The last letter to the editor in the Oct. 19 Mountain View VOICE (right above this post) is for a City Council candidate and states that AFTER rent control Measure V had been approved by voters (in Nov. 2016) the candidate "spoke at rallies to support the law." The implication is that the candidate did NOT support Measure V BEFORE it had been approved by other voters. That is fine and dandy but the record should be clear. Of the six candidates for 3 seats on the (7-member) Mountain View City Council on this November's ballot, only 2 spoke publicly in support of Measure V BEFORE its enactment: (1) incumbent LENNY SIEGEL and (2) LUCAS RAMIREZ. Without Measure V, residential rents in affected apartment buildings would have soared - and could yet DOUBLE if the landlords' sneaky repeal of Measure V is approved by city voters in 2020. Renters should consider voting just for Lenny Siegel and Lucas Ramirez.

We have a decision to make make this election.

1- We either continue on the present course, possibly go even further and faster down this same road we are on.

or

2-Clean out the council and hopefully get the entire council's attention to start paying attention to All THE RESIDENTS.

This RV issue is just the last straw. When you had Lenny Siegel, Showalther proposing to expand the RV parking to 3 more city blocks at the last city council meeting means that they are just flippant to what people are complaining about.

You have Siegel-Showalther-Rameriz who support this. Do not vote for them.

Who is left, 3 other candidates.
Inks has a solid 8 year track record as a city council. He has my vote.

Kamei is well qualified for the job and has my vote.

Hicks, is qualified for the position and certainly 10 times better than
Siegel-Showalther-Rameriz and has my vote.

I am voting for Inks-Kamei-Hicks, let's cleanup the city council.

People keep bringing up Measure V.

Measure V was a citizen initiative, was passed by the residents and can not be changed by any council.

For any change to happen to the new law would mean it has to go on the ballot and again the residents will need to vote on it, yes or no.

It is ridiculous to use Measure V as an excuse to only vote for a candidate when we have other issues in the city that needs to be desperately fixed and if those candidates, Siegel-Showalther-Rameriz are supporting and even making problems worse for our city, then they do not deserve to be on the city council, IMHO.

I heard Inks supported the expansion of allowable RV parking on streets. Is this true?

I need concrete statements about how the candidates plan on removing vehicle dwelling on public streets, and I HAVE NOT heard that from Inks, Kamei or Hicks.

***I won't vote for someone just because they aren't the current person. You're not just voting someone out, your also voting someone IN. What is their stated position on RVs from Inks, Kamei and Hicks?

@Inks=More RV's?

You said,
"I heard Inks supported the expansion of allowable RV parking on streets. Is this true?"

Really? Did you just make that up or did Job Lopez tell you that.

Why insult? I'll vote for Inks if you can point to his stance against RVs.
Here's your chance to lock in a vote 100% for your boy.
All you need is to point me to where his RV plan is and if he's on record for getting them out he has my vote.
Ready set Go!

Yes on Inks
No on Siegel, Showalter and Ramirez

I find it humorous that the current council encourages commercial development and stifles residential development by trying to extort over $100k in fees per unit in the North Bayshore, they actively support rent control, further exacerbating the housing shortage and still manage to gain the support of those they are inflicting so much pain, never overestimate the intelligence of the electorate I guess. Unabated commercial growth, stifling residential building (affordable or not), and encouraging RV's to overtake our streets is not platform we should be comfortable with. In an ironic twist, our current council is fueling faster gentrification, who knew!

Rent control does not build affordable housing, does nothing for those seeking affordable rental housing. The MVCC RV outreach program has been a total failure, the unpublished stats don't support the narrative of "folks just down on their luck".

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often for the same reason"
-Mark Twain

@Then please enlighten us,

Then tell us when John Inks said he was for expanding RV parking., you can't.

You have not been following Ink's campaign or his comments because you will never ever vote for him.

No insults here. You know this hurts Siegel-Showalther-Rameriz in their bid for city council so you have to smear others in what their positions are.

