|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View City Council candidates’ debate 2022
Three incumbents and two newcomers who are vying for three open seats on the city council this November shared their stances on the tough issues at the Mountain View Voice’s first virtual candidate forum, held Sept. 15.
After asking our readers what they’d like to see the candidates tackle, Voice editors posed the most-asked questions to the council hopefuls at the 90-minute forum. All five candidates – incumbents Lucas Ramirez, Alison Hicks and Ellen Kamei, and challengers Li Zhang and Justin Cohen – participated. Here’s what they had to say on some of the more controversial topics that the city faces.
Pedestrian and bicycle safety
Following the tragic bicycle accident earlier this year that killed a Graham Middle School student, the community demanded that the city do more to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety in Mountain View. We asked the council hopefuls whether the city is doing enough to improve safety at dangerous intersections, and if not, what they would do differently.
Incumbent Vice Mayor Alison Hicks spoke candidly: “Are we doing enough? No, of course not. Since we’ve lost a child to a bicycle incident, there’s more that we have to do.”
Hicks said while the city has hired additional staff to support the Safe Routes to School initiative, she said surrounding cities are doing a better job at this, and if reelected she’d continue to encourage the city to learn from its neighbors.
Incumbent Kamei agreed that this should be an area of improvement for the city, and as a member of the council’s transportation subcommittee, she wants the city to prioritize moving away from being “so car-centric,” she said.
Incumbent Mayor Ramirez said the city has some strong plans in place around improving transportation safety, “and I think it’s just a matter of implementation.”
Zhang acknowledged that the city has a lot of plans when it comes to bicycle safety, but she said that she finds the progress is “really slow.” If elected, she said she’d like to see more progress made on El Camino Real and California Street.
Cohen, who’s running on a direct democracy platform, said he would consult the community about how they want to improve the city’s transportation safety.
Housing growth
Housing emerged as a clear top issue for both our readers and the candidates. With the city’s Housing Element update process currently underway – during which Mountain View must prove to the state how it plans to build out thousands of units required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation – we asked candidates what their approach to growth would be if elected.
Ramirez said Mountain View is in a fortunate position to be able to accommodate most of the growth the city is required to plan for with the existing residential capacity in the General Plan.
“The advantage of that is the General Plan is a comprehensive document: it includes an evaluation of transportation, utilities, parks and open space, all of the services and amenities that we need to accommodate the growth that we’re planning for,” Ramirez said.
Newcomer Zhang wasn’t so sure that the city’s General Plan is ready to accommodate the growth that’s planned.
“If I’m elected, I want to ensure sufficient infrastructure and services to maintain our high quality of life,” Zhang said.
Sticking with his direct democracy approach, Cohen suggested that the city “ask the people who would be affected by this decision, ‘Do you want this?’” He said the city should consider the needs of current residents more than future residents.
Hicks emphasized the need to carefully plan for the infrastructure that would go along with housing growth.
“It would be parks, growing schools, walkable streets and safe bike paths, tree canopy and so forth,” Hicks said. “I would say, about 30 years ago when our downtown was redeveloped, we did that: We had a pact between developers and residents, and we got things like our new civic center, a new library, cafe tables. And I think we can do that again.”
Kamei said the city sees growth as an opportunity for gathering direct input from residents.
“We’re looking at two large master planning opportunities, one in North Bayshore and one in the East Whisman area, where we can talk about more parks and open space, bike to school and pedestrian infrastructure, and create some predictability on how our city will change,” she said.
Affordable housing and homelessness
Hand in glove with the growth discussion in Mountain View is the debate around how to build affordable housing – and how to get homeless people off the streets and into stable living situations.
Newcomer Cohen put it straightforwardly: “If we have any homeless people in Mountain View, we’re not doing enough.”
He said there’s not one silver bullet answer to homelessness, but if elected, he would use his direct democracy approach to see how the community as a whole wants to tackle the issue.
Hicks said, compared to surrounding cities, Mountain View has done a good job at tackling homelessness.
“Both our safe parking lots, our LifeMoves transitional housing and our affordable housing,” Hicks said. “Compared to what we need to do, I would give us much lower grades.”
She said she looks forward to implementing the city’s affordable housing strategy, particularly “working with an affordable housing megabond, region-wide,” she said. “Because I really think that’s the only way we can address this problem: with large amounts of money, and regionally.”
Kamei said that COVID-19 underscored and exacerbated the great need and the growing divide within the city. She commended the city’s use of American Rescue Plan Act funds to help bridge that gap for community members in need. Like Hicks, she sees tapping into Santa Clara County’s Measure A bond as a critical step to increase the stock of affordable housing in the city.
Ramirez echoed his fellow incumbents, shouting out the city’s COVID-19 response and the interim housing efforts the city has already implemented.
Zhang underscored that homelessness is a regional problem, and while she said Mountain View “sets a good example,” the city needs to encourage other cities to step up.
Oversized vehicles and Measure C
After delays from the Measure C voter referendum and the lawsuit that followed it, Mountain View will start enforcing its RV parking restrictions in October. We asked candidates whether they supported Measure C when it was on the ballot in 2020, and the reasons behind their position.
Kamei, who voted in support of the oversized vehicle ban back in 2019, said one of the most important things about Measure C was getting direct voter input.
Though Ramirez voted against the ordinance in 2019, he said it’s the responsibility of the council to implement the will of the voters, who passed Measure C to uphold the ordinance.
