|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
It’s more than a year out, but Mountain View’s 2020 election for City Council is already beginning to take shape.
According to city filings, at least two political veterans are throwing their hats into the ring. One-term Councilman Lenny Siegel, who lost his bid for re-election in 2018, said he intends to give it another try at the ballot box. Mayor Lisa Matichak confirmed that she will seek a second term in office next November.
The two candidates set the stage for an election that is certain to be lively. Matichak and Siegel in some ways embody the city’s rival political camps. Matichak has championed quality of life issues for current Mountain View residents, striving to temper city growth without diminishing existing services. Siegel has embraced social justice issues, prodding Mountain View to push the envelope on building more housing while protecting low-income residents.
Suffice it to say, the two don’t appear to get along well. Matichak accidentally blasted out an email earlier this year that indicated her intentions to “thwart” Siegel’s agenda. Meanwhile, Siegel has not hesitated to publicly excoriate Matichak and her allies for actions that he says harm the city’s most vulnerable.
Most recently, Siegel has taken particular umbrage at the city’s ban on oversized vehicles, an action that would restrict where homeless people living out of vehicles could park. He has pledged to help bring a measure to the ballot next year to overturn the so-called RV ban, which could coincide with the City Council election.
Matichak and Siegel also part ways in regard to rent control and the dueling ballot measures to modify the law to make it more palatable to landlords. The two proposals include one measure by the state’s largest landlord lobby to make rent control essentially unenforceable and a milder initiative that is still being drafted by a City Council subcommittee. It’s unclear whether the rent control measures will go before voters in the March or November elections, but the issue is certain to influence the City Council race.
Four City Council seats will be up in the November 2020 election, which are currently occupied by Matichak, Margaret Abe-Koga, Chris Clark and John McAlister. Under the city’s term limits, Clark and McAlister will not be allowed to run again until 2022.
When asked, Abe-Koga told the Voice she would “likely” run again, although she still hasn’t made a final decision.
According to city election filings, former Parks and Recreation Commissioner Thida Cornes could also be considering a council run. Cornes last ran for City Council in 2016, and her campaign treasury still has about $8,500. She declined to say whether she intends to run again.
Run, F… Lenny, run!
But if you ignore “quality of life issues for current Mountain View residents” that is in the center of Matichak‘a campaign, you’ll not have a chance of winning.
@Voice,
That is why you have been deleting my post’s. You are trying to protect Lenny Siegel so he can get elected to city council. God help this city if he gets re-elected again. He can never have enough RV parking in our city, then tent city sidewalks is next.
You know that I am not the banned poster, as you say. I have a different screen name. “LOL.” Look at the period on the end.
The banned poster of “LOL” keeps posting here under his banned name and many different user names,like “Seriously” yet you do not delete him. Just look at who is furiously mashing his key board clicking on “Report Objectionable Content” that is him.
What does Matichak mean by “quality of life issues?”. It appears to me that Matichak supports landlords and is against rent control. I like Siegel, but am completely sick of all the demolition of naturally affordable housing and the building of expensive row-housing. Where IS the affordable housing being built in Mountain View for the middle and lower income people? Unless I hear of some low cost apartments being built soon for our middle and low income people, I will NOT vote for either candidate. I think the demolition of naturally affordable housing is disgraceful, and the city council keeps approving it.
Don’t worry @LOL., I have started taking screen shots of these threads before the comments get deleted – for later reference.
It’s amazing to see the range comments that are allowed on the Palo Alto Online forums, as well as the Almanac Online. Very rarely do you see heavy handed editing of comments, or threads locked down requiring registration in order to comment. If you peruse the numerous threads on the sister forums you’ll see that the heavy handed stifling of discussion is almost unique to the Mountain View Voice forums.
Troubling trend.
Mr Segel won’t get my vote and my neighbor’s with his view on the RVs.
We voted you out of office because of this – and if anything even more people feel need to get rid of these junker ASAP
Get on board with the voters or you’re out.
