Don't vote for Pat Showalter Her and Lenny Siegel are planning to take Mountain View in the wrong direction again. Enough all ready the tax payers of this city deserve better .

H*ll No!

We love our city, you and Showalther and Siegel do not.

We do not want to expand RV living or tent cities in our town. Please go away.

"The most common reason people become homeless is because they can't afford rent for one reason or another, Showalter said"

Ya think?

We'll just elect a all corporate landlord council. Then the city will be just ripe for the pickings. 100% rent raises a week and double on Thursday. That people try to hold on to there quality of life that mountain view once offered is sad. That you get put out of a home and you move into a van, car or rv. Says alot for the working poor in this city. I hope that all these people that are so willing to make more people homeless hurry up and meet there maker.

Showalter and Siegel; two wrongs that don't make a right!

I will not vote for this candidate. I don't appreciate broken promises.

Is Pat Showalter not Abe-Koga and the anti democratic group that ignored the cannabis referendum? Check

So I will listen to her and make my decision in November. I will vote against all the crowd that subverted democracy, or is for the wrongheaded gas cook top ban.

What is really happening here is that the nature of the City Council is going to change significantly and its not going well for those who are in the pockest of the California Apartment Assoication and the California Association of Realtors.

There are currently 4 Current members that are PRO CAA and CAR, they are Margaret Abe Koga, Lisa Matichak, Chris Clark, and John McAllister. 2 PRO CAA and CAR members of the City Council are required to retire during this election namely Chris Clark and John McAllister, Thus if Pat Showalter takes one of those seats, the CAA and CAR power influence shifts badly on them.

THAT is why you are getting attackers to Pat. Along with the reality that all of the existing City Council Seats up for reelection are backing the Measure D ballot. If Measure D fails, that means that it is likely that these 4 will not get reelected, and probably never run again.

If ALL of these seats get replaced by those NOT backed by the CAA and the CAR, this will drive the CAA and the CAR crazy.

I support Pat and her policies. People seem to think that Pat encouraged RVs to pile up in Mountain View but it's quite the opposite. She actually wants to do things that will help grow housing and prevent homelessness in the first place, instead of doing nothing to fix the cause of the problem but only addressing the symptoms.

We're sending the message to them today. We saw what you did, we think it SUCKS and we're done with developer owned council members.

Abe-Koga and Kamei have been career politicians bowing to whoever hands them the almighty dollar so they can continue being career po0liticians.

Stay out - we don't want you or Lenny

Not sure if another retread council member is the answer though.
We need to get rid of the member who are so cozy with the wallets of the big developers who are ruining this town.

There’s a reason all three incumbents are not on the council. They all did a lousy job and were replaced by three rookies. Her claim that she wants to build enough housing so that her kids can live here is ridiculous. She will say anything to get re-elected.

Wow, instead of providing a solution to the problems the CAA and the CAR made in this city, they will personally attack anyone that challenges their power.

The threat to these peoples bought power must be incredible.

On top of this their portfolios are dying a slow death in the stock market.

The FED knows a lotm ore than just the Coronavirus, the fed has been slowly heating up the pot so that the frog doesn't jump out.

The Fed destroyed 401ks ever since the 2000s because it did not keep the stock market honest, but enabled the largest pump in dump in history by loaning out free cash to corporations so they can buy their own shaeres of stock.

What did that do to Sears, RadioShack, and others, nothing but a slow death.

The Housing market bubble is even worse today than it was in 2007.

This will kill the careers of realtors and rental owners.

If the stock market remains anywhere near this level on March 31, the borrowed money in the stock buyback will need to have either an interest payment or part of it will have to be paid in whole.

The corporations will have to sell enough stock to make the payment. But the stock LOST money, they will sell more than what they buy.

THE FED KNOWS THIS, TRUMP KNOWS THIS, THE CORPORATIONS KNOW THIS.

THIS IS WHY THE CAA AND THE CAR ARE GOING TO CHEAT AND LIE TO KEEP POWER IN MOUNTAIN VIEW.

"The Housing market bubble is even worse today than it was in 2007."
2007 was caused by predatory lending and defaults.
That's not going on today but don't let that stop you from making baseless statements.

In response to Oh...but no you said:

“2007 was caused by predatory lending and defaults.”

I did not make any claim regarding the cause, but if you really want to know:

First, builders saturated the market with luxury housing leaving no available land to provide “affordable” housing.

Second, by ineffiecent use of land that makes it impossible to build any more housing with the remaining land.

Third, that creates a critical shortage of residential land which in effect creates a critical shortage of housing. PROOF: look at the recent story regarding Fannie Mae (Web Link And that is not counting apartments or housing as a whole.

