all apartment renters," Howard said in an emailed statement. "The effort to qualify the amendments to Measure V continues with the goal of having this measure go before the voters in November 2020."

Correction: Following publication, the California Apartment Association indicated they had made an error reporting the contributions made by Speiker Properties. The firm donated $55,000, not $165,000 as previously reported. They intend to file an amended report with the city.”

The initiative was written and submitted by John Inks , proof found here on the Mountain View Website (Web Link)

THUS HE WAS PAID TO DO THIS WORK AND HE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS INTERESTS.

Perhaps you should do better research?


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2018 at 9:20 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

And oh by the way, John Inks has been found in to have a conflict of interest in the past by the FPPC found here (Web Link)

Specifically it stated:

“In his official capacity, can Councilmember Inks make, participate in making or influence governmental decisions regarding the proposed San Antonio Precise Plan?

CONCLUSION

Councilmember Inks has a conflict of interest with respect to the proposed San Antonio Precise Plan and must: (1) immediately prior to the discussion of the item, orally identify each type of economic interest involved in the decision as well as details of the economic interest, as discussed in regulation 18702.5(b), on the record of the meeting; (2) recuse himself; and (3) leave the room for the duration of the discussion and/or vote on the item.

FACTS

The City of Mountain View recently adopted its 2030 General Plan. This General Plan identified the San Antonio Shopping Center and surrounding properties as a “change area.” The Proposed Precise Plan, also known as a specific plan, is used to implement the land use policies set forth in the General Plan. The City is currently in the process of developing a Proposed Precise Plan to include the shopping center and the additional areas encompassed in the proposed precise plan boundaries in order to ensure the precise plan is consistent with the General Plan. The San Antonio Shopping Center is a subset of the greater San Antonio Change Area identified in the 2030 General Plan. The 56-acre Existing Precise Plan covers the entire shopping center and is much smaller than the 123-acre Proposed Precise Plan.

Councilmember Inks is a member of the Mountain View City Council and owns a condominium in a condominium project or common interest development in Mountain View located on Showers Drive, northeast of the boundary of the Plan area. He resides in that condominium. Councilmember Inks’ condominium is located within 500 feet of the tip of the Proposed Precise Plan and is adjacent to Showers Drive. You stated there are 16,035 residential property owners in the City. Only 902 residential properties, or 5.63%, are located within 500 feet of the Proposed Precise Plan

On June 24, 2014, the City Council will hold a study session to provide input on policy topics and improvement standards for the Proposed Precise Plan. For example, these standards will help define where new streets/connections occur, the relationship between new buildings and future street frontages, setback standards for buildings, bicycle circulation, and the allowed intensities for development within the Proposed Precise Plan. This study session is one of many conducted by the City Council to develop the Proposed Precise Plan. It is anticipated that a draft precise plan will be released by early fall and a precise plan will be presented to the City Council for adoption by the end of this calendar year. Additional City Council meetings will be scheduled to discuss and adopt the Proposed Precise Plan.

ANALYSIS

Section 87100 prohibits any public official from making, participating in making, or using his or her official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest. The Commission has adopted an eight-step standard analysis for deciding whether an individual has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a given governmental decision.

Your letter eliminates the need to analyze the initial steps of the standard analysis. The Councilmember is a public official and you are asking whether he may make or participate in the File No. A-14-106(a) San Antonio Precise Plan decision in light of the fact that he owns and resides in a condominium unit within 500 feet of the plan boundaries.2

Regulation 18705.2 provides in pertinent part:

“(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c) below, the reasonably foreseeable financial effect of a governmental decision (listed below in (a)(1) through (a)(13)) on a parcel of real property in which an official has a financial interest, other than a leasehold interest, is material whenever the governmental decision:



“(10) Would change the character of the parcel of real property by substantially altering traffic levels or intensity of use, including parking, of property surrounding the official’s real property parcel, the view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality, including odors, or any other factors that would affect the market value of the real property parcel in which the official has a financial interest;

“(11) Would consider any decision affecting real property value located within 500 feet of the property line of the official’s real property, other than commercial property containing a business entity where the materiality standards are analyzed under Regulation 18705.1. Notwithstanding this prohibition, the Commission may provide written advice allowing an official to participate under these circumstances if the Commission determines that there are sufficient facts to indicate that there will be no reasonably foreseeable measurable impact on the official’s property; or

“(12) Would cause a reasonably prudent person, using due care and consideration under the circumstances, to believe that the governmental decision was of such a nature that its reasonably foreseeable effect would influence the market value of the official’s property.”

Your facts implicate each of these subdivisions. These three subdivisions all focus on the effects on the official’s interest emanating from the project site.

Subdivision (a)(10) considers changes to traffic levels or intensity of use, including parking, of property surrounding the official’s real property parcel, the view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality, including odors, or any other factors that would affect the market value of the real property parcel in which the official has a financial interest. Distance is not determinative with respect to this test.

Subdivision (a)(11) focuses on the location of the property. Where the official’s property is located within 500 feet of the subject property, the analysis focuses on whether the facts support a finding that there will or will not be a reasonably foreseeable measurable impact on the official’s property despite the proximity of the subject property. The new provision differs from the old rule in that it does not apply a “one-penny” rule, but rather focuses on the facts and circumstances of the decision and whether there will be a measurable effect.

Finally, subdivision (a)(12) provides a fact-based test that is based on a reasonably prudent person standard.

Regulation 18706(b) defines foreseeability as follows:

“A financial effect need not be likely to be considered reasonably foreseeable. In general, if the financial effect can be recognized as a realistic possibility and more than hypothetical or theoretical, it is reasonably foreseeable. If the financial result cannot be expected absent extraordinary circumstances not subject to the public official’s control, it is not reasonably foreseeable.”

Your facts support a finding of a foreseeable material financial effect under subdivision (a)(10). The councilmember’s property is within 500 feet of the boundary of the precise plan. Additionally, his property is on a major street that will be improved under the precise plan. For example, Alternative 1, the Streetlife Alternative, transforms the public streets surrounding San Antonio Center into complete streets that improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation. The streets become activated by ground-level retail and active frontages. Focused improvements are along the four public streets bounding San Antonio Center: San Antonio Road, California Street, Showers Drive, and El Camino Real.

The portion of Showers Drive, which runs directly past the Councilmember’s condominium, will become a pedestrian friendly “main street” with mixed-use residential development. Regional retail is encouraged to renovate the face the street. A town square will be wrapped by mixed-use residential at the intersection of the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way and Showers Drive. To a lesser extent, the other two alternatives also contemplate changes to Showers Drive, which could have a positive financial effect property even outside the precise plan area but located on Showers Drive, such as the Councilmember.

Consequently, absent an exception, Councilmember Inks may not participate in the San Antonio Precise Plan decisions.”

This is one of two documents I have regarding his “financial interests” and his attempts to use the political office for his financial benefit.

Here is number 2 (Web Link):

“QUESTIONS

1. Can Councilmember Inks make, participate in making, or influence governmental decisions regarding the proposed MG Project?

2. Can Councilmember Inks make, participate in making, or influence governmental decisions regarding the proposed amendment to the Existing Precise Plan?

CONCLUSION

1. No. As discussed below, Councilmember Inks has a conflict of interest and may not make, participate in making, or influence the decisions concerning the MG Project. Moreover, when the item is called for at a noticed public meeting, Councilmember Inks must: (1) immediately prior to the discussion of the item, orally identify his economic interest involved in the decision as well as details of the economic interest, as discussed in Regulation 18702.5(b), on the record of the meeting; (2) recuse himself; and (3) leave the room for the duration of the discussion and/or vote on the item.

2. No. Based on the facts provided, the proposed amendment to the Existing Precise Plan is inextricably interrelated to the decisions regarding the proposed MG Project. These two decisions are interrelated because the proposed amendments to the Existing Precise Plan is a necessary prerequisite to the approval of the MG Project and will effectively determine, affirm, nullify, or alter the result of that project.

FACTS

Councilmember Inks is a member of the Mountain View City Council and owns a condominium in a condominium project or common interest development in Mountain View located on Showers Drive. His unit is northeast of the boundary of the Existing Precise Plan area.

On July 1, 2014, the City Council will consider whether to approve the MG Project, a proposed project that would redevelop a portion of an existing shopping center located in the Existing Precise Plan. The current site consists of 9.9 acres of the 56-acre shopping center with 1- to 2-story restaurants and retail stores such as Wal-Mart, Trader Joe’s, Jo-Ann Fabric, Craft, Kohl’s, Safeway and BevMo!.

The MG Project, according to the draft and final Environmental Impact Report2 (“EIR”) which you refer to in your request, would require a 28-month construction period and the demolition of the existing commercial and retail buildings in the retail center. Those structures would be replaced with six blocks of office, commercial, retail, hotel, cinema, restaurant, and parking spaces. The new 2-to 6-story buildings would feature clear glass, natural stone, and architectural metal panels. In addition, the project site would include a promenade between the east and west blocks that would extend from California Street to the existing Hetch-Hetchy Parkway. The tree-lined promenade would include parking, monument signage, sidewalks, planters, a plaza, benches, outdoor dining tables, lounge chairs, sofas, and cabanas.

The MG Project would replace the existing 59,655 square feet of commercial and retail buildings and associated parking with approximately 1.1 million square feet of mixed-use development consisting of office, commercial, hotel, retail, cinema, and restaurant space.

As proposed, it would include the following:

107,835 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space;

49,751 square foot cinema;

360,909 square feet of office space;

393,914 square foot parking garage;

128,642 square foot, 167-room hotel;

39,816 square feet of retail building services.

1,080,867 total square feet of mixed-use development.

The Project site is bound by Pacchetti Way to the east, the Hetch-Hetchy Parkway to the south, San Antonio Road to the west, and California Street to the north. Vehicular access to the MG Project site would be via Pacchetti Way, California Street, and San Antonio Road. These streets merge onto Showers Drive, where the Councilmember owns a condominium.

Prior to the decision to approve the MG Project, the city council will consider whether to amend the Existing Precise Plan boundaries to remove the MG Project site from the plan. The amendment to the Existing Precise Plan would create a separate zoning area called a Planned Community District (“District”). The new zoning rules will only be applicable to the MG Project site. After a decision is made whether to amend the Existing Precise Plan, the city council would consider whether to approve the MG Project as a separate decision.

Councilmember Inks’ condominium unit, which is on Showers Drive, is located 607 feet from the closest boundary of the Existing Precise Plan and 1,045 feet from the MG Project site under consideration.

ANALYSIS

Section 87100 prohibits any public official from making, participating in making, or using his or her official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest. The Commission has adopted an eight-step standard analysis for deciding whether an individual has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a given governmental decision.

Your letter eliminates the need to analyze the initial steps of the standard analysis. The Councilmember is a public official and you are asking whether he may make or participate in making decisions to amend the Existing Precise Plan and the MG Project in light of the fact that he owns and resides in a condominium unit within 607 feet and 1045 feet respectively from each of the project boundaries.

Regulation 18705.2 provides in relevant part:

“(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c) below, the reasonably foreseeable financial effect of a governmental decision (listed below in (a)(1) through (a)(13)) on a parcel of real property in which an official has a financial interest, other than a leasehold interest, is material whenever the governmental decision:



“(10) Would change the character of the parcel of real property by substantially altering traffic levels or intensity of use, including parking, of property surrounding the official’s real property parcel, the view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality, including odors, or any other factors that would affect the market value of the real property parcel in which the official has a financial interest;



“(12) Would cause a reasonably prudent person, using due care and consideration under the circumstances, to believe that the governmental decision was of such a nature that its reasonably foreseeable effect would influence the market value of the official’s property.”

