Nice charade at the council meeting- one old white man nominates Cormack, who graciously stepped away last year so the second old white man could become vice mayor and mayor this year. That old white man nominated another old white man for vice mayor to ensure that the council will not have any female leadership for the next 2 years.

As for Liz - glad that she is gone, some of us have not forgotten her disgraceful handling of the eruv issue.

Victor -- nice playing of the race card -- not.

Norman - don't you think it is odd that the 2 women with seniority were passed over for the vice mayor? Oh wait, you probably have no problem with it.

As a woman, I am completely fine with the election of Pat Burt as Vice Mayor. He has far more experience than Alison Cormack, who is so inexperienced she allows herself constantly to be led by the nose by staff. I give her credit for doing her homework, but she has much to learn before she takes on a role of this importance. Burt has demonstrated better judgment on many issues over decades of outstanding dedicated public service.

Leadership work (albeit successful work, which I appreciate) on a bond measure campaign is not good preparation for a City Council role, that much has become crystal clear.

So we have a comment from a Mountain View reader whose own city is experiencing some problems. MV is now run by women. Being a women does not in itself qualify a person for any job. Skill, experience, and job specific knowledge is what qualifies a person for a job.

We are talking about running a city that continually gets into national papers, and not in a complimentary manner. We need people with experience in the management skills required to manage the flow of activity imposed by the state / county in general and special interests groups trying to push their agendas at taxpayer expense. I want the most experienced people possible. Right now Pat Burt is that person.

This county in total is experiencing a lot of problems relative to bad management regarding transportation, and the where and how of the major companies who are trying to dominate the decision making that goes on here. San Jose is a metro /urban city. Palo Alto is a suburban city. There is a requirement to work in a supportive role without losing our identity, or sacrificing the quality of life we all bought into.

Each city has a tax base that drives the budget. Mountain View has a distinctly different tax base due to Google. Palo Alto is tied to Stanford which is a different type of relationship. San Jose is the center of the county and is the biggest city in the county which is a different set of challenges. And the state through legislation is trying to drive decision making at the local level. All very complicated and requiring people who have in depth knowledge to guide us through the challenges ahead.

Have to note in Victor's comment that he is complaining that we did not elect a woman yet is complaining about Liz Kniss. Since the editor did not eliminate this comment we can note that it is a very peculiar comment. His comment is unacceptable.

AS to Mountain View their main company Google is building a city center in San Jose. The city center has a problem in that BART is behind schedule and suffering budget problems. And the tax payers are not going to let it off the hook with Measure B taxes. The Google MV campus is in a flood zone. Google is busy telling it's employees to stay home while their employees are busy trying to unionize the workers. As the MV city cash cow the city does have some problems for future budgeting. They did receive funding for a homeless shelter on the border with PA off San Antonio.

So we are seeing a lot of interest in our activities from MV. Since some of our "Commissioners/Others" have a relationship to Google I am sure there are a number of conversations on going concerning how resources are "shared". Yet to roll out how many "shared" city functions are involved. Housing is a focus now.

Listening to the City Council Meeting concerning the topic of Housing we have one commentator from Oakland, one challenging the ABAG numbers - yes, and Rebecca again talking about Tesla, and one person in the RACE department.

I would like to note here that this geographic area used to be the home of an active Moffett Air Base and Lockheed Martin - a defense company building hardware items. Those business entities which are no longer active in this area to any great number had a mixed population of workers. When the jobs go, as the aerospace industry has done - then people leave and go to other areas to get work.

Oakland has an active port which has a diversified work force. It is in the process of gentrification due to the movement of PG&E and other companies to that location. More growth going to that area because they have a mixed economic work base.

It is abut JOBS. The JOBS we have here in this city are technology related. No one is talking about what the people who live here actually do. People live where their jobs are.

As to Tesla it has moved it's base to Texas and is building a car assembly plant there. Its Space section is based in Hawthorne, CA. Say goodby to Tesla.

Oakland, San Jose, and San Francisco are major metro areas with highly diversified economies. Lots of low cost jobs in those cities. Palo Alto is not a metro area and is economically limited in diversification of jobs. We do not have any manufacturing or hardware related jobs. We are not a transportation center. Our low costs housing is directed at teachers and city staff.

ABAG and others have to be able to support what jobs all of the low costs people would be doing. Simply putting people in a location that does not have the type of jobs they need is pointless.