Many if not most renters in Mountain View would not be here without the help of incumbent Lenny Siegel and rent control Measure V. But beyond Lenny Siegel, which candidates should receive the votes of renters? One of the letters this week claims that Alison Hicks spoke "at rallies" against "anti-housing tactics." What does that mean? Did she even vote for Measure V? Councilmembers Pat Showalter and John Inks opposed Measure V. Ellen Kamei was supported by the landlords when she ran in 2014.

Lenny Siegel, Pat Showalter, and Raeriz all support expanding RV parking in the city, with no discussion about doing any enforcement of the laws.

We have been more than patient on this issue. If this is allowed to stand, and to grow to other residential streets as Lenny Siegel said at the last council meeting that he wants to open up 3 other city blocks to more RV parking, then when will this stop?

The next step is tents along sidewalks for people who can not afford an RV. You have to have compassion for these people, right? What about people who can not afford a tent, are tarps OK? what about living in card board boxes? There are a lot of them in San Francisco.

Rv's are not homes, they have no water-sewer-electricity connections as a building does. Many are dripping sewage onto the streets.

I am not even getting into all the complaints with police calls that the police have to deal with. Also during the last city council meeting, a council member asked the police chief,are complaints getting better or worse from a year ago,he said he feels that they are getting worse from a year ago.

Any persons who says you need to be compassionate about this issue, please step forward and allow them to park in your driveway, sleep in your spare room or your sofa.

The city tax payers have already spent more than $1.2 MILLION dollars on this issue.

Mom's are afraid to bring their children to Rengstorff park's playground with this encampment right across the street. How is this good for the city?

Enough is enough.

Do not vote for
Siegel
Showalther
Rameriz

Siegel sent a complaint to his supporters that he received a political ad from Inks that warned voters about MV spending money on RV dwellers.

Siegel deliberately ignores the wishes of the people - says the Rvs are citizens - with no actual proof of how long they have lived on our streets, for free. They pay taxes he says. Ha Ha! I say, we all pay sales tax, but do they also pay Property tax. No. Do the unscrupulous folk who rent them the RVs pay tax on that profit? No. Siegel fails to point that out in his one-sided attack on John Inks.

You - the citizens are paying to support them and to encourage a flood of RVs into Mountain View. Yes, you are paying for this, no mistake.

Those of you who say we should welcome these "residents", should invite them into your home to share you food and your beds but please don't push your feeble-minded socialist agenda on the rest of us.

Siegel says lets help them. Fine. Let's help them get off the streets. All you have to do is allow the police to do their job of enforcing the rules that the rest of us have to obey. What makes these people so special they are allowed to ignore our laws?

Siegel claims these folk are people from Mountain View. Is that true? Does anyone know how long they have lived here, or can anyone come along and claim our tax dollars. If they are worthy of subsidy what about the rest of us?

Siegel says that viewpoint is not fair. We should all share our money He wants us to share the money, our money that is. I don't think so. We are not yet a communist country, I hope.

There are many many issues swirling around MV this election season, but the most common discussions I hear are "Who will get the RVs of the streets"
Some want them in sanctioned RV parks/areas only, some want them permitted and some want them out of town all together.

The singular thread that EVERYONE agrees on, is that living in vehicles on public MV streets should end asap.

They talk about who supports the RVs being here and who dose not.
Other issues have split opinions, but with the RV's, there seems to be uniform agreement that it's gone on for too long already and they will be voting out those who have brought in the flood of RVs and car dwellers.

I won't mention any candidates, but my prediction is they will be gone if they fostered the influx of RVs.

Yes folks, that is how much our city government has spent on this RV issue. $1.2 Million Dollars!

This amount was stated by staff at the last city council meeting.

So when will all this nonsense stop when you have city council and candidates supporting expansion of more RV parking in our streets.

What 3 blocks should be opened up for more RV's?

Whould you care to step up and volunteer your street parking that is in front of your place?

Time to put a new city council into office!

Do not vote for,
Siegel
Showalther
Rameriz

@no more RV's, nice post

No for Lenny and Pat....No to Ramirez.
Yes for Inks and 2 new ones.

I’ve never met a democratic socialist who had the faintest idea of redistributing a penny of their own money. They’re all about taking advantage of someone else. That someone else footing the bill is us .

RV's... all the while our current council is busy re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. No answers, just platitudes and pandering and hand wringing.

Next, MVCC will rename Eagle Park, the "People's Park","Jellystone ,or "Lenny's Landing". New marketing slogan. "Mountain View, Stay for the Free Street Parking where health and safety is not our concern until it's too late"

Ask the MVPD to follow up how many lockers have been broken into vs 1 year ago. One of the attendants when told (my locker was broken into), her response was "not again".

Ask MVCC the "real" stats on the Outreach Program.

$1.2M is silly to spend on an undefined problem.

About to hear from @TBM and @LOL in 3,2,1......

I for one welcome conservative (pro-business, pro-property, pro-law and order) voices on the city council as long as they are honest and seek to represent all residents.

Yet Mr. Inks' open support of a dishonest repeal of Mountain View rent control (a repeal is fine, just call it that, rather than present it to voters disguised as a strengthening of rent control Web Link and his lack of outreach to socio-economically disadvantaged residents make him a poor choice.

Council Member John McAlister often represents similar views as Mr. Inks, yet the difference is that Councilmember McAlister always made time for all residents, and showed empathy and concern for all, even if his votes were conservative (pro-business, pro-property, pro-law and order), he did so believing it was in the best interest of the entire city. I have deep respect for Council Member John McAlister leadership even when I disagreed with is votes.

When Mr. Inks was on the council, how often did he meet with poor residents? Yet he did make time to fly on a Google jet (no matter that Google has business before the city in accepting such a gift). Web Link

John Inks' approach to conservative policy promotes the outcomes justify the means and prioritizes certain residents above others, and I hope enough MV residents will reject Mr. Inks style of politics. Conservatives can do better, MV can do better.

I am a 49 year resident. I remember many, many, council's and council members.

We have been drifting backwards as a city. Council is not doing what we all know is the right thing to do. That is how our parents taught us.

Today, we have people that only feel important when they have power, others feel that when they outnumber others then they demand that they be given something for doing nothing.

Times have changed.

Those that are running for this current city council, for me it is very simple. Take away those who dislike-have resentment towards people who have accomplished something.
Siegel-Showalther-Ramirez.

Those that are left are,
Inks-Kamei-Hicks
I know John Inks from watching him being on the council for 8 years. He has a solid track record. He has my vote.

I will also vote for Kamei and Hicks because I believe their policy's will be an improvement over anything that Siegrl-Showalther-Rameriz has been doing or offering to do.

OK, Lenny Siegel and Pat Showalter we know you read these letters to the editor because you begged your supporters to write in. I'm not seeing any of them here.

Perhaps, if you were to stop hiding behind others, perhaps you could directly address the issue at hand. Why are you so afraid to explain why you feel it is important to defy the wishes of the property tax-paying and rent-paying residents - who fund your every move - because you prefer to support illegal parking?

So you want to help the poor. Ok Please explain how you are going to get the RVs OFF THE STREETS. Or is that not part of your concern. Why not be honest before this election and make a complete statement of your beliefs so we can judge it for ourselves????

And as for the Voice - you bold reporters - why are you ignoring this issue????