https://mv-voice.com/square/print/2016/06/29/planning-commissioner-matichak-joins-council-race


Town Square

Planning Commissioner Matichak joins council race

Original post made on Jun 29, 2016

Mountain's View November City Council election just got more competitive: this week Planning Commissioner Lisa Matichak filed papers to run for a seat.


Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 1:39 PM

Comments

Posted by Political Inciter
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 29, 2016 at 2:22 pm

Glad to see Commissioner Matichak throwing her hat back into the ring. The residents of Mountain View need someone like her looking out for them. She has a real passion for keeping our city a great place to live for everyone. I'll be casting a vote for her in November.


Posted by Deniece Smith
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 29, 2016 at 2:40 pm

Thank you Lisa. I appreciate your stance on housing issues. Could you get behind removing the park in-lieu fee levied on (mostly middle class) homeowners who could provide more companion units to help our housing crisis? Currently the formula to calculate the cost for the park in-lieu fee is so cumbersome that it deters anyone from building legal companion units because of rigorous, subjective (and I add unnecessary) hoops to even understand the fee. I too love parks and our shade trees, as you do. I also agree with the idea that rent control is not something to support because the negatives outweigh the positives. But I would like to see all available LEGAL and SAFE housing units be encouraged to be built. Your thoughts?


Posted by Great to hear!
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 29, 2016 at 5:00 pm

+1 for Political Inciter's comment. I'm thrilled to see that Lisa Matichak is running for City Council!

I love Mountain View & all of its charm. I also love watching grow, but I believe in balanced growth. And Lisa is the best person to make sure that that happens.


Posted by Christopher Chiang
a resident of North Bayshore
on Jun 29, 2016 at 6:06 pm

I too am grateful to see Lisa Matichak running for city council.

While I hope she may still change her mind and lend her support for eco-sustainable micro-housing (like the world award winning eye opening 300 sq foot designs seen here: Web Link if built with the corresponding infrastructure, there is no candidate with a better track record of respecting all residents.

I have witnessed many times her active outreach to different resident communities to learn their viewpoints. She truly seeks to represent the entire city by learning from those who view things differently from her.

I was especially moved by her active engagement with the mobile home community, a community that is often overlooked.

Related to that, City Councilmembers Lenny Siegel and John McAlister have also been active in listening to the fears of vulnerable mobile home residents. To me, an indicator of one’s true values is the amount of time they will spend with the city’s least powerful residents.

Lisa scores very highly in that regard.


Posted by Excited for the Future
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 30, 2016 at 7:59 am

Lisa cares about Mountain View and ensuring that we have good parks, libraries, city services, and quality housing. She listens, she cares. It's refreshing to see someone make their views known on important issues but keep an open mind on the specifics of those issues.

I plan to vote for her...we need her common sense and commitment to Mountain View. In the last election we got a few flip floppers, like Ken Rosenberg.

With Lisa's experience on the Planning Commission, McAlister & Clark's experience on the City Council, and the long history of service to Mtn View by Abe-Koga, we have four solid candidates in this race.


Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 30, 2016 at 10:45 am

I fully support Lisa for City Council. While she and I have had a few differences in our positions on some topics, one thing that I can say with complete certainty is that Lisa is one of the few candidates for any office that I have met the genuinely cares about the residents in the community and their concerns.

I am 100% confident that she will always do what she believes to be in the best interests of the community, and will not be solely driven by a political agenda as we have seen from so many of our elected 'representatives'. Lisa has never been afraid of making tough choices, and is willing to re-evalute things if new information becomes publicly available.

No matter what your party affiliation or political sentiments, your first vote for City Council Member in this year's election should be for Lisa regardless of who else may declare. A vote for Lisa is a vote to have a voice in your own local government. It's about time we had one.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View


Posted by Not a fan
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 30, 2016 at 12:44 pm

While it may be a bit unfair to bring up the past and people can grow and change, Lisa started out by organizing a neighborhood group to oppose a development in her neighborhood and also opposed other development projects. She aligned herself with no-growthers on council and continued her her rants on EPC. A no-growther is not someone who wants to improve a project, their goal is to make it more expensive by imposing unreasonable conditions.