“One of the reasons I was concerned about the Narrow Streets Ordinance was I felt it would simply shift the challenge from one part of the city to another, and I think that’s what’s going to happen once we begin enforcing it,” Ramirez added. “… I think the better solution is to try and find ways to get people out of homelessness and into permanent, supportive housing.”
Hicks said the issue for her comes back to wanting Mountain View to be a compassionate place for those who are most vulnerable, but at the same time, “we can’t act as the region’s social service agency.” While Hicks voted against the ordinance in 2019, she said she supported implementing the will of the voters after Measure C passed.
Zhang said she “voted to allow the RVs to park on the narrow streets,” meaning she did not support Measure C at the time.
“Due to my prior personal experience with some homeless people, I was deeply troubled with people who had nowhere to go,” she said. “I didn’t fully understand the consequence (on) the residents around the RVs at the time.”
After researching the topic further, Zhang said she now agrees with the decision made by the city to ban oversized vehicles on narrow streets.
Fellow newcomer Cohen, sticking with his direct democracy approach, said he would pose the RV question to the people and let them decide. Cohen did not provide his personal stance on the Measure C referendum, in which the issue was already put to the people to decide, and 57% of voters in Mountain View supported the oversized vehicle ban.
To hear more about the candidates stances on other important topics like the climate crisis, heritage tree removals, parks and open space and rent control, check out the video at the top of this story or a watch a recording of the event on the Voice’s YouTube page.
There are two types of homeless people who need help: drug/alcohol addicts and the mentally ill. Excuse me but someone living in a recreational vehicle is not homeless. They choose that lifestyle because it’s cheaper than paying rent. Homeless is a blight on the city.
Very disappointed that they glossed over the RV issue by only asking if they supported Measure C, the question SHOULD be, “Recently an RV on Pioneer way was engulfed in flames, sewage dumping signs are now posted in parts of the city, squalid conditions are seen around many of the RV’s that clearly not road-worthy and are not up to code and unsafe for human habitation. Police have been called for incidents involving RV dwellers. How would you address these public health and safety issues which are unrelated to the lawsuit?
How many people living in oversized vehicles on our streets, are prior residents of Mountain View – or did they come here for the free services and lack of enforcement? Why isn’t there a vetting process by the City, so MV can take care of our own – and other cities are responsible for those who lived or worked in their city? Many refuse to move to the Safe Lots, because those lots have regulations against drugs and alcohol. Ask our local police about the crime that exists in these encampments – very little of which is made public. The trash and sewage from these vehicles goes directly on our public streets. The City becomes responsible for cleaning streets and providing police/fire protection, but there is zero money coming in to pay for this, as these people live tax free on our streets.
Surrounding cities don’t have these problems, as they were pro-active in enacting laws to prohibit street camping – thus Mountain View carries the majority of the tax burden for the entire Peninsula. The voters passed Measure C – but let’s see if the Council respects the public enough to actually enforce it. Li Zhang seems to be the only candidate that will do this.
There were two areas in the debate where Mayor Lucas Ramirez’ answers troubled me greatly:
1) At ~21.06, question: “In the coming years, MV’s housing stock is poised to grow significantly … How will you ensure MV’s housing growth won’t impact the quality of life for current residents?”
2) At ~39.30, question: “What should the city council’s role be in lowering our city’s greenhouse gas emissions?”
Re “quality of life”, Ramirez basically gave a NON-ANSWER: ““The advantage of that is the General Plan is a comprehensive document: it includes an evaluation of transportation, utilities, parks and open space, all of the services and amenities that we need to accommodate the growth that we’re planning for,” Ramirez said.”
It scares me that he is not willing to acknowledge the feedback given by the Environmental Planning Commission, who articulated many of the concerns of existing residents. “With Mountain View poised to grow by 15,000 units, planning commissioners worry about parks, utilities and public services” – https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/08/04/with-mountain-view-poised-to-grow-by-15000-units-planning-commissioners-worry-about-parks-utilities-and-public-services
““The fact that (the) Mountain View Los Altos High School District is already over capacity and is going to have more students, was not addressed,” Commission Chair William Cranston said of the draft EIR. “… That seems like an unavoidable impact.””
““I can’t imagine going from 80,000 people to 140,000 people with the parks that we have today and nobody notices,” [Cranston] said. “It doesn’t sit right with me.””
Newcomer Zhang gets it, though: ““If I’m elected, I want to ensure sufficient infrastructure and services to maintain our high quality of life” ”
Re greenhouse gasses, Mayor Ramirez appears to confuse the city’s own emissions with the emissions generated by employers, especially Google. He was the only incumbent to suggest that use of “the great power that cities have, land use authority” to create housing near jobs “will go a long way in addressing greenhouse gas emissions caused by transportation”. This is a CA YIMBY talking point that I’ve seen before, though I haven’t seen much (/any) data about the actual number of commuters / scope of the problem.
It needs to be said that these emissions are NOT CAUSED BY THE CITY OR RESIDENTS, they are caused by private industry choosing to create new jobs in MV instead of in areas where housing is affordable. And since Google is the major employer in MV, these emissions are primarily caused by Google. Said emissions will continue as long as the employees deem the housing in MV to be “unaffordable”. Do these persons believe market-rate units to be “affordable” today? Apparently not, as they choose to commute.