This was predictable. Lenny is like the Bernie of Mountain View, too old, has had his day…let it go Lenny.
Lenny Siegal certainly won’t get my vote! I’ll never vote for anyone who’s okay with allowing RVs just set up shop wherever they want to and sponge off City resources, as well as allowing Mountain View being the destination City for RVs.
Wow, this article really riled up the Boomers. Don’t worry, Fake LOL, there are brave patriots here taking screenshots “for later reference” XD XD. It’s adorable how you keep posting whiny complaints about the moderators, when you could easily just post as your real username, Mike_. In that case, however, you wouldn’t get to perceive yourself as some oppressed victim. You’d be just another angry Boomer.
@ Troubling trends,
As many long time, informed readers from the Voice knows, the Voice is an opinion paper, not a news paper.
In the upcoming election in our city, the Voice will be the “Russia” collusion people that will push for their activists that they work with/push their agenda in our city.
Siegel is their comrade.
How many active SDS members are still alive and living in Mountain View wanting to vote for Lenny. Lenny hung out for three years at Stanford avoiding the draft, making non-PC signs and forgot to graduate. I’m guessing he was too busy demonstrating against the young men drafted and those who volunteered while holding “b&&y kil*ers” signs at the airport. Or maybe he was one of the (good?) SDS members who will place the blame on the Weather Underground, who knows? The war ended and Lenny heard the call and became a politician, First,Berkeley, now Mountain View. Berkeley decided to separate affordable housing from city regulated streets issues and have banned RV’s. Lenny now has his home in OMV, he has his bike lane along Calderon, he has the Shuttle and RV barricades installed (traffic calming devices:) up and down the streets in OMV, he lives on a narrow street. OMV was among the first to install weight restricted street parking signs. After all, he was mayor. He was first to throw Jobs under the bus. He only wants to be elected, pandering his strategy.
In America, voters don’t pick their politicians. Politicians pick their voters. Lenny is the AOC of Mountain View. Let’s hope voters are smarter this go-around too. I’m guessing he supports free parking permits for those in OMV too lazy to park in their driveway and avoid competing with the unwashed for street parking. Streets in OMV are too narrow for RV’s. Now there is a quid pro quo. Only the middle gets squeezed in Mountain View. He has already said those RV’s parked along Shoreline will need to move (bike lane issue:)
“Smiling faces sometimes pretend to be your friend”
Holy cow, you all have completely severed yourselves from reality. What’s wrong with you people?
@LOL.,
“As many long time, informed readers from the Voice knows, the Voice is an opinion paper, not a news paper.”
Exactly. And why is that an acceptable practice for the Mountain View Voice, when it’s sister publications, The Palo Alto Online & The Almanac – all published by Embarcadero Media – seem to have a different editorial standards regarding their online comments?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thank you, brave Patriot, for screenshotting the soon-to-be deleted comments for your personal archive! Thanks to your vigilance, these informative, not at all deranged, comments about stealth Marxists and Antifa will be preserved for all time. It’s true, not all heroes wear capes.
The article paints Lenny and Lisa as political enemies. And that very well may be true. Lisa seems to favor Mountain View as it was. Lenny seems to favor Mountain View as it could be.
In my interactions with both, only one gave me answers that didn’t sound so political, but rather practical. And that was Lenny. Lisa felt (to me, at least) like she was lying to my face to get my vote. She didn’t. And won’t.
Mountain View is well served by a passionate advocate for ALL residents. Good luck Lenny.
First, Lenny Siegel got the ACLU to write the letter to the city, saying that if they ban the RV parking, then the ACLU will sue the city. Problem is, the U.S Supreme Court will likely take up the case where the Ninth Circuit said that if the city removes the homeless from the streets, then the city needs to provide housing for them. The U.S Supreme Court will overturn this ruling by the Ninth.