In the last election , she and the other two EPC candidates who also ran, should have been solid favorites for at least one of them to win a council seat. None of them were elected. Lisa needs to state what her viewpoints are on private property and the right to improve your property. So far she has stood w the no-growthers and made housing more expensive for potential buyers. As noted above, what is her position on real estate fees? If she wants to distance herself from no-growthers, she needs to obtain endorsements from some housing groups .


Posted by Let's hear her positions now
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 30, 2016 at 2:49 pm

Lisa, are you for or against (1) the VTA tax measure and (2) bus-only lanes on El Camino Real and (3) the rent control measure? Explain your answers.


Posted by Let's hear her positions now
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 30, 2016 at 3:04 pm

Opps. Lisa answered on the rent control measure. She is opposed because it would "distort the market." The explanation is odd. Who cares if it affects the market? The housing market is created and distorted by various land use determinations made by governments. What rent control would do is prevent the early departure of many residents. But Lisa appears to say "bon voyage." Good to know.


Posted by MV Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 30, 2016 at 3:25 pm

Commissioner Matichak is the best candidate to declare, so far. She listens to residents' concerns, and at the EPC has been willing to vote in residents' interests, even though at times this meant asking developers to modify their demands. This kind of integrity and independence is exactly what we need more of on the City Council.

It's incorrect to call her "no-growth." I'd say that "moderate" describes her approach more accurately.

Get ready for some underhanded tactics from advocates of unlimited growth, though. The last council election saw $90,000 in dark money from apartment owners spent to elect Rosenberg and Showalter. Apparently the apartment owners' association thought this was a good investment. That $90,000 was a deciding factor in electing them to the council.

This time, I hope the Voice and Mercury will follow the money early and often, and keep voters informed as to exactly who is trying to buy the election.


Posted by Council Watcher
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 30, 2016 at 7:35 pm

@Let's hear her positions now

One problem with rent control is that is takes money out of the hands of one group (housing providers) and puts it in the hands of another group (housing consumers) without regard for the needs of those receiving the benefit. I'm all for helping those less fortunate, but let's do it in a way where ALL of the benefit goes to those who need it. No more welfare for the wealthy! Thanks, Lisa, for not falling into that trap!


Posted by The Thruth
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2016 at 7:46 pm

It is the Voice that is the biggest outside group. None of the editorial board lives in Mountain View, yet they tell the council how to vote and what new ordinances that they say are needed.

They pick their council members who they want at election time and will trash all other candidates, then they tell residents how they should vote.

The Voice refuses to accept and follow the same transparency rules for themself's that they demanded that the city pass for outside groups supporting their candidates choice.

If you want the best for the city, meaning no activists for council, then vote opposite of what the Voice says.


Posted by Not a fan
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 1, 2016 at 8:01 am

"It's incorrect to call her "no-growth." I'd say that "moderate" describes her approach more accurately."

No it's not. You could also say developers listen to neighbors when they hold numerous community meetings. Do any council members do this to get neighborhood input. They may hold a study session. I said she is no growth because she is not looking for modification but imposing unreasonable demands that make housing more expensive. A moderate person would balance both sides of the issue with some fiscal responsibility .


Posted by Good Neighbor
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 1, 2016 at 11:25 am

@Not a fan

>> Do any council members do this to get neighborhood input?

The is a Council Neighborhoods Committee headed by Councilmember McAlister that hold meetings every two years with each of 7 neighborhood areas in Mountain View. I make a point of attending these, they are very informative. I recently attended one in a neighborhood near mine, south of El Camino. A council member asked for a show of hands of how many people thought the city had too little development, too much development, or just the right amount of development. Two thirds raised their hands for "too much development".

>> I said she is no growth because she is not looking for modification but imposing unreasonable demands that make housing more expensive.

Can you give an example?


Posted by One who cares
a resident of another community
on Jul 1, 2016 at 11:54 am

I agree with NOT A FAN that Lisa is just one of the brewing politicians, very much like Margaret Abe-Koga, who are more interested in advancing their own political career and who would change their views and issues at the drop of a hat. I have had previous dealing with both of them and would advise NO vote whatever they are saying now.


