The elephant in the room...

Where is the candidate break-down on the RV situation? As much as some would like to pose it as a housing issue, it would be most accurately categorized as a law enforcement issue.

If memory serves, Siegel and others voted against even studying the problem. Then they make claims about why the RV people are here. How can you claim to know why they are here when you don’t want to even study the problem? If you don’t let police do their job and have no idea who these people are, how can you say they are just unlucky they didn’t buy a home in 1979?

My assertion that they are opportunists, drug-dealing and assault-weapon-yielding opportunists, is just as valid as Siegel’s assertion that they are just unlucky they didn’t buy homes earlier. Why? Because Siegel and his side have prevented anyone from learning who these people really are and what they are doing. So any assertion is equally valid or flawed.

Voting is underway. I am guessing that the Voice will make recommendations for MV City Council and MV-Whisman School Board this coming Friday the 19th. And don't forget about the El Camino Hospital Board race.

Pat Showalter and Leonard Siegel voted for keeping the RVs in town (in fact, Siegel had a project that actually encouraged RV to come TO MV).

If you desire to rid MV of RVs, vote OUT Showalter and Seigel!

Lenny Siegel said at the last council meeting that he wants to open 3 residential blocks for RV parking, and expand some kind of encampment at shoreline, Pat Showalter supported that.

Of the 3 candidates currently running for city council, these 3 support expanding RV parking in the city and no enforcement against the RV's.

Time to vote NO against,
Siegel
Showalter
Rameriz

let me see / "Boomers" / talking 'bout my generation?
I do believe Lenny Siegel and Pat Showalter and myself are Boomers (and single-family residential owners). And yet - those two council members are in the vanguard & rear guard for trying to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for some less fortunate dwellers in our fair city. Some RVers are just poor, and some are just temporary workers in our city (constructing commercial, residential, and public school-park buildings).
"at Shoreline" - hey angry Rengstorff Park resident (owner or not), those are mighty big publicly owned parking lots out there. Away from your dwelling, / put a little love in your heart? make the world a better place?

Peace & Love

I don’t see anger just concern over the rapid rise in RV dwellings. Why can’t the city require RV dwellers to register or get a temporary permit? Something so at least law enforcement know who they are, if they are moving their vehicles regularly, disposing of waste appropriately, and are getting the help they need to find permanent housing. There has to be a limit set to how many RVs Mountain View can take in. Long term Mountain View residents who have established a life here but have been displaced by rising housing costs should get priority over people who have never lived here and are coming here because some other NIMBYs kicked them out. Perhaps we have capacity to allow some outsiders to live here too, but permission should be given on a case by case basis.

Meh... This isn't a voter's guide. This is a bunch of links to other articles, enough to quickly consume the 10 free articles allowed per month for non-paying readers.

@Concerned MVer: When running for her first term, Pat Showalter repeatedly promised that she would vote against any VTA and/or SCC govt efforts to ruin El Camino Real with dedicated bus lanes --- which would create a nightmare for all of us drivers. When it came to a City Council vote of support, she suddenly "changed her mind" (to be VERY kind) and voted to support the Dedicated Bus Lane Disaster. My OPINION as a "cynical skeptic" is that she was trying to gain support from powerful special interests and politicians in SCC to advance her political ambitions. Lenny has surprised me as being more pragmatic than I had feared. It is pretty clear that he's the smartest and best informed member the City Council, and well-informed informed smarts are very important for running MV.

Vote NO on Showalter because she cynically (IMHO) deceived us on a very critical issue. There should be NO 2nd chances for duplicitous behavior. Just look at the Monster in the White House!!!

Vote YES on Siegel because he provides intelligence and enlightenment on a City Council that is sadly lacking both of these valuable commodities.

William Hitchens, I absolutely AGREE on Showalter. However, I couldn't DISAGREE MORE on Siegel. He's a bully and is very rude to the other candidates (especially John Inks) in the the Candidate Forums - and very pushy and argumentative on the Council. If you've attended any Council meetings, that would be so clear - and it would be equally clear that Lisa Matichak is the brightest one up there, and puts Mountain View before her own agenda. Margaret Abe-Koga and John McAlister are also working for the best of all of Mountain View. Lenny Siegel is NOT.
Siegel actually welcomes and encourages RV dwellers and we've become the dumping ground for the entire area. YOUR tax dollars are spent to clean up, police, and supply these RVs - most of whom are out of towners, rentals supplied by out of town contractors to house their labor, wealthy engineers who just don't want to pay rent, or freeloaders. The few truly needy previous MV residents are the ones I want to help work towards being housed - and Seigel makes this impossible.
Ellen Kamai would be the fourth Council member we need to get a majority of Council who have the best interests of MV first and foremost. John Inks is very aware of the RV problems and will also work to correct that. The third vote, though not as strong, is Alison Hicks.
A BIG NO on Siegel, Showalter and Ramirez. PLEASE.

@Interested: Thanks for the kind comment. I'll check out your info and get back to you. As with Showalter, Ramirez is a TOXIC NO on my checklist. I also have a huge problem with Abe-Koga because I feel that, as with Showalter, her political beliefs don't remotely match mine. I just don't trust her, just as I don't trust Showalter. Politicians can do really stupid things if their political ambitions exceed their political abilities and personal biases.

Let's face it. I belong in Los Altos, where destructively insane overbuilding & rent control, and RV pollution are non-issues. Just say NO.

Before you vote yes on Siegel -Showalter look at the Oct 9th city staff report on safe housing proposal for Terra Bella, the area is half acre, site prep 80k. Annual site services approx 150K and it will accommodate TEN oversized vehicles. Do the math. Also it’s temporary as Terra Bella is slated for redevelopment. This proposal is not fiscally sound (funding unknown), unsustainable and at 10 vehicles will not address the scope of this ever growing crisis in Mountain View. Change is needed on city Council.

To the Mountain View Voice, Biased much? Your recommendations keep in power the very socialist agenda that got us into this mess! Your recommendations for City Council are for those in lock step with Lenny Siegel and his "us against them" mentality. "Tax businesses, make housing providers fix the problem the city did not plan for, and let anyone who wants to take advantage of our city by parking their RV's in whatever neighborhood they choose, no questions asked". The only candidate who has differentiated himself by stating solutions and has the experience to do something to save our city is John Inks. Do your research and don't follow the MV Voice off the cliff.

We need balance the view of our city council. You should also recommend John Inks. You should not recommend all the same type candidates for voters to vote. You did not recommend a pro-business candidate.