No mention of how many parking places per apartment MV will require the builder to provide on-site. I hope that MV's decision is based upon real-world data and not just wishful thinking that everyone will love to take mass transit.

Pack them in crowd us up build rabbit hutches with no parking
It’s all madness. Vote against city council member that goes for this high density on surburbon Mountain View

I will NOT support them ever again. I agree with Roger. Lets take control back and vote these build happy council members out!

This should not surprise anyone. What a mess. less places to goto.. now more people locally.. lower traffic? um.. no.. Planning for traffic, lowers traffic. This place is a mess just getting worse.. thanks for representing the locals. Big company moves in, demands more room for them, the heck with the locals.. don't like it, move..wow.. it WAS a nice town. Now a packed up rat nest. Wait in traffic, wait in line, pay through the nose for.. everything.. a mess..

"The presence of housing in our major employment centers is the best mitigation that we can do for traffic," Siegel said.

If this were true then Mountain View would by now clearly stand out as having less traffic issues than surrounding cities. But as can be experienced first hand by us residents this is clearly not true.

This approach would only work if all the new housing would be occupied by people working in the immediate surroundings and no one would be hired from outside the area. Both are not true.

In addition every new resident in Mountain View brings with them a car or two and further clog our roads.

I completely agree with other reader's comments: We cannot build our way out of the current misery without focusing bay area wide on urgently improving our infrastructure on all fronts.

We should tax employers to contribute aggressively to a bay area wide infrastructure fund for improving all traffic modalities.

I hope Mayor Siegel will move in this direction - I will support him on this front!

Council members should state specifically how any project will improve the quality of life for the residents of Mountain View before voting on it. This will make them think before accepting campaign funds from the developers.
A gargantuan sore thumb indeed.

Thank goodness we have a majority on our council that understands the need to increase density to have anything resembling affordability. Mountain View is one of the few communities in the Bay Area that has come even CLOSE to maintaining some level of affordable housing.

As a result we have thriving communities and parks full of kids, contrasted with the shrinking school populations of some of our neighbor cities that are turning into de-facto retirement communities because no one under the age of 60 can afford to live there.

We recently moved here from the East Coast and, although we love the weather, we've been appalled by the heedless over-development taking place with no thought given to corresponding infrastructure improvements. I get that there's a housing shortage, (and for some reason all of the area's new construction has to take place in Mountain View), but people need services too!

At lunch time, restaurants in the area's one small shopping center are completely inundated. And forget about trying to walk anywhere to buy a piece of fruit or a fresh vegetable; it's a food desert here. The streets in our neighborhood are filthy and don't ever seem to be cleaned, and abandoned cars are parked on them for months.

These are the kind of issues that I think should be addressed before developments are approved. Not to mention, why did we do this cap-and-trade air-rights selling thing with Los Altos? If Mountain View is supposed to be growing, why aren't we housing our own students instead of selling land to another town for a charter school?

Maybe once I've lived here for a while longer I'll understand things better, but for now, it just seems wacky. I recently registered to vote, so I guess I'll join the other posters in trying to elect a city council with a new mindset.

Vote them out! I’ve never seen an obviously more corrupt council in my life! What the heck!! This is madness. Developmer just lining their pockets and throwing Mt View residents under the bus.

They need to be investigated and thrown in jail.

This is total BS!

Lenny, Pat and Kenny are absolutely correct. It is crazy not to build housing in this area. I live less than quarter mile away from the proposed construction own a house actually and let me tell you I am looking forward to see housing replacing delapidated fenced off areas and single story office, while housing people who would otherwise be driving from elsewhere. This area is from less than 1 miles from Google, linked in, Symantec, synopsis and gazillion other companies.

It should be taller, but glad to see more units being added to help alleviate the housing shortage.

Hope they are building a new school to go with those new apartments - especially if this is the first of many. When I left Mountain View back in 2013 schools were already over crowded and traffic was a nightmare. Great memories of living there, but I'm glad I left.

Why are they moving forward with this project without finishing the precise plan first? This is either incompetence or corruption. Let's vote out any council members that are willing to make this mistake.

The city council is representing developers who live in Atherton, not residents of Mountain View. An 11 story tower in a toxic waste zone miles from any grocery store is not a place anyone wants to live and not a place that benefits the city. Time to buy stock in housing developers, they will make tens of millions of dollars on this project. Mountain View is for sale.