Then, Lenny also says he will get a ballot measure to repeal the RV parking ban. Problem is, he knows he could not get enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot.
Lenny’s last option to overturn the RV ban is to get onto the city council where he, Ramirez and Hicks will vote to overturn the ban. Then he only needs one more vote, either a new council member or he will get his activist crew to hound Council member Kamei to change her vote from banning the RV’s, to allowing them again. Accept this time it will be far worse with many more places for them to park, as Lenny said during his last election that he wanted to open up more residential areas for RV parking.
If Lenny got on the council again, you can bet he will write in the RV ordinance that sidewalks will also be allowed to have homeless tent encampments.
Lenny will never get reelected if he continues his RV crusade. Have them park on Loreto Lenny and ruin your view…see if you like the smell of urine in front of your house. Get off your bike and wake up. Your day has come and gone. The RVs have to go. It’s not ok this is not the RV safe haven you want it to be.
#nolenny2020
The only camp Lenny Siegel embodies is the RV camp.
Every RV on the streets of Mountain View is an anti-Siegel campaign billboard.
Too bad the RV dwellers can’t vote in Mountain View. Though I’m sure Lenny would try to change that if he could.
Matichek: Favors residents who ARE living here, ARE paying local taxes, and in many cases, ARE contributing to the local community.
Siegel: Favors those who ARE NOT residents, but would like to be, often through a “freebies” paid for by current residents.
As the election draws near, listen to hear whether candidates are friendlier to folks who DO NOT live hear than those who do.
It’s so funny when the furiously angry people here demonstrate their ignorance of the law: “Too bad the RV dwellers can’t vote in Mountain View.” They are legally entitled to vote in Mountain View, same with homeless folks. They are legal residents of the city, that’s not some privilege reserved solely for rich people.
@Gary,
I do not see how you would think that rent control will be the central issue in the upcoming election.
The new rent control state law will take effect 1/1/20, and it covers far more units that our current rent control does.
I would like to see the city council place on the ballot, a full repeal of our current rent control law for the voters to decide on. The voters should know that the new state law will kick in and cover more renters.
I for one, am tired of this divisiveness that our current rent control law has brought to our city. Just look at what you wrote Gary, that the “Pro Landlord city council”. This is typical of what you people want to do, which is to constantly divide our city and keep making this an issue during every election. No city council can change the law, only the voters, so stop all ready with the name calling.
Lets end this once and for all and make our rent control laws the same as the rest of the State of California, then move onto other issues.
Let the voters decide, put the repeal measure on the ballot, city council.
Lenny lives on one of the most affluent streets in Mountain View, insulated from the high density high priced rental projects overtaking the city, many of which he endorsed. Mountain View is beyond redemption at this point. It’s high density all the way. It’s going to be really interesting when that hotel goes up on Hope. The 23 and me building used to be the site of a flop house hotel, why didn’t they convert that site to a boutique hotel? Approving so many office buildings near Castro street core ruins the character of the downtown (case in point Quora at corner of Church and Castro) and creates parking nightmares for nearby residential areas. The hotel planned for the two parking areas on Hope is going to make it even worse. Time to move.
1. What is your definition of ‘affordable’?
2. Since so many affordable units will be available (according to your post), will you prohibit RV’s on our city streets? Yes or No?
3. Why is housing is Mountain View’s problem when other cities like Los Altos do very little to solve the problem? Just because a person lives within the city limits does not mean they must reside there too.
A Mountain View Voter.
@Gary,
In the interest of “It is truth telling.” Who would be the one who would start a referendum on the state wide rent control law?
All news report stated, that all business groups that were at the table with the governor, signed off on the new law, so there would be no referendum from them. It sounds like this is just fear mongering from you.
Again, council can not change our local rent control law, only the voters can.
The new state rent control law would cover far more tenants than our current law does. Including new construction that will be under the state rent control if it was built no sooner than 15 years ago. This would help more people in our city if we would repeal our current/local rent control.
