It will be a November runoff between the only female candidate and the Democratic party pick. Kasperzak has done nothing - right. He was for VTA bus-only lanes on El Camino Real and still wants to see high-speed rail charge, without stopping, through Mountain View and Palo Alto and Menlo Park at 100-200 miles per hour. What a great plan - not.

So it's obvious the Voice is pro women who are inexperienced In political decision making and anti-men who are easily more qualified. How can any resident take their recommendation very serious. They also fail to mention another more experienced candidate, John Inks, who garnered more votes than a heavily favored democrat Mike Kasperzak in the 2012 council race.

People wonder why our politicians are so lousy. It's because people like the editors at the voice vote for candidates based on personal preferences rather than a skill set. Eventually these people end up at state and federally elected offices and have no clue what they are doing.

Women do bring a different life experience and perspective to public office. How many women currently are in each of the state legislative chambers? I may look it up - thanks to Al Gore's invention of the internet.

For me, the choice is between Veenker and Berman. There's no way I'd vote for either of our council members, Kasperzak or Inks. It has to do with their records, and their apparent motivations. Kasperzak and Inks have consistently given developers whatever they wanted, and have been dismissive when residents voiced concerns over developments like the Greystar project at El Camino and Castro. Inks seems to often be motivated by his libertarian belief that government should get out of the way of private ownership. Kasperzak seems motivated by his desire to cater to those who hold the power of money. I don't want to see either of them representing us in Sacramento.

He and his conservative brethren are so full of it. They claim to want "small government", but what they really want is their own interests funded by the taxpayers and everyone else be damned.

Look at his voting record. He's like a flat-earthier that believed sailing beyond the horizon would have the ship fall off the planet. He will argue as nauseum his political-religious dogma and often be the sole "No" vote in City Council.

Time to get the old guard right-wingers off the Council! They are destroying our city. Please vote!

Nice try but Inks and Kasperzak were the top vote getters in the last council election. They represent a super majority of the residents of MV. They promote smart growth which has led MV to become a much more desirable area. If you want good politicians vote for someone who has the correct skill set, not just a personal preference.

Nice Try - Your post has some whacky information. Inks and Kasperzak did not run in the last election (2014). Perhaps you meant 2012. In that election (google it!) they were the top vote-getters, but not by much: Inks 18.88%, Karperzak 18.82%, Clark 18.34%, McAlister 18.27%, Capriles 16.53%, in a vote-for-four election. There's no way you could honestly call that a supermajority. "Supermajority" is defined as 2/3 or 3/5 in pretty much all elections where the term is used.

Then there's your use of the term "smart growth." I guess your definition of "smart growth" is different from mine. Then there's your assertion that MV has become a "much more desirable area" thanks to this supposedly smart growth. I'd say the opposite, that overcrowding and congestion are making this city less and less desirable.

Finally, there's your suggestion that we vote for a "skill set" rather than "personal preference." I will vote my personal preference, for a candidate who is less likely to apply their skills to achieve results that are beneficial to the few (i.e. developers), but damaging to the community.

My bad I meant the last election they were elected and it was 2012. However. If you look at the total number of people voting ( and you get to vote for four) you will note that they clearly received a super majority of 2/3rds of all that cast votes . If things are so bad as you say about land development, I assume this would be reflected I lower land values.

So you are telling me that an unskilled woman is better than a skilled candidate because you don't like their principled approach to protecting all landowners. Again as I stated earlier, that's why we get lousy politicians that clearly are overwhelmed with tough political decisions. I would prefer a principled politician over one that meets my subjective preferences.

Politics is a skill, and legislating is a skill. Both take a long time to get good at, and thanks to term limits our Assemblypeople don't get a long time to learn them. I think we get the most bang from our buck by voting for people who have the most experience: in this case, Mike Kasperzak.

The other thing to note is, people who get thrown into Sacramento just after hatching get taught the ropes by lobbyists. Again, better to have someone there who has the courage to stick with his convictions and has proved that. I personally love what Kasperzak has accomplished in NBS, and I love high speed rail and public transit. But I think we should all take note that where there are tough calls to make, he doesn't dodge them. He isn't running a campaign that pretends that the pain points in the 24th are mealy-mouthed can't-lose issues like 'education'. Everyone here, one way or another, is stressed about housing and Kasperzak is willing to step up to that plate. Being effective takes guts, and great as the other two are, Kasperzak has the most guts.

I would implore the Voice to do some timely, continuing reporting on deceptive funding in this election. I think it's going to be bad. We did get some information on the $90,000 in dark money from developers that funded Rosenberg and Showalter in the last City Council election, but it came too late to do any good.

I just got a nice hit piece in the mail, targeting Vicki Veenker. It was paid for by "Californians Allied for Patient Protection Independent Expenditure Account." Apparently (Web Link

" 'Californians Allied For Patient Protection Independent Expenditure Account' is the political action committee of CAPP, a group largely funded by medical malpractice insurance companies that focuses on the state's malpractice laws."

The mailer slammed her for lack of previous governmental experience, but said nothing about what the funding entity actually is, and why this particular group actually is targeting her. But you can be absolutely certain it wasn't for lack of previous governmental experience. As the saying goes, "Follow the money."

Because of the dynamics of this race, I'd guess that this group would for some reason rather see a Berman/Kasperzak contest in November. It would be great if the Voice could shed some light on why this is.

@Voter

The amount of money spent in this race is quite obscene.

To wit, link to late independent expeenditures affecting (supporting) Berman: Web Link

My mailbox has for the last few days been jammed with Berman mailers. The groups promoting him seem certain that an absolute flood of money will buy this election, and they may be right. The California Secretary of State website (Web Link linked to above by SRB shows, as of today, $616,265 spent on behalf of Berman by outside groups, just between 5/9/16 and 5/20/16.

Articles in the PA Weekly/MV Voice have reported on the massive amounts being spent for Berman, but have said nothing about WHY these groups are spending so much. Missing also is a statement from Berman that says anything beyond “We had no co-ordination…”

ALL of this $616,265 in “recent expenditures” comes from three sources: California Association of Realtors, something called EdVoice, and the California Dental Association. What do these groups have to gain from spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on Berman?

The California Association of Realtors? Perhaps they believe that Berman can be relied upon to oppose rent control, or to generally promote accelerated development. The interview with Berman by the PA Weekly/MV Voice seems to indicate this. State law presently says that buildings built before February 1995 are exempt from any local rent-control measures. Any change in this law would have to pass the Assembly.

What is “EdVoice"? Here’s a link describing it: Web Link According to this writeup, the donors to EdVoice seem to favor increasing the number of charter schools, and promoting online learning. Since charter schools are basically non-union, that may explain the donation, and also why the California Teachers Association has endorsed Vicki Veenker. There’s nothing wrong with online learning, but some parties are hoping to turn it into a lucrative business. Perhaps that has something to do with it as well.

The California Dental Association? That’s a mystery to me.

Reporting on the Veenker hit piece funded by “Californians Allied for Patient Protection” was incomplete and vague also. Who are they, and what do they have to gain? A web search seems to indicate that this may have something to do with her position on malpractice suits, but this is unclear to me. Can the Voice/Weekly shed some light?