Hmm, the more money spent, the better for the Economy as a whole. Let them spend as much as needed. The post office sure benefited.

Within the next 6 months let's put a stop to unknown and unwanted outside election spending here in Mountain View.
Rich people are not all that many, we can end their control of elections if we band together.

It's certainly good to address the elections funding, but let's also address the underlying issue-rent control. The underhanded support from CAA/NEC should encourage Showalter and Rosenberg to demonstrate their independence by giving the issue serious consideration.

Vince: Please cease your campaign to insinuate the phrase "rent control" throughout this forum. It reflects badly on you.

Rent control ONLY sounds appealing to people who currently are in rented properties they think will be covered by it, and who have NOT been through the viciously bitter experience of trying to find housing in a "rent-controlled" market. Rent control takes an existing, underlying problem (too many people competing for existing spaces) and rather than address the causes, exacerbates them by suppressing rents to below what the market is willing to pay. That brings far MORE people into competition for nonexistent vacancies; it brings in new corruptions like bribery to secure rent-controlled places (i.e. the real market value asserting itself); it immediately discourages owners from renting their units; if it looks at all likely, the first effect will be huge rent increases across the entire market so the owners won't be faced with future rents not keeping up with their expenses and inflation. In a nutshell, it messes up the whole rental market for the benefit of a few people too selfish and self-absorbed to care. I've been through this in various towns. (I am not and have never been a landlord.)

I'd vote for rent control tomorrow, IF it also compelled every current renter to vacate their property and compete on the new market with the 10s of thousands of other people then wanting to rent in Mountain View. Then the "rent-control" advocates would get the FULL experience of what they're creating, and they might finally, at long last, grasp that easy-looking solutions to complex problems are wrong and fatuous.

I agree with Vince that some form of rent control would benefit the community. The people that oppose it are either selfish or ignorant. Think about it. The problem cited above is that cheaper rents would allow more people to apply for available vacancies. Why? Because the rents would be affordable! (Gasp!)

Oh no! You mean that more people besides the wealthy could compete for an apartment? Oh dear. That would make it harder for the wealthy to live here!!!!

That is the dirty little secret these anti-rent control wingnuts are trying to hide. Class warfare--pure and simple.

$100 voucher per voter? What kind of asinine idea is that? I thought we're trying to REDUCE campaign spending? That would equate to $3,300,000 being spent on campaigns!

Give Ken Rosenberg a little credit for supporting campaign reform - but only a little. His credibility was taking a real beating, due to the massive CAA/NEC spending on his behalf, and he needed to try to get in front of the news cycle.

Opposition to rent control may never have been the actual reason for CAA/NEC funding these candidates. Actually, rent control was never going to happen, regardless of which candidates were elected.

The real pot of gold is in the development of North Bayshore, with the new council likely to approve 1000-5000 new housing units there (as well as more, elsewhere in the city). Don't expect much "affordable" or ownership housing in the mix. Expect more Madera-style "luxury" rentals, and expect Prometheus to get a piece of the action.

@Older but wiser:

I have owned a home in MV for 30+ years--I have nothing to gain personally from some form of rent control. However, I work and associate with enough people who struggle to find affordable housing to know that housing costs are a real issue (and are a factor in causing traffic congestion). I am also aware that rent-control can be problematic and absolutely should be done in a careful and thoughtful way.

Thanks for proving your name sake.

At Vince, you say you have owned here, but have you rented as well? and if you did, was it for a friend or family you rented to at a lower rate? or did you rent at the going rate? If you charge your relative a lesser amount then the going rate, should i come in and force you to charge the going rate? Think about it.

We can't house every rich and every poor person here in Mt. View. It's first come first serve. Some people will be priced out and other won't be able to find a place. We already have too much apartments/homes, can't we see that by our traffic mess?

All these commies liberals trying to tell free people what to charge for their place is ridiculous.

The best law of the land is capitalize, you get what you are worth. If you want more, better yourself, make something more of yourself by going to school or whatever. If you work hard you can and more then likely will succeed, now in a communistic society, their is no getting ahead, everyone is the same, there is no will or want to better one's self. Is that what the younger generation want, more government Cheese? What type of teachers do they have?

@ @older and wiser -- Do us all a favor, Monta Loma [Portion removed; keep it civil]. If you want to make an intelligent, thought-out argument, do it here.

No one -- and I mean NO ONE -- is making the "argument" you are making concerning housing here in Mountain View. And if you really think that pricing people out of this city is somehow appropriate and necessary, then you are beyond help.

I certainly support local measures to deflate the corrupting effects of the Citizens United USSC decision. And I also support carefully designed rent control as a local measure to offset the endemic greed of the real estate market.

When the election campaign was happening in 2014 it did feel it was skewed to me and I was suspicious. Now I find I was correct. No enjoyment taken.

Election skewed. Community skrewed.

Special interest groups have always supported their favorite candidates -often surreptitiously. Sure, we should know before voting how special interest groups have voted with their contributions. But I don't see local politicians elected with the assistance of third-party spending doing anything but pretending to be concerned.

I'd vote for rent control so long as it was expanded to ownership property as well, i.e. can only sell your house for however much the City dictates. That would keep housing prices low for everyone, right?

.... to which council member Mike Kasperzak said, "I think you have until 2016."

Well, it's now .... 2016. Any progress on these election transparency efforts?