On that assertion about “name-calling,” Gary:
You repeatedly alleged what you claim “pro-landlord” city-council members might do.
But that itself is ideological (dogmatic) language — applying reductive names to accord with your current world-view. (AKA “name-calling.”)
A more dispassionate, objective shorthand (still imperfect, just less imperfect than that above) might be “pro-economics” council members. Because, contrary to the unceasing rhetoric about “landlords,” many of us voted against rent control who are not landlords. Some of us have even lived under it elsewhere and experienced the very-well-established downsides (only a few of which have surfaced prominently yet in Mountain View; it’s early days here). Only certain *renters* benefit from rent controls: the ones comfortably settled in and able to stay for a long time. They’re happy ignoring the downsides; too bad if their landlords can’t afford improvements, or if other renters get shafted — all that can be rationalized away if it’s in your financial interest and you don’t think about it too long. Wait till those same renters need to move (for whatever reason) and compete for near-zero vacancies with the latest flood of highly-paid high-tech recruits with better credit ratings. Wait till their landlord becomes the next one forced to sell to avoid bankruptcy under rent control, and that rent-controlled apartment gets scraped. Those renters will then experience more of rent control’s dimensions. They may find themselves voting against it too.
That is why most people knowledgeable about economics and markets oppose rent control, and other price controls. They don’t solve the original problem, they just move it around, and even make the underlying causes worse. You get some winners and some losers among renters — only the lucky ones hold forth (with unconscious irony) about how it is more “fair” or “just.”
Kathy, you’re misinterpreting the state law. Any additional covered units are still covered, as the city of Mountain View doesn’t have the power to relax the state-level rent control. Your statement that “this would help more people in our city if we would repeal our current/local rent control” is simply false.
@Gary,
So, you continue with division. What proof do you have that I am any of what you allege me to be? Including my name! To be clear, you can not mention anyone who has stated that they will start this referendum, Correct.
FYI, In the news reports it states, that the Apartment Assoc. was at the table with the Governor and they signed off on it. Meaning, they will not do a referendum. A lot has changed from last years measure, Gary.
You just want to keep divisive topics going to divide people, I want to end that.
If we had no local rent control, we would have state wide rent control laws to follow, which means more people are under that.
You Gary, personally, would never, ever, have to worry about “Pro Landlord City Council” again as it would be under the state law. That would surely lower your blood pressure, Gary.
Kathy, you’re misinterpreting the state law. Any additional covered units under Measure V are still covered, as the city of Mountain View doesn’t have the power to relax the state-level rent control. Your statement that “this would help more people in our city if we would repeal our current/local rent control” is simply false.
@Gary,
I am so sorry for you. I did not mean to break you!
If, if if, then.
“And that lucky homeowner would be against any residential rent control”
There’s where you leap to an unproven assumption. I DID but a home in the 90’s and have paid it off. I’m not opposed to rent control.
BOOM goes the imaginary scenario. Time to dream up another, start with “If” 😉
Reading from Gary’s comments, it is clear that he is working for Siegel to get elected again.
Siegel was the most obnoxious council member in the last 50 years that was ever on the city council.
If you did not agree with him, he belittled you, openly from the dais.
Seigel does not want to do what the residents want in the city, he wants the city to do what he wants.
During the last election, the one he lost, he said that he wanted to turn Mountain View into the South Bay City of Berkeley. An activist city. He later denied it, problem for him was getting caught in this lie was, he was on video tape saying it.
He thinks of himself as King Siegel.
I wonder what type of angry, desperate person has to go online pseudonymously and make up lies about people they disagree with politically. Fred, please link the video you claim exists, otherwise we have to conclude that you are the liar here. This is some really dirty politics from Matichak supporters.
@Lenny,
Two more questions for Lenny the candidate.
What is your position on AB 50? Specifically as it relates to building high density housing in Old Mountain View? Perhaps next to your home or your neighbors down the block.
