Good assortment! I personally like Greg Unangst's density of ideas: in the forums, when an odd question comes up, he always provides at least twice the amount of solid actionable suggestions as anyone else. But any of these four would be a valuable addition to the council.

I am shocked that the Mountain View Voice is supporting the candidates listed above. Could have knocked me over with a feather.

I suppose if one is happy with the direction the city is going, then perhaps voting for the Voice's endorsed candidates would be the way to go, but for those of you who have concerns about the frenetic pace of development and aren't sure if the way to solve the "affordable housing" issue is by rubber stamping every single high-density development (most of them rental developments) while also planning for and approving millions of square feet of office space that -- then I suggest you do your homework and learn about ALL of the candidates. Make an effort to meet them, even if it's a simple email to ask them a couple of questions, and decide for YOURSELF who you believe will best represent your ideas and beliefs.

There's still time to register to vote:

Web Link

No surprises here! The voice has been actively campaigning for Lenny Siegel, and balanced Mountain View, for months! The real news is that Ken Rosenberg is part of BMV he never disclosed that in any forum or in his flyers or ads. Another thing that surprises me is that the voice is choosing to endorse two candidates with huge contributions from special interests and non transparent groups without investigating what and who is behind them, and which agenda they have for Mountain View. They are: "The National Association of Realtors Fund" based in CHICAGO " that has been independently spending $26,680 on Ken Rosenberg's behalf for mailers and polling, and another group called the "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition" from LONG BEACH which has spent $12,293 on his behalf. There is also a SoCal resident named Timothy Dillion who contributed $20,000 in support of Rosenberg.
The same group from Long Beach the "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition " has also been spending $ 12,653 on Pat's Showalters behalf as well!‏‏

The numbers you quote are the amount of money that independent groups are spending on behalf of Pat, Ellen, Ken, and Lisa. Not all for one candidate. No candidate receives money, and it is 100% beyond the control of the candidate. They can neither ask for it nor reject it. Sunnyvale, in it's last election, had over $100,000 contributed by outside groups.

If you have an issue with money in our campaigns, go to the Supreme Court or Congress for relief.

That said, each candidate is required to list what they receive and spend. It's all right there for your to see. Have you looked at what the candidates are doing?

As the previous two people said, I am not really surprised at the choices of the Voice, but I have to wonder if this is really California? The Voice chose to endorse candidates heavily backed by special interest groups. Coincidentally, these choices would also lead to a minority-free Council as well. I think that this would be a sad commentary in a city that prides itself on being independent thinkers and talks about the need for diversity. Perhaps diversity really means "How many different special interests can be represented?"

The Voice is not doing the residents any favors with these endorsements.

I think the Voice got it exactly right. These are the candidates that actually support pragmatic solutions to improve the lives of Mountain View residents, who will start tackling the tough city and regional issues where the previous City Council has shirked their duty, like housing affordability and environmentally-friendly growth.

Re: "Is This California?" These candidates are backed by some very real Mountain View residents like me. I understand that we may disagree about Mountain View's priorities, but I hope you can at least acknowledge that I exist, and that I care about what happens to our community.

I would never vote for any of these candidates. They all endorse faster and denser development. I don't think much of the present council's legacy, but these candidates would be worse.

If elected, they would take it as a mandate for maximum development as quickly as possible, as permitted by the general plan. That would be bad enough. But a majority of the council could legally override or rewrite the general plan. With these candidates, that would not surprise me.

It's a delusion to think that opening the city to increased high-density would bring affordable housing. Developers are in the business of making money. We would get a large amount of Madera-style "luxury" rentals, but very little affordable housing, and very little ownership housing.

We could never remedy the jobs/housing imbalance with increased high-density. The numbers do not work. It can't be done, and we would degrade the city by pursuing that delusion. It would line the pockets of developers, but the rest of us would pay the price.

These candidates would take us down a bad road.

@ OhLilly,

I'm paying very close attention to what the candidates are doing, and according to the 496 forms for the independent expenditure that you can find here :

Web Link

each candidate that has received special interest support is listed individually so either you are misinformed or are trying to misinform !

I urge everyone to really vet the candidates for their proposed actions if elected. Do not blindly follow the Voice's recommendations, as those are based on things like the long standing, well documented friendship that exists between Daniel DeBolt and Lenny Siegel. Lenny is a one note candidate who doesn't know the city well, but DeBolt backs his buddy. Look into that fact, those of you who were wondering why Lenny got the front page while others hardly got anything. Even if ads were paid for to be on a certain page by other candidates, the contract was broken and the candidate's campaign ad failed to appear as was contracted for. Outrageous.