Your facts implicate these two subdivisions. These subdivisions focus on the effects on the official’s interest emanating from the project site.

Subdivision (a)(10) considers impacts to the character of the property. Distance is not determinative with respect to this test. You noted that Councilmember Inks’ condominium is “separated from the shopping center by a residential development which provides a visual buffer” and his view is “not directly impacted by the proposed redevelopment.”

You also indicate that a parking study prepared as part of the EIR for the MG Project indicates that while the “redevelopment intensifies the existing commercial and retail uses on the site, traffic studies indicate the only significant traffic impact will be a substantial increase in vehicle delay or deterioration at the intersection of San Antonio Road and the main transportation corridor of El Camino Real…”

Lastly, you state that because of the distance and buffers between the MG Project and Councilmember Inks’ property, it does not appear there will be significant noise, odor, privacy, or parking concerns.

While the immediate vicinity of the Councilmember’s condominium may not experience direct impact or dramatic change due to the project, we note that the EIR you reference also File No. A-14-106(b) noted substantial and significant changes to the surrounding area—the increased intensity and expansion of use, the density of the development, the increased overall traffic, and prolonged construction period—that would affect the market value of real property in the area.

These factors suggest a foreseeable material financial effect under subdivision (a)(10).

However, even assuming that subdivision (a)(10) is not triggered, under the general test of (a)(12), it appears that the proposed MG Project would cause a reasonably prudent person, using due care and consideration under the circumstances, to believe that the governmental decision was of such a nature that its reasonably foreseeable effect would influence the market value of the official’s property.

Regulation 18706(b) defines foreseeability as follows:

“A financial effect need not be likely to be considered reasonably foreseeable. In general, if the financial effect can be recognized as a realistic possibility and more than hypothetical or theoretical, it is reasonably foreseeable. If the financial result cannot be expected absent extraordinary circumstances not subject to the public official’s control, it is not reasonably foreseeable.”

Regulation 18706 provides factors to consider in determining whether a decision in which an official’s interest is not explicitly involved will have a reasonably foreseeable financial effect on the interest nonetheless:

(1) The extent to which the occurrence of the financial effect is contingent upon intervening events, not including future governmental decisions by the official’s agency, or any other agency appointed by or subject to the budgetary control of the official’s agency.

Here the financial effect does not appear to be contingent upon intervening events by any agency other than the city. The city must decide upon whether to approve the project. It is not anticipated that the city would make any further decisions on this matter. This factor supports the conclusion of a conflict of interest.

(2) Whether the public official should anticipate a financial effect on his or her economic interest as a potential outcome under normal circumstances when using appropriate due diligence and care.

In the past, we have found that the anticipated positive financial effect of redevelopment is intended to increase property values, improve the business climate within the project area, and provide benefits to the community as a whole. The very nature of redevelopment projects has led the Commission to find that it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be a financial effect on real property values and business interests located within or near project areas. (In re Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71, Advice Letters to Haight, No. A-81-509, and Phillips, No. A-87-166. See also Downey Cares v. Downey Community Development Commission (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 983, 991.)

In this case, the MG Project could result in approximately 1.1 million square feet of mixed used development consisting of six blocks of office, commercial, retail, hotel, cinema, restaurant, and parking spaces. This development would be constructed approximately twotenths of a mile from the Councilmember’s condominium. The change in intensity and density of use should create an expectation that there will be a financial effect on the official’s home. This factor supports the conclusion of a conflict of interest.

(3) Whether the public official has an economic interest that is of the type that would typically be affected by the terms of the governmental decision or whether the governmental decision is of the type that would be expected to have a financial effect on businesses and individuals similarly situated to those businesses and individuals in which the public official has an economic interest.

The value of residential property within close proximity to the project will likely be affected by the development. As discussed above, the very nature of development projects likely results in positive financial effects on real property values and business interests located within or near the project area as the result of the redevelopment project. (DeSaulnier Advice Letter, No. A-96-361.) This factor supports the conclusion of a conflict of interest.

(4) Whether a reasonable inference can be made that the financial effects of the governmental decision on the public official’s economic interest could compromise the public official’s ability to act in a manner consistent with his or her duty to act in the best interests of the public.

There is insufficient evidence to establish that bias can be inferred. Although the MG Project will not likely affect the Councilmember’s use and enjoyment of his condominium, the financial effects on the value of his property could be significant creating at a minimum an appearance of bias.

(5) Whether the governmental decision will provide or deny an opportunity, or create an advantage or disadvantage for one of the official’s economic interests, including whether the economic interest may be entitled to compete or be eligible for a benefit resulting from the decision.

This factor does not apply to the facts in this case.

(6) Whether the public official has the type of economic interest that would cause a similarly situated person to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the governmental decision on his or her economic interest in formulating a position. See discussion in numbers 2-4 above.

Consequently, absent an exception, Councilmember Inks may not participate in the MG Project decision.”

THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE AWARE OF HIS ATTEMTPS TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE. I AM CERTAIN THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY DID NOT WANT TO REQUEST THIS CLARIFICATION.


15 people like this
Posted by @BM
a resident of Castro City
on Oct 27, 2018 at 11:03 am

Two long rants that fail to adequately address my objections. Almost all of your points reveal a lack of ability to connect the dots. Again if Inks has failed to properly fill out his form 700 correctly, you should file a complaint. Your excuses for your inaccurate reporting show your carelessness w the facts. You fail to back up many of your assertions


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2018 at 11:37 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to @BM you said:

“Two long rants that fail to adequately address my objections.”

NOTHING WILL ADDRESS YOUR OBJECTIONS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING THEM. YOUR ONLY APPROACH IS TO TRY TO DISCREDIT ANY OTHER POINT OF VIEW. SIMPLY PUT YOU CAN OBJECT ALL YOU WANT. BUT THE VOTERS ARE THE JUDGES. AND IN FACT YOU PROVIDE NOT ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE YOUR POINT. You said:

“Almost all of your points reveal a lack of ability to connect the dots.”

AGAIN THERE IS NO REASONING WITH ONE WHOSE INTENT IS TO TRY TO MAKE CLAIMS WITH NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEM. I PROVIDED OBJECTIVE TEXT WITH RESOURCES TO COUNTER YOUR POINT OF VIEW AND NOTHING MORE. You said:

“Again if Inks has failed to properly fill out his form 700 correctly, you should file a complaint.”

I AM DOING HOMEWORK ON THAT RIGHT NOW. SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU WILL CLAIM IF I DON’T YOU CLAIM I HAVE NO BASIS. SO I WILL DO SO. You said:

1”Your excuses for your inaccurate reporting show your carelessness w the facts.”

IT WOULD APPEAR THAT YOU BEAR THE BURDEN TO PROVE THAT. I ALREADY DISCLOSED MY EVIDENCE. BUT YOU SIMPLY DISREGARD ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS CONUTER TO YOUR POLITICAL INTERESTS. You said:

“You fail to back up many of your assertions”

AGAIN, I DID BUT YOU WANT TO CLAIM MY “LONG RANTS” ARE NOT EVIDENCE. THAT IS YOUR OPINION. THE VOTERS SHOULD READ IT AND MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS.


19 people like this
Posted by @BM
a resident of Castro City
on Oct 27, 2018 at 2:15 pm

Again you fail to adequately address my arguments. It's clear you hate Inks and maybe this is clouding your thinking. You paste a lot of stuff but it's obvious you don't read it carefully In trying to support your arguments. For example self defense is not necessarily committing a violent act.. you quote Rothbard but you clearly don't understand the argument he was making for self defense against violent aggression

You claim Inks committed an illegal act But offer no evidence other than wild speculation.

You claim Job is innocent but he has already admitted his crime to the police. Go ahead and call the police or Job and ask them. The police wouldn't issue a citation unless there was an admission and they verify it

Maybe you are conspiring w Job to smear Inks.



Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2018 at 3:20 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to @BM you said:

“Again you fail to adequately address my arguments.”

You never acknowledge my evidence, so why should anyone? You said:

“It's clear you hate Inks and maybe this is clouding your thinking.”

I don’t HATE Inks. I simply demonstrate his lack of ethics. In fact libertarians have no ethics at all if you understand Ayn Rand. Ayn Rands philosophy has been described as (Web Link):


“Philosophy

Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, WITH HIS OWN HAPPINESS AS THE MORAL PURPOSE OF HIS LIFE, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".[106] She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics.[107]”

THUS ONE IS FREE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OTHERS AS LONG AS IT SATISFIES ONE’S OWN HAPPINESS. It goes on to say:

“IN EPISTEMOLOGY, SHE CONSIDERED ALL KNOWLEDGE TO BE BASED ON SENSE PERCEPTION, THE VALIDITY OF WHICH SHE CONSIDERED AXIOMATIC,[109] AND REASON, WHICH SHE DESCRIBED AS "THE FACULTY THAT IDENTIFIES AND INTEGRATES THE MATERIAL PROVIDED BY MAN'S SENSES".[110] She rejected all claims of non-perceptual or a priori knowledge, including "'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing'".[111] IN HER INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY, RAND PRESENTED A THEORY OF CONCEPT FORMATION AND REJECTED THE ANALYTIC–SYNTHETIC DICHOTOMY.[112]”

THUS ONE IS FEEE TO DISREGARD ANY REALITY THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH ONE’S SELF INTEREST. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS SIMPLY REJECTED. It goes on to say:

“IN ETHICS, RAND ARGUED FOR RATIONAL AND ETHICAL EGOISM (RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST), AS THE GUIDING MORAL PRINCIPLE. SHE SAID THE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD "EXIST FOR HIS OWN SAKE, NEITHER SACRIFICING HIMSELF TO OTHERS NOR SACRIFICING OTHERS TO HIMSELF".[113] SHE REFERRED TO EGOISM AS "THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS" IN HER BOOK OF THAT TITLE,[114] IN WHICH SHE PRESENTED HER SOLUTION TO THE IS-OUGHT PROBLEM BY DESCRIBING A META-ETHICAL THEORY THAT BASED MORALITY IN THE NEEDS OF "MAN'S SURVIVAL QUA MAN".[115] SHE CONDEMNED ETHICAL ALTRUISM AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF HUMAN LIFE AND HAPPINESS,[9] AND HELD THAT THE INITIATION OF FORCE WAS EVIL AND IRRATIONAL, WRITING IN ATLAS SHRUGGED THAT "FORCE AND MIND ARE OPPOSITES."[116]”

THUS TAKING CONSIDERATION OF OTHERS POSITIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED. It goes on to say:

“RAND'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY EMPHASIZED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (INCLUDING PROPERTY RIGHTS),[117] AND SHE CONSIDERED LAISSEZ-FAIRE CAPITALISM THE ONLY MORAL SOCIAL SYSTEM BECAUSE IN HER VIEW IT WAS THE ONLY SYSTEM BASED ON THE PROTECTION OF THOSE RIGHTS.[4] She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship.[118] Rand believed that natural rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.[119] Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism". SHE WORKED WITH CONSERVATIVES ON POLITICAL PROJECTS, BUT DISAGREED WITH THEM OVER ISSUES SUCH AS RELIGION AND ETHICS.[120] SHE DENOUNCED LIBERTARIANISM, WHICH SHE ASSOCIATED WITH ANARCHISM.[121] SHE REJECTED ANARCHISM AS A NAÏVE THEORY BASED IN SUBJECTIVISM THAT COULD ONLY LEAD TO COLLECTIVISM IN PRACTICE.[122]”

IN EFFECT SHE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT ETHICS SHOULD APPLY IN LEBERTARIANISM. IN FACT SHE WAS KNOWN TO BE UNFAITHFUL AND HAD MANY AFFAIRS AND WAS SPITEFUL BY PUNISHING THOSE WHO LEFT HER FOR SOMEONE ELSE AS REPORTED HERE(Web Link):

“How Ayn Rand Seduced Young Men and Helped Make the U.S. into an Uncaring Nation

By Bruce Levine on December 17, 2011

The Seduction of Nathan Blumenthal

Ayn Rand’s books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and her philosophy that celebrates self-interest and disdains altruism may well be, as Vidal assessed, “nearly perfect in its immorality.” BUT IS VIDAL RIGHT ABOUT EVIL? CHARLES MANSON, WHO HIMSELF DID NOT KILL ANYONE, IS THE PERSONIFICATION OF EVIL FOR MANY OF US BECAUSE OF HIS PSYCHOLOGICAL SUCCESS AT EXPLOITING THE VULNERABILITIES OF YOUNG PEOPLE AND SEDUCING THEM TO MURDER. What should we call Ayn Rand’s psychological ability to exploit the vulnerabilities of millions of young people so as to seduce them to kill caring about anyone besides themselves?