Do you support the Residential Parking Permit program in Old Mountain View?
Do you believe OMV residents should have unfettered access to park in front of their homes on city regulated time restricted streets?
“America’s Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals.
The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards.” NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/opinion/california-housing-nimby.html
The link to that video was posted here, 2 years ago during that election campaign.
Honest people will remember that, and that was another reason to Vote Siegel out of office. He lies, has a political/activist agenda for the city, which residents do not want.
Doubling down when you’re caught in a lie, I see. If you’re an “honest person” you should be able to easily link your made-up video. It’s amazing how low you pro-Matichak people will sink.
I only have one question.
If Lenny is running, who will be defacing his opponent’s signs this time? The guy who did it during the last election is on probation.
I hate a political post wrapped in fake sentiment. Makes me want to vote for whoever they’re obsessed with.
Siegel is not wanted by the people in this town/s government.
Didn’t we make that crystal clear in the last election?
And why is the Voice pandering to this neo-marxiist wrecker?
If Matichak means what he says, he would be a welcome addition to the Council.
Funny I don’t see RVs with feeder vehicles lining the streets of Los Altos, Sunnyvale or Palo Alto.
Homelessness, income disparity and displacement are far larger problems than Mountain View could even hope to solve on its own, so why are we trying to do this in such an obtrusive, dangerous and unhealthy manner ?
and #LOL. is correct. If we don’t nip this in the bud, tent cities a la SF and LA , along with filth and disease is next.
I see some people are expecting Google to solve Mountain View’s problem for us because Mountain View apparently does not have the guts to face down left-leaning organizations like the ACLU or to make other hard choices (such as enforcing the overnight 24hr parking laws).
Who designated Mountain View the saviors of all bay area mid peninsula humanity with all this virtue signaling anyway? Its just not fair to dump all this on Mountain View.
@ Lyn
Mountain View is approving and even subsidizing a steady stream of affordable housing complexes. As far as I know, Lisa and I both support these projects. I recently compiled a list:
You can find a list of major Mountain View projects under consideration or construction at https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/list.asp
It looks like the Evelyn Family apartments, at Evelyn and Bernardo, and the Eagle Park Apartments, at Rich and El Camino are complete.
At Shorebreeze (on Shoreline at Wright) MidPen has just broken ground on a 50-unit expansion.
The Council approved a Palo Alto Housing project at the Taco Bell site on El Camino. Palo Alto Housing has banked two sites in the Terra Bella area, including the one on San Rafael where they will be allowing motorhomes temporarily.
In North Bayshore there is the Eden Housing site on Armand and the property being donated by Sobrato on Pear.
The Village Lake re-build will include 144 subsidized unit, in cooperation with the Mountain View Whisman School District.
The City is planning to building affordable, perhaps Permanent Supportive Housing, on Lot 12 on Bryant and the VTA lot on Pioneer.
But the biggest numbers of below-market units will come with the development of market-rate housing. The city now requires that 15% of the units in such complexes be affordable. If we actually build 9850 homes in North Bayshore, we will essentially double the number of affordable housing units in Mountain View.
It’s not enough, but it’s more than any other city around here is doing.
Lenny
Lisa has been more positively involved in Mountain View than any other Council Member I’ve seen in decades. She has definitely the best in mind for all of Mountain View.
“@Honesty” – you say Lenny “seems to favor Mountain View as it could be”. Sorry – but Lenny’s vision of RVs and their accompanying vehicles on every Mountain View street (but his) is not the “vision” the majority of residents want. He will do anything to keep his name in the forefront, even offer open arms to anyone from anywhere to park their RV on your street, have rallies on the steps of City Hall, and con people into carrying his planned ballot measure to allow RVs wherever they choose.
