I am completely baffled by this new process of only asking some questions to a sub-set of candidates. It is grossly unfair, though whether you benefit from getting the question or avoiding it is debatable, but more importantly it creates a gap in what voters can learn. For an organization focused on educating voters, the League has completely missed the boat. I hope they learn from this mistake.

"a better plan would be to give tech companies more power to control their own local growth"

Have you tried driving across 101 recently? Decisions made by Google affect us all.

Regarding housing built by Google: The city council meeting for next week has a report by the city staff that says if more than approx. 1300 residences are built north-east of 101, the intersections at 101 will be beyond capacity. It seems that some oversight is needed to just know what to expect. The current city council is asking to put in 10,000 homes, but the staff could not even find a way to exceed 1/6th of that with current transportation options (assuming 50% don't use cars too--quite unlikely).

It seems that too many people are working here already and adding housing won't fix the problem. Infrastructure is necessary to be built first.

I think it's vital to hear EVERY candidate's stand on EVERY issue - and this forum failed miserably at that. As MAS, posting above, stated - the League asked only selected candidates each question. We came to this forum to be informed - but the moderator would choose a question, then select three or four of the candidates to answer it. The others were not allowed to answer. How is the public to know who aligns with their personal viewpoint if we aren't allowed to hear what EACH candidate thinks? They also assigned the questions in a very unbalanced way. For example, Lisa Matichak was allowed to answer less questions than ALL the others.

After the forum, I did speak personally with the candidates who weren't permitted to speak on the VTA's desire to dedicate two lanes on El Camino to busses, and got their position, but unfortunately it was impossible for all 100 people in the audience to do that. Chris Clark (incumbent) was one chosen by the League to answer the VTA question during the forum, which he dodged by saying he lives within a close proximity to El Camino so would not be allowed to vote on this at the Council (conflict of interest). John McAlister (an incumbent who has a business on El Camino and has the same restriction from voting on this as Chris Clark) was also chosen to give his viewpoint. McAlister - fully understanding there was no restriction from stating his stand to CONSTITUENTS - did so clearly and concisely.

In my discussion with Chris Clark after the forum, I asked him, person to person, what his opinion was on the VTA lane grab. Once again, he said he wasn't allowed to say. I told him that I realized that conflict of interest (because of him living in proximity to El Camino) held sway in a Council Vote, but he was absolutely allowed to tell constituents his belief. He STILL refused. Either he doesn't understand government in the least, or he actually thinks by not making a public stand, he might get votes from both sides. I feel this was cowardly and disingenuous of him - and if a candidate cannot tell a constituent how s/he would vote - you don't deserve public office.

Another thing to watch for is honoring your representations you make to voters before an election. We currently have two on the Council who campaigned four years ago, promising they were against the VTA taking two lanes on El Camino, and then BETRAYED the voters by reversing their vote (Rosenberg and Showalter). We learned a hard lesson there about "representative government" being twisted after an election. Rosenberg and Showalter can be certain they will never again hold a public office in Mountain View. We need total transparency in our candidates, so we don't have a replay of this in the future.

Chris Clark may think he can manipulate the public by representing that he cannot disclose his stand on an issue to voters, but he's wrong. If you cannot tell your voters your platform - and have the dignity and decency to stand by your pledge - you do NOT have my vote.

I'm sorry this Forum didn't let us see where each candidate stood on each issue. It only did half the job.

From the choosing of the site of the debate, to the topics covered in the debate, to what projects are eventually approved it's pretty apparent that incumbent city council members are in the pocket of Google (et al) and that a large portion of the candidates are bucking to be the same. Whatever Google want, they tend to get, and this is attended to by large doses of Google (& LinkedIn, etc.) moneys. The entire basis of the city's lust for development at all cot is driven by these billion-dollar corporations whose influence goes far, far beyond our little city and state and into international affairs, often. The city council has apparently never really seen a development plan they did not like, and the rate of new housing and its lack of affordability to the long-time residents of MV and the Peninsula is discouraging, when one considers the quality of life in the area. Development trucks are Everywhere, and defy the city's touted "bike-friendly" reputation by their ubiquity. The development is always on behalf of these corporations and the projected labor base they represent-and never for those who have invested a lifetime, already, into these communities. The city council is apparently incurably corrupted by these (Google, LinkedIn, et al) corporate dollars that they will (without fail) always bend to their wishes. It is very very discouraging I would prefer candidates who are in complete opposition to all this corporate "growth" for Mountain View and the MidPeninsula.