Posted by Not a fan
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 1, 2016 at 4:49 pm

At good neighbor


Three projects but there are many. Evandale. Rather than remodel, she wanted irrelevant landscaping changes and other irrelevant material changes that led to the developer dropping the project? On the hetch hetchy project she objected to two stories, while she lives in a multi story unit. On another project she objected to a minor setback variance, because neighbors complained even though these same neighbors violated the setback guidelines. This resulted in a loss of a sidewalk and safe walking


Posted by Sunshine
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2016 at 5:05 pm

@Not a fan

A) please define the specifics as to what you cite as the "irrelevant landscape & material changes" referenced in the Evandale project.

B) on the hetch hetchy project, can you cite the basis for her objection to the two stories on that particular project?

C) on this other project, what do you consider a "minor setback variance" , and what was the context of this variance request...for what purpose?

Specifics of these projects would be helpful, so I can look up the public record. Thanks.



Posted by Not a fan
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 2, 2016 at 7:54 am


"What's important to me is that (North Bayshore) is a complete community, that people who live there can satisfy their daily needs without getting in a car to go over Highway 101," she said. "We would need a score of services."

It's statements like these that are double speak and support her no growth stance. We already have residents in north bayshore that lack what she calls a score of services. Most of the proposed housing in that area , which she objected to on false reasoning, is going to go to Google employees or other company emloyees because their companies provide them with scores of services. She makes a false comparison. People who don't live there currently will be well aware of the issues of living in north bayshore. With no school, most of the people who prefer to live in that area will likely be single or childless couples who want to live close to work, who dont require the score of services she thinks they need. Developers have better information, because they are investing millions of dollars, and have more incentive to figure the type of housing that will work in north bayshore. Why an MBA student doesn't understand this market function is beyond belief.

At least she opposes rent control.


Posted by Let's hear her positions now
a resident of Castro City
on Jul 2, 2016 at 8:56 am

The candidate herself would be smart to respond to questions about her positions. Political rhetoric about "listening" to everyone will not suffice
The same applies to posts by or on behalf of incumbent McAlister.


Posted by MV Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 2, 2016 at 1:33 pm

@Not a fan - I'm sorry, but your post does not make any sense.

Why would providing North Bayshore's 10,000 projected new apartments with normal city services, to reduce car trips, equate to "no growth" or "doublespeak?"

Why would you automatically assume that most of the new housing in NB would go to Google employees? Would it even be legal to exclude others? You seem to be trotting out the "residents will self-select" argument that we have heard from developers like Prometheus in the past, when they were trying to justify their lowballing of parking needs for their projects.

You seem to be saying that if we do not provide schools, grocery stores, fire and police protection, driveable roads, and parking, then only people who do not need these things will apply to rent these apartments or buy these condos. I think you are wrong about that, and even if you were right, that sounds to me like company housing, dysfunctional as a part of the larger community.

You state that "developers have more information" and therefore are better equipped "to figure the type of housing that will work in north bayshore"...My understanding of corporate function is that the prime directive is to maximize profits. If the developers' execs and planners do not do this, they will lose their jobs.

We cannot trust developers to serve the community's best interests. That is why we have a planning department, an EPC, zoning, and a City Council. The community is best served if the Council, EPC, and Planning are willing to moderate developers' profit-oriented demands.

Developer/apartment owners of course want pliant representatives on the council. That's why we saw $90,000 in dark money from apartment owners funneled into the last election on behalf of Rosenberg and Showalter (Web Link). The candidates had agreed to a spending limit of $22,000, and this outside money blew that limit out of the water.

I was trying to be polite earlier when I said it's "incorrect" to attempt to label Lisa "no-growth." Let me be a little more straightforward. This is an attempt to define her negatively, early in the election process. I don't know if "Not a fan" is actually a PR rep for the apartment association or a sincere "build baby build" MV resident, but the label is factually inaccurate according to normal English usage. In other words, a lie.


Posted by Not a fan
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 3, 2016 at 7:19 am

At mvresident

As I said in my first post I hope she is no longer aligned w the no-growth group and has changed her opinion and will let the city continue to grow without using double speak like smart growth, listening to residents, every community must have a score of services , etc. However, the voice article contains the same silly thinking.

My comments make a lot of sense if you believe in free markets and not in government bureaucrats like you seem to suggest. You fail to see how the profit motive gives developers a better chance to figure out what will work and what new residents want rather than bureaucrats who have no skin in the game . If developers fails, they lose money. What do bureaucrats lose?

