I was actually planning on voting NO. But, your article does make sense. I am rethinking. Thank you for your views.

Is a $400 increase to $1000 actually going to change the pool of people who can "afford" to be on the City Council?

I doubt this increase will increase the pool of candidates who can "afford" to work on the city council. At the moment it seems you have to be comfortably retired, although interestingly there are some candidates who have full time jobs.

The "Yes" proponents don't tell you the value of all the perks that city council members get - expense accounts, free tickets to amphitheater shows, etc. Factor those perks in, and from that calculate a realistic inflation adjusted compensation, and THEN I might vote Yes.

Mountain View isn't THAT big, and it doesn't require THAT much effort to serve as a rubber stamp for more rental unit development proposals.

The Council members work very long hours. Most that I have known also have another job. "Comfortably Retired" in this area? Most retirees that I know also have at least a part time job. Get real, folks. I was in favor of the $1600 stipend in 2006. It is way past time to increase this ridiculously low pay. There are a few perks, as it should be. (Shoreline tickets would not be much of a draw for everyone.) Healthcare coverage could!

Mountain View needs to be represented by a good cross-section of the residents. I don't see that right now. I hope there will be more opportunities to develop that going forward and this might help.
Just saying!