Ha Ha Ha, I forgot, where is the Wal-Mart in Santana Row?

The future of Mtn. View is to look like East Palo Alto in a few years, thanks to the sanctuary city policy and opening of your magnet for Illegal Aliens ( the CORRECT and PROPER TERM, not the PC stuff regurgitated by M$M ).

Watch your unsolved crimes escalate, since your MVPD resembles the Boulder, CO PD in many respects. In fact, both you and Boulder should become sister cities, both city governments behave in a similar fashion; you both roll out the red carpet and benefits ( which YOUR TAXPAYERS pay for ) to your Illegal Aliens.

Lawbreakers should never be rewarded. People who aid and abet lawbreakers are also breaking the law.

These actions have consequences. There are changes in the way our Federal government is going to handle the illegal alien problem. Mtn. View may be on the receiving end of those changes.

Good luck. I think you are going to need it. ( That includes the mouthpiece, too )

I agree with the punnisher regarding the MVPD. The city (and its police dept) need to regain integrity and look to take care of its current tax-paying, law abiding inhabitants instead of catering to whoever raises their voice the loudest.

And good for Google for wanting to go carless, but honestly there is a division arising between Googletopia and the rest of the city. I smell a huge discrepancy between the have- and have-nots of Mountain View growing....and its going to get worse and worse over the next decade if we don't do something to stop the infiltration of illegal immigrants (whose parents can't help their English-learning children with homework) and low-income residents who refuse to get work because it would interfere with their ability to stay on welfare or Section 8. If Google really wants to build up the city and its lifestyle perks, maybe they should contribute to reinstating integrity to the MVPD, create jobs for the tax-suckers in Section 8, and create English-speaking programs for all the illegals our city harbors.

Better yet--why not institute a limit to how long someone can be on welfare or Section 8? Something like a 5 year limit is long enough for someone to use the program to "get by" while they gain some skills, education, or actually find a job. Then when their voucher expires in 5 years or their welfare runs out in 5 years, they have the ability and skills to provide for themselves instead of being a drain on the city.


and another thought---why can't we change the way our city runs the budget? I understand that the changes to the railroad crossing at Rengstorff were approved by voters almost TEN YEARS AGO but dontcha think that if voters could, now that we're in a recession/depression, they would rather the funds for that crossing went into education or something else that is hurting instead of the Rengstorff crossing? The money is there...its just labeled as untouchable since it got virtually spent a long time ago. But it isn't physically gone.

If Mountain View really wants to be a cutting edge city, maybe they should consider revamping the way they run their politics and political budgeting.

The entitlements created in the last century have done short term
wonders and have created long term worrisome side effects. Here some
statistics:
- 50% of the births in CA are paid for by MediCal
- The bottom 97% in CA pays only 50% of the CA income tax
- The bottom 50% in the US pays about 3% of the Federal income tax
- 55% of the CA kids have parents who cannot pay for school lunches

The ultimate solution to these side effects is to attach conditions to consuming entitlements, including eligibility for affordable housing (called social housing in Europe). What kind of conditions you ask? Indeed what you think, but cannot articulate: procreation limits.

MV does not have the legal tools to pull that off, I believe.
But there may be better minds ...

School lunches was started in the 20th century under the label of National Defense...after the president of the time realized that most of the rejected potential soldiers who were of age to fight in WWI or WWII (can't remember which) were rejected due to ailments caused by malnutrition. So by providing means for school lunch our country was providing means whereby future generations would be physically healthy enough to fight to protect our country.

Given the current trend to be anti-enlisting and anti-draft, not to mention the childhood obesity epidemic, maybe its time to scrap that program as well. But I know this is way above and beyond the city of MV's scope...

Eliminating a free service is very hard after it has become a 'right' and actually a necessity for a majority to survive. [One can NOT blame the recipients - it is the system that has generated the dependence. Thus one needs to dig deep to rollback the madness: 70-80% of the population receiving more in social services than they pay in taxes.] Hope someone will tackle it ...

So hungry kids should just be left to starve?

25% of US kids now depend on food stamps.
Why did their parents put them in the world?
Why is that still legal behavior?
Just asking, like you ...