I have previously mentioned how the last 8 year RHNA cycle resulted in 88% of the housing units generated to be market-rate, while 12% were “affordable”. No legislation has been passed to expect that the next RHNA cycle will yield any different results. As a result, I think it is disingenuous to claim that the draft Housing Element will have any kind of significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions re transportation to jobs in MV. Building thousands and thousands of market-rate units in MV is not going to stop techies from commuting to MV. Market-rate is market-rate. If it is “unaffordable” today, it will continue to be “unaffordable” tomorrow.
I was mostly disappointed with the two newcomers.
Mr Cohen basically seemed completely incurious about the issues facing our city, which kind of makes sense given that his platform is to be an empty vessel for whoever votes on his app.
Ms Zhang spent large sections of her responses clearly reading from her campaign website or prepared notes offscreen. This led to answers that were general and vague, demonstrating her lack of depth and experience. Her views on RVs make sense (you can see one of her endorsers responding approvingly above Leslie Bain’s comment here), and she had a very terse response of whether she supports rent control in Mountain View (given her endorsers wanted to repeal it).
Just my two cents!
@Frank Richards… I agree on Justin Cohen, “Let the people decide….” his stock response to every single question, the guy is clueless. who can blame him, 24 years old, has lived 6 months in Mountain View, he is no Pete Buttigieg that is for sure. It is unbelievable that he has BS in nuclear engineering and a MA in physics. Glad he works for Tesla and not a nuclear facility. It is unfortunate that more people did not step up to run. but I feel we need at least one new voice on the council, that new voice should be Li Zhang at least she takes this seriously and gives thought to her responses, I agree her delivery needs a lot of work. I won’t vote for any of the incumbents.
It wasn’t just the delivery that concerned me about Ms Zhang. Her reliance on those canned responses led to her not having any concrete ideas, as all she recited were the bullet points on her campaign website. She claims issues she cares about, but didn’t use the debate to put forth any specific ideas. Bike safety, housing, vehicle dwellers, parks; she didn’t say anything of what she wanted to do.
With that level of vagueness, I usually look at their endorsers, and when you do that, you have anti-rent control and anti-RV people, which really concerns me.
I have to question the wisdom of running these forums via zoom:
1. As others pointed out, zoom forums allow candidates to read their notes (or even get talking points/answers in real time from their campaign); an in person forum would have avoided that.
2. Lots of talk during the forum about post-pandemic recovery. Shouldn’t a first step be to resume in person council meetings or candidate forums?
I would much prefer to have a newcomer who is clearly passionate to represent the residents of MV, than an “experienced” politician who sidesteps questions about QUALITY OF LIFE issues here (schools, parks, water, traffic congestion on MV city streets). I admire Zhang greatly for having the courage to step forward and throw her hat into the ring.
Statement: “Ms Zhang spent large sections of her responses clearly reading from her campaign website or prepared notes offscreen.”
Is it possible that there were two different debates? I watched the entire thing on Youtube, and did not see this. It would be nice if a person who makes such an accusation would provide timestamps (as I have done) so that others can see the evidence for themselves. And since the accusation is that she spent “large sections” of her responses doing this, I’d like to see multiple timestamps, not just one. Zhang’s engagement was not noticeably different than the other candidates, in my opinion. She faced the camera and spoke. They all did.
Statement: “Her reliance on those canned responses led to her not having any concrete ideas, as all she recited were the bullet points on her campaign website. She claims issues she cares about, but didn’t use the debate to put forth any specific ideas.”
You know what I love best about this conversation? I sincerely hope it gets more people to actually watch the debate. Last time I checked, it had only been watched about 302 times. I hope others see the evidence for themselves, and then decide who is telling the truth, and who is stretching it.
Can we use the same yardstick for Zhang, and not a different one for her alone? She is now being criticized for having a campaign website, and for not saying anything “fresh” in the debate that does not appear there? What a strange criticism.
Zhang had at least ONE concrete idea, lol. It came re the second question, ~15.34. “The MV City Council has a reputation for collegiality. How important do you think it is to try to reach a consensus on thorny issues rather than settle for a split vote.”
Zhang: ~17:40 “I have a slightly different opinion on this, that’s why I want to bring a fresh perspective to the council. I do believe sometimes from my observations of the council meetings, some council members are not especially expressing their opinions due to they know they are not a majority of the vote. I believe for democracies everyone should take their vote seriously. If I’m being elected I will stand by what I believe the majority, the people, the residents who I will represent who their voices want to be heard. I am not going to be just voting with the majority because I don’t think it really matters where I vote. That’s my opinion”.
Statement: “With that level of vagueness, I usually look at their endorsers, and when you do that, you have anti-rent control and anti-RV people, which really concerns me.”
Poppycock. TBH, I didn’t really think I was formally endorsing Zhang when I left my previous comment: “Newcomer Zhang gets it, though: ““If I’m elected, I want to ensure sufficient infrastructure and services to maintain our high quality of life” “”. I was simply trying to point out that she understands the CORE MEANING of the question that had been asked, “How will you ensure MV’s housing growth won’t impact the quality of life for current residents?
But at this point, I will take the leap and formally endorse her. And let it be known, for the record, I voted against the RV ban, and in favor of rent control. I admire Zhang for being willing to fight on behalf of the residents who actually live here, period.
There were a couple of points I noticed. First, at 23:00 (quality of life question), at the very least, she was reciting verbatim the “Sustainable City Growth” section on her priorities page. To me, it looks like she’s reading it off screen, since she’s not looking into the camera, but that’s no smoking gun. Next, for the greenhouse gas emissions question (43:00), she’s reading almost verbatim from the “Combat Climate Change” section (she improvised the IRA bit a little), with the same lack of camera eye contact. I wasn’t taking notes during the video, but those were pretty obvious. Her closing statement also has the same character, but closing statements are always kind of rehearsed so I don’t really ding her for that one.
