This should be a clear message to the city council.

We, the voters, do not want the city council to continue down this same road it has been going on.

You can not take away quality of life from some to give to others. This is not empathy, it is not right.

Middle of the road solution's to problems is what is needed. Do not create more problems, like expanding RV parking and spending another $1 million dollars on this.

Hopefully Siegel will be gone. He and his activist friends are far to divisive for our city.

Showalther thought she would be so smart and hook her train onto Lenny Siegel for an easy
re-election. She made the wrong choice!

To the new council, there is a small group of loud people who are always in your face, remember that there is a some-what silent majority here and you better start doing the right things or you will be next and voted out!

Goodbye Leanord!! You can now move to Berkeley!

That and his pro developer stance.
EVERYONE on the council should take note: If you don't do something about the RV, you'll be out. If you want to be to Joy Boy pof the developer, you won't even get in.

So the recommendations of the voice to endorse two incumbents was completely wrong. It shows how the voice is out of touch w th residents of this town. If Rosenberg was on the ballot, he would have also lost. All three tried to hoodwink the public to get elected the first time and there was no way they would get reeelected. This is a first where 3 incumbents fail to get relelcted. Congrats to the voters of MV to roll the dice w 3 rookies. Let's hope they get the message and start solving some of the problems created by the previous three.

Agreed. A big, big message was sent to the City Council last night. And a great shift for the future of Mountain View occurred. And also for Lucas Ramirez who had better start aligning himself with other members and platforms. Ramirez won only because of he was better than the incumbent Showalter and not necessarily because he was a first pick candidate.

Good riddance Siegel, Showalter and Rosenberg! Your departures can't come soon enough!

In two more years we can hit replay on last night and get rid of the rest of the bums.

Looks too close to call. In a close race, every little thing matters starting with all of those people who DID NOT VOTE. I suspect the winners will have done a lot of door-to-door. Ellen Kamei had flyers on doorsteps before the field of candidates had even been set. The flyers implied SHE had come to the front door. Maybe she really went to none. If Lenny Siegel is not re-elected, one must wonder how many renters were not targeted to vote for him. It would have been easy to leaflet apartment complexes. The good news is that all six candidates are very able persons.

The best news about this is Inks is dead last.
He helped ruin Mountain View’s charm with his unrelenting pro development.

Lenny's downfall was his arrogant attitude. To paraphrase him "I"m not going to allow them to put out the RVs". Lenny is a decent man nonetheless and was at the forefront of fighting condo conversions on California St back in the 1970s.

For all you that feel RVs should be allowed, I ask "Why do you favor the wealthy RV owners over the homeless residents of Mountain View who live in tents?" And I know a couple of people who live in tents.

Ellen Kamei was the only candidate that showed up on my doorstep. I wasn't home at the time, but I saw the video later on my doorbell cam. She had my vote anyway. I really only could pick two, Ellen Kamei and Alison Hicks. I wasn't totally on board with any other candidate, but I wish Lucas Ramirez well and welcome him to the council

In response to mike rose you said:

“Prop10 losing with huge margin, voters do not favor rent control any more.”

That is not really accurate, yes currently the results are:

No 61.7% Yes 38.3%

But if you look the statewide voter turnout was only 40%. And that LA only had a 37% voter turnout, and SF had only a 44%. Mid term elections are in many ways are not a good indicators. In fact the PPIC study showed a serious flaw in predictions.

The PPIC report stated:

“Rent Control: Proposition 10 Loses Ground

Proposition 10 would expand the authority of local governments to enact rent control. When read the ballot title and label of this measure, 60 percent of likely voters would vote no, WHILE 25 PERCENT WOULD VOTE YES and 15 percent are undecided. Opposition to Proposition 10 has increased since September (48% no, 36% yes, 16% undecided). Today, majorities across parties would vote no on the measure.

Given that the yes vote was significantly higher than only 25%, the difference in the results of the votes was only 11.7%. That is not necessarily a good indication that the fight is over. In effect, it would appear that this battle was lost, but the “war” is not over.

Especially given that the opposition advertising was mostly untrue given this review I viewed her on KCRA 3 News (Web Link

Even though the same news group KCRA 3 report said the proponent advertisement was mostly true seen here (Web Link

And on by the way, John Inks came in dead last. I think I am going to wait to see if Job gets cleared of the citation. To me this was a strategic frame to drag down Lenny Seigal. John Inks knew he was not going to get voted in early on. Too bad it worked. But he still outperformed John Inks who got a lousy 12.54%, Lenny still got 900 more votes.

