Town Square

Post a New Topic

School board member Jose Gutierrez enters November council race

Original post made on May 6, 2020

Mountain View Whisman School District board member Jose Gutierrez announced this week his intent to run for a seat on the Mountain View City Council this November, citing a need for a "new perspective" and more community buy-in.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, May 6, 2020, 3:25 PM

Comments (31)

Posted by New Voice
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 6, 2020 at 4:08 pm

Yup, we can use a new voice at city council. I understand his support for Measure D was founded on getting rent control for the mobile home park renters. As it stands, there is no option now for them to be brought into rent control.


Posted by may
a resident of Castro City
on May 6, 2020 at 4:28 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Posted by Leia
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on May 6, 2020 at 4:30 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Posted by Measure D
a resident of The Crossings
on May 6, 2020 at 4:32 pm

Looks like Margaret Abe-Koga and Gutierrez's crew is all over this trying to spin their Measure D endorsement and loss. It was bad policy, that explicitly would exclude rent control for mobile home tenants. On top of that, it would have weakened the existing protections for some our most vulnerable children and families in the school district. Still, Gutierrez pushed it knowing full well how it would harm families. Career politician, just like Margaret Abe-Koga.


Posted by Johnathon
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 6, 2020 at 4:36 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Posted by Campaign
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on May 6, 2020 at 4:48 pm

Looks like Jose's campaign is in full swing, sending out the astroturfed newspaper commenters. Effective campaigning!


Posted by D grade
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 6, 2020 at 5:26 pm

Measure D got 30% support. So figure this poster-child for Measure D mailers might get half that. Depends on the field of candidates.


Posted by Renter
a resident of Castro City
on May 6, 2020 at 5:36 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Posted by D grade
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 6, 2020 at 6:32 pm

The landlords will probably do "independent" mailers for their candidates. Maybe use a new committee like MOUNTAIN VIEWERS FOR CLEAR THINKING. Go ahead. Try that one.


Posted by reader
a resident of Waverly Park
on May 6, 2020 at 11:21 pm

Nope. Voted to fire two of the best principals MVWSD ever had? Proponent of failed attempt to weaken rent control.

No way Jose.


Posted by Judgment
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 6, 2020 at 11:41 pm

His support of Measure D shows shockingly poor judgment, which should be immediately disqualifying. He either lied to the people about why he supported it or he was bamboozled by Margaret Abe-Koga. Either way, he's no "new perspective" on council, just more of the same as Abe-Koga and Matichak.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 7, 2020 at 1:06 am

Just your rerun of the same political gaems here.

He is obviously backed by the people behind the attempts to destroy hard fought rights under Measure D that lost by more than a 2 to 1 margin.

It is time to NEVER EVER vote anyone that has an established history of financial connections to be in any position to control the lives of those that live in Mountain View.

These people are not citizens of Mountain View, they only want to take advantage of the fact that Mountain view is a Charter city, it is not a real government but a private corporation.

Let's make this another example of John Inks that came in last in the last election.


Posted by Grace
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 7, 2020 at 6:51 am

Scary. Run from Jose and his con peddling. His family and friends already have divorced him. First-hand experience, this is guy who loves attention and the feeling of being in power. It's embarrassing. He's a drama king who thinks he's got everyone fooled. He loves to pull his public official badge out as if he's agent Mulder. I'll never forget when he was asked to not park in limited staff parking at school when he dropped off and picked up his kids. The Latino community fauns over him because he makes them all sorts of promises he can't possibly meet. He seeks respect but doesn't know how to earn it through hard work and honesty. Nothing but an inferiority complex in a cheap suit. Then again, he'd probably be perfect for this town...


Posted by D grade
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 7, 2020 at 10:52 am

Does this candidate have a middle name? If so, what is it? I see no divorce case filed in this county. But sometimes family affairs stay out of court.


Posted by OMG! NOT Jose Gutierrez!
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 7, 2020 at 12:34 pm

This guy is 12 different flavors of bad news. Seems the special interests have found a new pawn. Do NOT vote for this clown.


Posted by Humble observer
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 7, 2020 at 5:27 pm

So, now it's the turn of the anti-Gutierrez astroturfing "commenters" to weigh in here, too.

In reality, none of us readers has any idea who writes most comments like those above. The machinations behind them are more opaque even than the election-season "independent endorsement mailings," incredible as that may seem.