This is a step in the right direction - UP. That is the only way to solve the housing problem. If we have great jobs and great weather we are going to attractive new residents and we must build. But do it smart, with proper parking and amenities for the new building.

Thank you Pat, Lenny, and Ken! This is what we elected you for: responsible, sustainable growth.

Legalizing dense housing for our neighbors is the progressive thing to do. It makes our community stronger. With this single development, we'll have 412 homes, including 62 subsidized Below-Market-Rate homes.

That's over four hundred neighbors that won't get displaced. Our workers who won't have to commute from Gilroy, burning gasoline and clogging the roads. Our children who won't have to move out of the Bay Area when they grow up.

I'm glad this was approved as a gatekeeper project and not delayed for years for the Precise Plan to be finished. Housing delayed is housing denied.

Hurray for McCallister and Matichak. We need to get the transportation and zoning done BEFORE we start approving projects. That is called PLANNING and doing things with intent, rather than letting developers dictate how our city gets built out. This project could now end up blocking some needed transportation or be inconsistent with heights and usage we want for the area. You don't start pouring the foundation for a house before you have designed the whole house, just because you know you want a house. This might be a great place for high density housing, but a methodical process should be followed.

Good start. Need about 10-20 more of these.

How many parking spaces will be reserved for RV's? This is a great opportunity to provide more space for those who prefer to live in RVs.

To All:

I went to the EPA meeting on Thurs, and I have been converted by the EPA.

The demonstrated a completely different method of breaking down TCE underground. It still will take time, but it appears scientifically sound and is not the method I was thinking about.

However there is a new hitch.

The EPA will prevent residential housing deeds in North Bayshore area, and most likely any residential deed request in areas in proximity of a superfund site.

This could put a block on any future building deeds by the EPA, the City cannot override the EPA

The EPA simply understands that commercial/industrial areas and residential areas should not mix where there is a known “superfund” site is involved.

Great to see this. Imagine an Amazon delivery taking place over dozens of units in the *same* building, vs. sprawled out over several miles.

Or, the fact that when you have 11 stories of residences, there are 11 stories of potential, hungry customers for restaurants down below - thus negating the need for people to go out and drive to pick up food.

Higher density doesn't have to automatically mean more traffic.

Seriously. Do not let a corrupt city council turn you wonderful city into the next Palo Alto. Palo Alto has become a mess traffic all the time. A city council who will not listen doing lane reductions in the name of bicyclist only to make neighborhood streets become expressways. Please do not make Mt. View Palo Alto. So glad I left Palo Alto, the town I once grew up in and loved.

For those who are unaware of the history of these "proposed" residential sights, please know that this area is also known as the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW)Superfund. The groundwater has been polluted with TCE. After the EPA had declared the area "safe", it rescinded that declaration because "safe" levels of TCE were lowered. The "MEW" superfund levels are still way too high to meet safety standards. After Google moved in, there was panic, because one of the building's "vapor intrusion dampers" had not been properly installed, causing huge concern for pregnant women working there. Still want to live there? Here are the comments for the May 23, 2018 meeting with EPA for North Bayshore: Web Link

@Longtime Resident

If homeowners would stop fighting against residential construction close to them during a housing shortage, then there'd be less need to reclaim former superfund sites for this.

In response to YIMBY you said:

“If homeowners would stop fighting against residential construction close to them during a housing shortage, then there'd be less need to reclaim former superfund sites for this.”

First, the homeowners owe nothing to apartment or condo development. What gives you the right to put that responsibility on homeowners? Spoken by a person who does not identify themselves, nor indicates that they are in risk of TCE contamination. If you live in the site, I apologize, but I feel safe to assume you don’t.

As far as land in Mountain View that is NOT at risk of contamination. We really do not know the full extent because all testing is done only on the spots where the pollution was already known to be. There are many studies that prove that the problem is not contained only at the superfund sites, please read this story (Web Link and (Web Link and (Web Link

All I am saying is it is NOT appropriate to assume that all of Mountain View has no risk of the TCE problem. The only prudent thing to do because TCE is so dangerous is to ASSUME that there is a problem UNTIL PROVEN otherwise.

This would mean a city wide study of TCE tests performed during an entire year, taking at least one 8 hour sample every week, to provide PROOF that the city is safe.