While the most famous name that would emerge from Rand’s Collective was Alan Greenspan (tagged “A.G.” by Rand), the second most well-known name to emerge from the Collective was Nathaniel Branden, psychotherapist, author, and “self-esteem” advocate. Before he was Nathaniel Branden, he was Nathan Blumenthal, a fourteen-year-old who read Rand’s The Fountainhead again and again. He later would say, “I felt hypnotized.” He describes how Rand gave him a sense that he could be powerful, that he could be a hero. He wrote one letter to his idol Rand, then a second. To his amazement, she telephoned him, and at age twenty, Nathan received an invitation to Ayn Rand’s home. Shortly after, Nathan Blumenthal announced to the world that he was incorporating Rand in his new name: Nathaniel Branden. And in 1955, with Rand approaching her fiftieth birthday and Branden his twenty-fifth, and both in dissatisfying marriages, Ayn bedded Nathaniel.

WHAT FOLLOWED SOUNDS STRAIGHT OUT OF HOLLYWOOD, BUT RAND WAS STRAIGHT OUT OF HOLLYWOOD, HAVING WORKED FOR CECIL B. DEMILLE. RAND CONVENED A MEETING WITH NATHANIEL, HIS WIFE BARBARA (ALSO A COLLECTIVE MEMBER), AND RAND’S OWN HUSBAND FRANK. TO NATHANIEL’S ASTONISHMENT, RAND CONVINCED BOTH SPOUSES THAT A TIME-STRUCTURED AFFAIR—SHE AND NATHANIEL WERE TO HAVE ONE AFTERNOON AND ONE EVENING A WEEK TOGETHER—WAS “REASONABLE.” Within the Collective, Rand is purported to have never lost an argument. On his trysts at Rand’s New York City apartment, Nathaniel would sometimes shake hands with Frank before he exited. Later, all discovered that Rand’s sweet but passive husband would leave for a bar, where he began his own affair, a self-destructive one with alcohol.

By 1964, the 34-year-old Nathaniel had grown physically weary of the now 59-year-old Ayn. Still sexually dissatisfied in his marriage to Barbara and afraid to end his affair with Rand, Nathaniel began sleeping with a married 24-year-old model, Patrecia Scott. RAND, NOW “THE WOMAN SCORNED,” CALLED NATHANIEL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COLLECTIVE, WHOSE NICKNAME HAD BY NOW LOST ITS IRONY FOR BOTH BARBARA AND NATHANIEL. RAND’S JUSTICE WAS SWIFT. SHE HUMILIATED NATHANIEL AND THEN PUT A CURSE ON HIM: “IF YOU HAVE ONE OUNCE OF MORALITY LEFT IN YOU, AN OUNCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH—YOU’LL BE IMPOTENT FOR THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS! AND IF YOU ACHIEVE POTENCY SOONER, YOU’LL KNOW IT’S A SIGN OF STILL WORSE MORAL DEGRADATION!” Rand completed the evening with two welt-producing slaps across Branden’s face. Finally, in a move that Stalin and Hitler would have admired, Rand also expelled poor Barbara from the Collective, declaring her treasonous because Barbara, preoccupied by her own extra-marital affair, had neglected to fill Rand in soon enough on Nathaniel’s extra-extra-marital betrayal. (If anyone doubts Alan Greenspan’s political savvy, keep in mind that he somehow stayed in Rand’s good graces even though he, fixed up by Nathaniel with Patrecia’s twin sister, had double-dated with the outlaws.)

AFTER BEING BANISHED BY RAND, NATHANIEL BRANDEN WAS WORRIED THAT HE MIGHT BE ASSASSINATED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COLLECTIVE, SO HE MOVED FROM NEW YORK TO LOS ANGELES, WHERE RAND FANS WERE LESS FANATICAL. BRANDEN ESTABLISHED A LUCRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY PRACTICE AND AUTHORED APPROXIMATELY 20 BOOKS, 10 OF THEM WITH EITHER “SELF” OR “SELF-ESTEEM” IN THE TITLE. RAND AND BRANDEN NEVER RECONCILED, BUT HE REMAINS AN ADMIRER OF HER PHILOSOPHY OF SELF-INTEREST.”



RAND SAID, “CAPITALISM AND ALTRUISM ARE INCOMPATIBLE. . . . THE CHOICE IS CLEAR-CUT: EITHER A NEW MORALITY OF RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST, WITH ITS CONSEQUENCES OF FREEDOM, JUSTICE, PROGRESS AND MAN’S HAPPINESS ON EARTH—OR THE PRIMORDIAL MORALITY OF ALTRUISM, WITH ITS CONSEQUENCES OF SLAVERY, BRUTE FORCE, STAGNANT TERROR AND SACRIFICIAL FURNACES.” FOR MANY YOUNG PEOPLE, HEARING THAT IT IS “MORAL” TO CARE ONLY ABOUT ONESELF CAN BE INTOXICATING, AND SOME GET ADDICTED TO THIS IDEA FOR LIFE.

I HAVE KNOWN SEVERAL PEOPLE, PROFESSIONALLY AND SOCIALLY, WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN CHANGED BY THOSE CLOSE TO THEM WHO BECAME INFATUATED WITH AYN RAND. A COMMON THEME IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS: “MY EX-HUSBAND WASN’T A BAD GUY UNTIL HE STARTED READING AYN RAND. THEN HE BECAME A COMPLETELY SELFISH JERK WHO DESTROYED OUR FAMILY, AND OUR CHILDREN NO LONGER EVEN TALK TO HIM.”

So I have a good reason to doubt John Inks ability to conduct himself without being a “private interest” advocate in the City Council. That’s all. You said:

“You paste a lot of stuff but it's obvious you don't read it carefully In trying to support your arguments. For example self defense is not necessarily committing a violent act.. you quote Rothbard but you clearly don't understand the argument he was making for self defense against violent aggression”

THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID. HE ADVOCATED VIOLENCE. JUST LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED TODAY IN THE PITTSBURG SYNAGOUGE. THE FACT IS VIOLENCE IS NOW ACCEPTABLE AS A POLITICAL ACT DUE TO LIBERTARIANISM. WHAT ACTIIONS WARRANT THIS KIND OF VIOLENCE? BUSINESS REGULATIONS CLEARLY ARE NOT JUSTIFYING THIS KIND OF ACTION? You said:

“You claim Inks committed an illegal act But offer no evidence other than wild speculation.”

WRONG DOCUMENTED MONEY CHANGING HANDS AND HIS POSITION WHERE HE CLAIMS MEASURE V SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN A RECENT DISCUSSION. You said:

“You claim Job is innocent but he has already admitted his crime to the police.”

AGAIN PLEASE SHOW A DOCUMENT OR A RECORDING THAT PROVES YOUR CLAIM. YOU CANNOT CLAIM THIS, THIS IS JUST YOUR CREATIVITY. You said:

“Go ahead and call the police or Job and ask them. The police wouldn't issue a citation unless there was an admission and they verify it”

A CITATION IS AN ALLEGATION OF A CRIMINAL ACT. NOTHING MORE PLEASE READ THIS:

“citation Play ci·ta·tion

Noun

The definition of a citation is a ticket issued by the police or a reference to a work where the author is given formal credit and where the source is given for the original work.

An example of a citation is when a police officer writes you a traffic ticket.

AND

Citation

a summons to appear before a court of law”

THAT IS ALL, IT DOES NOT MEAN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE ANYTHING. I SUCCESSFULLY PROVED A CITATION WAS INVALID IN COURT IN THE PAST. IN FACT IT LED TO A POLICE LIEUTENANT RESIGNING FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR FILING A FALSE CITATION. HOW, BECAUSE THE COURT CLEARLY STATED A CITATION IS NOT EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE COURT. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION? You said:

“Maybe you are conspiring w Job to smear Inks.”

NO I AM NOT, I AM SIMPLY PROVIDING PUBLIC RECORDS AND NEWS ARTICLES FOR THE PUBLIC TO CONSIDER


13 people like this
Posted by @BS
a resident of Castro City
on Oct 27, 2018 at 3:34 pm

Another long and uninteresting rant. You post a lot of web stuff that you don't seem to understand. Try to read your stuff and understand it before you try to connect the dots.

You provide no evidence that you do not hate Inks


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2018 at 3:48 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to @BS you said:

"Another long and uninteresting rant. You post a lot of web stuff that you don't seem to understand."


Nice try, All you can do is attack what you do not agree with and do so by personal attacks. You said:

"Try to read your stuff and understand it before you try to connect the dots."

Nice try again, nothing but a personal attack with no evidence to back it up. You said:

"You provide no evidence that you do not hate Inks"

Nice try, playing it off that Inks is a victim? He has been an exploiter of so many opportunities in his past and present. Is this the best argument you can make?

By the way, nice fruedian slip. You called yourself "@BS"

VOTERS DO NOT LET ANYONE TELL YOU HOW TO VOTE. MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.


33 people like this
Posted by ex-Hooli person
a resident of Rex Manor
on Oct 27, 2018 at 7:41 pm

Once again, a single persona is filibustering the comments section with tens and tens of thousands of words, post after post after screedy post. I wonder whether it's a rogue AI, codenamed "Gadfly", from our clever Hooli friends in North Bayshore.

I know the old saying, "don't feed the trolls". Meh.

Less is more.


29 people like this
Posted by Inks 4 council
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Oct 27, 2018 at 10:15 pm

Inks is a retired NASA engineer. Why would he need to disclose income he doesn't receive? Did these people READ 700 forms? You simply submit what applies to your situation. Any candidate or office holder can tell you that (as they are all required to submit form).

Job confessed last Saturday. Because the MVV choose to leave that out if story is on them, not Job or Inks.