I think you misapprehended a couple points I was making. I was only referring to her reading verbatim from her campaign website, not being upset that she had a campaign website. For endorsers, I wasn’t referring to you, I was referring to the people on her endorsements page, including the RV Ban proponents like Albert Jeans, Robert Cox, and Shari Emling. She was endorsed by “Local” above (the comment I was referring to), who is a long-running anti-RV activist that prefers not being identified. I have serious concerns about the judgment of someone who seeks the endorsement of the people who ran that hate campaign and who campaigned to repeal rent control in the city.
Someone who doesn’t care about RV residents isn’t “willing to fight on behalf of the residents who actually live here.”
Downtown should serve as main business and commercial area of a town or city. Hence, it should be more active and lively rather than a quiet neighborhood. This is the whole purpose of downtown business area.
“Ms Zhang spent large sections of her responses clearly reading from her campaign website or prepared notes offscreen. This led to answers that were general and vague, demonstrating her lack of depth and experience.”
So now we are down to TWO responses. Zhang is “guilty” of recognizing a question that she cares about deeply, the QUALITY OF LIFE for MV residents, and possibly prepped her room for in advance in order to deliver the best responses to voters during the debate. Shame on her? Geez Louise. Instead of getting kudos for having a “Sustainable City Growth” on her priorities page, she get criticized for her delivery style? Re “answers that were general and vague”? I respectfully disagree. She provided a DETAILED LIST, and gets criticized. Meanwhile Lucas Ramirez, experienced politician that he is, provided a NON-ANSWER, where is the criticism for him? General and vague, indeed.
Statement: “I think you misapprehended a couple points I was making.”
The previous statement was, “Her reliance on those canned responses led to her not having any concrete ideas, as all she recited were the bullet points on her campaign website. ” I did not “misapprehend” anything. Zhang is being criticized for being prepared, and doing her utmost to convey to voters what she intends to do as a city council member. She has plenty of “concrete ideas”, which is exactly why some want to defeat her.
Statement: “I have serious concerns about the judgment of someone who seeks the endorsement of the people who ran that hate campaign”.
That’s interesting, I feel the same way about Lucas Ramirez, and anyone else who seeks the endorsement of Mountain View YIMBY.
The YIMBY movement has engaged in hatemongering against anyone who cares about QUALITY OF LIFE issues in MV, even those of us who are open to density but want to see our infrastructure enhanced to support the MASSIVE GROWTH that state democrats have unilaterally IMPOSED upon us. I seriously don’t get it. Why is wanting to maintain our QUALITY OF life (great schools, good parks, water, traffic congestion) such an outrageous request? Why should persons who want this be demonized for it, implied to be racists and bigots, of having “a truly shameful, anti-societal mindset that is in the same vein as repugnant Trumpist nativism”? https://mv-voice.com/news/2022/01/14/letter-to-the-editor-existing-homeowners-should-welcome-new-neighbors
Who mocks and belittles others for caring about “quality of life” issues? Who does that? Many YIMBY followers, that’s who.
Statement: “Someone who doesn’t care about RV residents isn’t “willing to fight on behalf of the residents who actually live here.””
In America there is supposed to be this thing called “democracy”. Everybody and her brother has a different opinion on most every subject. How do we decide what to do? The will of the majority of voters is supposed to win, as long as the rights of the minority are protected.
I don’t like it when the majority doesn’t vote in the way that I want them to either, but I would never disparage a candidate for believing in and wanting to uphold the principles of democracy, as Li Zhang clearly does. MV voters have spoken on this issue. That should not be ignored.
Her entire response for those two, in my opinion, really important questions was a verbatim reading of the content posted on her website. Hopefully, you won’t at least deny that. Would have that been acceptable in an in-person forum? It’s a great opportunity to elaborate on the specifics, which I really would have liked to hear!
As for the RV ban, pretty much every candidate, whether they supported or opposed the ban, committed to upholding the law now that the settlement is pending. What’s different is that Li Zhang touts the endorsement of the people who spend their time, even now, demonizing and attacking vehicle dwellers.
Just scan the comments here where people are talking about the *residents of Mountain View* that live in their vehicles, I guarantee it’s worse than anything you’ve been called by one of your mortal enemies, the YIMBYs. Our democracy is more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
Statement: “Her entire response for those two, in my opinion, really important questions was a verbatim reading of the content posted on her website.”
Assuming that this false characterization is true, my 1st response is “who cares?” The job of a candidate for any office is to communicate to the voters what they intend to do if they are elected. If she prepped her room with notes, she did not violate any rules; her actions also show evidence of a hard worker who does what she can to be prepared. I like that! IMHO, this comment is nothing but pearl clutching, and it shows an obvious bias for incumbents who will most always appear more polished during a debate than any newcomer.
2nd response: Li Zhang has said that she is “running primarily because I am concerned about the quality of life in Mountain View.” Some of us are THRILLED to see her running because we have this odd notion that those on the City Council should fight for the existing residents of MV. Crazy, right? So much press is given to the massive growth being IMPOSED UPON us by state Democrats, yet we hear so little from the council about plans to ensure that our infrastructure is enhanced appropriately. And what we do hear is not encouraging: “With Mountain View poised to grow by 15,000 units, planning commissioners worry about parks, utilities and public services” – https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/08/04/with-mountain-view-poised-to-grow-by-15000-units-planning-commissioners-worry-about-parks-utilities-and-public-services
3rd response: The comment implies that the answers from other candidates were better on these two “really important questions.” I’d like to know, who gave a BETTER answer to the question: “How will you ensure MV’s housing growth won’t impact the quality of life for current residents?””
