Its obvious the applicant from the mobile home park is pro tenant though she tries to frame her application as pro landlord. Council members will not be fooled.
The Voice tried to smear one candidate by noting party affiliation though they did not do this for other applicants. Shameful bias.

All positions should be represented on the committee.
It was not a smear to list the applicant's official former position. It is a fact.
If others served in official capacities, I would like to know. Otherwise, what is the relevance?
A major requirement is thick skin!

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

"It was not a smear to list the applicant's official former position. It is a fact."

First of all it is a smear since the reporter obtained the information from a web search and failed to confirm it. Second, if this was his approach why not do it for other candidates and vet all of their statements . This was clearly an attempt to smear an applicant.

If you have ever attended one of these meetings it is obvious that this committee has been weighted towards landlords since the law was implemented. Vanessa Honey and Tom means (who supposedly held the "nuetral" position), tried everything possible to derail the law from their position of power instead of implementing the law fairly.

They ignored the committee's lawyer in favor of their own misguided legal perceptive and caused many lawsuits which are still pending and costing the city money.

The Council should have learned by now that voters will hold council members accountable if they pull this again. Another three council members will be gone... Gauranteed!

We need RHC members that will uphold the law and apply it fairly. Listening to their own staff and layers would be wise. That is why they have paid experts to guide them.

I know many people who are watching this closely to see if the same members of the council will try to do this again. It will be their kiss off death and people will wonder why no one gets reelected anymore.

The City of Mountain View has very little experience with Quasi-Judicial Hearings and Staffing their Board Membership

THE RHC MEMBERS ARE GONG TO BE SUBJECT TO CONDUCT SCRUTINY. WHY? BECAUSE OF THIS INFORMATION:

“II. Quasi-Judicial Hearings.

IN BOTH CASE LAW AND STATUTES, THE TERMS “QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING” AND “ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING” ARE USED INTERCHANGEABLY. See, e.g., CCP §1094.5; Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 543, 565; LOCC Due Process Committee Report, September 2009, ft. nt. 2.
[Portion removed due to lengthy copying of text from another source]

To me, this just demonstrates that the City of Mountain View is not aware of a lot of facts for some reason. Simply put if anyone has any real estate, development, or apartment related interests EVEN outside the City regarding the bay area, it can be assumed that it is biased. Why? Because the property values and rents in Mountain View have an effect on the region regarding property values and expectations regarding rent price equilibrium.

"They ignored the committee's lawyer in favor of their own misguided legal perceptive and caused many lawsuits which are still pending and costing the city money."

A "misguided" opinion that was easily upheld by a neutral judge.