Did you know that ancient Rome had twice the population density as Manhattan. Catacombs etc. Especially with global warming and water scarcity Mt. View must go high density. You built up or down (underground transportation around the world). Look to Portland Oregon for forward looking planning. Rent control is a historical disaster. The notice of intent of San Jose Property Rights Initiative has been given to that city council, the city attorney's office also knows about the terrible ramifications of that very serious mistake. George Drysdale, a social studies teacher

Question I have related to growth:
How much of the city land is devoted to space that is paved to either park or drive a car? What percentage would this be if we include garages? Looking at the width of roads around town, the large parking lots, the street parking, the many downtown parking lots, the large spaces for cars between stores at San Antonio (try walking between Walmart, trader joes, safeway, veggie grill, 24 hr fitness, pearl cafe--all within a distance no greater than Cstro street downtown). It seems cars are primary in all designs. Business second, and people third. Growth is limited by the space we have to devote to cars.

Something that cannot be said: before a walkable community is built, real, good and affordable public transportation that replaces the roads that make cars cheap, convenient and necessary needs to be built. High speed rail doesn't add anything with it cost and infrequent run (and won't be around for how long?) Buses on El Camino are like having to walk under the freeways in San Francisco: they are living hotels and toilets for dangerous violent homeless people. They are scary. Caltrain is very slow, very expensive and not reliable (stops for hours when it hits a car or person-- and doesn't run often at night or weekends and doesn't really connect well to anything). Extending light rail won't add much ability. If there are no solutions, then maybe growth should be prevented? If there are solutions, be braver and do the full thing needed, not simple piece meals that don't really help make a better future. Where are the safer streets that committees in Mountain View have been proposing for years now? Have any of these proposals seen any light? Have they made a significant impact? Can any of these candidates be bold enough to help create a better community and better neighborhoods and safer living conditions and a place that is the peaceful confortable relaxing city that people hopefully desire here.

I would like to know if your candidates for CC, like I would like to know the same from PA candidates, are willing to look at transportation as a regional issue rather than an issue that can be looked at town by town. Many MTV residents commute to PA and v.v. San Antonio road is not the Berlin Wall and people cross it every day to get to work or for shopping or recreation. Both cities need to look at transportation as a joint issue with neighbors all along the Peninsula. Caltrain works, but VTA doesn't and don't care about the north county. Likewise SamTrans. If someone lives or works near Caltrain they need first and last mile help at both ends.

If a candidate has some innovative ideas and want to work with neighboring cities, they should be listened to.

I attended the forum as well. The way Chris Clark and John McAlister responded to the question of whether they favored lane closure on El Camino for VTA's BRT program was one of the most revealing moments of the forum - Mark Noack should have included it in his article, but didn't.

Clark was transparently trying to avoid making a public statement, using a weak excuse. McAlister was completely forthright, leaving no doubt that he opposes lane closure. This is one more reason, and not the only reason, that McAlister will get my vote, and Clark won't. Chris Clark does not belong on the council.

Greg Coladonato was pretty clear about wanting government to get out of the way, so that private industry can solve our problems. He implied that he does not believe in zoning. This is incredibly naive. Colodonato has no business being on the council either.

I took it that Coladonato wants the innovation of companies - and not no zoning at all. He neither said 'or implied" that! Seems he thinks that companies can sometimes be more connected to residents and workers in this city, more connected than some city council members. If it took Google and Linkein as long to start and execute a new initiative, as it does the city government, there would be no need for us to be bothered by the bothers of being a world center of innovation.

Here is a direct Greg quote:

“I think it's strange that the city should decide what's on every parcel of land,” Coladonato said. “I'd rather let Google decide what their new headquarters is going to be like.”

Let's open up a drive-thru restaurant right next to Greg's house. Since he thinks the city should not be able to prevent that, he will be happy, right?

Personally, I think zoning is important to create a great community. The so-called property rights should have limits. What happens on each of our lots can have a big impact on our neighbors and the community at large.

Greg'a lost my vote!

Is there a transcript or video available for those who couldn't go to see this in person?
Thanks