Statement: “Just scan the comments here where people are talking about the *residents of Mountain View* that live in their vehicles, I guarantee it’s worse than anything you’ve been called by one of your mortal enemies, the YIMBYs. Our democracy is more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.”
Ignoring the obvious personal attack in the 2nd sentence, I’m trying to figure out what that last sentence even means. I think it’s another personal attack? I’m not sure. I note that it appears to be in response to one of mine: “The will of the majority of voters is supposed to win, as long as the rights of the minority are protected … MV voters have spoken on this issue. That should not be ignored.”
We live in a world of predatory capitalism, where many politicians do what is best for the wolves rather than the sheep.
Those who generate excuses for state Democrats who — in the name of affordable housing! — increased the housing targets for the highest wage earners from 37% of all units in the last RHNA cycle to 44% in the current one are not especially well-qualified to be champions of the poor and down-trodden, IMHO.
Those who fight to continue a system where 88% of all new housing construction is allocated to the highest wage earners, and 12% is allocated to the rest of us, are not especially well-qualified to be champions of the poor and down-trodden, IMHO.
Leslie, I provided time codes like you asked. You can hold the website side-by-side with the video and compare. Just saying it’s a “false characterization” doesn’t change what happened. It’s fine to say you don’t really care about it, but it’s not OK to deny facts.
I don’t think I understand your definition of a personal attack, honestly. You seem to use it to deflect any inconvenient points.
To bring it back to her positions, maybe you can help me understand what Li will do. How will she, as a council member, make sure we achieve the housing goals set for us in the next 8 years? She doesn’t want to fix our R3 zoning code, and she opposes redeveloping shopping centers into mixed use areas. What will she do differently to make sure enough low-income housing is built in Mountain View?
Is it upstream, and she will oppose the housing element as drafted by staff and direct them to change it before submitting? How?
@Bain is essentially stating the NIMBY talking points / in a well written way. (very long – not tooo much of a ramble). Nevertheless, her decision from her first postings was clearly to vote anti-YIMBY.
times when political labels are a good succinct way of classification
(conservative, social conservative, neo-con, social liberal, liberal, progressive, democratic socialist)
Zang may be developing a well thought-out and balanced local political persona / or just be interested in a NIMBY support base. It will be interesting to see over the next few years.
(my heart and dollars have gone to Hicks reelection)
I wrote “Assuming that this false characterization is true” because I didn’t want to waste anyone’s time quibbling over language written to “say things” that weren’t actually said; it’s like arguing over the definition of the word “is”. If someone wants to cast their vote primarily on the basis of superficial debate skills, so be it. If they want to prioritize style over substance, they have that right.
I notice that somebody forgot to answer, “I’d like to know, who gave a BETTER answer to the question: “How will you ensure MV’s housing growth won’t impact the quality of life for current residents?”” Because of course they did.
Statement: “I don’t think I understand your definition of a personal attack, honestly.”
Definition: “An abusive remark on or relating to somebody’s person instead of providing evidence when examining another person’s claims or comments.” – https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/personal_attack
The hallmark is to criticize THE PERSON instead of talking about THE ISSUES themselves. Tip: If one is using any variant of the word “you”, one should check their comment (that is, if one wants to avoid making personal attacks).
Example: “I guarantee it’s worse than anything you’ve been called by one of your mortal enemies, the YIMBYs.”
Check out this disturbing link for more (it appears to be a “howto” document):
“A personal attack put the attacker in the position of judge and jury, and the other person as an obviously guilty defendant. It can seem like a one-person kangaroo court where the attacked person has no right to argue their case.
Despite the obvious social transgression of personal attacks they are surprisingly common. This is typically because (a) they often work (at least to an acceptable degree in the short term), and (b) the attacking person lacks skills to persuade more subtly.” – http://changingminds.org/techniques/willpower/personal_attack.htm .
Note that last sentence.
For the record, YIMBY followers and even MV YIMBY leaders are not my “mortal enemies”. I think they are young and haven’t had their hearts broken yet. They have not personally witnessed Republicans who participated in Watergate and told lies about WMDs in Iraq; or Democrats who lied about the impact of NAFTA on American jobs, or broke important campaign promises such as “Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange–a one-stop-shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest…”
Politicians don’t always tell the truth. One can see this most clearly over time. It is pretty shocking when one finally figures out that many politicians really do what is best for their wealthy donors and their own careers instead of what is best for “we the people”.
Statement: “@Bain is essentially stating the NIMBY talking points … Nevertheless, her decision from her first postings was clearly to vote anti-YIMBY.”
Look at that, another person who wants to talk about me personally, rather than about the issues. This too is a personal attack; it is a signal to others to ignore my arguments because I am batting for “the wrong team”.