Last month, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report on the state of the planet. They concluded that we have TWELVE YEARS to DRASTICALLY alter the carbon pollution of our civilization. Anything less will see an ecological catastrophe the likes of which haven't been seen since the dinosaurs all went extinct.

Mountain View is leading the state on building dense housing near jobs and transit so more people can walk or bike to work and shop.

When our City Council swears their oath of office in January 2019, they must stay the course. Don't delay and downsize housing, transit, and biking improvements.

Hundreds of millions of future climate refugees are looking us in the eyes. We cannot shirk our responsibility.

Your name and policies will always be linked to the death of "Charming" Mountain View.

A message was trumpeted loud and clear: Big developers OUT! No more sky blocking buildings. The people spoke clearly and hold the controls now.

[Post removed due to poster being banned for repeated violation of terms of use]

A victory of reason with Prop 10 going down to defeat. The scandal is about to break about the great San Jose land swindle regarding price fixed rents on mobile home parks. It's so financially ruinous to San Jose the study should stop even democrats in their tracks. A crash is inevitable.
Meanwhile in Mt. View build build build. With the increased revenues Mountain View should be able to afford the best school district in America. A dream team of highly paid teachers (like Finland) with superlative athletic facilities (the body and the mind).
The Mountain View Declaration will be sent to the city council in a few days.
George Drysdale with the number one lesson plan in basic economics

We had a divided house on voting for Hicks. I very much support her well studied ideas on residential and mid-low market housing (actually I could not even imaging a better city planning background). I opted for .... & .... and my wife voted for Hicks and 'her sign' went out by the sidewalk.

I think that Hicks will be a big influence on better and more emphasis on BUILDING NEW residential community neighborhoods. IF SHE MAKES IT on COUNCIL. If not one more 200,000 square foot office gets build in Mountain View, I certainly will not cry. Let GOOGLE build in San Jose at the 'transit village' downtown and let LINKEDIN and others learn to build secondary/distributed headquarters. AWAY FROM US. Please. I know Hicks understands that.

@ekim esor rent controlled cities have the highest rent because they were so much in demand BEFORE they enacted rent control. Rent control stops the bleeding. Personally, my rent went down $200/mo when rent control was enacted here. That's important because I'm a librarian and my husband is a teacher. THIS MATTERED TO US. And I think it matters to other renters, too.

The craziest thing about Prop 10 is that it was just repealing a bad law. It wasn't a bogeyman coming to force rent control on the people. It would have given the control to the local gov'ts/local voters, which I would have thought most people would want. Too much misinformation about this one.

So the MV Voice features 'their' candidate with a large photo (Congrats to Lucas) but the real story is that Ellen Kamei won by a big margin, a candidate they did NOT endorse. Note to the Voice, you have lost the pulse of Mountain View, if we want to know what residents are thinking, nextdoor.com is a more credible source than our local newspaper.

Lenny and Pat were tone deaf and their mouthpiece The Voice was out of touch with their readers. Lucas needs to hitch his wagon elsewhere!

I hope the council can come together and work on the following:
- Housing that people can own and pause apartment development
- House "legit displaced" MV residents and say goodbye to everyone else (the RV's)
- Get serious about traffic - an underpass at Grant and El Camino would be a good start
- Clean house of underperforming city staff, a lot of whom are on cruise control
- Clean up Rengstorff and Eagle parks so families can utilize them

Lenny to say that “Perhaps as mayor, I became the target for people's anger” makes it sound like you want us to think that you were a scapegoat. That is not true, you lost because of your job performance, you were not a target, stop the fake news.

Hey City Council,

Remember what you did weeks back to open four cannabis stores? Did you listen to us the residents of the city? Did you listen to us parents of our future generation? Did you listen to us who probably represents a large portion of the population? If not, I hope this time you heard from us! We want change! We want a better Mountain View! You get our votes if you listen to us! Thanks!

@MV VOICE HAS LOST PULSE OF MTN VIEW
Seriously, the Voice isn't in the prognostication business and has no crystal ball. It's a newspaper, whose editors -- who nobody will confuse with soothsayers -- weren't predicting winners; they just endorsed candidates they thought would do a better job than the others (flawed as that belief is). Of course, we found out the voters thought otherwise.