Posted by Grace
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 7, 2020 at 5:48 pm

Just get ready of the big give away. Of taxpayer money. Gutierrez fancies himself the local AOC. Lots of soapbox speeches. Zero experience with complex finances or strategic decision making. He with the rest of the school board just handed out raises to the teachers in the midst of the pandemic of the century. He's presided over one failure after another on the school board. The guy is a loose canon with axes to grind. He feels slighted that he's didn't get his share of the abundance of Silicon Valley. It takes hard work Jose! And qualifications! No one owes you anything. Certainly not their votes.


Posted by D grade
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 7, 2020 at 6:31 pm

A guy or gall using the name "Humble observer" criticizes (above) anonymous posts! Somebody answer my question (above). Does this Jose Gutierrez have a middle name and, if so, what is it? Here is another: what is the name of his wife, if any? There are lots of people named Jose Gutierrez online.


Posted by D grade
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 7, 2020 at 7:42 pm

Maybe Mr Gutierrez could answer by posting here himself: what is your middle name (if any) and what is (or was) your wife's name during the marriage (if any)?


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 7, 2020 at 8:26 pm

In response to Humble observer you said:

“So, now it's the turn of the anti-Gutierrez astroturfing "commenters" to weigh in here, too.”

Most people in the City of Mountain View knows who I am, and how much I testify at the City Council Meetings. I am a person that has lived in Mountain View since 2007 You said:

“In reality, none of us readers has any idea who writes most comments like those above.”

I has established that you are not correct in this claim. Maybe you should be providing some good evidence of the public service Jose has done for the City? Of better yet, what qualifications regarding ANY formal training with regards to being a administrator of a city? Does he have any college degrees related to government administration, or is he just a political practitioner, running for offices hoping to get elected? I am open to your information You said:

“The machinations behind them are more opaque even than the election-season "independent endorsement mailings," incredible as that may seem.”

Again, so far his actions are against the wishes of the city by a vote of 2 to 1. Why should he be elected if he opposes the city citizens?

I think the people of Mountain View will make their choice, but if he does not make a public statement saying that he will fully support and take no action against the CSFRA in a contract, I think the voter know what to do.


Posted by D grade
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 7, 2020 at 9:14 pm

Yo Business Man. Candidates cannot lawfully sign a "contract" regarding what they will do in office. You would not vote for a candidate who supported Measure D. But other people will want to know other things about candidates. I asked a couple of questions (above). No answers yet. There are lots of people named "Jose Gutierrez."


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 7, 2020 at 11:06 pm

In response to D grade you said:

“Yo Business Man. Candidates cannot lawfully sign a "contract" regarding what they will do in office.”

Actually there is no law or code that prohibits this action. Just remember Newt Gingrichs Contract With America? Yes a Contract can be drawn up with specific consequences when it is broken. I STRONGLY urge the incorporation of contracts so that on candidate can falsely claim their intentions in a campaign and reverse course for any reason. A vote is also a signed contract by the voter to endorse the candidate with regards to an election. You said:

“You would not vote for a candidate who supported Measure D.”

Agreed you said:

“But other people will want to know other things about candidates. I asked a couple of questions (above). No answers yet. There are lots of people named "Jose Gutierrez."”

Those issues are equally allowed to be established by a contract too. This should be a common practice for all important policy issues, like prohibiting housing projects where there is known TCE vapors requiring TCE vapor intrusion controls. No residence should be built in those areas PERIOD.


Posted by D grade
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 7, 2020 at 11:31 pm

Can you imagine going to a city council meeting to argue for whatever you like - say a waiver of rent or a housing project - and 7 councilmembers ignore you because they all entered into "contracts" as candidates concerning how they would vote? You would or should call such an arrangement corrupt and s violation of the Brown Act. But look. This is an article about a man on the school board gracing the city with his candidacy for city council. It is not about whether the Business Man has something to say or type. Get a grip. You do not always need to get the last word on some tangent. If you oppose or want to determine whether to oppose the candidacy of "Jose Gutierrez" for city council, get his middle name (if any) or the name of his wife (if any) so he may be looked up.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 8, 2020 at 12:21 am

In response to D grade you said:

“Can you imagine going to a city council meeting to argue for whatever you like - say a waiver of rent or a housing project - and 7 councilmembers ignore you because they all entered into "contracts" as candidates concerning how they would vote?”