Equating Libertarian Party to Trump is sophomoric at best. Calling up quotes from Rothbard that actually prove your points wrong are hilarious. He clearly states that agression can only follow someone else's aggressive behavior first. Every member of the LP signs the non-aggression pledge as part of being a member.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2018 at 11:57 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Inks 4 council you said:

“Inks is a retired NASA engineer. Why would he need to disclose income he doesn't receive?”

Per the instructions found in the publication California Fair Political Practices Commission, Frequently Asked Questions: Form 700 Disclosure found here (Web Link)
Income required to be reported under form 700 are:

“Income Questions

9. Q. Must an official report a spouse’s or registered domestic partner’s salary?

A. Generally an official is required to report his or her community property share (50%) of his or her spouse’s or registered domestic partner’s salary. The disclosure lists the employer’s name as the source of income on Schedule C of the Form 700. If the spouse or registered domestic partner is self-employed, the business entity is reported on Schedule A-2. Officials should check their disclosure category, if applicable, to determine if the income is reportable. A spouse or registered domestic partner’s government salary is not reportable (e.g., spouse is a teacher at a public school).”

Thus any family income does need to be reported by a spouse or domestic partner. Also:

“11. Q. If an official owns a business in which he has received income of $10,000 or more from a client, is the official required to disclose the client’s name on Schedule A-2, Part 3?

A. Yes, except for under rare circumstances where disclosure of the identity would violate a legally recognized privilege under California or federal law. In these cases, the FPPC may authorize an exemption. (Regulation 18740)”

Given that his organization called “Mountain View Residents for Renter, Homeowner & Taxpayer Protections” was sponsored by the California Apartment Association. Committee major funding from: Tod Spieker & Spieker Companies Inc. and Mariposa Clubwas provided $260,000. It would appear that this is required. Also:

“Investment Questions

14. Q. An official holds various stocks through an account managed by an investment firm. The account manager decides which stocks to purchase with no input from the official. Are the stocks subject to disclosure?

A. Yes. Unless the stocks are in a diversified mutual fund registered with the SEC or in a fund similar to a diversified mutual fund (e.g., exchange traded fund (ETF)) if the similar fund meets the specific criteria outlined in Regulation 18237. Any investments worth $2,000 or more in a business entity located in or doing business in the jurisdiction must be disclosed on Schedule A1 or A-2 if the official’s disclosure category requires that the investments be reported. “

So any stocks he owns in excess of $2,000 must be reported. Also:

“15. Q. Are funds invested in a retirement account required to be disclosed?

A. Investments held in a government defined-benefit pension program plan (i.e., CalPERS) are not reportable. Investments held in a fund such as a defined contribution plan 401(k) or exchange traded fund (EFT) are not required to be disclosed if the fund meets the specific criteria outlined in Regulation 18237. An official may need to contact his or her account manager for assistance in determining what assets are held in the account.”

However, being a NASA retired person doesn’t mean that his pension program is a CalPERS. Regulation 18237 states (Web Link) :

“§ 18237. Definition of “Investment.”

(a) For purposes of Section 82034, the term “investment” does not include a fund, including an exchange traded fund (ETF), closed-end fund or fund held in a plan qualified under Sections 401(k), 403(b), 457 or similar provision of the Internal Revenue Code (qualified plan), that is substantially similar to a “diversified mutual fund registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940” if all the following are met:

(1) The fund is a bona fide investment fund that pools money from more than 100 investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, or other securities.

(2) The fund holds securities of more than 15 issuers.

(3) The public official did not influence or control the decision to purchase or sell the specific fund on behalf of his or her agency during the applicable reporting period.

(4) The public official does not influence or control the selection of any specific investment purchased and sold on behalf of the fund.

(5) The fund does not have a stated policy of concentrating its holdings in the same industry or business.

(b) For purposes of subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2), an ETF, closed-end fund or qualified plan is presumed to have more than 100 investors and hold securities of more than 15 issuers.”

So John Inks will have to prove all above conditions are met in order to claim he has no pension. The next question is

“16. Q. If an official reported stocks that were acquired last year on his or her annual Form 700, must the stocks be listed again on the official’s next Form 700?

A. Yes. Stocks that are worth $2,000 or more during the reporting period must be reported every year that they are held. The “acquired” and “disposed” dates are only required if the stocks were acquired or disposed of during the period covered by the Form 700.”

So if he has any stocks month more than $2000, he was required to report it. He will have to prove that he doesn’t because in the past he did report them. It went on to say:

17. Q. How are interests in a living trust reported if the trust includes: (1) rental property in the official’s jurisdiction; (2) a primary residence; and (3) investments in diversified mutual funds? Are there different disclosure rules?

A. The name of the trust is reported, along with the rental property and its income, on Schedule A2. The official’s primary residence, if used exclusively as a personal residence, and investments in diversified mutual funds registered with the SEC, are not reportable. Although the official’s primary residence is not required to be disclosed on the Form 700, it is still considered an economic interest for conflict of interest purposes. (See Question 18.) A secondary residence not used exclusively for personal purposes may be reportable. (See Question 19.)”

Thus he still needed to report his condo based on the above. The questions asked also:

“Gift/Travel Questions

22. Q. What is the gift limit for 2017-2018?

A. $470: This means that gifts from a single, reportable source, other than a lobbyist or lobbying firm (see below), may not exceed $470 in a calendar year. For officials and employees who file the Form 700 under an agency’s conflict of interest code (“designated employees”), this limit applies only if the official or employee would be required to report income or gifts from that source on the Form 700, as outlined in the “disclosure category” portion of the agency’s conflict of interest code. For conflict of interest purposes, the gift must be under $470 to avoid consideration under the conflict rules. The gift limit for 2015 – 2016 was $460. State Lobbyist & Lobbying Firm Limit: $10: State candidates, state elected officers, and state legislative officials may not accept gifts aggregating more than $10 in a calendar month that are made or arranged by a registered state lobbyist or lobbying firm. The same rule applies to state agency officials, including members of state boards and commissions, if the lobbyist or firm is registered to lobby, or should be registered to lobby, the official’s or employee’s agency.”

Thus for conflict of interest purposes, he was required to disclose any gifts above $470. The questions also asked:

23. Q. During the year, an official received several gifts of meals from the same reportable source. Each meal was approximately $35. Is the source reportable?

A. Yes. Gifts from the same reportable source are aggregated, and the official must disclose the source when the total value of all meals reaches or exceeds $50.

Any meals paid reaching above $50. Are required to be reported, this is the SUM of all meals, not just a single meal. If he does not report it, he is violating this rule. The questions go on to say::

“37. Q. If a non-profit organization pays for an official to travel to a conference after receiving the funds to pay for the travel from corporate sponsors, specifically for the purpose of paying for the official’s travel, is the non-profit organization or the corporate sponsors the source of the gift?

A. The corporate sponsors are the source of the gift if the corporate sponsors donated funds specifically for the purpose of the official’s travel. Thus, the benefit of the gift received by the official would be pro-rated among the donors. Each reportable donor would be subject to the gift limit and identified on the official’s Form 700. The FPPC should be contacted for specific guidance to determine the true source of the travel payment.”

Thus this gift must be reported. If he failed to do so, he violated this rule. The questions go on to say:

“41. Q. An official serves as a board member for two organizations – one has a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status and the other has a 501(c)(6) tax-exempt status. The organizations pay the official’s travel expenses to attend board meetings. Must the official report these travel payments?

A. Under the Act, travel payments provided to an official by a 501(c)(3) organization are exempt from the definition of “income” and therefore, not reportable. However, travel payments from other organizations, including a 501(c)(6) organization, are likely required to be reported. Designated employees must report such travel payment if the organization is reportable pursuant to the official’s disclosure category in his or her agency’s conflict of interest code.”

Any travel paid by these groups require disclosure.

WHY DO YOU ASSUME I DID NOT KNOW THIS INFORMATION? You went on to say:

“Job confessed last Saturday. Because the MVV choose to leave that out if story is on them, not Job or Inks.”

BUT YOU HAVE NOT DISCLOSED ANY OFFICIAL RECORD OF SAID CONFESSION. IF YOU READ THE MOUNTAIN VIEW POLICE DISCLOSURE IT STATED:

“UPDATE: On Sunday, Oct. 21, 73-year-old Job Lopez was issued a citation for petty theft and for vandalism. He is scheduled to appear in court in December.

ORIGINAL POST:

A man connected to a vandalism case on Friday involving a city council candidate's campaign sign has been identified.

While the investigation into this case is still ongoing, we wanted to provide the community with an update in light of the traction this incident has received.

On Friday, Oct. 19, around 3:40 am, a man walked up to front door of a home on the 100 block of Church Street. Home security footage captured the man allegedly defacing a campaign sign belonging to city council candidate John Inks. In the video, the man appears to spray paint the sign, walk back to the front of the yard and pick up another type of sign, and walk away. The man seen in the video was wearing sunglasses with the hood of his sweatshirt pulled up over a baseball cap, dark colored pants and gloves.

When we received a copy of this footage early Saturday morning, one of our officers immediately recognized the man. That individual was interviewed on Saturday, and on Sunday, officers issued a citation for petty theft and for vandalism to 73-year-old Job Lopez. He is scheduled to appear in court in December. Should anything change, or should we have further updates on this incident, we will immediately inform our community. We appreciate your patience as we gather information and as we thoroughly investigate this incident.

We encourage anyone who has any additional information on this incident to contact Sgt. Wahed Magee at Wahed.Magee@mountainview.gov. Media inquiries can be sent to PIO Katie Nelson at policepio@mountainview.gov”

THERE IS NO RECORD OF ANY ALLEGED CONFESSION AND YOU KNOW IT. You said:

“Equating Libertarian Party to Trump is sophomoric at best. Calling up quotes from Rothbard that actually prove your points wrong are hilarious. He clearly states that agression can only follow someone else's aggressive behavior first. Every member of the LP signs the non-aggression pledge as part of being a member.”

Please, there is nothing in the by laws found here (Web Link) includes a “non-aggression” pledge. I searched aggression on the webpage and it did not provide any claim that there was a “non-aggression” pledge. Why did you claim this?

Simply put, you need to provide some proof of your claims to disprove the above.


20 people like this
Posted by Big L in MV
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 10:24 am

Business Man Y U Mad Bro?

Inks is running for council - not dictatorship. He is one voice on the council and it's a fairly well diverse council here in Mountain View. His history on the council shows he is very well tempered and considerate of the other view points.

So why are you so threatened by Inks?

Are you threatened by the man himself? By Libertarianism? Is your self prescribed truth crumbling because of his success? Did he kick your dog?

How many hours did you spend researching and writing these comments? and to what effect? To prove one person wrong. Or are you just trying to convince yourself that you're right?





2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 12:08 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Big L in MV you said:

“Business Man Y U Mad Bro? “

NOPE, just making sure that politics is not SOLD by those who exploited the systems like John Inks. You said:

“Inks is running for council - not dictatorship. He is one voice on the council and it's a fairly well diverse council here in Mountain View. His history on the council shows he is very well tempered and considerate of the other view points. “

AND WHEN HE STATED THE VOTERS WERE WRONG IN PASSING MEASURE V, IS THAT WELL TEMPERED AND CONSIDERATE. YOU CAN SEE HIM SAY SO RIGHT HERE (Web Link ) at time mark 34:30 he declared that the citizens of Mountain View were his “enemy” by saying they “attacked” the “Private Property” of landlords. HE SAID THE CITIZENS’ RIGHT TO PASS MEASURE V WAS WRONG. HE STATES THAT TO HIM AND HIS LIBERTARIANS, THAT THE CITIZENS IN EFFECT ARE HIS ENEMY. Should we vote for him if he thinks the voters are his enemy?

