That's a lot of words that avoid saying the clear, obvious conclusion: Lisa Matichak is a NIMBY who only cares about the wealthy.

It is about time that we had someone in this job that takes the quality of life in the city into to account when making decisions. It is not up to the mayor to take sides, choosing certain residents over others. The mayor (as well as the rest of the council) should balance the needs of ALL the citizens.

For too long, the people who provide the bulk of the revenue in this town have been ignored and even demonized. Several (not all) past mayors and much of the council have chosen to see the big ticket taxpayers as their personal cash cows to provide money for them to redistribute to personal pet causes. At the same time, those same council members had no problem discounting the complaints about the plummeting quality of life here as whining by those who "have too much anyway" in their eyes. I doubt anyone thinks much of a person who calls one names while taking money from their wallet.

The result of their "vision" is an El Camino corridor that looks like the Death Star scene from Star Wars, with commuting workers in the roll of fighter pilots navigating an inhospitable terrain. Walking on El Camino is impossible, with the tall buildings turning a once-pleasant walk into a trip down a freezing, sunless wind tunnel bordered by cement edifices. Add to that the broken-down RVs parked there and I doubt anyone finds the walk as nice as it was even 5 years ago. I sure don't do it anymore. I prefer to go to neighboring towns where things are more pleasant. I spend my money there now, not in Mountain View.

I am happy to help the less fortunate, but I prefer to choose those to whom I give. I will not tolerate others taking my money, handing it over to those THEY choose and then calling me selfish without mitigating their effect as much as I can. I shop elsewhere and will continue to do so until Mountain View starts acting like everyone who lives here matters.

psr, you might want to take a peek at the city's budget, as you may be surprised to see who "the people who provide the bulk of the revenue in this town" are. They definitely have been demonized, but usually by NIMBYs and folks like yourself.

Randy Guelph, has you looked at the budget? Is it surprise for you that property taxes ($52M) > local taxes ($16M) and are major part of $137.7M general operating fund revenue?

Not a surprise at all! What you and psr will find surprising is who pays all that property tax (hint: it's not people who bought their house in 1970).

It's time to start being concerned about our quality of life. For G's sake, there's a bum camp building up in back of 99 Ranch market.

I’m happy to have Lisa as Mayor. I hope she stays true to her platform to tackle this RV debacle head on. Enough is enough.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

I think she needs to look closely at the upcoming redevelopment of 2310 Rock Street and how it will effect tenants, our community and Mountain View in general. Many tenants will be homeless as of June is approved.
Also she should look into why 2005 Rock Street received more relocation benifits then 2310 Rock Street!

Tenants sign a month to month rental agreement. They knew that when they signed the agreement and moved in.

It is temporary housing for the tenant where 2 parties must agree to keep the contract valid.

If you take away the owners right to end the contract, you do not have a free America any more.

If you want to move into permanent housing that is "your home" then buy yourself one, but do not force the owner of the property of which you are not on the deed, to have to provide a "permanent home" for you to live.

The city council needs to protect the property owners and their rights.

The city has over reached and took away rights from property owners thru Measure V.

The property owners need their protections as well.

If a rental owner wishes to exit the business and a developer wants to buy and raze the property, then they should have the right to without being punished any further.

"Day to day, is it easier or harder to live in Mountain View?"

I like the sound of that. Now start paying attention to the massive buildup around San Antonio, El Camino, and the new complex(es) on California Street (old Safeway site). Oh, and add a school on Showers. Just wait 'til all that traffic comes online!!!

I agree, Diablo. With the skyrocketing cost of housing here, for most people living has become much more difficult, even impossible! Adding more homes is the only prudent way to address the issue.

IN response to Nancy you said:

“Tenants sign a month to month rental agreement. They knew that when they signed the agreement and moved in.

It is temporary housing for the tenant where 2 parties must agree to keep the contract valid.”

Nancy, in fact you are wrong. why? Because that is an indefinite lease, it only ends when either the tenant finds another place, they fail to perform the agreement, or the landlord decides to either destroy the building or goes out of business. These 2 parties are WELL aware of it. You said:

“If you take away the owners right to end the contract, you do not have a free America any more.”

As you already said, it is a contract. No one can end a contract simply because they don’t like it. You signed the agreement and must comply with it. You said:

“If you want to move into permanent housing that is "your home" then buy yourself one, but do not force the owner of the property of which you are not on the deed, to have to provide a "permanent home" for you to live.”

Actually, that is exactly the choice in the matter, are you going to “own” the home and be responsible for it, or are you willing to rely on another. That is the choice of the customer and the landlord. It is not coerced. You said:

“The city council needs to protect the property owners and their rights. “

Just understand that the constitution puts property rights as the last one, in effect the country and state puts “life” and “liberty” before “property”. This is one of the biggest errors made regarding the idea that property rights are equal to “life” and “liberty”. You said:

“The city has over reached and took away rights from property owners thru Measure V.”

NO it did not. There has been no authority that stated your claim. Only those with political, and financial interests that opposed it. You said:

“The property owners need their protections as well.”

They do have protections. You said:

“If a rental owner wishes to exit the business and a developer wants to buy and raze the property, then they should have the right to without being punished any further.”

NO one is being punished. It is a business you can leave at any time. But at the same time there is a new law that states that there are non more “net-loss” projects please read this:

The so-called ‘no net loss’ provisions apply when: (1) a site included in the housing element’s inventory of sites; is (2) either rezoned to a lower residential density; or a project is approved at a lower residential density than shown in the housing element. (§ 65863(b).) At present the provision is inapplicable to charter cities (§ 65803), although this is likely to change (see discussion of SB 166 below). There are no published cases interpreting this provision.

“Lower residential density” usually means fewer units than were projected for the site in the city’s housing element. (§ 65863(g)(1).) The provision applies to housing located on any site listed in the city’s housing element, not only to sites designated as suitable for affordable housing. However, if either the city has not adopted a housing element within 90 days of the due date, or the housing element is not in substantial compliance with housing element law within 180 days of the due date, then “lower residential density” is defined as a density less than 80 percent of the maximum residential density permitted on the site. (§ 65863(g)(2).)”

I hope to the new mayor she understands that as of January 1, 2019, the Rock project violates this law and thus the city must reverse its approval of the project.

2 other questions deserve asking, along with "what's better for residents?"
1. What's better for those who want to live in Mountain View?
2. What's better for those who work in mountain view?

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]