Yes I can. As long as it is NOT PRIVATE. A publically understood contract is not against good public policy. It id DISCIPLINED politics that makes it TRANSPARENT. Pure and simple. You said:

“You would or should call such an arrangement corrupt and s violation of the Brown Act.”

As long as the PUBLIC has complete KNOWLEDGE of the CONTRACT it is NOT CORRUPT. Especially where such agreements are designed to comply with other public policies. Such as CEQA which places responsibilities on the Cities ot take steps to PROTECT the PUBLIC from POLLUTANTS that are PROVEN DANGEROUS. You are mixing up what is REAL corruption. REAL corruption involves SECRET agreements that are made by politicians. Nice try. You said:

But look. This is an article about a man on the school board gracing the city with his candidacy for city council. It is not about whether the Business Man has something to say or type. Get a grip.”

Is this constructive conversation? You said:

“You do not always need to get the last word on some tangent. If you oppose or want to determine whether to oppose the candidacy of "Jose Gutierrez" for city council, get his middle name (if any) or the name of his wife (if any) so he may be looked up.”

I respect your point of view without reservation.


Posted by D grade
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 8, 2020 at 4:16 am

You might Google "campaign promises are not enforcible" for articles with cases establishing that you are incorrect. The likely consequence here of your insistence upon having the last word is that "Jose Gutierrez" need not answer any questions. He can count on you to go off on tangents.


Posted by IF Jose is against commie rent control
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 8, 2020 at 9:10 am

Then I would vote for him in an instant. Only a good commie is for rent control. IF the govt want to control rent, then they should build their own buildings to rent. Not steal others property.


Posted by Grace
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 8, 2020 at 9:37 am

More important, his residency should be double and triple checked. It's not entirely clear where he lives full time since his separation. Something is not quite right.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 8, 2020 at 10:14 am

In response to D grade you said:

“You might Google "campaign PROMISES are not enforcible" for articles with cases establishing that you are incorrect. The likely consequence here of your insistence upon having the last word is that "Jose Gutierrez" need not answer any questions. He can count on you to go off on tangents.”

A CONTRACT IS NOT A CAMPAIGN PROMISE. You are barking up the wrong tree there. In effect any CONTRACT is enforceable as long as it is in compliance with public policies that are already in effect. Nice try to distract from the distinction between a PROMISE and a CONTRACT. Sorry

As far as in response to IF Jose is against commie rent control you said:

“Then I would vote for him in an instant. Only a good commie is for rent control. IF the govt want to control rent, then they should build their own buildings to rent. Not steal others property.”

Rent control is NOT the Government stealing any property, you are making a false claim there. In fact the Government has the power to transfer ownership from one PRIVATE party to another PRIVATE party with no constitutional barrier. It is done every day in courts and city’s all the time. Only where the government takes ownership itself is it a taking. All you have to do is read the Connecticut Supreme Court Case it said:

Kelo v. City of New London

Holding

The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a PERMISSIBLE "PUBLIC USE" UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. Supreme Court of Connecticut decision affirmed.

The case specifically stated:

“Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. IN A 5–4 DECISION, THE COURT HELD THAT THE GENERAL BENEFITS A COMMUNITY ENJOYED FROM ECONOMIC GROWTH QUALIFIED PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AS A PERMISSIBLE "PUBLIC USE" UNDER THE TAKINGS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.[1]

It was also stated:

“Majority and concurring

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens's majority opinion. In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to the Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test.[citation needed]

In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996), the Court said that the government purpose must be "INDEPENDENT AND LEGITIMATE." And in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996), the Court said the government purpose "MUST BE GENUINE, NOT HYPOTHESIZED OR INVENTED POST HOC IN RESPONSE TO LITIGATION." Thus, the Court made it clear that, in the scrutiny regime established in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937), GOVERNMENT PURPOSE IS A QUESTION OF FACT FOR THE TRIER OF FACT.[citation needed]”

So it looks like the “private property rights” are NOT REAL, it is just a political spin phrase used by those that don’t even have the right understanding of the constitution.

All you did is just try to do more “red baiting”. I guess you already demonstrated your position.


Posted by Humble observer
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 8, 2020 at 10:55 am

Hey, I'm not at all sure I'd vote for the guy.