Also do not select by promises that have no specific steps to make happen. Anyone can promise anything to get elected, but that doesn't make their wild claims deliverable.

The more specifics a candidate states, the more you have to criticize, but you also know them better than those that promises everything,e.g., Pat Showalter.

"Concerned citizen" has it exactly right just above. Please reread that comment and know that I've worked for going on two years to meet and talk at length with these candidates.

Also I know that these three know MV and what it needs to not gentrify most of us right out of here:
Lisa Matichak
Mercedes Salem
Jim Neal

If you want affordable rents in MV, help them get elected.

It shouldn't surprise people that those who run the Voice support Siegel, Showalter, Rosenberg (and honorable mention Unangst), because they're probably all people with normal jobs. The "homeowner's association" group of candidates have nothing to offer people with normal jobs.

The current "add 2.5K housing units and 22K jobs" path that Mountain View is on will result in housing prices hitting orbit while meanwhile everyone with a normal job will sit in the parking lot known as 101, choking on smog, because they've been priced out.

If you own a home and don't mind living in a place where only incredibly rich nondiverse executives live, by all means vote for Matichak who is happy with the "quite a few" housing units already scheduled.

Her "this is a regional issue" talk is nonsense, since even if she thought Palo Alto might someday build something, she's not the candidate qualified to coordinate that. Showalter's ability to bring together many cities and agencies for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Program demonstrates that she's got what it takes when she talks about bringing in other localities.

As for this thread, it doesn't speak well of your study of the candidates, Linda Curtis, if you didn't notice that Lenny Siegel has spent more years working on environmental and lifestyle issues here than any three other candidates put together.

And adding in concerned citizen's claims that more housing would /cause/ gentrification is laughable. If the people who will otherwise buy an iffy older house for crazy money could instead buy a fancy new condo, they'll leave the iffy older house on the market for middle class people to buy.

Great endorsements from the Voice. Lenny Siegel is at the top of my list of people to support. Lenny has done and will continue to do great things for Mtn. View. He is not interested in being a politician - just an honest person who gets things done.

Linda Curtis, you are completely wrong about Lenny. He may or may not be friends with Daniel Debolt - that's not the issue. Lenny is often covered in the Voice because he is active in the community and his activities are newsworthy. He is not a 'one note candidate who doesn't know the city well," as you say. He has lived in Mtn. View for over 40 years and has proven that he understands MV politics and issues!

Please don't make false statements about Lenny Siegel. If you really want to get to know him, I'd like to invite you to come work with me on his campaign. The more time I spend with him the more I see how knowledgeable and competent he is. I'm sure you'd agree!

The Voice just endorsed three old Caucasian homeowners. Last time I checked that demographic does not represent Mountain View at all.

Also, if these three get elected the entire council will be old homeowners plus Chris Clark who is also a homeowner. The council will have ZERO DIVERSITY and only one woman. This is not the kind of council that will truly represent the residents of Mountain View.

I'm astounded by how spot-on the Voice's endorsements are. These three candidates, as well as the honorable mention for Greg, have really solidified as my top choices for City council. They're all poised to tackle the big issues in Mountain View, with them at the helm, I'll be excited about the future of our city.

Dear Linda Curtis,

Why don't you just support your three candidates without making false statements about the ones you don't support. I'm not voting for Showalter or Siegel, but they have far more experience and have lived in the city longer than the three candidates you support. You put them down without knowing their extensive public service. I could say bad things about all three candidates you support but I won't stoop to your low level

Well said Madeline Bernard! The vision of Mountain View with "housing prices hitting orbit while meanwhile everyone with a normal job will sit in the parking lot known as 101, choking on smog, because they've been priced out" may sit well with some of my neighbors, but it seems heartless to me. And then there's the environmental angle. I would have thought, in this relatively liberal area, that people would be more concerned about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It seems to me that housing near jobs is the best way to do that, and that's why I support Ken, Lenny, Greg, and Pat.

@ Jeremy Hoffman,

Ken Pat and Greg drive their cars all the time , their idea is to push everybody else out of the cars so that they can get to their destination quicker with their polluting cars !

Pat commutes to work out of Mountain view but she does it by car not with public transportation, perhaps she should consider living what she preaches and get a Job near where she lives !

no surprise here, totally against media endorsing candidates. I believe they should provide vital information to voters to decide, we certainly do not need a small handful of writers/editors to help us decide.

