Town Square

Post a New Topic

Guest opinion: Outgoing Mountain View council members on this year's election

Original post made on Nov 1, 2020

In an op-ed, outgoing Mountain View City Council members Chris Clark and John McAlister write about this year's council election.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Sunday, November 1, 2020, 3:07 PM

Comments (6)

Posted by Thomas
a resident of Whisman Station
on Nov 1, 2020 at 3:48 pm

Thomas is a registered user.

These two exiting council members attack unnamed candidates and claim they have been "fiscally responsible." See Transparent California - cities - Mountain View


Posted by listen
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Nov 1, 2020 at 4:38 pm

listen is a registered user.

Thank you Councilmembers Clark & McAlister for your didactic farewell editorial. These words that you’ve both penned highlight the reason why term limits exist for this office.

One of the most paradoxical and wistful sentiments that we have consistently heard from the current Council — most recently and particularly from Councilmember McAlister — is this notion of lamenting the increased “divisiveness” in our city politics and the loss of our “tradition” of running “positive campaigns”.

This nostalgic waxing makes it clear that both Clark & McAlister are not -
(A) able to reflect on or understand the reasons why friction exists in Mountain View’s political discourse today, and it also speaks to,
(B) at best a disappointing naiveté (at worst willful ignorance) to the reasons why outside lobbyist groups with multi-billion dollar interests would crank up spending in our local elections to support VERY specific candidates.

To the first point, much of what both of you rely on in this editorial are appeals to tradition. Leaving aside for the moment that appeals to tradition is fallacious argumentation, let’s recall that another tradition of ours is a respect for the will of the voters. On this point, both of you along with current candidates Margaret Abe-Koga & Lisa Matichak went against our tradition of respecting voter’s choices when you undermined the Rental Housing Committee that voters approved in 2016 with appointments that YOU KNEW would do everything in their power to undermine the program.

To make matters worse, all four of you went on to rope Ellen Kamei in as well to put Measure D on the ballot in March that voters not only completely rejected, but did so even after all of those mailers and flyers that had your faces on them asking people to trust your lies that it would make life better for renters. These are not as you say “negative attacks”. These are facts. Basic, irrefutable facts that went straight into our mailboxes and helped us know not to trust you with our needs.

People have been hurting in your city, under your watch, under your power, for a long time. You were asked for help and instead, you provided lies and attempts to erode the protections that people fought so hard to earn for themselves. And now that the Measure D charade fell to the wayside, you can see the California Apartment Association, and the Realtors becoming desperate enough that they are pouring many thousands of dollars into our city to try and buy the outcome they want that will keep their profits healthy while the actual human health of your constituents continues to suffer.

So PLEASE, don’t try to gaslight us into thinking that there is no influence that expenditures by multi-billion dollar lobbyist groups have on individual council members or our city politics. If these groups didn’t think they would not get a return on their exorbitant spending in our city elections, they absolutely would not be spending that money.

Worse, you say that you set up actions to make it more clear who is spending money in our politics, but that did not stop the firefighters from failing to disclose that the landlords funneled significant money for their mailers to support Abe-Koga & Matichak, and it does not stop PACs like the Silicon Valley Organization pushing unbearably racist and misleading ads into our city as well. The fact is that the only way these candidates can win is with voters being misled into voting for them, or having their true backers being obscured, because it is not truly in the interest of the majority of Mountain View residents who want a sustainable, fair, and civil society to do so.

The reality is, that you both say it is important for council candidates to not “set fire to the bridges” they will need on council. But for a significant — and as surely we will see on Nov 3rd a majority of Mountain View voters — the worst development in our city politics in the last four years is not the bridges that have been burnt between candidates.

Instead, it is the bridges that this very city council that you both serve on has burned with the people of Mountain View who desperately needed your help, only for you both to respond to these needs with lies and service to the interests of property. If the city is as you both say, “more divided”, then think about the role that you both played in leading us here.


Posted by Steven Goldstein
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 1, 2020 at 5:00 pm

Steven Goldstein is a registered user.

My humble observation.

Clark and McAllister stacked the deck against the City of Mountain View when they place Grunewald, Honey, and Means in the first RHC. Especially when Tom Means was earning a living as a paid consultant for political action against rent control. Venessa Honey was working still as a property manager, it really didn't matter whether she managed any properties in Mountain View. And all you have to do is look at the history of Matthew Grunewalds participation, he tried to appear to be impartial, but almost always voted in concurrence with Vanessa Honey or Tom Means.

This was done by the design of Chris Clark, John McAllister, Margaret Abe Koga and Lisa Matichak. I find it funny that these two now claim that:

“Our current council has also adhered to a tradition forged long ago of running positive campaigns. It has served our city well, and we hope you will support that tradition by carefully considering each candidate’s experience, campaign tactics, command of the issues, and viability of the solutions they propose.”

But these also were the same persons backing Measure D, using their position to expel those they didn’t want to be voters in the City by ordering the demolition of rent controlled units without any replacement of said unit of in-kind affordable housing. These two wound up forcing the state to pass SB330 so that cities have no choice but when affordable or rent controlled housing is to be removed, like kind housing must be placed in the city either at the same time, or in the new project. This was the doing of all four of these people.

