Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Emily Ramos, a Rental Housing Committee member, listens to a speaker during a meeting on Feb. 11, 2019. Ramos is one of two residents who have applied for the vacant Mountain View City Council seat, as of the morning of Jan. 18. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

With applications closing Wednesday at 5 p.m., the city confirmed that two residents have applied so far for the vacant Mountain View City Council seat.

As of the morning of Jan. 18, city officials told the Voice that Emily Ann Ramos and Michael Kasperzak Jr. have thrown their hats in the ring for the open seat, which was vacated after former council member Sally Lieber discovered a conflict of interest with her new position on the state Board of Equalization.

After much debate and a split vote, the city council decided to appoint a new council member rather than hold a special election. The city opened applications Jan. 9, and as of Tuesday, Jan. 17, hadn’t received any takers. But now with at least two applicants interested in the position, the council will have a real choice to make on Jan. 30, when it’s slated to pick the new council member.

Michael Kasperzak. Photo by Michelle Le

Ramos currently serves as Vice Chair of the city’s Rental Housing Committee, which implements and administers the city’s rent stabilization program. According to her application for the open seat, which she shared with the Voice, a top priority issue for her if appointed is “the high cost of housing resulting in the displacement of residents, increasing homelessness, and loss of economic diversity.”

Kasperzak is a former Mountain View mayor, having previously served on the City Council for a collective 16 years. He was first in office from January 1999 to January 2007, and his second two terms were from January 2009 to January 2017. Council members can only serve two consecutive terms at a time.

The city initially said it would post applications for the open seat to the Council Vacancy webpage upon receipt of the application.

But on Jan. 17, the city updated the webpage. It now states, “Copies of applications will be posted to this page in the order received after the application period has closed at 5:00 p.m. on January 18.”

The Voice requested that the city make the applications, which are public record, promptly available, just as neighboring cities Menlo Park and Redwood City did with their recent appointments to council. However, city attorney Jennifer Logue said the city is not legally required to post the applications on its website immediately upon receipt.

Posting the applications “as soon as possible” after the Jan. 18 deadline, “which is less than 48 hours after the City received the first application, is well within the requirements of California public records law,” Logue said.

Join the Conversation

12 Comments

  1. Just an Observation,

    Mike was one of the people that forced the City to enact the CSFRA, and so was social engineering the city to try to kick out renters and eliminate apartments. He interfered with the Rent Rollback and instructed the City Attorney to not defend the CSFRA regarding the TRO in 2016. Once CSFRA was passed he accelerated forced evictions by removing rent controlled units.
    His mismanagement of approving properties forced the state to enact the new STATE laws regarding affordable housing and inclusionary housing mandates.

    To put him back into the City Council will simply replay the same song. It was during his terms that no affordable housing was built in lieu of paying a “fee”. This is the kind of problem that the City is confronted with regarding the housing elements failure.

    This is not going to get the city going in the right direction. By the way isn’t he still involved with Project Sentinel? a Contractor of the City?

    Also his failure to achieve the original Housing Element plan here should be a disqualifier http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements/docs/mountain_view_5th_adopted111214.pdf

    Someone better be very careful.

  2. @ Steve — Mike Kasperzak has been a consistent opponent of rent control, but his overall voting record does not match your characterization that he favors kicking out renters and eliminating apartments. Furthermore, individual Council members NEVER issue instructions to the City Attorney. I support Emily Ramos because, among other things, she is likely to appoint people to the Rental Housing Committee who support the CSFRA (rent stabilization), but let’s not distort the facts. I’ve long argued with Mike about rent control, but we share a commitment to long-term solutions to Mountain View’s crisis of housing supply and price.