It is infuriating to hear my legitimate concerns and arguments about infrastructure to be called a “talking point” in order to dismiss them. I don’t attend meetings (physically or online) in order to discuss with “my colleagues” how to best win at games of verbal jousting on social media. MV has been MY HOME for 40 years. I am part of a class of people who are being SCAPEGOATED as the root cause of the housing crisis, as part of a scheme to make $$$ for wealthy players and politicians. As it turns out, wealthy players having been playing such games for hundreds if not thousands of years (check out a great Danish movie to see this, “A Royal Affair” http://www.magpictures.com/aroyalaffair/ )
The truth will out. If developers have their way, in 5 or 10 years the cost of housing will remain high in these parts because gentrification does not lower rents, it does the opposite. I have no doubt that those who put their faith in theories that they cannot explain will STILL be blaming SFH owners. And MV infrastructure (including schools and parks) will be trashed. Some of us will mourn that change, others will simply think “too bad, so sad”, or not even notice because Google was just a transitory stop on their resume anyway.
I guess if you presume that any comment containing the word “you” is a personal attack, rather than just part of a dialogue, it makes sense why you have the weird posting tic of not talking *to* anyone, but instead perform your responses for an audience.
You’ve said you want to discuss facts and issues, it’s somewhat mysterious to me why you always ignore the fact- and issue-based parts, and prefer to wildly drift into odd tangents. Given that you take at least a day between posts, it makes the pace of discussion absolutely excruciating, but I’ll try again: what specific things will, in your estimation, Li Zhang do in order to make sure that Mountain View will achieve it’s low-income housing goals?
Statement: “I guess if you presume that any comment containing the word “you” is a personal attack, rather than just part of a dialogue, it makes sense why you have the weird posting tic of not talking *to* anyone, but instead perform your responses for an audience.”
This is a great example of a misleading statement; it is also a strawman argument. The technique is to put words into an opponents mouth, and then knock that strawman down. These were my actual words:
“The hallmark is to criticize THE PERSON instead of talking about THE ISSUES themselves. Tip: If one is using any variant of the word “you”, one should check their comment (that is, if one wants to avoid making personal attacks).”
Note that I did not say that every single use of the word “you” means the comment is a personal attack; obviously that would be silly and wrong. I said that if one uses the word “you” (AND one wants to avoid making personal attacks, which is a personal choice), one should double-check to see if the comment they have written might accidentally be making one. I use that tip myself all the time, then edit my comments as needed. Often when one says “you”, they are making “observations” about the other person, which means that one is talking about THE PERSON and not THE ISSUES, duh. With personal attacks, these observations are made to discredit or “demonize” said person, in order to influence others to not even listen to the arguments they are making; these attacks are used to essentially SILENCE an opponent.
I kind of love the last part of the sentence though: “it makes sense why [YOU] have the weird posting tic of not talking *to* anyone, but instead perform your responses for an audience.”
Notice the use of the word “you”, it proves the value of my tip! The sentence is not only MISLEADING, it is ALSO a personal attack. Double points there! I’ve already explained to this person that I’ve adopted my “weird posting tic” based on the advice of Voice staff to help me deal with trolls. Why does this person bring it up again and again? That’s a rhetorical question, I have my own theories. And let’s be honest, isn’t everyone who posts to a public forum “perform[ing] for an audience”? In my case, I am “performing” in an effort to maintain the quality of life in Mountain View, especially the great public schools that we have today. I am performing in an attempt to “pay it forward” so that the children from lower-income families receive the same great education here that mine did. I am willing to endure publicaly made personal attacks against me in order to achieve this goal.
When an opponent has a HABIT of making misleading statements and personal attacks, I conclude that they are not interested in having a good faith conversation. I am also aware that we live in a time when wealthy players actually hire trolls in order to achieve their desired political objectives. To learn more, search for “david brock correct the record”. Information warfare is not just conducted between countries. You know that saying, “On the internet, nobody knows if you’re a dog?” It’s also true that on the Internet, nobody know if you are a paid political operative whose JOB it is to win at any cost. Do I know if my opponent is such a person? No, I don’t. But when something walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, each person is free to make their own conclusions.
You’ve spent your 2000 characters to ramble about one sentence I posted and then proceed to “just ask questions” about some conspiracy theory about me, while ignoring the specific questions about policy and issues? Is this really what the Voice moderators suggested to you as the proper way to post, so long as you avoid the word “you”? I’ve repeatedly tried to get this back on track with questions about issues, which you refuse to do.
I’ll try again: from your observations, what do you think Li Zhang will do in order to make sure that Mountain View achieves its low-income housing requirements?
Statement: “You’ve spent your 2000 characters to ramble about one sentence I posted and then proceed to “just ask questions” about some conspiracy theory about me, while ignoring the specific questions about policy and issues? Is this really what the Voice moderators suggested to you as the proper way to post, so long as you avoid the word “you”?”
Oh look, my tip worked again! This statement is another example of a personal attack. Let me repeat a great quote on that topic, presented earlier:
“Despite the obvious social transgression of personal attacks they are surprisingly common. This is typically because (a) they often work … and (b) the attacking person lacks skills to persuade more subtly.”
Statement: “I’ve repeatedly tried to get this back on track with questions about issues, which you refuse to do.”
I respectfully disagree. Re the question “How will you ensure MV’s housing growth won’t impact the quality of life for current residents?”, you said it was a “really important” question and expressed your concerns thusly: “Ms Zhang spent large sections of her responses clearly reading from her campaign website or prepared notes offscreen. This led to answers that were general and vague, demonstrating her lack of depth and experience.”