I have lived in Mt View for years and this is the first year a candidate has actually knocked on my door and introduced herself to me, Ellen Kamei. She took the time to allow me to share my views on the future of Mt View as I plan on living here for a long time. She is the only candidate who is a renter like myself. Nearly 2/3rds of Mt View consists of renters, and she is the first candidate who sincerely wishes to represent us. Far too long have renters had a voice for the future of Mt. View. Such a shame this is not an important issue with the MV Voice as well as other leading voices in this city.

@ Opine

I have no idea where you got the info that Ellen Kamei is the only candidate that is a renter, but that's not true at all! Jim Neal is a renter and Mercedes Salem is a renter as well.

It is not possible for a candidate to knock on every single door in Mountain View, but I know that all the others have been doing as many as they can. I am also sure that if you send an email to any candidate, they will be more than happy to answer any questions that you have and/or to set up a personal meeting with you.

Jim Neal has stated in many forums and here in the town square that the reason that he has not accepted endorsements or money from any special interest groups is because he wants to represent the residents of Mountain view.

Mercedes Salem has also publicly stated several times that she intends to focus on resident's concerns.

Jim Neal web site Web Link

Mercedes Salem web site Web Link

"It is not possible for a candidate to knock on every single door in Mountain View, but I know that all the others have been doing as many as they can."

Ask John Inks. He walked to over 10,000 HH's. he knocked on all the doors of likely voters. This election will be won by the candidate that walks the most. At this point it is Ken Rosenberg. Time is running out since most voters have already sent in their absentee ballots

@Lilly

Thanks so much for thoughtful comments, indeed I have researched Jim Neal and Mercedes Salem and will be giving them both serious consideration.

I agree, it is not possible to knock on the 75k plus residents of Mt. View, it was just such a nice refreshing surprise to speak directly to a candidate.

All in all this is a very solid group of highly qualified candidates.

See you on election day!

I have personally visited more than 8000 residences in Mountain View during this campaign. I have had to have the heels on my 4 month old boots replaced already and have lost 15 pounds in the last month alone. Since as far as I know, no one has asked all the candidates how many residences they have visited, how can anyone say for a fact that one has done more than all the others? If anyone has that information, I'd love to see it!


Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
https://electneal.org ( Campaign Website )

Please consider voting for Lisa Matichek, Jim Neal, and Mercedes Salem for the upcoming city council seats. This election is an important one, especially for those of us living in the “change areas” of Mountain View. These areas are slated for high density development, and while growth is a given, how we address it is the issue. Siegel, Rosenberg, Showalter, Kamei, and Unangst have all expressed great enthusiasm for development – large development, and several of these candidates have been showered with outside contributions, funded largely by developers and real estate interests

Lisa Matichak is absolutely the right person to serve on our city council. With a current council that is heavily populated with persons who want to rubber stamp all growth activity, we need people who will say “...not so fast..” and Lisa will do that. She has done that. I have watched her on the EPC and while some commissioners said “yes, sure, whatever” she stopped things and asked hard questions. She made suggestions that sounded reasonable to to the residents, but made the developers squirm. She is asking for growth that our infrastructure can support and for growth in infrastructure as well as apartment and offices. She is absolutely committed to working for residents' needs as our city grows.

By the way, if you have to sit in traffic on Moffett Blvd., waiting for the light to change, you can thank both Kamei and Capriles, who voted to shut down the Stieirlin Road onramp to Central Expressway. Despite a petition signed by over a hundred residents to keep it open, they expressed great concern for the residents - and then voted as the developer wished. I see more of that in the future from them. (Lisa listened to the residents and voted to keep it open.)

I’m voting for Jim Neal because I believe him to be honest, forthright and knowledgeable. He too is concerned about the character and livability of Mountain View, which is why he’s running. Not part of any slate, nor favored by developers, he is intelligent, articulate and well informed. He has been to almost every City Council and EPC meeting in the last three years, and is very knowledgeable about how the city runs. He is a “neighborhoods” person as opposed to a “build’em up-type” person, and has been vocal in the fights to save both the Milk Pail and the Rose Market. He could be your neighbor who decided to run for city council, and that is the point. After all, shouldn’t a council member be someone who feels like your neighbor?

We need people like Mercedes Salem on our council because she speaks plainly about the need for protecting seniors, minimum wage earners and the less fortunate of our community, and they need a spokesperson on this city council. She has a lot of experience in how city government and local politics work, and equally important, she seems to have the same values and goals as the other two candidates. They would work well together.

These candidates “get" the big picture, and can look beyond the current concerns into the future. None of them have a no-growth mentality - or a rapid-growth one - and that is important. How we grow into the future, how and where we put the thousands of new residents in the coming years affects us all.