In fact at time mark 27:00 he simply states that as long as you have “the right person, with the right temperament” and “if they met that criteria”. Notice he does not establish who is the “Right Person”. To him the “Right Person” would never support rent control. To him the “Right Temperament” would only be that of doing anything possible to undermine the CSFRA. His “Criteria” is simply to staff the RHC with those who only agree with his “Libertarian” agenda. But his opinion is not open, he has no flexibility regarding his “Libertarian” agenda regarding private property. So this is simply a façade. You said:

“So why are you so threatened by Inks? “

HE IS A THREAT TO THE VOTERS GIVEN HIS OWN WORDS. YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF IT. You said:

“Are you threatened by the man himself? By Libertarianism? Is your self prescribed truth crumbling because of his success? Did he kick your dog? “

I just demonstrated your inability to be aware of his own conduct. That he is a threat to the voters of Mountain View. You said:

“How many hours did you spend researching and writing these comments? and to what effect? To prove one person wrong. Or are you just trying to convince yourself that you're right?”

HE DID IT HIMSELF. I WAS AT THAT MEETING WHEN HE DECLARED THAT THE VOTERS MEAN NOTHING TO HIM. IT REMINDS ME OF THE SCENE WHEN ANAKIN PUTS THE BLAME ON PADME’S DISAGREEMENT WITH HIM. ANAKIN SAYS OBI WAN TURNED PADME AGAINST HIM. AS OBI WAN SAID, “YOU HAVE DONE THAT YOURSELF”. IN EFFECT TO JOHN INKS, IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM YOU ARE AGAINST HIM.


20 people like this
Posted by Reasonable people can reasonably disagree
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 12:39 pm



I believe - taking the long view - that rent control does more harm than good, and I will vote against it any time I am given the opportunity to do so. I figured that out all by myself.

The vitriol I have seen directed towards those who “dare” to publicly speak out against rent control is telling of just how intolerant some have become when it comes to respecting those who are not like minded.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about something, and doing so does not make a person on one side of that particular disagreement a bad human being...which is what seems to be being postulated here in these comments, over and over and over again.

If you don’t care for someone’s politics, fine...just stop with the character assassinations, okay?




Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 1:33 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Reasonable people can reasonably disagree you said:

“I believe - taking the long view - that rent control does more harm than good, and I will vote against it any time I am given the opportunity to do so. I figured that out all by myself. “

I never said I wanted to control your vote. I simply encourage looking at the entire record you said:

“The vitriol I have seen directed towards those who “dare” to publicly speak out against rent control is telling of just how intolerant some have become when it comes to respecting those who are not like minded. “

Simply put, It is said that “YOU CANNOT REASON WITH A TIGER WHEN YOUR HEAD IS IN ITS MOUTH!”

The simple truth is that the “libertarian party” does not negotiate with anyone. Their position is absolute. You really do think they are “tolerant” This seems to be not realistic. So as a libertarian would say, “self-defense is allowed and it can take any form necessary” You said:

“Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about something, and doing so does not make a person on one side of that particular disagreement a bad human being...which is what seems to be being postulated here in these comments, over and over and over again. “

I simply demonstrate the documented history. I am not making any claims that were not stated by John Inks himself. So you cannot claim these are “postulations”. I showed he made his statements in full awareness that it was recorded and can be presented to the public.

However, on top of this if you look at his “MeasureVTooCostly” video, he made claims that were clearly false regarding his claim that $2.6 M ARE BEING SUCKED OUT OF THE CITY. THAT WAS A LIE. THE FUNDS ARE PAID NOT FROM CITY. JOHN INKS CANNOT CLAIM THAT PROFITS MADE BY LANDLORDS ARE PROFITS MADE BY THE CITY. IN FACT THESE FEE ARE PAID BY THOSE HE WANTS TO PROTECT NAMELY: TOD SPIEKER & SPIEKER COMPANIES INC., THE MARIPOSA CLUB, AND THE VARIETY OF CORPORATE NON-CITIZENS THAT ARE LANDLORDS IN THE CITY. THIS WAS CLEARLY A FALSE CLAIM ONLY DESIGNED TO PROMOTE HIS BENEFACTORS FINANCIAL INTERESTS.

“If you don’t care for someone’s politics, fine...just stop with the character assassinations, okay?”

HIS OWN ACTIONS ARE A DEMONSTRATION OF HIS CHARACTER. I JUST DOCUMENT IT.


4 people like this
Posted by Free Speech Supporter
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Oct 28, 2018 at 2:19 pm

Free Speech Supporter is a registered user.

Right Here is where Membership agree to the Non-Aggression Principle:
Web Link
ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the
initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.


9 people like this
Posted by Big L in MV
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 2:31 pm

The point of conversation is understanding - not consensus.

You sir, do not want to understand -- you only want everyone here to assume your view is superior.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 3:13 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response toBig L in MV you said:

“The point of conversation is understanding - not consensus. “

Correct. You said:

“You sir, do not want to understand -- you only want everyone here to assume your view is superior.”

WRONG, THE VOTERS ARE SUPERIOR NOT ME.


Like this comment
Posted by Free Speech Supporter
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Oct 28, 2018 at 4:10 pm

Free Speech Supporter is a registered user.

You said,
"This is accurate. However the pledge and action do not go hand in hand because force is used in this situation as described here"

There are 140k registered Libertarians in California, and 1,600 Members of the party. Somehow, EVERY landlord is a Libertarian?

Let's assume that, somehow, you are correct and this 3rd party everyone up until now has gawked at as irrelevant, mounted a huge defense against Prop 10. Everything in that article lines up 100% with what a Libertarian landlord would do: 1) State/City initiation of force, against a landlords right to control rent 2) Landlord responds and evicts everyone and sells property, or raises rent before controls go into place.

Who initiated the force and taking? The State (Capital S). Who responded to the initiation of force? The Landlord.


4 people like this
Posted by Free Speech Supporter
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Oct 28, 2018 at 4:33 pm

Free Speech Supporter is a registered user.

It is worth pointing out that every local paper has rejected Prop 10, and even Gavin Newsom is a NO on Prop 10. Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 4:35 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Free Speech Supporter you said:

“There are 140k registered Libertarians in California, and 1,600 Members of the party. Somehow, EVERY landlord is a Libertarian? “

Given they claim they must have absolute power over others simply because they own land or a building, and that they “CHAMPION” private property, I can make a good case for it. You said:

“Let's assume that, somehow, you are correct and this 3rd party everyone up until now has gawked at as irrelevant, mounted a huge defense against Prop 10. Everything in that article lines up 100% with what a Libertarian landlord would do: 1) State/City initiation of force, against a landlords right to control rent 2) Landlord responds and evicts everyone and sells property, or raises rent before controls go into place.

Who initiated the force and taking? The State (Capital S). Who responded to the initiation of force? The Landlord.”

WRONG, RENT CONTROL IS NOT A TAKING. THIS SAME OLD SONG AND DANCE THAT IS WRONG.

Please read this story (Web Link)

“WASHINGTON — Tenants in nearly a million apartments subject to New York City’s rent regulations could breathe a sigh of relief on Monday. The United States Supreme Court, after indicating it might be interested in hearing a challenge to the regulations, decided to let them stand.

As is customary when the court declines to hear a case, the justices gave no reasons. There were no published dissents. Perhaps one in a hundred petitions seeking review by the court is granted, meaning that the decision not to hear the case sent no larger message.

The challenge to the rent law was brought by James D. Harmon Jr. and Jeanne Harmon, the owners of a five-story brownstone on West 76th Street near Central Park. They live on the lower floors and rent out the six apartments above them.

Three of those apartments are subject to New York’s rent-stabilization regulations, under which the government sets maximum permissible rent increases and generally allows tenants to renew their leases indefinitely.

According to the Harmons’ lawsuit, filed in 2008, the tenants in the rent-stabilized units pay around $1,000 a month, or about 60 percent below the market rate.

The suit did not directly challenge the rent control law, an older system that applies to far fewer tenants. The Harmons said that requiring them to accept below-market rents amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property.

“We still believe that the Constitution does not allow the government to force us to take strangers into our home at our expense for life,” Mr. Harmon said in a statement issued after the court turned down the case on Monday. “Even our grandchildren have been barred from living with us. That is not our America.”

David Mlotok, a tenant in one of the Harmons’ regulated apartments since 1976, said in an e-mail, “Obviously I’m relieved by the decision.”

A lawyer for the city, Alan Krams, said it was pleased with the ruling. “Rent regulation in New York City has a long history,” he said in a statement, “and the court properly left it to elected state and city officials to decide its future.”

Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ruled against the Harmons. A three-judge panel of the appeals court said the couple knew what they were getting into when they acquired the building.

It was that decision that the Supreme Court declined to consider.

The Court of Appeals added that the couple retained important rights under the regulations: they could in some circumstances reclaim the apartments for their own use; they could demolish the building so long as they did not replace it with housing; and they could “evict an unsatisfactory tenant.”

All of that meant, the panel said, that the city’s regulations did not amount to “permanent physical occupation of the Harmons’ property” and so did not run foul of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which says private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The Supreme Court has said that government regulation of private property can be “so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation or ouster.”

James D. Harmon Jr. and Jeanne Harmon, owners of an Upper West Side brownstone, fought the law that limits rent increases.

But the court has upheld rent regulations, most recently in a unanimous ruling in a 1992 case concerning a mobile-home park in Escondido, Calif. The justices reasoned that regulation of the terms of a lease did not amount to the sort of complete government takeover of property that is barred by the takings clause.

New York City’s rent regulations cover almost half of the city’s roughly 2.2 million rental housing units. A million other units are occupied by their owners.

The State Legislature extended the law, which was about to expire, last year.

In urging the justices not to hear the case — Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 — state and city officials defended rent regulations as a necessary response to a housing shortage and as a way to prevent “rent profiteering.”

Last month, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg certified that there was still a state of housing emergency, defined as a vacancy rate of less than 5 percent, which is a requirement for the regulations to be in effect.

The emergency has been in effect for more than 40 years.

Mr. Harmon said that was an odd kind of emergency.

“Right now,” he said, “there are 68,000 vacant apartments in the city. That is not an emergency by any definition.”

“Right now,” Mr. Harmon said, “there are 68,000 vacant apartments in the city. That is not an emergency by any definition.”

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo told reporters on Monday that the court’s order was “good news for the state of New York” because “rent regulations are very important to the tenants.”

Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, said she welcomed the decision. “Now,” she said in a statement, “the city’s rent regulation system can proceed unfettered, as we continue to ensure affordable housing is available to New Yorkers.”

But Joseph Strasburg, the president of the Rent Stabilization Association, a trade group for landlords, said the court’s order was a missed opportunity.

“This would at least have provided an opportunity to have a policy debate,” he said, adding: “This law needs to be revisited and directed towards those who need it, as opposed to those who have received the benefits of the system even though they can well pay their fair share in terms of rent.”

Maggie Russell-Ciardi, the executive director of a tenant advocacy group called Tenants & Neighbors, said it was a mistake to focus on the occasional affluent beneficiaries of rent regulations. “Despite what you read, the majority are actually low- to moderate-income folks,” she said. “It’s really a vital resource for them."

The case attracted widespread attention, particularly from libertarian groups questioning what they called government interference in the marketplace. They said the city’s rent regulations were not only unconstitutional but also counterproductive.