As to building a community w a score of services, how would you refer to the Monta Loma neighborhood, that lacks a grocery store.? Or the Whisman neighborhood that lacks a public school? Communities can exist w or with out some services. To say the NB community should have all of these essential services in place before housing is approved is silly. As I pointed out the people more likely to live in NB are people who want to live close to where they work and their employer provides a lot of the services as part of their employment.

Since you fail to understand basic market processes in an economy , should I also assume you are in high school? I dont care if you are polite or not, your arguments fail to understand the points I am making.


Posted by Max Hauser
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 3, 2016 at 10:28 am

Max Hauser is a registered user.

The anonymous "Not a fan" wrote: "she and the other two EPC candidates who also ran, should have been solid favorites for at least one of them to win a council seat. None of them were elected."

There was a little matter of big dark-money advertising expenditures by vague outside groups supporting other candidates, whose positions they liked, and who won.

"Lisa needs to state what her viewpoints. . ."

This is really amazing stuff, to come from someone who won't even so much as "state" their own real name. I'm sure that's obvious to most readers. (For all any of us knows, we're now witnessing the anonymous dark-money games beginning again.)


Posted by One who cares
a resident of another community
on Jul 3, 2016 at 11:34 am

Max Hauser
Real names are frequently not used in community bloggers like this to allow free flow and sharing of ideas, issues, and suggestions.
If you disagree with any persons ideas, this would not be a valid reason to justify your disagreement. Speak on the issues.


Posted by Shari
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Jul 3, 2016 at 11:50 am

To "One who cares": You state anonymous postings are "to allow free flow and sharing of ideas, issues, and suggestions". That can certainly be true in many cases, but anonymity is often ALSO used to hide behind when making outrageous and untrue statements. I already sense that starting here, with perhaps Lisa's opposition candidates (or supporters) working to negate or misrepresent her views and accomplishments.
Welcome to the campaign.... I guess it already begins.


Posted by One who cares
a resident of another community
on Jul 3, 2016 at 12:19 pm

Shari
I have little personal interest in this particular campaign, and I do not represent some other candidates - you may be speaking for yourself.
The only reason why I started to follow this link is because of prior experience with 2 of the candidates, including Lisa, who are certainly more interested in their political careers than the real concerns and issues facing the citizens, and would say anything at any times to achieve such.
You need to choose the ones who are passionate and really care.


Posted by Max Hauser
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 3, 2016 at 1:08 pm

Max Hauser is a registered user.

"One," you seem to miss my point (whether innocently or not, I can't possibly know).

I do have a little experience with online forums and yes, pseudonyms have totally legitimate roles. On most new-media forums today (unlike this one), that's achieved in the form of _registered_ pseudonyms, sometimes via 3rd-party services like Disqus, which means all commenters are registered somewhere, whatever name they use. That policy, by the way, instantly stops most of the gaming nonsense that still clutters this site, like one person posting (versions of the same message) many times on a single thread. It also impedes professional shill posters, who certainly exist around here (in a scandal in Palo Alto city government not long ago -- one of many there -- it emerged that a consultant hired by the city to work on a proposed law change also lobbied for it under false names on forums like this one -- so there's real, relevant precedent.)

But I didn't complain above about pseudonyms. I complained about someone who (after selectively omitting key history of the 2014 election) actually demanded that the new candidate "state" her positions, when that same poster won't even give their own real name! If the irony/absurdity of THAT position escapes you, I assure you some people get it.

I've no idea yet even if I'll support this candidate. But the dark-money issue was huge in 2014, and on a free-for-all forum like this, where anyone can post pesudonymously (and claim residence even if they're on another continent), there's just no way for readers to know if ANY unregistered pseudonym is from a civic-minded neighbor, an opposition shill, or even a dark-money paid consultant. You make your own bed by choosing to post that way, so you'll sleep in it.


Posted by Not a fan
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 3, 2016 at 4:06 pm

My comments have been very straight forward. One poster asked for examples, I gave them. I listed two specific projects and the third as I now recall was on Easy street. I also stated my concerns over her comments in the article. No one has provided a rebuttal to my concerns, only more double speak

. As to the effect off "dark money" it was at best a mixed result. I recall that Independent expenditures supported Rosenberrg, Showalter and Kamei. Rosenberg was a heavy favorite to win anyway. I don't believe the independent expenditures had much impact. Showalter was a surprise win and Kamei didn't come close to winning. Lenny Seigel was not supported by the so called dark money. So at best yo could argue the so called dark money helped one candidate win.

