Once again our City Council, particularly Mike Kasperzak, ignore the residents of Mountain View. They use the mushroom approach - keep issues in the dark and feed us b-------.

The intent of the Charter is to keep Mountain View residents informed at the lowest cost practicable. City Council chooses to follow the letter of the Charter and ignore the sprit whenever it suits them.

There's a double sign at the Palo Alto/Mountain View border along the Bay Trail. The Palo Alto sign "Dogs on Leash Permitted". The Mountain View sign reads, "No Dogs Permitted Beyond This Point". Obviously, Mountain View officals don't like dogs or there owners, but will allow wild flea bitten, disease carrying cats to run freely among our children and natural wildlife.

For heaven's sake, use some common sense and use the Voice, not the SJ Record. Isn't it worth $790 to know you are actually reaching your constituents?

I used to get the paper Voice, and now that I get it only online, I actually read it. From the number of comments on the stories, I'm sure others are having the same experience.

Is Ronit really a dual citizen? Dual citizens shouldn't serve in government at all, in either country to which they pledge their allegiance.

I want to stay informed about this important animal issue--where do I find info without having to go check the City Council meeting minutes? The Voice would be the logical choice.

Cat licenses are an attack against cat rescues like Christina Pecks. We need to keep a lot of cats at our house for many months until they can be adopted. Licensing is just a way to make what we do a misdemeanor. Yes I know we are breaking the law now, but there is no peanalty. If licenses are passed then they could put us in jail!

The following comments were moved from a duplicate thread, which has now been closed:

Posted by Cuesta Resident, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2013 at 9:32 pm
The city has 2 problems:

1) City Staff did a terrible job of reviewing the proposed law, including stuff about insuring animal protection from the sun at night!

2) The 5-day notice system is too short for major law/policy issues, especially when the city continues to reduce their summary info about items (e.g., the written minutes of Council and Commission meetings no longer give enough detail to understand the debate). The city should improve the minutes and the agenda summaries, and it should adopt a policy of making any item longer than 10 pages be available at least 10 days prior to the Council meeting.



Posted by 18 year Homeowner, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jun 21, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Clearly there is something fishy that the council voted 6-1 with only our reasonable Mayor Inks voting "no". Who is being paid by SVACA or trying to curry favor with Jac Siegel? Also, I'd expect SVACA's board member and city councilman Jac Siegel to have recused himself from voting as there is clearly a conflict of interest there. I would expect a locally elected politician to act in the interest of their constituents, not act like a big time politician (we've enough of those)

'The animal control ordinance they almost got away with'
Yet another example of Mountain View's mixed up city government. City staff makes recommendations that are in THEIR best interest, and our figurehead city council rubber stamps them 'approved' without looking into them any deeper. Unfortunately, what is in the best interest of our city employees is frequently contrary to the wishes of the citizens.
We need council members committed enough to research the proposals independently, instead of listening to staff say "trust us, this will be wonderful"