Lisa, and the Council Majority, want to help those previous Mountain View residents who are positively working to move out of RVs and into housing. Mountain View has been extremely progressive in adding affordable housing – and a stellar example to other cities on the Peninsula in this regard. All the out of town people (some even from out of state) should not come here at the massive expense to MV taxpayers it now is. You do realize your taxes are policing, cleaning, and providing services for the RVs – no matter who, where they originated or why they are here, right?
Lenny’s idea for “come one and all” at taxpayer expense, is counter-productive and disrespectful to those genuine MV Rv residents dwelling on the streets, who are actually working to better themselves and who we want to help! If we concentrate on our own residents, and those who work here in our city, we will have the space and funds to really make progress. Please don’t be distracted by “wanna-be” power-grabbers like Lenny who are willing to destroy a positive approach by this city, just to gain headlines from an “opinion” paper like the Voice.
Lets just provide the readers a little bit of reality.
Many workers in Google are working under contracts less than 6 months.
Landlords generally will not allow month-to-month without surcharging rents as little as $200 to as much as $1000 a month above the “market” rate. But since the cost of furnishing and everything else. It is simply NOT SUSTAINABLE for those with such short work assignments to actually afford to have any other housing.
The workforce in the valley is majority contractors. ALL of the major employers in the valley allocate more than 50% of their workforce as being contractors. I know that PayPal has 70% of their work in San Jose done by contractors.
NOW here comes AB 5 which will very liklely put an end to this practice. There consequences are:
Convert contractors into employees which will result in a pay reduction of at least 20% for he contractors. Thus the affordabiltiy of housing if it stays the same will result in a large exodus of these workers. The result will be that “landlords” or “housing providers” will be forced to cut their prices to avoid permanant vacancy.
Relocation of workers out of state, which will also greatly increase the exodus of workers. The result will be that “landlords” or “housing providers” will be forced to cut their prices to avoid permanant vacancy.
The companies will simply stop the work performed by contractors, which will put their operations into jeopardy becasue continual efforts are required to prevent problems from escalating in the companies. Thus if a recession hits, they are likley to be more vulnerable to going out of business. Those lost jobs will leave the areas so that the same results regarding “landlords” or “housing providers” will be forced to cut their prices to avoid permanant vacancy.
SO, the real solution regarding the RV problem might be in effect already happening. Come Jan 1, the valley is going to be transformed in a very large way.
So remember that in a low-turnout election in November 2016, the top-4 vote-getters for City Council were Matichak, Abe-Koga, Clark and McAlister. Few votes separated them. Lucas Raminez was fifth – but won a seat in 2018. The next election for City Council is November 2020. Rent control will likely be the main local issue on March 3 (Presidential primary). The pro-landlord City Council majority could place on the March 3 ballot both the landlords’ “sneaky repeal” of rent control Measure V and the Council’s own version of a sneaky repeal. One way to repeal local rent control (presented by city staff in its report to the rent control Council subcommittee on October 14) is to amend the city charter to authorize the City Council to adopt by ordinance permission for landlords to pay tenants a small amount defined by ordinance to leave. Then, with “vacancy de-control” which is the law of the state (and so also local Measure V), landlords would be free to find new tenants paying (as new base rent) whatever the “market” will bear. Should councilmembers who support such rank trickery be re-elected?
As to turnout, the highest is always in a Presidential general election. But if 30% of eligible adult citizens do not even register to vote and 75% of registered voters cast ballots, we are already down to half of the citizens. In March 2020, voter turnout could be 40% of those registered. A tiny proportion of voters could carry the day. Candidates and others who favor retaining existing renters in Mountain View should plan to combine distribution of campaign pieces with voter registration.