I find it hard to think that these two had in fact been benefiting all of the city. They were also famously supported by the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, and also are supported to allies of the California apartment association and the California Association of Realtors. I strongly hop e the new roster will not contain any such kinds of people.


Posted by Mark
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 2, 2020 at 12:46 am

Mark is a registered user.

The second poster sure reminds me of Lenny Siegel.

His description is exactly what Lenny Siegel was when he sat the the city council just a few short years ago.

At that same time, the Voice also endorsed Lenny Siegel and Pat Showalter for re-election to city council

But the voters had enough of Lenny Siegel and his pom-pass, arrogant attitude, and disdain for the public and fellow council member. It was a disgusting site to watch Siegel chastise people, the public, from the Dias when you did not agree with his view. You could never discuss issues with Siegel if you did not agree with him. Only he was right.

The voters threw out of office Lenny Siegel and Pat ShoWalter, Lenny's puppet. Lets not repeat that mistake again and have to wait 4 more years to throw them out. For Mtn. View to throw out sitting council members is really really rare, it just does not happen, but the voters were fed up with them on a host of issues.

We have serious issues to deal with, recession, businesses closing, no jobs, etc.

We need serious adults, NOT ACTIVISTS, to address all these issues and represent all of Mtn.View residents.

The 4 Voice endorsed council candidates, I would dismiss outright and suggest you make your choice from the remaining 5 candidates. Remember, Lashlee is just like Lenny Siegel, IMHO.

Think Portland, Seattle and de-funding police when you are choosing a candidate and what would happen if we picked up that mantel of De-fund the police. Siegel and Lieber worked to get BLM to come to our city. Go to the BLM website and you will see that their agenda is to De-fund the police.

These are the candidates that I voted for.
Gutierrez, Roales, Abe-Koga and Matichak
The Voice has their pick, those are mine.


Posted by Steven Goldstein
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 2, 2020 at 2:53 am

Steven Goldstein is a registered user.

In response to Mark who repeated the same comments made in another story you wrote:

“But the voters had enough of Lenny Siegel and his pom-pass, arrogant attitude, and disdain for the public and fellow council member. It was a disgusting site to watch Siegel chastise people, the public, from the Dias when you did not agree with his view. You could never discuss issues with Siegel if you did not agree with him. Only he was right.”

Nothing but a personal attack against those that you know will use their position to the benefit of the City Citizens of Mountain View and NOT the California Apartment Association (CAA) , The California Association of Realtors (CAR), the Silicon Valley Organization (SVO PAC), and the Affiliate Mountain View Chamber of Commerce (MVCC), you wrote again:

“The voters threw out of office Lenny Siegel and Pat ShoWalter, Lenny's puppet. Lets not repeat that mistake again and have to wait 4 more years to throw them out. For Mtn. View to throw out sitting council members is really really rare, it just does not happen, but the voters were fed up with them on a host of issues.”

The VOTERS can CHANGE their MINDS after seeing what Margaret Abe Koga (MAK), Jose Gutierrez (JG), and Lisa Matichak (LM)tried to scam the City with regarding Measure D. What MAK and LM did regarding abuse of office to provide special rights to expel citizens of the City of Mountain View, because they did not arrange a new place to live for those they evicted for no fault of the renters acts. You also wrote again:

“We need serious adults, NOT ACTIVISTS, to address all these issues and represent all of Mtn.View residents.”

Again MAK, JG, and LM are corporate “ACTIVISTS” with a proven record of deception and the abuse of power. And you know it. Here we go again from the most prolific Astroturfing I have seen here on the MV Voice. You wrote AGAIN:

“Think Portland, Seattle and de-funding police when you are choosing a candidate and what would happen if we picked up that mantel of De-fund the police. Siegel and Lieber worked to get BLM to come to our city. Go to the BLM website and you will see that their agenda is to De-fund the police.”

I simply say this, you can vote for whoever you want. BUT WE DO NOT NEED TO VOTE FOR THOSE THAT ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS.

The CAA, the CAR, the SVO PAC and the MVCC are not our friends and are NOT out to provide quality services to the City of Mountain View, they want to USE the City as their own piggy bank.


Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 3, 2020 at 8:51 am

Steven Nelson is a registered user.

I voted too! And my CHOICE this cycle did not include LM, who I also previously supported with $ donation and lawn sign / who right after she was elected took large campaign donations (related to hosing those in need of housing) to pay off her campaign loans and expenses.

Lisa has not IMO earned the respect of reelection. She certainly has not earned the respect of a second vote from little old me.


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.

A fond farewell from the Peninsula Foodist
By paloaltoonline.com | 14 comments | 4,493 views

Palo Alto has an escalating transparency problem -- the police have shut their doors
By Diana Diamond | 6 comments | 1,706 views

Porn
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,363 views

My letter to council on PHZ zoning
By Steve Levy | 7 comments | 809 views