All you people in the Lenny-Lopez camp who are trying to remove Inks signs, destroying them, writing "F.U" on them, and now spreading lies to confuse voters that Inks is for expanding RV parking, pure B.S.

(still not totally not angry, just looking for info)

"Then tell us when John Inks said he was for expanding RV parking., you can't."

I don't think you're getting it. Let me try again. Yes, I heard a totally unsubstantiated statement from a friend that he was in favor of expanding parking in cuesta park's lots.
This could be total bs, I don't know so I asked if he had a statement on record about how he will address the RV issue. Does he have one?
Does he??? If he does can you PLEASE point us all to it?

What I WOULD like to see is something concrete from him or anyone on what steps they will take to RID the streets of vehicle dwellers.

Has he in fact stated anything like this? I have not seen it but would love to, then love to vote for him because of his statement. If he does not have such a statement, he needs to make it.
Hopefully that point is now clear.

We need reasons TO vote for someone. We know the reasons not to. Time to tout what Inks WILL do, not what the failures have not done. We already know that.

Inks, who said he had previously been an "urban camper," pointed out that many residents are losing patience with people squatting in their neighborhoods, and he suggested the city needed to stop "subsidizing habits."

It's clear the incumbents have not earned the right to be re-elected. Ramirez is too young and too coached to make up his own mind. He is on the fence on some issues because he doesn't want to offend anyone. And he wants to lead!

Inks is the only adult in the room and will vote for him. , I'll hold my nose and vote for Kamei and Hicks.

@ Last Attempt,

John Inks said in this Mercury News article that he,
" He opposes providing parking spaces or services for vehicle dwellers and plans to vote against the employer ‘head tax” ballot measure."

Now, stop liking your own post's, and I certainly do not expect you to vote for him as you said you would, as I know which candidates you support.

Link here,

Web Link

Inks has gone on record to not support any subsidies from the city. He also supports the 72 hour rule which is currently not being enforced. Go to his website to read further.

Other than that you can't stop people from living in RVs . The others are afraid to take any stance.

I 'find it refreshing' that some candidates & officeholders change their opinions and then votes on matters that their constituents are relatively closely divided on. Measure V - citizens initiative on city rent control is one item. Showalter had one opinion before the vote (as did a majority of her fellow Council members) and then she changed her mind AFTER the vote to more align with the majority voter sentiment. NOTE: this was not an overwhelming in-your-face type of majority vote. Not even close to a landslide.

I will Vote for Showalter - she is pragmatic and listens to the majority vote of her constituents. I will vote for Lenny - he has been consistent in almost all his progressive opinions over the years that I have been following him on local public issues.

I voted for Inks in the past - he brought a reasonable but divergent voice to the Council - I will not now vote for him. I never vote for deceptive politicians, and his sponsored 'change Measure V' is a deceptive work of politics.

QI 'find it refreshing' that some candidates & officeholders change their opinions and then votes on matters that their constituents are relatively closely divided on. Measure V - citizens initiative on city rent control is one item. Showalter had one opinion before the vote (as did a majority of her fellow Council members) and then she changed her mind AFTER the vote to more align with the majority voter sentiment.


This is what we call an unprincipled politician. Trying to align w the majority position rather than putting the interests of all residents first. Majority rule is mob rule if you dont protect individual rights. Inks is principled and will protect ndividual rights.

Mountain View voters would be well advised to vote for City Council members who support Measure V. The City Council appoints the Rental Housing Committee (RHC). The decisions of the RHC can't go against the text of Measure V, but they can interpret the text with some pretty big loopholes that favor landlords. They could even push for Measure V to be suspended entirely! It not just a question of which council members say they support Measure V. It is a question of which candidates will support Measure V as a priority, and also support creation and preservation of housing for working people. Who will protect the economic diversity that has been a wonderful feature of Mountain View? The Voice got it right - Siegel, Showalter, Ramirez.