  3. Just an Observation,

    I just am reporting how bad it was at that timer. Here is some of the news:

    https://www.mv-voice.com/square/2022/10/19/sb-330-has-direct-impact-on-tenant-displacement-in-mountain-view-city-data-shows

    and:

    https://mv-voice.com/news/2018/05/31/fight-brewing-over-rent-control-petition

    and:

    https://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2016/05/20/letters-to-the-editor

    and

    https://mv-voice.com/news/2016/03/16/city-drops-rent-control-from-relief-package

    and finally:

    https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2016/12/21/landlords-take-measure-v-to-court

    “In an email to the Voice, City Attorney Jannie Quinn said her team intends to defend the council’s just-cause eviction ordinance from a restraining order. However, they do not plan to fight the landlord group’s request to delay the rollout of Measure V. The decision to not defend Measure V at this juncture, Quinn wrote, was made in order to “provide time for the city to fully analyze the complaint and prepare for further hearings, and insure the immediate preservation of the just-cause ordinance.”

    So please let me know where my history is wrong?

  4. Thank goodness for small blessings. I’m glad that other applications have come in.

    On a different note:

    “The Voice requested that the city make the applications, which are public record, promptly available, just as neighboring cities Menlo Park and Redwood City did with their recent appointments to council. However, city attorney Jennifer Logue said the city is not legally required to post the applications on its website immediately upon receipt.”

    Awe, the sweet sound of TRANSPARENCY. If it’s not legally required, fuggedaboutit.

  5. @Steve not quite golden / as was written / Councilman or Mayor Mike – “He … instructed the City Attorney to not defend the CSFRA regarding the TRO in 2016. Once CSFRA was passed he accelerated forced evictions by removing rent controlled units.” That cannot be done by a (singular pronoun) “he”. Good ole Lenny is right. But IMO neither of these councilmembers was as tough as possible (No, No thanks) on ? million SF of new office expansions.

    Emily would be an ‘even more affordable housing’ advocate – and IMO maybe lead a majority of the Council to direct the newer city attorney -“always use the Most Open and transparent reading of the Brown Act possible.”

    “may is not must” (as the good old Voice knows!). The Public Business is Open for FULL View.

  6. Just an Observation,

    I would not be unhappy if Emily got the position. Even though I have disagreements with her, she is DEFINITLEY a better choice than Mike.

    But I would pose a factor, she does not have Business expertise, But I want to give her major credit for being a fellow graduate of SJSU in Mechanical Engineering.

    So again, I cannot feel bad if she got the appointment. I just think she needs a lot of education on the fly regarding many aspects regarding the position.

    My experience with dealing with compliance regarding IT Security Compliance and Human Resources Management may be some tools I can make use of. Especially quantitative business analysis as a course of study at the Lucas School of business at SJSU. Along with being a trusted U.S. Government Security Clearance background.

    I really wonder what the interview questions are going to be, since it appears that no more than 6 people applied means that everyone will be granted an interview.

  7. When Measure V passed, the City Council and City Attorney viewed defense of Just Cause Eviction as an urgent requirement, because tenants might be subject to no-cause evictions immediately. Even under the best of conditions, establishment of the rent control framework could not have been completed quickly.

  8. Just an Observation,

    The election was certified in December 13 and the EFFECTIVE date was established on the date specified. The City Council interfered with enactment of the law even though the CHARTER AMENDMENT dictated the date of enactment.

    “Section 1720. – Majority approval, effective date, execution.

    This Amendment to the City Charter shall be effective only if approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon and shall go into effect ten (10) days after the vote is declared by the City Council. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute this Article to give evidence of its adoption by the voters.

    The city Attorney WAS NOT ENABLED to violate the City Charter.

    The City Council declared the vote on Dec 13, which means that the city had NO CHOICE but to follow the City Charter. The City violated the City Charter accordingly.

    Stop trying to defend what was in effect not allowed. The vote was Certified 8 day prior to a lawsuit filed. That meant the City was in no position to offer any concession. It was a violation of the City Charter to allow the TRO.

  10. Oh no, NOT Mike Kasperzak. There appears to be a swinging door for that guy. Mountain View needs fresh faces, NOT the old “recycled” crew. PLEASE…

Leave a comment