“Rent controls make things worse, not better,” said R. S. Radford, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which says it supports limited government and property rights and which filed a brief supporting the Harmons.

“Squeezing landlords actually creates shortages by discouraging people from getting into the rental business,” Mr. Radford said. “It’s as if the city’s firefighters showed up at a burning house with gasoline instead of water.”

The libertarians have long claimed that rent control is a taking. But no court has declared it so.

AS LONG AS THE HOUSING CRISI EXISTS, AS LONG AS THE WAR ON TERROR EXISTS, THE CLAIM THAT RENT CONTROL IS A TAKING BY ANY LANDLORD IS SIMPLY FALSE.


13 people like this
Posted by Big L in MV
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 4:42 pm

Angry business man

I am a voter.
I support Inks.

You continue to tell me my vote is wrong.

How is this understanding?


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 4:57 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Free Speech Supporter you said:

“It is worth pointing out that every local paper has rejected Prop 10, and even Gavin Newsom is a NO on Prop 10. Web Link”

That is because almost every institutional politician is against Prop 10 because of the following component:

“Section 7. Amendment and Repeal

Pursuant to Article II, Section 10, Subdivision ( c ), of the California Constitution, the Legislature may amend this Act to further its purposes BY A STATUTE PASSED IN EACH HOUSE BY ROLL CALL VOTE ENTERED IN THE JOURNAL, TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERSHIP CONCURRING, signed by the Governor. NO STATUTE RESTRICTING OR ELIMINATING THE POWERS THAT HAVE BEEN RESTORED BY THIS ACT TO A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY TO ESTABLISH RESIDENTIAL RENTAL RATES SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UNLESS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE.”

In effect it renders all lobbying done at the state level practically useless. Costa Hawkins passed by only 1 vote in both chambers. It also removes the ability to use lobbying to manipulate local governmental actions.. The simple truth is that this makes the VOTER the MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE POLITICS OF CALIFORNIA REGARDING RENT.

The LAO and all other entities dependent on the current political climate are threatened regarding their future. THAT IS WHY ALL PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS AND POLITICAL GROUPS ARE AGAINST IT.

In response to Posted by Big L in MV you said:

“Angry business man

I am a voter.

I support Inks.

You continue to tell me my vote is wrong.

How is this understanding?”

I NEVER SAID THAT. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE AS YOU WISH. I SAY THE VOTERS HAVE THE ULTIMATE CHOICE.

I ONLY PRESENT HISTORY SO THAT VOTERS CAN MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS.

IT IS YOUR CHOICE AND NOTHING MORE.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 5:48 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Lets sum up the resource you provided:

The Newspapers that support Proposition 10 are The Daily Californian, The East Bay Express, The Los Angeles Times, and The Sacramento Bee. What do these have in common? They are not dependent on Real Estate Advertising to be in business.

The Newspapers that oppose Proposition 10 are The Bakersfield Californian, LA Opinion, San Diego Union Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Rosa Democrat The Press Enterprise, and the Ventura County Star. All of these are significantly dependent on the Real Estate Industry. That is a good explanation why the NEWSPAPERS are more opposed than supporting.

The NON-Profits that support Proposition 10 are the ACLU (Northern California), California Church Impact, the Courage Campaign, Friends Committee on Legislation of Californai, League of Woman Voters, and the Sierra Club. What is the common denominator? They all have no relationship with Real Estate Industry.

The NON-Profits that oppose Proposition 10 are the Bay Area Council, California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. What do these groups have in common, they advocate the Real Estate Industry.

The Political Parties that support Proposition 10 are the California Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party. What is the common denominator? They all have no relationship with Real Estate

The Political Parties that oppose Proposition 10 are the California Republican Party and the Libertarian Party. What do these groups have in common, they advocate the Real Estate Industry.

The Unions are all in support of Proposition 10

WHAT IS THE THEME HERE?

THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY PARTICULARLY THE HOUSING INDUSTRY IS CURRENTLY UNDER FIRE IN THE ECONOMY. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS WEB PAGE FROM MARKET WATCH (Web Link) YOU WILL SEE THIS:

THE PERFORMANCE REPORT INDICATES THAT IN FIVE DAYS IT LOST 2.22%, ONE MONTH LOST 14.57%, ONE YEAR LOST 22.27% AND YEAR TO DATE LOST 28.66%.

IF THIS IS THE PUBLICALLY TRADED INVESTEMT HEALTH, ONE COULD ONLY THINK A PORPORTIONAL LOSS HAS OCCURRED IN THE PRIVATE INVESTMENT SECTOR.

THIS LOSS WOULD POSE A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE NEWSPAPAERS ABILITY TO STAY IN BUISNESS. THIS WOULD SIGNIFICANLTY HARM THOSE REPRESENTED BY THE BAY AREA COUNCIL, CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, AND THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION. THIS WOULD SIGNIFICANLTY HARM THOSE IN THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY.

IT DOESN’T TAKE A GENIUS TO SEE THE BIG PICTURE HERE.


9 people like this
Posted by Free Speech Supporter
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Oct 28, 2018 at 5:50 pm

Free Speech Supporter is a registered user.

TBM - Again, you proved my point in your cut-paste news article. The SCOTUS declined to hear the lower court case. That is not an affirmation, but rather, a deferral. The high court usually only hears cases when many lower courts have conflicting rulings, which it then "untangles" by accepting a case and ruling on it.

By your logic, there was nothing wrong with racial segregation in schools, until Brown v Board of Education! Just because the high court has not ruled on an issue, does not make it right! Likewise, the court rejected the Master Cake Bakery case. So do you accept that ruling?

I'm sure you can go on and on about who is appointed to SCOTUS, and politics, and blah blah blah, but all that is doing is moving the goalpost of the topic at hand. Rent control is the taking of property. This concept is just not en-vogue with the populist vote currently.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 6:47 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Free Speech Supporter you said:

“TBM - Again, you proved my point in your cut-paste news article. The SCOTUS declined to hear the lower court case. That is not an affirmation, but rather, a deferral. THE HIGH COURT USUALLY ONLY HEARS CASES WHEN MANY LOWER COURTS HAVE CONFLICTING RULINGS, WHICH IT THEN "UNTANGLES" BY ACCEPTING A CASE AND RULING ON IT.”

You just proved my point, there are no conflicting cases in the courts. The Courts have in the past and still do not call rent control a taking. That is exactly why the court allowed the lower court decision to stand and could find no constitutional basis to review it.

Please read this text:

TAKINGS AND RENT CONTROL JURISPRUDENCE

2. Pennell v. City of San Jose

IN THE FIRST U.S. SUPREME COURT RENT CONTROL CASE DECIDED SINCE HALL, PENNELL V. CITY OF SAN JOSE,223 THE COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A RENT CONTROL SCHEME ON FAMILIAR DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION GROUNDS. 224 Although the opinion rejected as premature a Hall-type takings claim, two dissenting justices, Justice O'Connor and Justice Scalia (author of the Nollan decision), found merit in the takings claim.22 5 Justice Scalia's dissent indicates that Hall's analytical framework is in step with a new perspective on land use and takings jurisprudence. 226 While not authoritative, the Pennell dissent, in combination with Hall's analysis, indicates that there is growing judicial interest in enhancing the constitutional protection of private property ownership.

The San Jose rent control ordinance challenged in Pennell was enacted in 1979.227 The ordinance permitted an automatic annual rent increase of up to eight percent, with increases above eight percent subject to the approval of a hearing officer. 228 In determining whether an increase above the statutory maximum was reasonable, the hearing officer could consider a number of factors enumerated in the ordinance, 229 including "tenant hardship, '230 which became the focus of the plaintiff's challenge.

THE PLAINTIFFS ARGUED THAT A TAKING WOULD OCCUR IF THE HEARING OFFICER TOOK TENANT HARDSHIP INTO ACCOUNT AND REDUCED THE RENT BELOW THE LEVEL ESTABLISHED AFTER REVIEWING THE OTHER FACTORS. 2 1 This taking would be impermissible, they argued, because it would not serve the legitimate public purpose of reducing excessive rents. Instead, the provision would force landlords to shoulder the public burden of subsidizing poor tenants.232

Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, DISMISSED THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM AS PREMATURE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE TENANT HARDSHIP PROVISION HAD EVER BEEN RELIED UPON BY A HEARING OFFICER TO REDUCE A PROPOSED RENT INCREASE. 233 THE COURT ALSO FOUND THE PROVISION TO' BE PERMISSIVE, NOT MANDATORY; THEREFORE, IT DID NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO A REDUCTION OF A PROPOSED INCREASE.2 34 FINALLY, THE COURT REJECTED THE PLAINTIFFS' DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS. 235

B. Implications for Rent Control in General

Purely economic rent control provisions that regulate rental rates and guarantee landlords a fair rate of return on investment are not threatened by Hall. Not all statutes raise the constitutional issues addressed in Hall, although, arguably, all rent control statutes in effect take a portion of the landlord's property by taking some of the profits the landlord would realize if the marketplace governed rental rates. IN ADDITION TO THE ECONOMIC ELEMENTS OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, THE HALL CASE CONSIDERED THE NONECONOMIC PROPERTY RIGHTS OF LANDLORDS AND BROUGHT TO THE FOREFRONT ISSUES NOT PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED IN CASES UPHOLDING CITIES' ABILITY TO REGULATE RENTAL RATES. WHAT HALL PLACES AT ISSUE, THEN, IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH MUNICIPALITIES CAN INFRINGE UPON LANDLORDS' NONECONOMIC INTERESTS THROUGH STATUTES DESIGNED TO PREVENT RENT GOUGING.”

In effect, as long as there is evidence of “Price Gouging” occurring and it can be demonstrated in court, there is no takings.

Please do some homework to check you r position in the future?


7 people like this
Posted by Free Speech Supporter
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Oct 28, 2018 at 7:26 pm

Free Speech Supporter is a registered user.

How is refusing to renew a lease, and being forced to have a tenant forever covered here? Is it "gouging" to not want to do business with someone anymore? Your first case presented asked those questions, and the high court refused to hear that case.

The dissent in second case cited, clearly shows that Rent Control advocates are more and more passing that line of the "taking clause", and will backfire on them. While most Libertarians find all Rent Control a taking, many judges are finding more and more aspects of it in this light. Good luck holding onto these overreaching Rent Control rules in the next 5 - 10 years. I image there will be much more compromise on your groups part, to save what you can, before it is completely taken away over time.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 8:58 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Free Speech Supporter you said:

“How is refusing to renew a lease, and being forced to have a tenant forever covered here?”

UNTIL THE HOUSING INDUSTRY SOLVES ITS OWN LACK OF DEVELOPMENT, IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS BECAUSE IT REAPED THE PROFITS OF PRICE GOUGING. You said:

“Is it "gouging" to not want to do business with someone anymore?”

YES IF IT IS DESIGNED TO PERPETRATE A ILLEGAL SCHEME TO MANIPULATE THE MARKET WHICH WOULD VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA ARTWRIGHT ACT AND THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST LAWS. You said:

“Your first case presented asked those questions, and the high court refused to hear that case.”

THAT IS BECAUSE THE COURTS ALREADY ADOPTED THE CONDITIONS THAT AS LONG AS RENT CONTROL IS RAIONALLY RELATED TO A GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST, IT SIMPLY WILL NOT CONSIDER IT A TAKING IN VIOLATION OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT. You said:

“The dissent in second case cited, clearly shows that Rent Control advocates are more and more passing that line of the "taking clause", and will backfire on them.”