Let the Voice have its voice and let Mountain View enjoy a much-needed change on the City Council.

Your kidding. Why do you think the Voice feels obliged to endorse? Most endorsements are by special interest groups that want a candidate to to support their position. Newspapers claim they are doing a public service. If it's just stating the preference of their editor, then why doesn't the editor just say this is my personal preference. Endorsing incumbents is a no brainer. since the last time an incumbent lost was in 1990. The reason the Voice is out of touch is that they like the political agenda of the incumbents and ignored the public outcry over issues they diagreed with. Maybe they should hire reporters that report the news and don't spend time smearing people they disagree with.

The people who celebrate the ousting of Pat and Lenny seem utterly confused. To paraphrase they are for all good and against all bad. They want to house all people, but they are against development to house those people. They think rv owners are wealthy and they should help those living in tents instead. Really? You think inhabitants of sveltering broken down rv are wealthy? No, they are living here because that's where their low paying job is and it is cheaper than commuting 2 hours from South of gilroy. If they lose their job they will move to respectable tent population.
In any case you want to help homeless, by presumably using your magic wands since they also want to stop development of new housing. Oh and they are also against traffic, but would do nothing to create more housing next to jobs. Sounds like very smart policy to me.

In any case I have nothing but respect for Alison and Ellen, I listened to their forum and they look like reasonable people, so hopefully they will continue making mountain view more livable and welcoming city.

@ ekim esor It's not about "enjoying" the rent decrease. It's a necessity. The rent control Measure A only affected buildings with 3 or more units, so if you own one of these I'm thinking you are making a boatload of money even with rent control (I would guess you're still making at least $6000/mo for 3 units, which is a very comfortable retirement). Everyone's got a reason for their vote, but I must say, you're not much thinking of future generations, eh? I'm 34 and have many more years of service to offer the community. What's your excuse? That's why we all pay into social security - so you can live comfortably. I don't want to turn this into a generational thing, but having read comments on NextDoor, I think it's already a thing. Did you also vote yes on Prop 5?

Rent control should be targeted. Teachers and firefighters should get subsidies to be able to live in the city. However, families living 10 ppl to a 2 bedroom and making MV schools high poverty need to move elsewhere more affordable. The same about well off corporate professionals who just were lucky to start renting at the right time- why should they get rent controlled housing?

I hope this sends a clear message that the current RV situation is totally unacceptable! Hopefully this new Council will take this issue head on and STOP the influx and enforce the laws/ordinances.

Lenny thought he was a scapegoat. If you attended a recent city council meeting, you would have witnessed his self-righteousness, as if he was the only person who cared about justice and poor people. Politically I lean pretty heavily to the left, but we elect city council members to solve specific local issues for the city residents. We don't want council members who let their personal views or feelings get into the way of finding solutions and getting things done for the city residents.

No need for me to post a juvenile, sarcastic nasty response, mvresident2003, you already provided yours.

I doubt you're going to come in here and claim that you're a law-abiding resident. If so, it's simply unbelievable, since I guarantee that you've exceeded the speed limit at least once. Should the council not be concerned for you, or is it only certain classes of residents that get looked out for?

looking at the top 4 to me it
seems one aspect of what is wanted on the council
is calm cooperation,
as well as
less contention
as well as
less building overall,and
preservation of our city's character
and building for the 'middle'

Personally, I didn't vote for the incumbents because I felt like they don't listen.

I voted for the newcomers because I felt like they did. I even got to meet one of them personally.

I don't expect my city council will always vote the way I would wish. They have perspectives and facts that I don't have.

But I believe that we are a representative democracy. I wanted to vote for people who would represent me, even if I disagree with them sometimes. In order to represent me, you gotta listen to me.

Such is my belief.

Congratulations to all the newcomers, and thanks to the outgoers for your efforts to serve.

Guarded Optimism about result of Council Election:

I for one am very pleased that the most left-leaning radicals have been voted out!

As to Ramirez, I hope he is young enough and creative enough to learn that Mountain View is more pragmatic, centrist and less radical than the Mayor and Co. thought.
Mountain View Citizens want an immediate end to the blight of the RVs and we are scrutinizing your action (or inaction) on this issue.

and note to #LOL, yes we should help them.... help them get those ugly unhealthy eyesores off our streets...permanently. And no, I dont mean spend another million dollars of our taxpayers money to create an RV park ghetto.