Note: I just used the word “you” above, but it was not a personal attack! You concluded/implied that her answers were “general and vague” because she read from notes too much, and that showed she lacks “depth and experience”. I asked you a simple question: who gave a better answer? You ignored me. IMHO, Zhang’s answer was spot on, that is for voters who actually care about “quality of life” issues (like the quality of education for public schoolchildren).
Statement: “I’ll try again: from your observations, what do you think Li Zhang will do in order to make sure that Mountain View achieves its low-income housing requirements?”
I won’t be answering any more of your questions here until you tell me who gave a better answer to the “quality of life” question. I think that question is too important to ignore.
In the interest of answering your question, I watched the video again and I took some time to transcribe Lucas’s answer, while Li’s is available verbatim on her website as I noted above:
“I think Mountain View is very fortunate to be able to accommodate most of the growth we’re required to plan for under state law with the existing residential capacity in our General Plan, and the advantage of that is that the General Plan is a comprehensive document that includes and evaluation of transportation, utilities, parks and open space; all of the services and amenities that we need to accommodate the growth that we’re planning for. If we contrast that with other cities like Palo Alto and Los Altos, which will I think struggle to do that work concurrently with planning for housing growth, we’re in a much better position. That’s not to say it’s going to be easy to do, but at least we’ve got a framework in our General Plan, we’re using residential capacity in our change areas, and we have planning within our Precise Plans to address those additional impacts and needs.”
In my opinion, that’s a much more nuanced, detail-oriented response than Li’s. It communicates an understanding of what existing planning has been done at different levels and how to use those plans to maintain quality of life.
Having watched the debate again, I noted a strange response from Li. When asked if any area of the city should be off-limits to affordable housing development, Li’s answer was that she opposed updating the R3 zoning standards (misidentifying that process as an “upzoning”) and she opposed rezoning shopping areas for mixed-use. Can you help me understand what that answer means for the question she was asked?
Let me paraphrase Lucas’ “nuanced, detail-oriented” response:
“blah blah blah … the General Plan is a comprehensive document that includes an evaluation of transportation, utilities, parks and open space; all of the services and amenities that we need to accommodate the growth that we’re planning for … blah blah blah … we’ve got a framework in our General Plan, we’re using residential capacity in our change areas, and we have planning within our Precise Plans to address those additional impacts and needs.”
To paraphrase even further, his answer boils down to “we have a plan for that!” without going into any of the specifics. And he did not even acknowledge the HOWLS OF CONCERN coming from the city’s own EPC about the draft EIR (some of which I itemized above) https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/08/04/with-mountain-view-poised-to-grow-by-15000-units-planning-commissioners-worry-about-parks-utilities-and-public-services
Since Li’s answer “is available verbatim on her website”, let’s look at that https://www.liformountainview.org/priorities
“Ensure sufficient infrastructure and services to maintain our high quality of life while we expand housing opportunities for everyone.
[Oh look, she wants to EXPAND housing, she is NOT saying “Not In My Backward”]
Analyze service needs and resources in light of anticipated city growth, especially in public safety, public works, neighborhood/recreational programs, and water.
[Li wants responsible urban planning. Great! Isn’t that what all “mature adults” should want?]
Maintain the city’s excellent financial position – its AAA credit rating, diversified revenue streams, strong reserves, and wise investments.
[Nice, I hadn’t thought of this myself, but this keeps us in sound shape as a city]
Identify additional funding sources to increase the amount of affordable housing in the city, while also partnering with others to increase home ownership opportunities.
[YES!YES!YES! I LOVE THIS! I hadn’t thought of this as a “quality of life” issue myself, I guess I’ve been too influenced by YIMBY framing. But having affordable housing is perhaps the ultimate “quality of life” issue, isn’t it? Li gets it! She understands that we need to obtain ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF FUNDING if we want to actually SUCCEED at lowering the cost of housing for most people. Relying on developer funding alone is not enough, it is a path to failure and to gentrification, which drives lower-income people out of the area.]
Strengthen the partnership with our schools to plan and respond to growing student enrollment from increased housing development.
[YES!YES!YES! Li understands that without funding to grow adequate capacity for the massive increase in population from density, public schoolchildren will suffer. I am grateful for her to champion this as one of her key priorities.]
Comprehensively plan the city through reopening the General Plan and Precise Plans rather than piecemeal development as in the R3 process.”
I will let other readers decide for themselves whose answer was “general and vague” and whose answer was not.
I am disappointed that mods felt it necessary to delete the last comments, but I remain grateful to the Voice for it’s fine reporting on housing issues and for holding a debate with all of the candidates. I hope I am permitted to make one last comment now.
I encourage all voters to read https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/09/23/proposed-development-on-san-antonio-road-gains-epc-support-but-questions-remain-about-affordable-units . One can see how
– city BMR “requirements” are really more like “guidelines”
– the developer is giving the city a Sophie’s choice:
o option 1: they provide the correct number of BMR units, but want to waive the requirement that units be distributed throughout the project (which is necessary to ensure that BMR folks are not given the crappiest units and/or are not stigmatized by other residents)
o option 2: they provide fewer units than are required, but better units distributed correctly.
OBSERVATIONS
1) Our current housing policy relies primarily on developers to fund BMR units. Over the last RHNA cycle, housing units were created at a ratio of 12 BMR units for every 88 market-rate units. Under the best scenario, the max ratio that developers will EVER deliver is 20 BMR units for every 80 market-rate units. This ratio is far too small given our current housing CRISIS. If we are serious about more AFFORDABLE housing in MV, we have to fight for SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL FUNDING.