@Kathy. I stated rent control would be the main issue in March – not next November when City Council seats are on the ballot. I also pointed out that the state rent control law could be challenged by referendum petition. It may never become law. I pointed out that the landlords have a “sneaky repeal” of the city’s rent control law (chartet provision) that the city council may place on the ballot in March or the following November. A pro-landlord city council would opt for March. And a pro-landlord city council (majority) may place on the city ballot its own “sneaky repeal” of local rent control. I explained how one of the current (staff) proposed amendments to the city charter would do so. Five of seven current councilmembers opposed Measure V. Two of the 3 councilmembers on the subcommittee want to change the city law for the benefit of landlords. These councilmembers have a choice. They can be honest and admit their objectives and the effect of proposals. Or they can be as dishonest as some were in 2016 in placing competing Measure W on the ballot to draw votes away from Measure V. That is not name calling Kathy. It is truth telling.
I don’t care who runs, but all the anti-Democratic council who thwarted the will of the voters concerning the cannabis dispensaries have to go.
@Kathy. Anyone can start a referendum. But if your name is really Kathy and you are the local paid lobbyist or “consultant” to the landlords’ California Apartment Association (CAA), you already know that. The initiative sponsored by the CAA that will be placed on the March (or November) ballot in Mountain View is a “sneaky repeal” of local rent control. The pro-landlord city council (majority) may soon propose for the ballot its own “sneaky repeal” of Measure V. But you know all of that. Right?
Got you figured out Kathy. AB 1482 was signed by the Governor a week ago. The referendum circulation period is 60 days. If AB 1482 does become state law, it would supplement the rent control in Mountain View. MV’s law limits rent increases on existing tenants more than would AB 1482. But you know that.
By the way Kathy: The state legislature and governor can repeal legislation basically whenever they like. It takes no vote of the electorate. The only apparent reason the pro-landlord city council (majority) has not repealed rent control in Mountain View is that the Council CURRENTLY lacks the legal authority to do so. But some of them apparently aim to trick voters into granting the city council the authority to undermine or virtually repeal local rent control by permitting evictions with a move-out payment – as I explain in my post on the related story about the October 14 Council subcommittee meeting. But you know all of that.
Kathy writes that city rent control is “devisive.” But, by implication, Kathy contends that raising rents $1,000-$3,000 per month on existing renters – forcing most out of Mountain View – would not be “divisive.” It would just be the fine work of an “invisible hand” – a magical market which determines all things economic. And Kathy, if you know whether those darn Kurds in Syria or the residents of Hong Kong are just being “divisive,” please feel free to share more of your insights.
Kathy. You have done the community a great service. You have demonstrated that it is not just the Krelim that will resort to any deception to advance its agenda.
@three questions
1. What is your definition of ‘affordable’?
Housing where the rent is based upon the income of the renter. The city tries to provide that for a mix of income levels.
2. Since so many affordable units will be available (according to your post), will you prohibit RV’s on our city streets? Yes or No?
As I wrote, it’s not enough. As the Red Queen said, “it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.” We are building housing but we aren’t keeping up with employment growth. That’s why I’ve been working to create off-street parking for motorhomes, but the City’s current program is designed to fail. So No.
3. Why is housing is Mountain View’s problem when other cities like Los Altos do very little to solve the problem? Just because a person lives within the city limits does not mean they must reside there too.
I’ve been working to get other cities to build housing, including affordable housing. Stanford’s application for a General Use Permit has created an opportunity to insist that Stanford build housing to compensate for its planned employment growth.
Los Altos is a tricky issue because it has more employed residents than jobs. However, it doesn’t have housing for the low-income people who work there.
I am still working with the Kathy example. Some homeowners in Mountain View are luckier than others. For example, if someone bought a house on say Fairbrook Avenue in 94040 in 1992 for $460,000, he or she might be living mortgage paid off and rent free with a house now worth $2.5 million. And that lucky homeowner would be against any residential rent control – if his or her “consulting” clients are landlords and the like. Got it.
I tend to think that if it wasn’t for decent support from thr homeowners Measure V would not have passed.
I think that they are even more inclined to support tenants now given the false information that was posted on the now missing MeasureVTooCostly.com website.
In fact that website went through a lot of work to have their postings erased from the internet, especaily the false claims made by Margerate Abe-Koga made.