#The Business Man and #MV Voice, please join Siegel and Showalter on their trip to the Peoples Republic of Berkeley

I voted for Hicks and I hope she takes the lead on this issue. I'm counting on her.

"We can say with a high degree of certainty that the voters were not supportive of the direction we were headed; there's an expectation now that we'll do something differently." Darned right. MV needs to totally rethink its policies on runaway housing construction, transportation, and homeless people. They should take a hard look at what Los Altos is doing.

"Cecil, RV dwellers are city residents. Why don't they fall into the group of people you think council should help?"

Really? What's your definition of "resident" here? I think you mean "squatter". You think any of your "residents" registered or voted last night? Sorry but you can't claim 650 Franklin St, Mountain View, CA 94041 as your mailing address.

As someone who lived in Mountain View for 20+ years and worked for the City for over 15 I saw how detrimental Inks was to the MV.
Mountain View was just an experiment for his unapologetic policy and development stances (or lack thereof).
He lead the charge that ultimately ruined the old MV charm. Though his dead last finish can’t undo what has beeen done, it is a sliver lining. I hope the little man goes away from politics and enjoys his superficial relationship with washed up Cronies

No more RV parking on our streets! This needs to end now! What started a few years ago as a stop gap measure for actual Mountain View RESIDENTS who were being taken advantage of by greedy landlords has now become a scheme for every out-of-towner, working commuter or cheap Googler to get by with free rent. Our city is being taken advantage of by these freeloaders and it must end now. Thousands and thousands of our city's tax dollars are being used to keep the area clean around their RVs. It's not safe and the blight is appalling. No city sanctioned lot will be tolerated either--why are we paying for these freeloaders? Mountain View--we can be for helping our fellow neighbor, but *neighbor* is the key word. Not out of town freeloaders, many of who can afford to rent, but choose not to. It angers me, and based on last night's election results many, many more residents.

Ramirez, Hicks and Kamei. Listen to us, we are the majority, albeit often silent majority. If you continue down this path you will be a one termer like Siegel and Showalter.

And to the outgoing crew... I don't thank you for your service. You've helped to ruin the city I have known and loved my entire life. Good riddance! May we never see the likes of you again.

We will not know why these 3 were elected without a poll. And the Voice missed the exit polling already. But then, the Voice is just a weekly and no one thought the incumbents would be ousted. The conflict of interest in the $100 million Los Altos School District issue by Council Member John McAlister might have been a factor.

LMAO whenever I hear people refer to the former incumbents as extreme liberals. I suspect, if people examined what was done and not what was said, it would be apparent that the previous incumbents catered to big business and developers. Yup! Republicans in Democrats’ clothing! If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck even if it insists it’s a Democrat!

The reason why the incumbents were voted out was because they did not represent the majority of Mountain View residents. For the new council members: please remember that you are selected to represent the majority view from MV residents. It is not about your personal views.

There was only one voter mistake. Inks should have been elected instead of Ramirez. Ramirez puts race and "social welfare" payments above the future good of Mountain View. He's just another Showalter and Siegel Socialist, Populist IDIOT. MV's future is to forget about "equality for all" and to concentrate on attracting "the best of the best" residents. Going upscale, like Los Altos, or Palo Alto, or Atherton is its future --- not just becoming another East Palo Alto.

I have to say that I'm thrilled with the outcome of the race! Four years ago, I tried to make a difference, but many of my positions were co-opted by others who later went back on the promises they made during the campaign.

I was running against the special interests and refused to take any money or endorsements from them, because I felt that Mountain View should be represented by people that truly represent their interests and not the interests of large corporations; and it seems that now, at last, that is exactly what the residents of Mountain View will have!


I congratulate the winners on their campaigns and wish them all the best as representatives of the City of Mountain View! It's a great honor for them and I pray that they will continue to put the people of Mountain View first.

Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
( Formerly Old Mountain View)

I guess now Mountain View will not be able to solve Bay Areas housing problem, or turn Grant Road into a freeway!

Ok. So according to LOL, we're ALL law breaking citizens. And.... If I'm following his logic/reasoning... If we get a speeding ticket we shouldn't have to pay or lose our licenses. And someone else should pay for it. Cool.