Without this evidence, your proposed solution could wind up being no solution at all.

The EPA, CARB, nor the City will do this because it is significantly likely it WILL PROVE that the region is unsafe, thus having much more devastating problems other than just a lack of housing. More like the widespread destruction of all property values, the litigation to get some kind of reparations either by the EPA superfunds, or the current owners of the land, and even worse, the potential involuntary relocation of thousands of people and jobs. The EPA must relocate people where it is proven they cannot mitigate the danger to people in such a manner that they live in a designated hazardous location.

This bigger picture is potentially much more scary. Please provide us how your answer will solve this problem?

"First, the homeowners owe nothing to apartment or condo development. What gives you the right to put that responsibility on homeowners?"

The homeowners property values gain while they fight against housing as everyone else bears the cost in higher rents and housing costs. When you have every advantage in this situation, you own the blame, too.

In response to YIMBY you said:

“The homeowners property values gain while they fight against housing as everyone else bears the cost in higher rents and housing costs.”

But you fail to understand they have very little investment “liquidity”. And that the current risk of their property becoming significantly less valuable due to the environmental conditins in the city, your argument becomes very weak. You also said:

“When you have every advantage in this situation, you own the blame, too.”

Pretty much all of their wealth is based on their homes, not any LLCS that in the most part protect them from any loss of home values. That is what the developers and apartment builders have. So given that “economic” advantage to the developers and apartment owners, that basically negates you claim. You simply cannot claim that the homeowners have any advantage in the situation.

The simple fact is you want to force the others than these developers to be the blame for the lack of available housing. The fact is that the real problem will eventually be the unsafe or hazardous environmental pollutants that already exist in the land of the city. This will minimize the ability to develop in the City, and potentially ruin homeowner’s investments in their properties.

Mind you, home owners properties are not “commercial” property like a condo, trailer park, or apartment, and the homeowner losses all the value versus those who are corporate or LLC’s that only lose the monies spent until they quit the business.

So they deserve to have the say over what happened in their community, simply said.

Unless you can demonstrate that your opinion has evidentiary proof.

Look, I'm not going to engage in a debate with you over your conspiracy theory that developers are the cause of the housing shortage. We've been over this, you think that there's mass collusion amongst them to build in places where residents will fight it, thus meaning no development, and prices keep rising. You do you, Business Man, but I'm not going to engage with you.

In response to YIMBY you said:

“Look, I'm not going to engage in a debate with you over your conspiracy theory that developers are the cause of the housing shortage.”

I am not discussing that topic here. You said:

“We've been over this, you think that there's mass collusion amongst them to build in places where residents will fight it, thus meaning no development, and prices keep rising.”

Again we are not discussing that topic here. You said:

“You do you, Business Man, but I'm not going to engage with you.”

You refuse to answer the question I asked which was:

The simple fact is you want to force the others than these developers to be the blame for the lack of available housing. The fact is that the real problem will eventually be the unsafe or hazardous environmental pollutants that already exist in the land of the city. This will minimize the ability to develop in the City, and potentially ruin homeowner’s investments in their properties.

Mind you, home owners properties are not “commercial” property like a condo, trailer park, or apartment, and the homeowner losses all the value versus those who are corporate or LLC’s that only lose the monies spent until they quit the business.

So they deserve to have the say over what happened in their community, simply said.

Please demonstrate that it is the “home owners” fault that you cannot successfully achieve resource balance?

glad to hear this project faster better to ease the living that cause from rental or housing prices that let all Mountain View & Sunnyvale living hell even go find the place. The Landlord are Evil go up price as they like every month "walker Dr...." Even move out nothing damage charge for for next tenant all out rage ... Please build more place sale or rent affordable & please adjust the standard rent 1 bed room (not luxury) less than $1400 month. I rent the room kitchen stingky cannot use the cabinet
stinky & i pay $1700 monthly , even the rent control cannot make the difference, I don't have choice when I moved in i'my disabled cannot used stair so no choice. Please ask the big cash financial build the place for their employees rent or sale, the living will be better for all Mountain View & surrounding . Since 2010 we keep email so many seem the town & Mayor, counselor .....

As far as TCE Contamination goes, Mountain View will allow developers to do what they did in Novato at the Hamilton Air Base when they sold it to developers that built hundreds of single family homes on it. I should know, I bought a 6 pack of them about 10 years ago.