Especially if it emerges that there's substance behind any part of "Grace's" comments above ("loves attention and feeling of being in power...to pull his public official badge out...I'll never forget when he was asked to not park in limited staff parking at school when he dropped off and picked up his kids...Latino community fauns over him because he makes them all sorts of promises he can't possibly meet...Zero experience with complex finances or strategic decision making...feels slighted that he's didn't get his share of the abundance of Silicon Valley. It takes hard work Jose! And qualifications!"

I've been around silicon valley a while and seen no shortage of manipulative personalities fitting some or all of those characterizations.

My point above still stands. Comments here (the ones people even read -- never mind the latest of several resident trolls who've graced this website since inception -- the one who compulsively over-posts: no one AT ALL reads that stuff) have *zero* real attribution or traceability; they might even come from Moscow. At least those horrible election mailers from "independent committees" have an address, and are bound by some laws.


Posted by course he has supporters
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 8, 2020 at 11:41 am

Jose Gutierrez has run a campaign before and gotten documented help from people like Fiona Walker (schools trustee) and Margaret Abe-Koga. OF COURSE he was ready with some of his known supporters and backers to post favorable comments even before he made his campaign announcement. It will be interesting to see - how overtly the apartment owners lobby puts money into his campaign (check - he probably already has a campaign committee and money raising #.)
$$ for him from apartment owner corporation interests - maybe will work like $$ to their favorites last election cycle, thousands in the weeks AFTER THE ELECTION, but only IF HE GETS ELECTED.


Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 8, 2020 at 12:44 pm

In response to Humble observer you said:

“My point above still stands. Comments here (the ones people even read -- never mind the latest of several resident trolls who've graced this website since inception -- the one who compulsively over-posts: no one AT ALL reads that stuff) have *zero* real attribution or traceability; they might even come from Moscow.”

If it makes you feel better, my real name is well known, it is Steven Goldstein, I have 2 business degrees and I am a certified CISSP. You remind me of my favorite author George Orwell which wrote about an imagined future, the year 1984, when much of the world has fallen victim to perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, HISTORICAL NEGATIONISM, and PROPAGANDA.

Historical negotionism is defined as:

“For the critical re-examination of historical facts, see Historical revisionism. For negationism or revisionism related to mental abuse, see Gaslighting.

Historical negationism,[1][2] also called denialism, IS A DISTORTION OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD. It is often IMPRECISELY OR INTENTIONALLY INCORRECTLY REFERRED TO AS HISTORICAL REVISIONISM, but that term also denotes a legitimate academic pursuit of re-interpretation of the historical record and questioning the accepted views.[3]

In attempting to revise the past, ILLEGITIMATE HISTORICAL REVISIONISM MAY USE TECHNIQUES INADMISSIBLE IN PROPER HISTORICAL DISCOURSE, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine, INVENTING INGENIOUS BUT IMPLAUSIBLE REASONS FOR DISTRUSTING GENUINE DOCUMENTS, attributing CONCLUSIONS TO BOOKS AND SOURCES THAT REPORT THE OPPOSITE, MANIPULATING STATISTICAL SERIES TO SUPPORT THE GIVEN POINT OF VIEW, AND DELIBERATELY MISTRANSLATING TEXTS.[4]”

The book also has the following slogans for political purposes:

“war is peace”, which means our current state of continuing WAR against terror.

“freedom is slavery”, the state of infinite debt burdens placed on FREE people does qualify here, those that are not real wealthy are doing nothing but borrowing money, like the current landlords in Mountain View.

“ignorance is strength”, The idea that if by not reading my information makes it not reality give those who do not want to face it strength. But it is only a defense mechanism that doesn’t alter reality.

“At least those horrible election mailers from "independent committees" have an address, and are bound by some laws.”

So now you know who I am, and most people here did. Now put your cards on the table my friend.


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

Email:


Post a comment

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

Get the most important local news stories sent straight to your inbox daily.

Bold coyotes at Windy Hill
By Sherry Listgarten | 6 comments | 3,149 views

Al Fresco eating: Peninsula cities debate post-pandemic outdoor dining
By The Peninsula Foodist | 5 comments | 2,602 views

Stay and Play – and Work – in Carmel-by-the-Sea
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,887 views

Police departments using PR techniques to justify their actions
By Diana Diamond | 1 comment | 536 views

 

Vote now!

It's time once again to cast your vote for the best places to eat, drink, shop and spend time in Mountain View. Voting is open now through May 23. Watch for the results of our Best Of contest on Friday, July 23.

VOTE HERE