Should have run for council, I'd a voted for ya.

Til then, please volunteer YOUR street address to house our fellow-law-breaking RV community.

I agree with Jim Neal (and most other posters here) that we finally seem to have a City Council that will put residents first. I'll just add that of the incumbents who were not up for re-election, residents have some pretty good advocates in John McAlister, Lisa Matichak, and Margaret Abe-Koga.

Congratulations to Kamei, Hicks, and Ramirez (assuming that the final count pans out for them). I hope they will live up to our expectations.

I am one of thousands of tech workers who have moved to Mountain View for the opportunity to work at one of the many innovative tech companies headquartered here. I pay taxes, I eat at Mountain View restaurants, I shop at Mountain View stores, and I pay thousands of dollars each month in rent. I appreciate the perspectives of residents who have lived in Mountain View for many more years, but the fact of the matter is that the city is changing, and it needs development to meet today's needs. We need better infrastructure and transportation. We need more housing. We need more buildings that are taller than three stories. I hope that the city council will balance NIMBYism with today's real needs and move Mountain View in a more sustainable direction.

All these folks that dislike the Voice and its stance should do what I do: boycott anyone who advertises with them. For example, I liked Dittmers, but I'm not going there for a while, if ever. And same with those people advertising their services, I just won't give them any business. Simple.

Yeah, Bored M! Boycott Ellen Kamei!

I voted for Ellen Kamei, Lucas Ramirez, and John Inks.

In theory, I would have preferred Showalter over Inks; however, I could simply not get over her flip-flop on the dedicated bus lanes on El Camino. Time and again she stated her opposition to dedicated bus lanes in 2014, yet she voted for them. I decided that if accountability to the voters means anything at all, this could not go unpunished.

Lucas Ramirez has been impressive with his knowledge of policy, and while I was worried he might veer too far to the left, I was glad to see that unlike most of the other candidates, he did not take a knee-jerk stance in favor of the pro-rent control state ballot proposition.

Mountain View absolutely needs more housing -- a lot more housing - taller than 3-4 stories.

I'm glad so many commenters here are drawing attention to the REAL victims of our housing crisis: people who sometimes have to look at RVs.

I don't know how some of you people can live with yourselves. The anonymity of this forum seems to make you feel you can insult and judge people who have worked hard for this city, while you've done nothing but whine and complain that your own little problems have not been solved by the city government. You should probably go home to mom and dad and learn that the world does not revolve around you.

Pat and Lenny contributed years of hard work to this city, but nobody could solve all of the major problems we are facing in this era of significant change. But they cared, and worked their butts off to leave the city in better shape than they found it. They are good people who worked hard with citizens who gave them feedback, asked questions, and supported their decisions, even when they didn't go exactly our way. We all have vested interests in how our own projects turn out, but when a sincere and dedicated public servant tries to help, the very least we can do is say "thank you".

Pat and Lenny also managed to put up with the sniveling minority, and survived four years in the City Council pressure cooker while getting some great work done. And for what? Low pay and little appreciation. I can't say I would be brave enough to put myself in that role, and I honor anyone who does. I get especially upset about the undeserved personal judgement because I've attended a lot of Council meetings, and saw the courtesy, sympathy, and care Lenny took with people who spoke, and the sincere interest and intelligent comments Pat made on complex technical topics she knows more about than anyone else. I will miss their contributions and expertise in the coming year.

Ellen, Allison, and Lucas will probably face the same unwarranted criticism in four years, and like Pat and Lenny, they won't deserve it. I wish them well and will help them whenever I can. City Council members need the support of people who understand they are trying to do a good job, even though they can't pull off miraculous solutions. We should be an engaged electorate, not entitled children who expect everything to be done for them.

We all need to stop the petty, cowardly, online attacks. Please get a grip and try to be better people before flaming those who already are.

I voted Yes on 10. But not because I favor rent control.

1. Each city should decide on rent control, it should not be controlled by the state.

2. It is unfair to owners of older buildings to be burdened with rent control while owners of newer buildings received the same Prop 13 protection but don't have to suffer the same conequences.

3. I prefer ownership housing and when rent control is implemented many property owners exit the rental business and do condo conversions.