UNTIL THE COURT DECLARES SO, THAT SIMPLY IS NOT THE CURRENT STANDARD. You said:

“While most Libertarians find all Rent Control a taking, many judges are finding more and more aspects of it in this light. Good luck holding onto these overreaching Rent Control rules in the next 5 - 10 years.”

UNITL THE COURTS MAKE THE DECISION YOU PREDICT, YOU SIMPLY CANNOT EXPECT THE PUBLIC TO BEAR THE COST OF THE FAILURE OF THE HOUSING INDUSTRY TO PREVENT PRICE GOUGING. You said:

“I image there will be much more compromise on your groups part, to save what you can, before it is completely taken away over time.”

MAYBE YES MAYBE NO. I AM NOT MAKING ANY PREDICTIONS.


Like this comment
Posted by LOL
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 28, 2018 at 10:34 pm

Hahaha, doubling-down on your misspelling even, eh, Mike? Can't say that's out of character for you, along with the horrible grammar and spelling. It was adorable when you called others "arrogant," when compared with the content of your posts.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2018 at 11:10 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to mike rose you said:

“No compromise now TBM.

Your kind should have done it earlier this year, but they overplayed their cards.”

More threats and intimidation mike, boy you need to get a better idea. You said:

“It looks like CH will stay and probably rent control scheme in MV will be drastically limited in 2020 election.”

Another threat? Go on:

“All of the above will be little harsh on the tenants activists.”

I still think the VOTERS have the ultimate choice in that matter. You said:

“But they have only themselves to blame , especially their greed, for this unfortunate outcome.”

The REALITY is that the housing industry is the GREEDIEST group that ever existed. They cheat in every way possible and put the blame on everyone else.

That’s all


4 people like this
Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 29, 2018 at 9:09 am

Money - smunny.
Although I have voted for Mr. Inks in the past (along with my votes for Mike and Lenny and Pat etc.) I will not vote for him this time. I will take Mike's advice - and vote for Ramirez rather than any other non-incumbent.

Mr. Inks has In My Opinion tripped over one of the hurdles I consider necessary for my support: he has been dishonest in his Initiative to Override Rent Control (Measure V 'improvement'). I prefer stark honesty over that initiative's dishonesty. I prefer 'honest support for development/developers and small business owners' to deception to the voting (initiative signing) public.

I'm on-the-public-record supporting Ink's free speech rights, but I will not vote for him this time!
Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by cant believe nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 30, 2018 at 6:19 pm

"Mr. Inks has In My Opinion tripped over one of the hurdles I consider necessary for my support: he has been dishonest in his Initiative to Override Rent Control (Measure V 'improvement'). I prefer stark honesty over that initiative's dishonesty. I prefer 'honest support for development/developers and small business owners' to deception to the voting (initiative signing) public."


This is precious coming from Steven Nelson. The king of creating disunity as a school board member. has no credible evidence but this is what he believes. Amazing


6 people like this
Posted by a MV resident
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2018 at 6:50 pm

Steve Nelson is right that the rent control repeal is not an honest initiative, and Inks public leadership on that campaign taints his reputation.

It's interesting that home owners who don't generally want more growth will support a libertarian (Inks) who by principle won't restrict real estate development.

Perhaps if we have more city council members like Inks who will deregulate housing regulations, we can get new housing that will finally match the market's demand for those who now face the dire choice of sleeping in their car or heaven forbid, on the road, on those sleepy two hour+ drives. Oil towns build allow dense housing for their workers, yet the Silicon Valley forces blue collar workers to sleep in their cars. More libertarians may be what progressive housing advocates really need.


Like this comment
Posted by Didn't vote Inks
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2018 at 2:27 pm

I don't share his pro big development vision for MV.


10 people like this
Posted by @Didn't vote Inks
a resident of Castro City
on Oct 31, 2018 at 2:55 pm

Didn't vote Inks stated

"I don't share his pro big development vision for MV".

Neither does John Inks share a pro big development vision for MV


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2018 at 6:35 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to @Didn't vote Inks you said:

“Neither does John Inks share a pro big development vision for MV”

His fundraising information indicates otherwise, just observe:

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

And:

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

As well as:

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 1, 2018 at 10:28 am

Steven Nelson is a registered user.

"Disunity" is a principle of representative democracy that I do believe in. GROUP THINK, indicative of many school boards is what I dislike. I think that better PUBLIC POLICY debates and decisions happen in legislative bodies when there is a range of ideas represented in those bodies. I have been a strong supporter of "gerrymander" reform in the process of state legislative boundaries (and then Calif. US House of Representative districts). It helps bring 'the middle' into this native state of mine.

So @cant believe nelson - I think it is GREAT when those citizens involved in the political process, like Cleave Frink and Christopher Chiang (of schools) show "disunity" by trying to explain and publicly debate public policy issue differences!


6 people like this
Posted by KaceyCarpenter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 1, 2018 at 1:03 pm

KaceyCarpenter is a registered user.

I endorse Lenny Siegel. www.lennysiegelforcouncil.net

Lenny has been an advocate for people, for peace, for progress for decades. He is an amazing leader in the community and is one of the few elected officials that is people-powered and corporate-free rejecting the $ from the special interest groups. I was proud to stand by Lenny at the 2016 DNC convention, elected assembly district 24 delegate (AD14) in the California Democratic Party, and co-founder of the Bayshore Progressive Democrats club that has also endorsed him.

Please vote for Lenny and other progressive champions in our community.

Thanks,
Kacey Carpenter


7 people like this
Posted by SIEGEL=BUILD, BUILD, BUILD
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Nov 1, 2018 at 2:27 pm

SIEGEL=BUILD, BUILD, BUILD is a registered user.

Wow, talk about a smear campaign, As one comment stated, Lenny never saw a development project he didn't like, and in addition, the fewer parking spaces for that project the better. Lenny's parking-lite high density vision assumes everyone will be living in a $5000 a month high rise apartments (courtesy of Prometheus), riding bikes or taking the train...NOTE TO CYCLISTS Watch yourself, navigating around 300+ RV's can be dangerous...you can thank Lenny for that too.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2018 at 2:59 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

WARNING LONG BUT IT IS TO EXPLAIN THE REALITY OF THE ERROR OF THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION

VOTERS SHOULD CONSIDER THE ROLE JOHN INKS HAS PLAYED AND IN FACT VIOLATED THE CITY COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT REGARDING THE FOLLOWING RULES:

The Mountain View City Council Code of Conduct states (Web Link)

LEGAL AND ETHICAL STANDARDS:

City Charter states:

3.1 Preamble

The residents and businesses of Mountain View are entitled to have fair, ethical, and accountable local government. Such a government requires that public officials:

Comply with both the letter and the spirit of the laws and policies affecting operations of the government;

Be independent, impartial, and fair in their judgment and actions;

USE THEIR PUBLIC OFFICE FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, NOT FOR PERSONAL GAIN; AND

Conduct public deliberations and processes openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.

To this end, the Mountain View City Council has adopted a code of ethics to encourage public confidence in the integrity of local government and its fair and effective operation.

This City Council code of ethics shall reside in two documents—the City Council Code of Conduct and the City Council Personal Code of Conduct. The City Council Code of Conduct and the Personal Code of Conduct shall not be interpreted to conflict with other rights and responsibilities of public officials set forth in this code or Federal, State, or local law. The City Council Code of Conduct shall be considered to be the definitive document relating to ethical conduct by Mountain View Councilmembers. The Personal Code of Conduct shall be considered to be a summary of the full City Council Code of Conduct.

3.2 Public Interest

3.2.1 Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL WORK FOR THE COMMON GOOD OF THE PEOPLE OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AND NOT FOR ANY PRIVATE OR PERSONAL INTEREST. Councilmembers must endeavor to treat all members of the public and issues before them in a fair and equitable manner.

3.2.2 Councilmembers shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California, and the City in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: the United States and California constitutions; the Mountain View City Charter; LAWS PERTAINING TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, ELECTION CAMPAIGNS, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES, AND OPEN PROCESSES OF GOVERNMENT; AND CITY ORDINANCES AND POLICIES.

3.3 Conduct

3.3.1 COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL REFRAIN FROM ABUSIVE CONDUCT, PERSONAL CHARGES, OR VERBAL ATTACKS UPON THE CHARACTER OR MOTIVES OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, STAFF, OR THE PUBLIC.

3.3.2 Councilmember duties shall be performed in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council.

3.3.3 Councilmembers shall inform themselves on public issues, listen attentively to public discussions before the body, and focus on the business at hand.

3.3.4 Council decisions shall be based upon the merits and substance of the matter at hand.

3.3.5 IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COUNCILMEMBERS TO PUBLICLY SHARE SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION THAT IS RELEVANT TO A MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM SOURCES OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING PROCESS WITH ALL OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO TAKING ACTION ON THE MATTER.

3.3.6 Appropriate City staff should be involved when Councilmembers meet with officials from other agencies and jurisdictions to ensure proper staff support as needed and to keep staff informed.

3.3.7 Councilmembers shall not attend internal staff meetings or meetings between City staff and third parties unless invited by City staff or directed by Council to do so.

3.3.8 Policy Role

3.3.8.1 Councilmembers shall respect and adhere to the councilmanager, structure of Mountain View City government as provided in State law and the City Charter.

3.3.8.2 COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL SUPPORT THE MAINTENANCE OF A POSITIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, AND CITY EMPLOYEES.

3.4 Conflict of Interest

3.4.1 In order to assure their independence and impartiality ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC GOOD, Councilmembers ARE PROHIBITED FROM USING THEIR OFFICIAL POSITIONS TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT DECISIONS IN WHICH THEY HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST OR WHERE THEY HAVE AN ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OR A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP THAT WOULD PRESENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAW.

3.4.2 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, COUNCILMEMBERS MUST FILE ANNUAL WRITTEN DISCLOSURES OF THEIR ECONOMIC INTERESTS.

3.4.3 Councilmembers SHALL NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SERVICES OR OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONAL GAIN BY VIRTUE OF THEIR PUBLIC OFFICE THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL.

3.4.4 Councilmembers shall respect and preserve the confidentiality of information provided to them concerning the confidential matters of the City. They must neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization nor use such information to advance the personal, financial, or private interests of themselves or others.

3.4.5 City Councilmembers SHOULD AVOID ANY ACTION THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS, OR CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF, USING PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, INCLUDING USE OF CITY STATIONERY OR OTHER CITY RESOURCES TO OBTAIN OR PROMOTE PERSONAL BUSINESS.

3.4.6 Public resources not available to the general public (e.g., City staff time, equipment, supplies, or facilities) shall not be used by Councilmembers for private gain or personal purposes.

3.4.7 In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL NOT APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE INTERESTS OF A THIRD PARTY BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE OR PROCEEDING OF THE CITY, EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY LAW.

3.4.8 To the best of their ability, Councilmembers SHALL REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL POLICIES AND POSITIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. WHEN PRESENTING THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS OR POSITIONS PUBLICLY, MEMBERS SHALL EXPLICITLY STATE THEY DO NOT REPRESENT THE COUNCIL OR THE CITY.