What is interesting is they removed her video from their facebook page.
I already discussed this false video in a previous MV Voice story months ago. It can be found here (https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/03/28/councilwoman-draws-fire-for-political-ad). MeasureVTooCostly is trying to erase that video from existance because it was making false claims. They had the video pulled from Youtube.
The citizens should take this into account given that Lisa Matichek has also been active in opposing the rights of Mountain View Citizens gained by the Chart Amendment. Please choose wisely Mountasin View and don’t drink from the false Chalace like in the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade movie?
At one Council meeting, Ken Rosenberg joked about Berkeley. I don’t like Berkeley because they don’t want to build housing. If there’s a video, send it to me at lennysiegel@sonic.net.
@Gavin
I led opposition in this area to SB50 and its predecessor, SB827. I debated Scott Wiener at a big conference sponsored by the San Mateo Council Chamber of Commerce. I wrote newspaper columns about how it was the wrong solution. I argue that the best place to build medium-density, mixed use neighborhoods is on commercial property, not to tear down existing homes and apartments.
When I was on Council and just last week in Council testimony, I said that the fees for Residential Permit Parking are too high. People feel that they paid for their curbs when they bought their homes, so few people are willing to pay the fees that the City would impose.
My record on all these issues is recorded. So please do not believe all the comments posted by anonymous people here. Feel free to ask me directly. I answer honestly, knowing that there are people who disagree.
@Fred. I think you mean SB (senate bill) 50 – which Lenny Siegel opposed in a letter as Mayor last year. I am not working on a campaign – just warning folks about the landlords’ “speaky repeal” of local residential rent control headed for the city ballot in March or November (City Council’s choice) and a second speaky repeal of MV local rent control in the works (more specifically through revised charter section 1717 proposed in the staff report for the October 14 meeting of the rent control Council subcommittee. Along the way, landlord-rights advocate “Kathy” posted part of what will likely be part of the landlords’ campaign: that a new state law will be enough to protect renters from rent gouging. And I believe I know just who this “Kathy” is – which will also make for an interesting story. Ordinarily, who posts does not matter. One either has a good point – or not. But persons holding or seeking positions of power are fair game. And Lenny Siegel appears quite willing to respond to questions or attacks – especially on an article about his plan to run again for City Council. Take the opportunity to get real questions answered. You might even get a response from this year’s Mayor, Lisa Matichak, although current office-holders seldom post.
In response to Gavin you said:
“America’s Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals.
The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards.” NY Times”
NICE TRY, this was not a journalist research article, it was an opinion published by the NY Times. Simply put an opinion is not a news article and such are to be treated that way. So much misinformation is achieved by making claims that opinions are research or journalism. It is not, and it caused the majority of the problems regarding the flood of misinformation in our election systems during 2016. You have political organizations publishing opinions and then claiming it is legitimate news reporting. Talking about being DISHONEST.
Everyone has a right to an opinion, but you cannot mislead the public into thinking it was a news report.
In response to Fred you said:
“The link to that video was posted here, 2 years ago during that election campaign.”
Fred, the posting that appears to have been pulled claimed MULTIPLE videos catching multiple offenses of vandalism in multiple locations, regarding the case you brought up. Yes there was a video of one incident. But you do not have any proof that the same person did the same thing in other situations. No forensic evidence to prove multiple offenses. Thus there was only one citation. Yes there is circumstantial evidence, but is that enough to bring to court? You said:
“Honest people will remember that, and that was another reason to Vote Siegel out of office. He lies, has a political/activist agenda for the city, which residents do not want.”
However the lies are worse on the part of John Inks given the videos making false claims found here (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2HV-V_auDgEJ0-lz-TshWw). More importantly he in effect insulted the Citizens of Mountain view in his website MeasureVTooCoslty and produced false videos listed on that link. The Citizens voted for Measure V, and if they are given the chance, they may expand market controls under the City Charter so that political interests cannot interfere with them.