4. Rent control encourages new construction to be ownership housing rather than rental housing.

It is true that rent control raises average rents, causes the rental housing stock to deteriorate, reduces the construction of new rental housing, and since it isn't income qualified doesn't address housing insecurity. To address housing insecurity we should be building more subsidized housing and expanding Section 8 so we can help the people that are most in need.

ekim esor:

I once asked my U.S. Congressman why he kept saying "Firefighters, police officers, nurses" and if he knew how much nurses, firefighters, and police earn. To my surprise, he said that he knew that their salaries were high but that studies had shown that the pubic responded well to "Firefighters, police officers, nurses."

Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

To be accurate, the congressman should change his talking to point to "teachers, home health aides, and food service workers." But that's not as good of a sound bite. Or he should say that teachers should be paid overtime, just like firefighters, nurses, and police officers.

The RV issue is now expanding from living in RVs to operating restaurants out of trucks parked on local streets. Not food trucks, but mobile kitchens. Park on a public street, start up the generator, and start cooking. Delivery vehicles come and pick up the food from the mobile kitchen and deliver the food. It saves the cost of leasing restaurant space or renting a commercial kitchen. No property taxes, no health department inspections, no garbage costs, it's a great business model to turn a public street into your business location. The pizza is mediocre, and not cheap, but who cares?

Lennie and Patricia’s downfall (as it would have for Ken) was the blind support for the RV people over the rest of the community. The “Berkley of the peninsula” as I recall, is not what we want. To blindly dump 2 million of tax money to help fund this homeless program and draw in more homeless is utterly rediculous. Lennie was clearly anti-police, as he challenged the opinion of the police chief and the community police officer who stated services are bringing more homeless.

We want change. We want our parks back. Have you went to Rengstorff park at night lately? Try even at dusk. Its taken over all along the Rengstorff/Crisanto Avenue side by the RV people. I see them drinking and are drunk almost every night. I live by there and now carry pepperspray in fear as I walk my dog. Hope to see Pat and Lennie open their driveways for an rv

@beelia

The incumbents were thrown out because they were tone deaf. Mountain View has become an RV and poverty magnet. Crime is up. I had a RV dweller loitering around my property last year, caught on video, and the next week he was arrested with drugs and weapons in his RV! Thanks, but no thanks. And three marijauna shops approved? Three? Why not one over by Google? And Showalter flip flopping on the bus lane? Unbelievable. At least Rosenberg got it right and declined to run.

Oh, and have you ever tried getting the City to actually do its job in your neighborhood? We are charged fees for everything but have to go through nightmares to get sidewalks repaired, city landscaping cleaned up or red curbs painted. And don't get me started with the public pools that close in the middle of August!

And finally, the police department's catch-all excuse, "we're busy", when you call them. Package thieves on the rise and everybody speeding and running stop signs in the neighborhoods while the boys in blue are no where to be found.

And then consider Siegel's campaign slogan: Mountain View is a Leader. A leader in what? His experimental and activist social policies that have failed us? We didn't elect him to make Mountain View an example for other cities to follow. We elected him to solve problems and effectively manage the city. He used Mountain View to exercise his left-wing agenda, the citizens be damned! All the while he caved to developers for more housing, disregarding the fact that few people he would claim to be interested in helping can actually afford to rent of buy the housing being built.

Two more months of these clowns is even to much to bear.

Good riddance to the voted-out councilmembers' twisted priorities and I-know-more-than-you attitudes! Welcome, new councilmembers we can hope will actually listen to and learn from MV residents.

Firefighter's UNIONS can afford to handsomely BANKroll the campaigns of some city Council CANDIDATES. Maybe you can even help her to the #1 position.

In addition to the obvious, pressing issues facing the new city council, they genuinely need to address something that plagues the downtown: Uber, Lyft and whatever other for-hire cars stopping in the middle of Castro St. and nearby on cross streets to pick up and drop off passengers. This is maddening! Downtown is congested enough as it is with moving traffic, but those oblivious, seemingly brain-dead drivers halting it entirely for the sake of a buck is borderline criminal! The city council, which hasn't done squat on this issue, needs to introduce enforceable regulations on where and how "shared economy" vehicles operate downtown. Who's with me on this??

@ekim esor wrote "Rent controlled cities have the highest average rent in the nation."

