The more, the more entertaining. At least Councilmember John Inks (unlike Councilmember Michael Kasperzak) opposed taking the center lanes on El Camino for occasional VTA buses only. The filing deadline for Assembly is March 11. The top two vote-getters make a November runoff.

Cabrera's main goal is to get Bernie Sanders in the White House.
Web Link
I do not understand how running for assembly will help Sanders win.

I was surprised to find that I agree with Inks on a few things -- his opposition to housing development in the already compromised and environmentally sensitive North Bayshore area and the downtown hotel. The hotel is not a problem but the developer's demand to add new office space rather than housing is.

What scares me is his commitment to preserving Prop. 13 -- the unmitigated disaster that ruined our schools and is now unfair on every street in our community. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge beneficiary and don't have kids. We can and should find better tax policy to afford seniors a way to stay in their homes, or downsize. Prop. 13 skews people's financial decisions and holds them hostage to old holdings. We should also address the fact that Prop. 13 gives longtime businesses an unfair pass from their tax responsibility.

So, Inks is not my choice.

Barry Chang go home. Especially if he can't figure out how to file complete and honest campaign contribution statements.
The Cupertino Councilman/Mayor who recently moved into the 24th Assembly dist. has these problems. Both his run for the 28th Ass. and the Cupertino Council have now resulted in fines from the political watchdog agency in Sacramento (FPPC). Reported $3500 additional fine.

Palo Alto Daily Post front page article, under their masthead, March 8. Sure to hit other papers/blogs soon!

Inks is clearly the best non political candidate in the field. He is fiscally conservative and socially liberal , which will appeal to a lot of high tech workers in Silicon Valley. I am glad he is a strong supporter of Prop. 13. Contrary to popular liberal opinion, this proposition has not destroyed Californa. Revenues are allowed to increase annually. It's irresponsible politicians that can't control their spending , like crack addicts, who have created the mess.

Stupid on its face. Anybody running for office is political. I am also fiscally conservative with a broad social conscious.. I call that "traditional."

Don't call me a knee jerk liberal.

Two percent. Multiply that over years and check your neighbor's property tax bills. You will find that some pay double digits less than others. That is inherently unfair and freezes a part of our housing market that would otherwise be more fluid. This has nothing to do with irresponsible politicians but everything to do monied interests and ideology.

I respect independent thinkers who solve problems and contribute to our community, whatever their stripe.

It seems to me that you and Inks are the ideologues who hold us back.

Here is the Santa Clara Assessor's report on property taxes for 2015-2016: Web Link

You can see that 33% of homeowners bought since 2007, and account for 50% of the property tax base. Conversely, 33% of homeowners have owned since 1993 or earlier, and cover 15% of the tax base.

PDview

You are welcome to think what you like, but Prop 13 has saved not only the home of seniors, but also essentially every small farming endeavor in the state. It is FAR too expensive to pay taxes on the property when developers drive the price (and therefore the taxes) up sky high. Then people complain that we have nothing but corporate farming when their selfish decisions make that happen.

The whole point of Prop 13 was to allow people to STAY WHERE THEY ARE. If they move, their tax base changes. We have enough transient behavior in this state. If anything, this encourage people to stay put and actually build a community. You don't want to be "trapped"? Then rent. Home buying should be for people who plan to stick around rather than creating building booms, cashing out, moving and leaving the real residents to suffer for the destruction caused by the vagabond behavior.

If you ask me, it's YOUR behavior that's selfish and irresponsible.

As for John Inks, he came to my door when he first ran for council. He said what he planned to do, then won and actually did what he had said. I contrast that with Ken Rosenberg, who came to my door and, when asked what his plan was regarding the VTA desire to close a lane each way on El Camino, told me he was against it and would vote it down. When elected, Rosenberg chose to break his word and vote for the ignorant VTA plan.

Needless to say, I prefer honesty to deception. I will support John Inks in his run.

As for Mr Rosenberg, he is invite to come to my door again sometime. I'd love the opportunity to let him know exactly what I think of people who don't keep their word. If he can't make it, I'll let him know during the next election.

Really!

What about my behavior is selfish or irresponsible?

Leit's not test our neighbor's patience too much., but -- truly, where do you get that?

I wrote that I benefit from Prop. 13 and that I care about our schools even if I don't have kids.

Is that selfish or irresponsible?

BTW -- I support local farmers. That is why I believe in smart tax policy..jS

psr and Inks's supporter "get it" about the Jarvis-Gann Initiative (Prop. 13) -- PDview does not, and no further rhetoric will alter that reality.

There's a lot of latter-day grumbling about this landmark initiative (much of it, incidentally -- whether or not in this particular forum -- from people comparatively new to California, who didn't follow the Initiative's history or the context that gave rise to it, and who sometimes just plain envy and resent anyone paying lower taxes, period -- just as people instinctively resent anyone earning higher wages, period, even if the difference was hard-earned). And Prop. 13 is certainly far from perfect: it has shifted tax burden away from commercial and onto residential property (which turns over more often).

And yet. And yet! The 1970s legislative environment that the public rebelled against ("Taxpayer Revolt" was the national media buzz phrase for it) was precisely as "Inks supporter" put it: "irresponsible politicians that can't control their spending." They vote away other peoples' money (yours -- never their own) to repay political debts, people who helped them get elected. A neat little racket and it continues today, wherever they can get away with it.

THAT was the essential problem. Prop. 13, though flawed, was the reaction to the problem. If you don't like the reaction (this or any other), fix the problem that gave rise to it.

"Common Sense"

I "get it" and have followed the initiative from the start. I learned to walk in California and voted against Prop. 13. so my grumbling is not "later day" or about envy. I may be a poor loser but my tax basis is on a twenty year old purchase. Shoot me for arguing against my financial self interest but in favor of equity and better tax policy.

I get it that one argument for Prop. 13 was to allow people like me (now) to stay in our homes and that some politicians are irresponsible. I don't get it when people rail against all politicians, essential to our democracy, and accuse our public servants of poor intent.

You sound smart. We disagree.

"What scares me is his commitment to preserving Prop. 13 -- the unmitigated disaster that ruined our schools and is now unfair on every street in our community."

That is not what has ruined our schools, you can thank the Unions for that, with all the double dippers, and high pensions, for ever position they pay out 2x the salaries, and in order to get rid of school board members they need to offer 1/2 a million dollars to have them leave with severance. Open your eyes to the abuses going on and follow the money and you will see. Also if you haven't heard our schools are like the 3rd most funded in the nations. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is money management. Learn more at

Web Link