kudos to the league of women voters for taking such a clear and humanitarian stance on the proposed amendment that would effectively repeal Measure V and repeal just cause eviction

Kim Thompson understood the holistic approach to education which includes the entire family: assisting families and children with economic, social, cultural or language barriers. she was especially beloved by our Latino community for the love and caring she showed them. She taught respect by showing respect. she taught fairness by being fair.

It is not clear that the superintendent or the school board had an appreciation of just what she had accomplished nor had they learned the lessons of respect and fairness she offered- that is probably because they hardly ever set foot on campus. They failed to show respect in their draconian firings - neither celebrating the dedication of the principals nor offering comparable employment. This lack of human decency is not the example our students should follow

i sympathize with the new principals - you cannot bring up the scores unless you bring the families along.

How nice of the LMV to stick it to a minority group of Mom and Pop business owners who are providing a valuable service. Is this the only answer they have to solve the affordability issue? Surly they could do better than that, but I guess as long as they do not have to pay their fair share and help to solve the issue, they are just fine with giving the bills to others.

Does the LMV object to landlords selling their property for redevelop as well? Will you oppose any restrictions on that? Or will you force a landlord, no matter what, to stay in business.

If you have no problems with taking away property rights thru mob rules, then you have no morals or equal treatment under the law.

P.S
I signed it!!

In response to It's Only Fair you said:

“How nice of the LMV to stick it to a minority group of Mom and Pop business owners who are providing a valuable service. Is this the only answer they have to solve the affordability issue? Surly they could do better than that, but I guess as long as they do not have to pay their fair share and help to solve the issue, they are just fine with giving the bills to others.”

The League of Women Voters of Los Altos-Mountain View are a non-partisan, public interest group, which has been an example of fair representation of everyone. The fact is that landlords are not a recognized “minority” group. Landlords are for-profit, and chose to be in the business. If they don’t want to own apartments in Mountain View, they can sell them to someone else. Given the “Supply-side” economics of apartments in California via Costa Hawkins, they only have themselves to blame for the current problems. If you want to become non-profit businesses, then we can discuss a public financed solution, but without that, you have the right to leave Mountain View under the Ellis Act. You also said:

“Does the LMV object to landlords selling their property for redevelop as well? Will you oppose any restrictions on that? Or will you force a landlord, no matter what, to stay in business.”

The Ellis Act prohibits that. Why are you asking questions that make no sense? You can choose to sell your property or just leave it empty. But you know that has a serious cost to the option of going without any rent income. You also said:

“If you have no problems with taking away property rights thru mob rules, then you have no morals or equal treatment under the law.”

Given that property owners do have due process regarding petitions, that claim seems to be very inaccurate. Making claims and statements like this simply is an emotional expression of frustration, not an expression based on reality. You finally said:

“I signed it!!”

Of course you did, you’re a landlord in Mountain View, I know who you are because I have observed your behavior at the City Council and the RHC. It is in your monetary interest to gut the CSFRA