If that is true, it's just a correlation, not necessarily a cause and effect. Cities with the highest rent may have imposed rent control in order to get rents under control, because rents were too high to begin with. Rent control doesn't necessarily cause higher rents. Indirectly perhaps, if onerous rent control encourages demolishing affordable housing in favor of building non-rent-controlled properties (as is happening in Mountain View).

@ekim esor wrote "while nurses make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year..."

Um, no. Where did you get that ridiculous factoid? If you're going to make fallacious claims, be prepared to back them up.

I know of at least one of those nurses who is an RV dweller (a trailer, actually, not a vehicle) because she can't afford anything else. The MV Voice wrote about her in the past.

@Alex M, I know a few nurses, and they do make over $200K on their paystubs. RNs with degrees, that is. And I'm told the rate via CRONA (the union) is standardized across the region. Perhaps the one you know has large student loans to pay, which is a challenge for everyone who incurs them.

Wonderfully civilized observations, Beelia, amid disappointingly coarse commentary from some sore winners about two hard-working public servants. The winning candidates in this city council race are likely to be just as hard-working. And they’ll need to be. They face the daunting challenge of representing a diverse community undergoing tectonic change with real social impacts. The last thing we need right now (or ever) are rotten tomatoes thrown from the cheap seats.

I can't help but thinking.

The odds of John Inks being selected randomly out of a hat when 3 names are pulled are (5/6) * (4/6) * 3/6) = .83 * .66 * .5 = 27.39%

John Inks got 12.56% out of approximately 30,000. 15% less than just random selection.

If this is any measure of what influence he has in Mountain View, all I can say is OMG

Why do people think that EVERYONE who works in Mountain View needs to live within City Limits? I don't get it, during my entire career never lived within City limits of my workplace, Worked in Sunnyvale, Lived in Santa Clara; then the reverse, worked in Santa Clara worked in Sunnyvale, finally worked in Cupertino lived in Mountain View Nobody ever talks about Los Altos building 10 storey buildings, it's always Mountain View's problem. If you cannot find housing in Mountain View, try San Jose, a city of 1M+ residents.

Have you tried commuting to South San Jose? Why does MV have a unique responsibility, it's because MV keeps allowing employment growth. Want to bring sanity back to MV, slow down employment growth, make sure employment is matched by either equal investments in housing or transportation infrastructure.

It's so strange that some people frame more housing (which people would pay for) as a handout, yet don't see a government restriction in supply, that artificially inflates housing prices as not a handout.

Ms. Kamei did not get my vote because of any groups that endorsed her. She got my vote because she was the least worst option compared to Siegel, Ramirez, and Showalter. I don't understand how Mark Noack connected the dots between a firefighter union endorsement and an election victory. I hope she will be a quick study in council politics and devote significant time to engaging with the community, along with Ms. Hicks and Mr. Ramirez.

I think the voters said that the council should stop listening to the loudest voices at council meetings and start listening to the full body of residents. Lack of connection with the people is what gets RV incumbents voted off the MV council.

Try learning some statistics, If all 6 candidates are in a hat and 3 are selected randomly, the odds of being picked are 1/2. Your denominator is incorrect since you are not drawing w replacement. 3(1/6)(5/5)(4/4) = 1/2. If all candidates are equally likely then each has a 1/6 ( or 16.67%) chance of receiving a vote but this assumes each voter votes for 3 candidates, which is unlikely.

Stick to copying and posting a lot of website material. It doesn't require as much thinking.

In response to @BM

Thank you.

I never said I was perfect, you really did a good job.

My corrections would be

1st 2nd 3rd
Pick Pick Pick

(5/6) * (4/5) * (3/4) = .83 * .8 * .75 = .48 or 48%

My denominator should have been subtracted. Again you are correct that once a name was chosen at random, there were less names remaining. Thus the fractions were better than my first calcuation.

Thus if names were randonly chosen he had almost a 50% chance of being selected out of 6 in a selction of 3.

Thus he was chosen even worse given his percentage was 12.56%. The voters simply expressed the lack of beleif in John Inks by a difference now of 36%.

Thank you very much.

Looks like Alison Hicks has slipped to 4th place and Pat Showalter has made up the vote deficit and is trending higher as the last remaining votes get tallied.

If the vote stopped today, we'd have Ellen, Lucas, and Pat.

Have we ever had 4 women on council at the same time? This may be a record and new norm.

Regardless, it's been a tough election cycle for all. Congrats to the winners. Mountain View Council is in good hands.