Town Square

MV Voters for Housing Diversity website uses deceptive language

Original post made by Jim Neal, Old Mountain View, on Oct 29, 2014

When I visited the website for the MV Voters for Housing Diversity website, I found the following written on the main page:

______________________________

Why should I vote for Ken, Lenny, and Greg?

We think they're the most qualified and have the best ideas about how to keep Mountain View a balanced and healthy community. For example, all three support ending the current City Council's ban on housing in the North Bayshore area north of 101, which would reduce traffic on 101 and Shoreline Ave, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make housing more affordable for everyone. Other candidates support adding offices for tens of thousands of new jobs in North Bayshore with no housing near them, which would be a disaster for traffic and housing affordability. Mountain View can't afford to let those other candidates win.

The Palo Alto Daily Post agrees with our assessment, endorsing Ken, Lenny, and Greg because of their leadership on the issue of housing (link). So does the Mountain View Voice, endorsing Ken, Lenny, and Pat, with an honorable mention to Greg (link).
___________________________________

Based on the way the statements are phrased, most people would be led to believe that Ken, Lenny and Greg are the only candidates that support housing in the North Bayshore and that all other candidates are in favor of building office. In my opinion, this is deceptive because while it is not explicitly stated, it is phrased in a way to lead others to reach that conclusion by inference.

They also note that Greg Unangst received an honorable mention from the Voice, while failing to note that I received an Honorable Mention from the Palo Alto Daily Post, an important omission on their part. I supported additional housing in Mountain View before any other candidates were even in the race. I am also a very vocal advocate for housing in the North Bayshore and as far as I know am the only one who has publicly talked about the possibility of adding micro-housing into the housing mix. If this group's aim is to promote HOUSING DIVERSITY, why would they be going out of their way to ignore this? I can only think of one:

I want all housing to be compatible with neighborhoods and would only approve high-density where appropriate. I am on record saying that I would never approve 3 to 4 story buildings next to single story residences because it would destroy the character of the neighborhood.

These are but just a few reasons why I decided not to seek third party endorsements or funding.

Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council

Comments (3)

Posted by Geek
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Oct 29, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Geek is a registered user.

Yep, any case of missing mentioning of Jim should be investigated and dealt with.

Report Objectionable Content

Email Town Square Moderator

Posted by Cat Lover
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2014 at 5:13 pm

Today, I was walking along a street in Old MV, and saw a poster on a telephone poll, that struck me as one of the most bizarre endorsements so far in this election.

Perhaps you’ve seen it - A picture of an adorable cat, with the suggestion that all pet lovers should vote for Siegel, Rosenberg, and Unangst. Why? Well, the poster said that the Audubon Society has been lobbying the city council to adopt policies that would remove feral cats from the Shoreline area, and lead to needless euthanization. The group believes that if elected, these three “will support measures that protect cats.”

Count me as a cat lover, and count me in favor of Trap-Neuter-Return, as opposed to euthanization. But for the life of me, I can’t see how these three candidates would be better for feral cats. For that matter, how would their goal of crowding high-density housing into North Bayshore make life better for the cats?

And for that matter, although I favor Trap-Neuter-Return, I don’t think that this is the pivotal issue in this election. The pivotal issue is whether we want to vote for the Manhattanization of Mountain View, or for neighborhood preservation and moderate development.

My neighborhood has some feral cats, and I think life would be a lot worse for them in a neighborhood of high rise, high density apartment buildings.

The poster refers us to fatcatrescue.org/vote. That page doesn’t show the poster, but does have a scary hypothetical scenario for what would happen if their chosen candidates don’t make it.

This is a pretty crazy election.

(Sorry, Jim. I oppose your view on North Bayshore housing, but I may vote for you anyway.)

Report Objectionable Content

Email Town Square Moderator

Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 29, 2014 at 5:53 pm
Jim Neal is a registered user.

The problem is not that I wasn't mentioned, the problem is that the way the statement is worded, makes it seem as if everyone else that is running is for more office. They simply could have said:

"Of the nine people running for City Council, 5 support housing in the North Bayshore. We are supporting 4 of the 5: Seigel, Unangst, Rosenberg and Showalter."

What would have been wrong with that? They could have left my name out and still provided people with accurate information.

Oh, and for the record, I am also a cat lover and was the only candidate to speak out against licensing and mandatory vaccinations for cats when the issue was raised over a year ago and attended every meeting where it was discussed. I owned cats for 30 years so when the ordinance came up, I saw immediately that a lot of the proposed changes for cats made no sense.

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

Report Objectionable Content

Email Town Square Moderator

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Town Square

MV Voters for Housing Diversity website uses deceptive language

Stay informed.

Index