The current incumbents, Siegel and Showalther, want to expand the RV parking in our city to 3 more blocks. They want no enforcement of any laws regarding this issue. Rameriz has the same position. Two many years have gone by now and this needs to end.

The city has spent $1.2 million dollars on this issue with no end in sight.

We can not have council members who tells the police dept. to not enforce existing laws. Sewage dripping onto the city streets is not acceptable, among many other problems.

Moms are afraid to take their kids to Rengstorff park with this encampment right across the street. The Police Chief said the problems are getting worse now than a year ago.

If we allow council members to ignore a large portion of our concerns as a community and to be disregarded, then when will this stop?

Do we want tent city's along the sidewalks?

Do we want low level crimes ignored, like property crimes where people have their car windows broken multiple times like in San Francisco?

I say no to the above. We need a change at the city council.

Vote yes for,

Inks
Kamei
Hicks

Vote Inks!

Need to finally elect some representatives who want to clean our streets of the RVs... they are dangerous for traffic and biking, and pollute our streets with waste.

I believe that the Mountain View city council has been shockingly negligent regarding the exploding homeless population. I'm sympathetic to those who believe in helping the needy, and I understand the point of view of those concerned about safety and sanitation. The city is awash in money, always grasping for more, and still it flails about solving nothing. Perhaps the folks on the good side of town thin that everything is humming along just fine.

I am voting against all incumbents. "[Blank] or get off the pot." We've tried being enablers, and that isn't working. Let's hear some new ideas for housing the homeless.

I wasn't sure how to divide my vote between the four non-incumbents. I'm grateful that Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Kasperzak identified Mr. Ramirez as one of their own. I'll vote for Mr. Inks, Ms. Kamei, and Ms. Hicks.

Ex-Superintendent Yick's endorsement of Wheeler for school board is hilarious. Of course, let's not forget how Yick was allowed to pad her retirement by folding in the cost of her health benefits into her final salary total!

Web Link

Yep, that's called corruption via loophole. In fact it's no longer allowed. Yick and Wheeler also presided over the persistent achievement gap in schools that we have to this day. But nonetheless we find the loyal Yick back here schilling for Wheeler.

Being friends with a superintendent you oversee is common practice for Trustee Wheeler. She did the same for Superintendent Ghysels, who she covered for in his romantic relationship with a school administrative subordinate (2008-2009). Closed Session for Wheeler seems to be an excuse for cover up the truth from the public.

How much did pension spiking increase Yick's current $150,000 pension, probably hard to calculate. (Transparent California)
Web Link

How much in private did Wheeler support Superintendent Ghysels? But her public explanation is recorded by reporters,
"I think that they have behaved appropriately..."
Web Link

A vote for Wheeler is a vote for this type of "oversight".

.

Dear editor

How do you decide which letters from readers to post?
I submitted a letter on Friday about Castro City being locked out of a neighbouring neighborhood. Was it not an important issue in your opinion?
Thanks

Please vote for JOHN INKS.

The Voice’s write of John is unjustified and biased, especially given their superficial coverage of John’s Community Involvement and Council Voting Record.

I’m voting for JOHN INKS because we need his perspective to balance the political perspective that is out of touch with those of us who have lived here all our lives and make do on fixed incomes.

@Kal Sandhu: We've had a flood of letters in recent weeks, and printed as many as space allows. With Election Day nearly upon us, we've chosen to prioritize letters about candidates and election issues. Letters that aren't in this week's issue will likely be able to run in the following issue.
We appreciate everyone who takes the time to write a letter to the editor and do our best to run them in a timely fashion.

John Inks has been unfairly targeted by this paper. His previous experience and practical approach is what is needed on the council. Too many residents are at their wits end with the direction the Council has been going.

Support El Camino lane closures for a bus with abysmal ridership?

Support the expansion of the RV population in Mtn. View?

I don't think so!

What is the current council thinking?

Elect John Inks to help put some balance back on the Council!

In response to Terry Hennings you said:

“John Inks has been unfairly targeted by this paper. His previous experience and practical approach is what is needed on the council. Too many residents are at their wits end with the direction the Council has been going.”

This is also his conduct, you should be aware of it:

AND WHEN HE STATED THE VOTERS WERE WRONG IN PASSING MEASURE V, IS THAT WELL TEMPERED AND CONSIDERATE. YOU CAN SEE HIM SAY SO RIGHT HERE (Web Link ) at time mark 34:30 he declared that the citizens of Mountain View were his “enemy” by saying they “attacked” the “Private Property” of landlords. HE SAID THE CITIZENS’ RIGHT TO PASS MEASURE V WAS WRONG. HE STATES THAT TO HIM AND HIS LIBERTARIANS, THAT THE CITIZENS IN EFFECT ARE HIS ENEMY. Should we vote for him if he thinks the voters are his enemy?

In fact at time mark 27:00 he simply states that as long as you have “the right person, with the right temperament” and “if they met that criteria”. Notice he does not establish who is the “Right Person”. To him the “Right Person” would never support rent control. To him the “Right Temperament” would only be that of doing anything possible to undermine the CSFRA. His “Criteria” is simply to staff the RHC with those who only agree with his “Libertarian” agenda. But his opinion is not open, he has no flexibility regarding his “Libertarian” agenda regarding private property. So this is simply a façade. You said:

HE IS A THREAT TO THE VOTERS GIVEN HIS OWN WORDS. YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF IT. You said:

I just demonstrated your inability to be aware of his own conduct. That he is a threat to the voters of Mountain View.

HE DID IT HIMSELF. I WAS AT THAT MEETING WHEN HE DECLARED THAT THE VOTERS MEAN NOTHING TO HIM. IT REMINDS ME OF THE SCENE WHEN ANAKIN PUTS THE BLAME ON PADME’S DISAGREEMENT WITH HIM. ANAKIN SAYS OBI WAN TURNED PADME AGAINST HIM. AS OBI WAN SAID, “YOU HAVE DONE THAT YOURSELF”. IN EFFECT TO JOHN INKS, IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM YOU ARE AGAINST HIM. You said:

“Elect John Inks to help put some balance back on the Council!”

He has no balance. He demonstrated it in public on the record.