"...it's Mike's turn." What? What a stupid thing to think, much less say publicly. I really wish we could have the city council occasionally consider what is best for the city, rather than whose turn at the trough it is. Pathetic.

Now that we have a 'new' mayor, how about addressing the seemingly meteoric rise in violent crimes we are enjoying in our fair city as of late?

Who's Pete?

The City voted for Mike. We obviously thought he was best for the city.

There is not one of them that would not do a good job as Mayor. Anything remotely serious goes through the entire City Council anyway. Mayor in Mtn View is mostly a figure head - or else we would vote specifically for the Mayor.

Try to be more kind in 2011!

I usually don't like politicians because they want to use the system to get rich and get their family members and friends good gigs with the city. The tradition continues with the current crop of city council.

Siegel is already notorious for conflict of interest. And he says that he decided to "give back to the community". Wow, I have 2 bridges in SFO to sell to all the dumb residents who voted for this guy.

The council did a good job last night. I knew Jac would easily move into the Mayor's spot, but the Vice Mayor would be a tougher one. Do you give it to the guy with the most experience that has been Mayor before, or the guy that is looking for his first chance? Tough.

But some of the comments about the council are out of line. I think some are confusing our council with the Mayor and Council of Chicago or New York. Mountain View Councilmembers may have their own bias because of their work or volunteer experience. If they have been on the Parks Commission they may have a prejudice for more parks. Getting friends and family good jobs? Not a chance!

I had eight years experience on the Mountain View Council and I never saw any council member benefit from any of the decisions made. Looking from the inside out it looks like most decisions were for the "good of the community". Some decisions were not for personal benefit, but I didn't agree with them.

Anyone with a critical view point is welcome to run for council! It's easy!

Thank you Mr. Cochran. And thanks MV council people.

Someone who doesn't live in Mountain View might get the impression from comments on MVV Town Square that we are a city of complainers. Try being on the board of directors of your homeowners association like I was in the early 1990s, or probably any diverse organization. When things went wrong we weren't doing our jobs or were doing it wrong or were picking our friends for contractors. When things went well, nobody noticed. Just like what a city council deals with.

Sean wrote: how about addressing the seemingly meteoric rise in violent crimes we are enjoying in our fair city as of late?

Numbers?

jupiterk wrote: Siegel is already notorious for conflict of interest.

Facts?

Let's try to raise the level of discourse here in 2011.

I'm with Jim Cochran and phm. We are fortunate to have a committed, well-functioning city council.

I suggest ignoring comments from Jupiterk. Each time Jupiterk comments on a story, s/he apparently lives in a different neighborhood in Mountain View. A person who doesn't even "know" where s/he lives is not likely to have insights worth reading. All the ones I've seen have claimed--unsubstantiated--that ALL elected officials are corrupt. This comment is no different.

"Someone who doesn't live in Mountain View might get the impression from comments on MVV Town Square that we are a city of complainers. Try being on the board of directors of your homeowners association like I was in the early 1990s, or probably any diverse organization. When things went wrong we weren't doing our jobs or were doing it wrong or were picking our friends for contractors. When things went well, nobody noticed. Just like what a city council deals with. "

------------

+1. Apparently, the armchair quarterbacks among us are mistaking reaching for the dip to be equivalent to throwing a Hail Mary.

Congratulations Jac on your new position as Mayor of Mountain View, I have followed your positions and votes on the issues facing the city and think you make great decisions.

@ @Sean- First off, take your own advice. Sanctimony is generally not considered positive behavior.

The purpose of my comment was to point out the fact that a system of taking turns in important government positions is obviously flawed, and I frankly consider it silly. The city population deserves to have the best representation possible. Obviously, reasonable people can disagree on how that is defined, hence democracy. If Kasperzak is spread too thin timewise, as intimated in the article, than choosing him based on tradition, rather than operational efficacy is a bad choice, and based on Bryant's comments that's what happened. If the mayoral office is a figurehead, than why do we need it? If what you suggest is true, let's stop wasting city time voting on things that are pointless. There is a cost associated with any action, and an action that expends more resources than it brings in is a net negative.

@ Mr. Omander- Don't ask me to do your homework. If you dispute what I said, back up your own position before you ask me to do the same. That being said, I did look up basic crime statistics on the city website, and they indicated that I may have been wrong, and that crime was generally declining over the 2005-2009 period. The crime stats for 2010 were predictably not posted yet however, so what you asked for is unavailable, and neither of us can make a fact based assessment. Which brings me back to my original assumption, which was based on reading the Mountain View Voice, in addition to the Palo Alto papers and the LA town Crier, which seems to have news of burglaries and assaults very frequently, not to mention a couple of ugly gang murders.

As far as MV being a city of complainers, please. Wishing to express ones opinions and frustrations with government is the critical job of a democratic populace. Failing to do so is a failure to enact perhaps the most critical check against government powers, and can result in no other outcome than the destruction of the process by which we remain free. Going along to get along might be profitable in the short term, but it will run you into the ground eventually.