They Just built on top of TCE and lead contamination and put a Red warning notice in every garage of every home they sold that says, "Warning, ground contains some traces of TCE and lead contaminates. Do not dig or disturb soil! DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE!!"

The lawyers felt that Notification would absolve any liabilities. They were right, those homes sell for 1.2 million now and nobody even talks about contamination.
Where there is a need, there is a way!

In response to Howard you said:

“As far as TCE Contamination goes, Mountain View will allow developers to do what they did in Novato at the Hamilton Air Base when they sold it to developers that built hundreds of single family homes on it. I should know, I bought a 6 pack of them about 10 years ago. “

Howard, the EPA learned a very ugly lesson since then, that is why they enforce “deed restrictions” as defined here (Web Link and (Web Link . Novato served as an ugly reference point because in the end the EPA realized it dropped the ball on it. In the case of Mountain View, they learned from history and are now enforcing their authority under law to “control” what can be built at or around a superfund site. Simply put, the EPA will now prevent wehat happened in Navato now. You also said:

“They Just built on top of TCE and lead contamination and put a Red warning notice in every garage of every home they sold that says, "Warning, ground contains some traces of TCE and lead contaminates. Do not dig or disturb soil! DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE!!"”

This simply was determined after the fact as an irresponsible act by the EPA. The EPA accordingly could not “rewrite” the land use without severe litigation and financial costs to the U.S. So they simply will not force an amended “deed restriction” in Novato. But they are taking proactive steps in Mountain View given the newer pollution knowledge and the increased understanding of the public healt risks of TCE. So this history simply may not apply here and now. You also said:

“The lawyers felt that Notification would absolve any liabilities. They were right, those homes sell for 1.2 million now and nobody even talks about contamination.”

The lawyers simply are lucky at this time that no one has challenged the proposition 65 regarding establishing that it protects home sellers for selling dangerous homes. You do realize that under this page (Web Link it does not in fact prevent a home owner from suing the agent that sold the home knowing it was in a dangerous location or is contaminated by a known toxin. Howard, please do not entice anyone into making such a horrible mistake. You finally said:

“Where there is a need, there is a way!”

I agree, once the sites are properly “cleaned” than there is a way. But trying to make residential housing on top of known hazardous locations and “trying” to give protections to those who know the locations pose a public health risk is not the answer. Go back to the “drawing board” and figure out the right answer please?

So the hundreds of people who live in these massive developments will all live near where they work and won't be clogging our roads? They will never drive to the grocery store, dentist, pet store, school, CostCo or Target? They won't park extra cars on the street because there will be plenty of garage space for everyone? You cannot possibly believe that, nor can you convince others of that fallacy.

Are you seriously demanding Mountain View cover our city with high rise buildings shutting out the light and covering any parks or bit of open land - jamming our schools and bringing our streets to a standstill - so you can buy here? Economically, that is outright impossible.

Mountain View has done more for housing than any city on the entire Peninsula, but we are not able to please everyone who wants to live here, without destroying the value of what this city is. Don't blame the "long time homeowners"... that argument no longer works. Many of us have worked hard, saved a long time and bought recently - and we have a right to protect what we worked so hard for, just as the long-time homeowner have.

I sympathize with those who want to live where they want to live at the price they want to pay - but that is not rational nor possible. If someone wanted to live in Atherton, would that city build out until any individual could afford it? Of course not! And if we want to retain the value of Mountain View as a comfortable, livable and vital city, we'll carefully plan for the future, while respecting what we already have.

@MVWoman

You don't have a right to a small quiet suburban neighborhood character. Tax policies like Prop 13 give you the ability to fight against housing and externalize the rising costs onto others, but that still doesn't give you the right. Housing bills have already been passed that will streamline approval for housing in cities that have not done their part, and more bills will be passed to further assist in that.

You bought a house on a plot of land, not the whole city.

@ YIMBY I see you are always to give your opinions (and that's all your have.... opinions) but you won't list your neighborhood on here?

Sorry... but in the real world, we work for what we want, and don't expect the world to hand it to us. Should Tesla lower the price of it's cars so you can have one at the price you want? Should Target and Macy's do the same? Grocery stores?