3.4.9 Mountain View City Charter Provisions

3.4.9.1 Financial Interests in City Contracts Prohibited.

NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY SHALL BECOME FINANCIALLY INTERESTED EXCEPT BY TESTATE OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN ANY CONTRACT, SALE, PURCHASE, LEASE, OR TRANSFER OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TO WHICH THE CITY IS A PARTY OR BE EMPLOYED BY ANY PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION REGULATED BY OR HOLDING FRANCHISES IN THE CITY. …[A]NY CONTRACT MADE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE VOID. (SECTION 706)

3.4.9.2 Nepotism.

The Council shall not appoint to a salaried position under the City government any person who is a relative by blood or marriage within the second degree of any one or more of the members of such Council and neither shall any department head or other officer having appointive power appoint any relative within such degree to any such position. (Section 707)
3.4.11 California State Law Regarding Conflicts

Four key areas of California State law regulate the ethics of public officials.

3.4.11.1 Constitutional prohibitions

State law strictly forbids elected and appointed public officials from accepting free or discounted travel from transportation companies. The penalty for a violation includes the forfeiture of office.

3.4.11.2 Contractual conflicts of interest

This prohibition, found in Government Code Section 1090, mirrors the City's Charter Provision Section 706 and applies to elected and appointed officials as well as other City staff members. It prohibits the City from entering into a contract if one of its members (i.e., a Councilmember) is financially interested in the contract. If the bar (or prohibition) applies, the agency is prohibited from entering into the contract whether or not the official with the conflict participates or not. In some limited circumstances, officials are allowed to disqualify themselves from participation and the agency may enter into the contract.

Financial interest has been defined to INCLUDE EMPLOYMENT, STOCK/OWNERSHIP INTERESTS, AND MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A FOR-PROFIT OR NONPROFIT CORPORATION, AMONG OTHERS. Violations can be charged as a felony. A person convicted of violating Section 1090 is prohibited from ever holding public office in the State.

3.4.11.3 Political Reform Act—Conflicts of Interest

The Political Reform Act (PRA) was adopted by the voters in 1974 and is the primary expression of the law relative to conflicts of interest (and campaign finance) in California. The Act created the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), a five-member State board which administers the Act.
The Act and the regulations are complex and are continuously subjected to official interpretation. The following synopsis of key parts of the Act will be helpful in spotting issues; however, the FPPC and/or City Attorney should be consulted for further advice and clarification.

With respect to conflicts of interest, the FPPC has promulgated a regulation which establishes an analysis which assists in determining whether a public official is participating in a government decision in WHICH THEY HAVE A QUALIFYING FINANCIAL INTEREST AND WHETHER IT IS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE THAT THE DECISION WILL HAVE A MATERIAL FINANCIAL EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S FINANCIAL INTEREST, WHICH IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE EFFECT THE DECISION WILL HAVE ON THE PUBLIC GENERALLY.

3.4.11.3.1 IF A MEMBER HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING A PARTICULAR DECISION, THEY MUST REFRAIN FROM MAKING OR PARTICIPATING IN THE MAKING OF A DECISION UNLESS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY LAW.

IF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST THAT GIVES RISE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, ONE OF THE KEY DETERMINATIONS IN THE EIGHT-STEP ANALYSIS IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS "PARTICIPATING IN" OR "MAKING" A GOVERNMENTAL DECISION.

3.4.11.3.1.1 A PUBLIC OFFICIAL MAKES A GOVERNMENT DECISION WHEN THEY DO THE FOLLOWING:

Vote on a matter.

APPOINT A PERSON.

OBLIGATE OR COMMIT HIS OR HER AGENCY TO ANY COURSE OF ACTION.

Enter into any contractual agreement on behalf of his or her agency.

DETERMINE NOT TO ACT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

3.4.11.3.1.2 A PUBLIC OFFICIAL PARTICIPATES IN MAKING GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS WHEN ACTING WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF HIS OR HER POSITION, THEY DO THE FOLLOWING:

Negotiate without significant substantive review with a governmental entity or private person regarding a governmental decision.

ADVISE OR MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DECISION-MAKER EITHER DIRECTLY OR WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT INTERVENING SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW BY:

— Conducting research or an investigation which requires the exercise of judgment on the part of the official AND THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS; or

— PREPARING OR PRESENTING ANY REPORT, ANALYSIS, OR OPINION ORALLY OR IN WRITING WHICH REQUIRES THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT ON THE PART OF THE OFFICIAL AND THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO INFLUENCE A GOVERNMENTAL DECISION.

3.4.11.3.2 When a public official has a qualifying financial interest, THAT OFFICIAL MAY NOT USE THEIR OFFICE OR OTHERWISE ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS OR MAKE APPEARANCES OR CONTACTS ON BEHALF OF A BUSINESS ENTITY, CLIENT, OR CUSTOMER.

3.4.11.3.3 If an official has a qualifying financial interest, there are nevertheless exceptions which allow a public official to make an appearance before an agency in very limited circumstances. THE ONE THAT IS MOST COMMONLY ENCOUNTERED IS AN APPEARANCE BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO REPRESENT HIMSELF OR HERSELF WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED PROJECT OR CHANGE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. IF THE APPEARANCE IS PERMITTED UNDER STATE LAW, THE APPEARANCE IS LIMITED TO APPEARING AT A PUBLIC MEETING AT THE PODIUM AND ADDRESSING A BOARD, COMMISSION, OR THE CITY COUNCIL. THE OFFICIAL MAY NOT CONTACT MEMBERS OF STAFF, THE CITY MANAGER, OR CITY ATTORNEY, OR DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS. A PUBLIC OFFICIAL WITH A CONFLICT CANNOT INTERACT WITH STAFF ON THAT ISSUE OTHER THAN TO ASK QUESTIONS, PAY FEES, ETC.

3.4.11.5 Common Law Conflicts of Interest

This is the judicial expression of the public policy against public officials using their official position for private benefit. AN ELECTED OFFICIAL BEARS A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO EXERCISE THE POWERS OF OFFICE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE THOSE POWERS OR THEIR OFFICE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PRIVATE INTEREST. This common law doctrine continues to survive the adoption of various statutory expressions of conflict law.

3.4.11.6 Appearance of Impropriety

When participation in action or decision-making as a public official does not implicate the specific statutory criteria for conflicts of interest; however, participation still does not "look" or "feel" right, that public official has probably encountered the appearance of impropriety.

FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE FAITH AND CONFIDENCE THAT GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN AN EVEN-HANDED AND ETHICAL MANNER, PUBLIC OFFICIALS MAY NEED TO STEP ASIDE EVEN THOUGH NO TECHNICAL CONFLICT EXISTS. An example is where a long-term nonfinancial affiliation exists between the public official and an applicant or the applicant is related by blood or marriage to the official. For the good of the community, members who encounter the appearance of impropriety should step aside.”

John Inks Violated the City Council Code of conduct specifically when he instructed the City Attorney to consent to a temporary restraining order in the CSFRA CAA Court Challenge, requiring outside attorneys to intervene to protect the citizen of Mountain View under:

“3.4.11.3.1.1 A PUBLIC OFFICIAL MAKES A GOVERNMENT DECISION WHEN THEY DO THE FOLLOWING: OBLIGATE OR COMMIT HIS OR HER AGENCY TO ANY COURSE OF ACTION.”

AND when he appointed 2 members into the RHC (Tom Means and Vanessa Honey) knowing that they had financial interests as well as personal relationships with the persons likely to make petitions regarding the CSFRA. THE SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS ARE:

3.4.11.3.1.1 A PUBLIC OFFICIAL MAKES A GOVERNMENT DECISION WHEN THEY DO THE FOLLOWING: APPOINT A PERSON.”

TOM MEANS WAS A PAID POLITICAL AUTHOR REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCITIONS AND THE SAM MATEO COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTOR SPECIFICALLY WRITING AGAINST RENT CONTROL WHILE HOLDING OFFICE IN THE RHC

VANESSA OLDENCAMP HONEY OPERATES THE MPM CORPORATION. THIS ORGANIZATION IS IN REAL ESTATE AND MUTLIFAMILY HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. SHE IS A MEMBER OF THE MULTIFAMILY INSIDERS GROUP SINCE 2011 (Web Link).

SIMPLY PUT SHE HAS DIRECT FINANCIAL AND PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THOSE SHE IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THEIR BENEFIT.

WHY SHOULD HE BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO VIOLATE THE CODE OF CONDUCT AGAIN?


15 people like this
Posted by @Kacey, RV's in your neighborhood?
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Nov 1, 2018 at 3:31 pm

@Kacey, RV's in your neighborhood? is a registered user.

Spoken like a true wannabe politician, Do you happen to live in a neighborhood inundated with RV's? My guess is NO. It seems the the more affluent neighborhoods like Old Mountain View (Siegel) and Waverly Park (Showlater) are home to those who think it's fine to let other residents of the city to deal with this public safety issue every single day. It's time for CHANGE.

I am not a policial wonk, I am a resident of Mountain View who wants CHANGE
I ENDORSE INKS - KAMEI - HICKS,


24 people like this
Posted by @Business Man, WHO ARE YOU?
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Nov 1, 2018 at 3:48 pm

@Business Man, WHO ARE YOU? is a registered user.

@BM who are you? Tired of the diatribes, nobody reads them, cut to the chase. If Inks is elected he is ONE of SEVEN. At this point I will take my chances, my city is a mess, Lenny is pushing for more and more development,and wants to turn our public land into a homeless encampment. Don't see the upside of voting for him.

Or maybe Business Man IS Lenny?? Job? Someone out there must know????


14 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2018 at 4:30 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to @Business Man, WHO ARE YOU? You said:

“@BM who are you? Tired of the diatribes, nobody reads them, cut to the chase.”

My name is Steven Goldstein, REGISTERED INDEPENDENT VOTER. I AM AN INDEPENDENT OBSERVER UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL POLITICIANS ARE IN SOME WAY INSTITUTIONALIZED. BUT JOHN INKS KICKS IT UP TO THE EXTREME FOR A SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN. You said:

“If Inks is elected he is ONE of SEVEN. At this point I will take my chances, my city is a mess, Lenny is pushing for more and more development,and wants to turn our public land into a homeless encampment.”

WOW, talking about making a claim that you must prove to be true. I document my information for free to the public. I am not paid to do so. I take it as a part of my RESPONSIBILITY as a CITIZEN that’s all. You said:

“Don't see the upside of voting for him.”

I DIDN’T SAY TO VOTE FOR LENNY. I SIMPLY DEMONSTRATE GOOD INFORMATION FOR THE PBLIC TO CONSIDER REGARDING JOHN INKS. You said:

“Or maybe Business Man IS Lenny?? Job? Someone out there must know????”

I have declared who I am at the City Council, the RHC, and in many public events. I will not be surprised if I get vandalized or harmed. Everyone knows where I am and who I am.


2 people like this
Posted by @BM
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Nov 4, 2018 at 4:21 am

@BM is a registered user.

Thanks for sharing. See you at the polls, actually I won't my ballot has already been counted. Good luck.


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

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Gluten-free bakery Misfits Bakehouse is reborn in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,026 views

Premarital and Couples: The "Right" Way to Eat an Artichoke
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,960 views

What did you learn last week?
By Sherry Listgarten | 8 comments | 1,370 views

 

Race Results Are In

Thank you for joining us at the 35th annual Moonlight Run & Walk! All proceeds benefit the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday fund, supporting local nonprofits serving children and families.

Click for Race Results