I really expected one of the EPC candidates to win at least one spot. The fact is that two of them aligned themselves with no growth members of the community and the community supported those candidates that wanted housing in the NB? VtjMW


Posted by MV Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 3, 2016 at 5:25 pm

@Not a fan - After your last post, I feel I have to amend my statement that you are either "a PR rep for the apartment association or a sincere 'build baby build' MV resident." Now it looks like you may be more of a doctrinaire libertarian, although you never actually used that word. You wrote:

"My comments make a lot of sense if you believe in free markets and not in government bureaucrats like you seem to suggest. You fail to see how the profit motive gives developers a better chance to figure out what will work and what new residents want rather than bureaucrats who have no skin in the game ."

Apparently you have a touching faith that an unfettered marketplace will produce optimum results for all. Here we just plain disagree. The housing and commercial real estate market is distorted by a shortage of supply; renters and buyers don't have a lot of leverage these days.

If, for example, developers wanted to put up 100% high-end rentals in NB and no ownership housing, in order to maximize their profits, I'd say that would be detrimental to the community as a whole. I would want my city government to step in and try to achieve a better balance. And I wouldn't worry too much about developers backing out - there would still be plenty of money to be made.

Another example of the role of government in the NB project: Traffic in and out of NB at peak hour is currently at a
terrible level of service. Lisa's position on requiring essential services in NB would reduce trips in and out of NB for the 10,000-20,000 new NB residents. Likewise, the city's "trip cap" for commercial development. I think this is a valid role for government. Relying on the "magic of the marketplace" to solve this problem would be simply stupid.

We heard the term "no growth" a lot in the last election, now we are hearing it again. It's a dishonest slur on those of us who don't want to see developers call all the shots in the way MV grows. We're going to have to work hard in this election to counter the full-court press that we're going to get from developers, and that means pushing back against the dishonest use of language.

Incidentally, "Not a fan," you never did answer the questions for specifics posed by "Sunshine" in his/her earlier post, did you?


Posted by Not a fan
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 3, 2016 at 6:56 pm

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
It's one thing to disagree but you don't understand the market process. You appear to believe that if a developer thought he could maximize profits by building crap, buyers would somehow be forced to buy the units. Markets are a two way street, a sellers market is limited by buyers preferences and willing ness to pay.

So in your example, a developer doesn't just decide to build high rent units because he is maximizing profits. He builds them because he believes that's what enough consumers want . There must be sufficient demand in order for the developer to make a profit, which of course depends on him figuring out what consumers want. There is no way political bureaucrats can figure out market demand any better than greedy developers. What's amazing is you have more faith in bureacrats getting market demand right when they have no skin in the game. You suggest planning without any information about what consumers want. Look at councils record. They couldn't figure out the parking demand for niners games. They couldn't figure out the transit demand for free shuttles. They couldn't figure out the demand for public bicycles. In two of these cases, they have lost money. In the private sector someone would be fired for such bad decision making. In the public sector bureaucrats just say I'm sorry and move on to the next bad decision.

As to your last question, you are correct that I did not respond to sunshines request. I am not her research assistant. I provided the names of the projects, she can do her own research.


Posted by Sunshine
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2016 at 7:51 pm

@Not a fan

You characterized Ms. Matichak's concerns about the Evandale project as "irrelevant landscape & material changes", then went on to try characterize her as a hypocrite with respect to the hetch hetchy project when you stated that, "she objected to two stories, while she lives in a multi story unit". And finally you claimed, "she objected to a minor setback variance, because neighbors complained even though these same neighbors violated the setback guidelines. This resulted in a loss of a sidewalk and safe walking."

Your willingness to paint with VERY broad brush strokes, while refusing to provide necessary context or additional details, tells me, and should tell any other reader here all they need to know about what YOU are all about...and I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say, it's not objectivity or perhaps even truth.

Thanks for erasing any doubts I may have had....


Posted by Not a fan
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 3, 2016 at 9:41 pm

At SunshinE

Nice try but you failed to understand my comments. A poster asked for examples and I gave three specific examples.

You said u would look them up to verify. I doubt you even tried. You failed to disprove my examples, however, I also provided examples from her statements in the voice. What's obvious is that you are not genuine in your concern to determine the truth. And engage in an honest discussion.