Mountain View is doing MORE than it's part for housing, though I agree that many cities are not, and there will be a push to equalize that. However, your are constantly railing against Prop 13. I agree, again, that Prop 13 is giving businesses more than their share, but reversing it for homeowners is a losing battle. I doubt you'll stop your crusade, because you think it's your golden ticket.

Evidently, NOTHING is enough, until you get yours. You're in for a hard ride and a huge disappointment in life, with that attitude.

In response to YIMBY you said:

“You don't have a right to a small quiet suburban neighborhood character.”

YES they do, because they own the homes they live in and are citizens of the City of Mountain View. Unless the proposed project are on lands they already own, and they are citizens of the City of Mountain View, they simply have no rights in the City of Mountain View. Can’t you understand this? You said:

“Tax policies like Prop 13 give you the ability to fight against housing and externalize the rising costs onto others, but that still doesn't give you the right.”

If you propose any action that can be determined to be detrimental to the quality of life or property values of the one already living there, they have the right to oppose it. You have no right to damage these things without paying the price for doing so. If you would provide just compensation directly to these home owners, maybe you would not see such opposition. But you fail to even understand this dimension of the “housing” market do you? You also said:

“Housing bills have already been passed that will streamline approval for housing in cities that have not done their part, and more bills will be passed to further assist in that. “

Yes there is legislation being passed. But if the legislation has provable detrimental impact on quality of life or property values, I would expect the legislation to force investor to make compensation prior to development. ITS ONLY FAIR. You said:

“You bought a house on a plot of land, not the whole city.”

Correct, but they become City citizens. A person owning land or a building is not yet a City citizen unless they live there. A company cannot be a citizen of the City unless all employees live in the city. As long as this reality is correct, in fact a City citizen DOES own the whole city. I would suggest you taking action like moving the employees and owners of the property into the City. But you cannot be citizens of more than one city can you?

It appears like it is difficult to understand the “Big Picture” for you? You can make it easier to achieve your goals. But you are going to need to get a better plan.

@MVWoman

You're not paying for your neighborhood character. Everyone else is. As prices continue to rise, where originally taxes would pressure you to either move or support new housing to keep prices stable, instead you're shielded and everyone else pays instead. You're taking part in a massive generational theft as California turns into a renter state. Your legacy is one of self-centered greed and it will be how you're remembered. Politically, the winds are changing, and the housing crisis is going to be solved no matter how much you feel entitled to keep a whole city from changing just because you personally want to keep it a suburb at three expense of everyone else.

"YES they do, because they own the homes they live in and are citizens of the City of Mountain View. "

Nope, you're wrong. They own homes, not the city. The city is not a Homeowner's Association.

In response to YIMBY you said:

“You're not paying for your neighborhood character. Everyone else is.”

WRONG they bought it when they bought their home. You said:

“As prices continue to rise, where originally taxes would pressure you to either move or support new housing to keep prices stable, instead you're shielded and everyone else pays instead.”

I have to admit that is a good point, go and get the proposition 13 repealed, if you can prove it to all of California that it is unfair. You also said:

“You're taking part in a massive generational theft as California turns into a renter state.”

That is a stretch, you must provide a cause and effect proof to substantiate this claim. You also said:

“Your legacy is one of self-centered greed and it will be how you're remembered.”

It is not a home owners fault that there is a housing crisis that is the fault of a flawed free market system that was proposed by the private landlords, investors, real estate, and developers that passed Costa Hawkins and the Ellis Acts. You said:

“Politically, the winds are changing, and the housing crisis is going to be solved no matter how much you feel entitled to keep a whole city from changing just because you personally want to keep it a suburb at three expense of everyone else.”

Yes there is a good chance that Costa Hawkins will be erased, and the Ellis Act will be next. You also said:

“Nope, you're wrong. They own homes, not the city. The city is not a Homeowner's Association.”

No the City is OWNED by its Citizens. The concept is “self-governance” and it was invented in Concord Mass. My next-door neighbor town where I grew up. Self-governance is:( Web Link

Self-governance, self-government, or autonomy, is an abstract concept that applies to several scales of organization.

It may refer to personal conduct or family units or to larger scale activities including professions, industry bodies, religions, political units (usually referred to as local government), including autonomous regions or others within nation-states that enjoy some sovereign rights. It falls within the larger context of governance and principles such as consent of the governed, and may involve non-profit organizations and corporate governance.”