2) Current policy gives developers too much power, they can play hardball with the city council and they know it. Council either accepts the “least evil” choice, or faces the wrath of voters who have been led to believe that building “more housing of any kind” will actually lower rents significantly.
3) In order to meet the RHNA targets using developer funding alone, MV needs to essentially double the number of housing units. It’s like we would be building another MV!
LI ZHANG
Li Zhang views affordable housing as a “quality of life” issue. She wants to
-“Identify additional funding sources to increase the amount of affordable housing in the city, while also partnering with others to increase home ownership opportunities.”
Obtaining additional funding will reduce the power that developers have over the city council. Alert readers know I think we should fight to pass Prop 15, so that large corporations like Google stop starving cities and schools of important revenue. Prop 15 came VERY CLOSE to passing in 2020.
Furthermore, If state Dems want to turn MV into a mini-SF, then MV has every right to consider collecting municipal taxes just as SF does. https://www.tax-rates.org/california/san-francisco-income-tax A 1.5% local income tax is imposed on residents and also nonresidents who work in SF (tax is imposed on employers, not employees). I would be more open to a large surge of new highly paid techies if a portion of that $$$ is used to subsidize BMR units and thus prevent the displacement of lower income people. I want teachers, service workers, and our kids to be able to live here too.
Nobody wants to pay higher taxes, ever, but if we are truly serious about creating more AFFORDABLE housing in MV, we cannot rely on developer funding alone. These are just two possible ideas to generate additional funding, they are my mine, I don’t know if Li agrees with them or not.
Li also wants to
-“Comprehensively plan the city through reopening the General Plan and Precise Plans rather than piecemeal development as in the R3 process.”
If we are going to DOUBLE THE SIZE of MV, a comprehensive planning process seems entirely appropriate. I also think it is necessary to prevent another horrific developer proposal like turning the old Wells Fargo site into more OFFICE space instead of residential housing, which was “reluctantly” approved because “it meets the rules”. We need to change those rules.
I truly don’t understand why you’re fixated on percentages over the actual number of low-income homes built. Isn’t that the more important number? Isn’t 10% of 100 better than 50% of 10?
The other statements show why Li just reciting her campaign website is disappointing. Shouldn’t a candidate identify the additional funding sources before getting elected? What other funding sources will she find that others haven’t yet? How much money will that bring in?
I apologize to those who think I am overposting, but Frank raises a very important question. Why is building new housing units at a ratio of 12 BMR for every 88 market-rate a problem? Isn’t the “actual number of low-income homes built” the more important number?
1) The YIMBY movement has gained power because we are in a housing CRISIS. Many people are in pain because “the rent is too d*mn high”. We need solutions that will address that CRISIS, not fake solutions that will allow it to continue.
If a forest fire is raging, we do what is necessary to PUT IT OUT. Imagine if firefighters bragged about the quantity of water being used, knowing that it was not enough to put out the fire. Would that be good enough? Wouldn’t we find such arguments to be rather disgusting, unless they were doing EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to put it out?
2) In order to meet RHNA targets using developer funding alone, we essentially need to build as many units as we already have today. 88% of the units will be for the highest-paid workers in the land, mostly techies. 12% of the units will essentially be “the servants quarters”.
First, I think it is troubling and elitist to want to build out MV using that ratio.
But let’s think about “new MV” a bit more. How many servants will be needed to meet the needs of the new 88%? The need for public teachers will go down, so would the need for gardeners I suppose. But won’t the need for additional maids, private cooks, restaurant and retail workers, uber and delivery drivers, nannies, etc, go up? Is 12% of all housing really enough to allow these people to live here in MV? And remember, if these folks have to commute, think of the carbon emissions! Also, think of our kids who aren’t techies, they have to squish into that 12% too. I don’t think 12% is enough, it won’t allow POOR PEOPLE who want to live in MV to live here. We want AFFORDABLE housing for THEM, don’t we?
3) Finally, the ONLY REASON that we have developer funding in the first place is due to policies put in place by the so-called “NIMBY” residents of MV before the CA YIMBY movement was ever born. Now the YIMBY movement actually wants to claim CREDIT for the measly amount of affordable housing being created, which obviously hasn’t been enough to prevent the housing CRISIS from taking shape. My jaw is on the floor. I think good arguments can be made that we need to INCREASE the percentage of BMR units constructed for every new housing project, instead of patting ourselves on the back for the great job we are doing now.
Think back to the firefighters. Is building BMR units at a rate of 12% for every 88% market rate units the best possible effort we can make to fight the housing CRISIS? No. And if we can’t find additional funding to build more of them faster, we should certainly make it a priority to pass emergency legislation to prevent any new office construction until the CRISIS is over. That is in the power of the City Council to do. I can only think of the howls from developers if such legislation was passed.
Statement: “Isn’t 10% of 100 better than 50% of 10?”
I find this question to as ridiculous as a firefighter trying to convince me that the quantity of water being used is the most important metric for their work.
At the end of the day, the most important outcome is how many low-income homes we build, end of story. I don’t think a person making $30K per year who lives in a new low-income home cares whether their complex was 50% low-income or 10% low-income, and in the interests of avoiding economic segregation we should strive to avoid concentrating poverty in specific areas.
I hope it’s not controversial to say that it’s bad for the city to prevent a 100-home development with 10% guaranteed to low-income from being built in order to get a 10-unit development with 50% low-income homes. Outcomes are the most important, and to that end, actual numbers of built homes are more important than percentages.