As I said earlier, I hope Lisa would not align herself w no Growthers. Labeling her as a moderate or slow growther is silly. Do you think the US economy should grow slow or moderately? Most of us want growth to be as high as possible , especially after a recession.


Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 5, 2016 at 9:54 am

Jim Neal is a registered user.

Max Hauser and I have disagreed on many things in the past, but not on this one. I too find it very strange that of all the candidates to declare, there appears to be an immediate and coordinated attack on Lisa by those using pseudonyms to hide their true identity.

The exact same thing happened to me during the last campaign and I think it was in coordination with all the Dark Money. It will be interesting to see how much comes in this time. The Dark Money definitely had an effect. Saying that it did't because Lenny won is in my opinion, disingenuous. Lenny had run for Council previously 3 times and has been a well known and well publicized figure in Mountain view for 30 to 40 years for the long term residents, so that in itself was a huge advantage. The others were lesser known so it is reasonable to conclude that the money definitely helped to get their names out.

I advise everyone to take a good, long, careful look at ALL the candidates and who supports them. Also see how much of the support/criticiscm is anonymous. If the support or opposition is valid, people will generally give their names. This town is still small enough so that we generally know each other and most of us are civil enough that we can disagree without fear or retribution of some sort.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View


Posted by jms
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jul 5, 2016 at 1:06 pm

jms is a registered user.

I happened to read the article on Lisa Matichak running for City Council in Mountain View and am delighted. I also read the blogs and would like to set the record straight as I was on the City Council and Mayor during this period. Over 20 blogs were posted positive for Lisa. One blogger posted 8 negative ones.

The three issues the negative blogger refers to are absolutely untrue allegations.

Lisa and her neighborhood never asked for single story homes on the Hetch-Hetchy property.

The Easy Street project never went to the EPC and Lisa was never involved with it.

The Evandale property also never went to the EPC. After a long and troubled history that resulted in lawsuits, the City prevailed. Lisa was also not involved in this project as an EPC member. The Council made all the decisions.

We are fortunate to have Lisa running for City Council because she is not a politician with aspirations of a higher office. She is a very smart, hard working and educated resident that really cares about us and our city. She has and does put in the time to learn ALL about planning and the projects that come before the EPC. She is one of the few EPC members and Council members that has the technical ability to fully understand the project plans and challenge staff and developers to improve the projects that come to the EPC. Nothing was said about the many projects that were greatly enhanced and approved by Lisa and the hundreds and hundreds of free hours she spent on the EPC. We are lucky to have her and she'll make a great Mountain View Council Member!

To tag Lisa as a no-growth person is absurd and reminds me of Trump and his birthers saying that Obama was not born in the U.S.A. Totally unfounded.

This is my one and only post but I was there and know first hand what happened.

Jac Siegel
Former Council Member and Mayor
City of Mountain View


Posted by Max Hauser
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 5, 2016 at 6:02 pm

Max Hauser is a registered user.

It doesn't surprise me to now see an authoritative, SIGNED comment, conclusively refuting attack comments posted above by shadowy writers who hid behind unregistered pseudonyms (some not even claiming Mountain-View residence, implying they can't even vote on this issue).

That helps demonstrate why, so far as any reader can ever know, anonymous attack comments on this website are part of a dark-money propaganda campaign. The sole way for any commenter to rule out that possibility is to stand behind their words, by signing them.

Now that this comments thread is set to registered-users only (normal practice anyway, in many other news-media websites), anyone with real rather than rhetorical wish for "free flow and sharing of ideas, issues, and suggestions" remains free to register, under any screen name they choose, and post comments. Of course (under this site's Terms of Use), those who posted above under pseudonyms already chose their screen name, and must keep that one if they register (or face summary deletion of all their comments, for employing multiple user names in the same thread, also called sock-puppetry; such deletions happen regularly here).

The exact single difference between unregistered and registered pseudonym screen names is that the registered users are aware that someone (even if just privately) knows who they are. It's amazing how that awareness promotes more-responsible remarks and reduces cheap-shot attack misinformation. Ironically, the type of comments that lead moderators to set threads like this one to registered-users-only come usually from unregistered users, which means that the same people who try to rationalize untraceable anonymous posting are the ones who discredit it by their own actions!