And:

“A means of self-governance usually comprises at least the following:

…

A MEANS OF ENSURING THAT OUTSIDE AUTHORITY DOES NOT BECOME INVOLVED UNLESS AND UNTIL THESE CRITERIA ARE SATISFIED, USUALLY A CODE OF SILENCE REGARDING THE ACTIVITIES OF INSIDERS WHEN CONVERSING WITH OUTSIDERS.”

I cannot understand that I am discussing this with you.

Nonetheless, you are not appreciating the American political system.

when the big one a major quake hit us again this building will come down killing many

@the big one

Just like how Tokyo is completely leveled every time a quake happens, right?

YIMBY:

It is interesting that like the prevailing practice of politicians today, they never address the questions asked to them. They instead will only speak in support of their arguments by distraction, or discredit the nature of the question.

I still ask the question:

What basis do you have in stating that the people living in the area of a proposed project cannot have final say on the permit process? A realistic person would understand that if you cannot get the local CONSENT, it is equal to an “ASSAULT” on their current rights to quality of life and property values.

I do not agree with the concept that if you’re going to be “ASSAULTED” without CONSENT, just accept it, or better yet, convince yourself to enjoy it. That simply doesn’t make any sense to me.

@The Business Man

Your standard reply template seems to be:

In response to ${Someone} you said:
"[what ${Someone} said]"
[your response to what ${Someone} said]

I think it would make more sense if you changed your template to something like this:

In response to ${Someone} who said:
"[what ${Someone} said]"
[your response to what ${Someone} said]

or even to something like this:

${Someone} said:
"[what ${Someone} said]"
[your response to what ${Someone} said]

@Darin

I'm sure the devs are considering that for a future build

In response to Darin you said:

“In response to ${Someone} you said:

"[what ${Someone} said]"

[you’re response to what ${Someone} said]”

I understand your point of view. MY father was extremely difficult to disagree with because his requirement was to directly address the content of his point of view. And if I tried to distract him from it, he would simply criticize me for not addressing the question or the information. I eventually realized he was right even though I hate it.

So, my approach is to allow those their point of view. And if possible, use their own words or thoughts against them. That may be by providing the consequences of the opinion, or by providing direct evidence that controverts the expressed point of view. My hopes are I have done a good job in not going off topic by directly addressing the content of the message.

It can become almost mechanical, but it is the easiest method of interpreting another person’s point of view, and validating the point of view, or finding information that at the very least questions the validity of the statement, or directly contradicts it.

But you cannot “automate” this process because A.I. simply does not work that way, at least not yet. Even Watson cannot do that yet, only answer defined questions regarding the known resources it has.

@The Business Man

You seem to have missed my point entirely. Go ahead and quote others (to "use their own words or thoughts against them", as you put it). But your attribution of those quotes is backwards.

When you write:

"In response to ${Someone} you said: [Blah, blah, blah]"

you appear to be saying that "[Blah, blah, blah]" was said in response to ${Someone}. In reality, you always quote what ${Someone} said, not what was said in response to ${Someone}.

Businessman,

I'll bet you a case of Johnny Walker Blue and a real Partagas series NO. 1 Edicion Limitada 2017 cigars right outa my humidor that these gatekeeper projects never see the light of day and not one 2 by 4 will ever reach the job site if Costa Hawkins is repealed.

In response to Howard you said:

“I'll bet you a case of Johnny Walker Blue and a real Partagas series NO. 1 Edicion Limitada 2017 cigars right outa my humidor that these gatekeeper projects never see the light of day and not one 2 by 4 will ever reach the job site if Costa Hawkins is repealed.”

Two Observations:

First, are you and your conspirators going to intimidate any free-market investor from working with the consumer to build the needed housing resources? Are you in fact that you are “blackmailing” or “extorting” from the public? This seems to be what you are doing, that’s all.

Second, it may be true that investors “like yourself” will not work with the consumer. But you cannot interfere with any other “free market” investor from doing what you refuse to do on behalf of consumers. If you do so and it can be proven, you will find yourself under civil and possibly criminal investigations, by either the state of California, or in the next administration, the U.S. FTC.

Be careful when you make public comments, even if it is done anonymously, it is still public record, and it can be used as evidence regarding “intent” to commit an offense.

We shall see.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]