He's just going to abstain from important discussions and votes the whole time, since he owns so much property in the area.

I sense that McAlister and I see eye to eye on many city-related issues. I'd like to vote for him again. The one major concern I have is the extent to which he is required to abstain from votes - keep in mind that the only reason the MV council supported the idiotic BRT dedicated lane was because McAlister was precluded from voting because he owns property along the ECR corridor. One small detail like this and all of a sudden VTA can (and did claim) - "See, Mtn. View supports our proposal."

@why bother, is there something wrong with owning businesses in the area? That actually give me reason to vote for him, someone local who knows the history here, someone who's run a business and knows of the issues. Not someone who just moved here and wants everything changed to suit THEM.

"...Not someone who just moved here and wants everything changed to suit THEM."

Funny coming from YOU...

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Oh sunshine....I'd use the@ but @@mvresident2003 is rather redundant. Anyhoo, how is that funny coming from me? I moved here specifically because I want to live in a smaller, suburban area. I don't want lots of apartments and high-rises, if I did I'd have moved to the City.

Again, I'm not trying to change it. But apparently you're one of the ones who are.

McAlister will get my vote. I appreciate his concern for small businesses, and I appreciate his concern for "quality of life." My impression is that he is also for ownership housing where possible. McAlister has a sense of community, and seems less in the pocket of big money than any of the other current council members.

You don't want to change Mountain View, you claim?

Ah, but you do. You want to drive everyone out who doesn't earn a *certain* amount, because they don't "measure up."

But I guess your memory is rather faulty, sunshine.

" McAlister will get my vote. I appreciate his concern for small businesses, and I appreciate his concern for "quality of life."

Really? He supported the minimum wage increases. And is no growth going back to the 50's really a quality of life characteristic?

Mr McAlister has been a surprising voice of moderation on council. Unlike the balanced mv movement, he seems to focus on smart growth and addressing our difficult transportation woes, like the editorial for a monorail system to connect north bayshore.
He didn't get my vote last time, but will get my vote this time. I think that says a lot in our current adversarial political climate.

@"Really" -

Advocating for something closer to living wage does not disqualify someone from being pro-small business.

Advocating for "quality of life" does not mean that McAlister wants to return to the 1950s. That's a ridiculous statement to make.

Read the first paragraph of the article. It says it all . He prefers the 50's. It incfluences his perspective. The MW is not a living wage or even close to it. Supporting a higher MW does not help,small business's

We need to change zoning laws. If he's not in favor of removing the strip and not in favor of building higher, then how does he hope to solve housing issues? "Middle of the road" is a bs position.

New construction needs to offer ground floor business and multiple stories of housing on top.

Fvck the 50's. Make this decade special. We can have a charming city that also houses a growing population. These things are not at odds with each other. Ditch the 2-3 story height limits. Build up. Having more neighbors is a wonderful thing.

McAlister got his when things were cheap. That's luck. This generations life is harder. Pining for the 50's only denies the opportunity to own property to the next generation. That'd be a shameful outcome.

@ Scott
If you don't like smaller cities, why did you move here? It is arrogant and selfish to want to build "up" and go past 2-3 floors because YOU like it. The people already here should be who decide, not a bunch of people who think the city should change for their needs.
I suggest you move to SF, since you like "more neighbors".

Scott - "Pining for the 50's"? Give me a break.

The writer of the article, intentionally or not, walked right into the meme that developers and their true believers pushed in the last election - that anyone who wants any kind of moderation in development is just "pining for the 50's." John McAlister has been on the EPC and Council for years, and he's not an idiot.

The article goes on to quote McAlister:

"I still want people to have that sense that we're a small city with a big heart," he explained. "I still believe we can accomplish more housing and still have the heart and character of a small town in the community."

Do you have a problem with that?

We don't even know yet what effect the current wave of building is going to have. There are some 2000 housing units in the pipeline. The City Council is looking at 10,250 more units in North Bayshore, plus several million square feet of new office space in North Bayshore and San Antonio, if they can figure out how to pretend that it won't produce a congestion nightmare. 6000 more units on the US Government property at Middlefield and Moffett are probably on the way to approval. And you want more?

I have to think that there is a rush on by developers and their representatives on the Council to get approval for as much as possible, before residents have a chance to see the effects of the current wave of building.

If Councilmember McAlister votes on April 26 (or ever) for a landlord-tenant mediation ordinance that does not outlaw preemptive evictions, I, for one, will be opposing his re-election. However, I am also interested (especially if he does not vote for such an ordinance) in learning more about his voting record - including on the addition of so much development in Mountain View. Any politician can talk about "balance" and preserving or improving "the quality of life." But with incumbents seeking re-election, voters can actually examine the incumbent's voting record.