Fourth, people get the idea that by owning a home it will always increase in value, and with RECORD low interest rates, they pay any price they are convinced to spend on it.

Fifth in the short term, the shortage forces prices to go up, but not by the value of the property, but by market manipulation. That does not sustain itself, in the real business world, it eventually must correct itself.

You can use this process on the stock market as well. The FEDS literally are CREATING the PERFECT possible critical failure of capitalism. AND BELIEVE ME I HATE THIS. When the FED starts having NEGATIVE INTREREST RATES, that will be the OFFICIAL END OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM

So by assuming that rthere is only ONE way to have a housing bubble is WRONG.

You said:

“That's not going on today but don't let that stop you from making baseless statements.”

What statements did I just provide to you are BASELESS? Can you show any proof that my observation is not TRUTHFULL? Maybe the readers should do their own research? I am always open to being wrong, but you cannot claim I am BASELESS.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

As a side note, a healthy interest rate will force CAPITALISM to make wise decisions because the cost of loss will be appropriate.

But artificially low interest rates encourages taking increasingly risky bets with even less chances of getting a positive result. Because people use other peoples money to take the bet, and by doing so using a "limited liability enterprise", and if they lose, they will simply shut down leaving everyone paying for the loss.

And at the same time, if they are lucky to win, they expect everyone to pay them a bonus for just getting lucky.

OBVIOUSLY and OF COURSE they are all chum chummy with the people building us into oblivion. That is the payback to them for funding their elections, sacrificing out quality of life.
Thanks Margaret and Ellen!

[Post removed due to excessive and/or excessively long post by same poster]

I will vote for Pat, or any other responsible adult if they are in favor of other responsible adults being able to partake in a substance that is *UNDENIABLY* safer than the alcohol that's already sold all over Mountain View today.

Let's be realistic: no matter what happens, housing in Mountain View will be a nightmare. Every candidate claiming that they can fix it is lying. I'd still like to see things "less worse" rather than more, but it truly doesn't matter who we elect: housing will be impossible in Mountain View regardless.

But it absolutely *does* make a *huge* difference for responsible adult marijuana usage, so this November I'm a single issue voter. End prohibition in Mountain View.

The voters told Pat Showalter she is fired. And the voters will remember she is a flip flopper. She flip flopped on rent control, flip flopped on BRT on El Camino, and she claims to be a housing champion but voted against housing projects while on council---yet, she seems to love those RVs. Enough recycled politicians. Enough flip floppers.

Or - Pat is growing into a responsible representative of the people. I think she is - has. I can attest for her 'personal-political-risk' ability to tackle the housing-commercial imbalance (at This Time workforce housing).

$$ where my mouth is!

Let me see - $1,000 for No on D! I'm getting out my own checkbook, to write Pat Showalter for Council (or whatever) her first big citizen-funded contribution. Maybe - it will start to atone for the bucks I gave to help Lisa M. get elected [before her multi-thousand dollar after-election-day acceptance of apartment owner PAC money, gee]

In response to MtnViewJS you said:

“The voters told Pat Showalter she is fired.”

Classic TRUMP language, did you pay for the copyright rights, you also said:

“And the voters will remember she is a flip flopper.”

YES, there are times where people can CHANGE their minds. Especially when given any information that contradicts their previous opinion.

My favorite episode of Law and Order SVU has Sharon Stone confronting an “expert” in arson with proof that his training was “junk” science. Sometimes people are so overwhelmed by people claiming to know “scientifically” what is the truth, and can be confronted with evidence that disproves it.

Of course, in this case we are talking about the politicization of the “science” of economics. Maybe she discovered she was fed unreliable information and changed her mind? You said:

“She flip flopped on rent control, flip flopped on BRT on El Camino, and she claims to be a housing champion but voted against housing projects while on council---yet, she seems to love those RVs. Enough recycled politicians. Enough flip floppers.”

OK then we should not vote for any incumbent or previously sat candidate. So far we may have only 3 persons running, all already have worked in the City Council. And lets say we really should shake up the City by not electing anyone until the City Charter says that a City Citizen has designated rights under the City Charter.

Look at it yourself, there is no rights to anyone in the City regarding the City itself. The only place where rights are declared in the City Charter (Web Link says this:

“Section 102. - Rights and Liabilities.

The City of Mountain View shall remain vested with, and continue to have, hold and enjoy, all property, rights of property and rights of action of every nature and description now pertaining to this municipality, and is hereby declared to be the successor of the same. It shall be subject to all the liabilities that now exist against this municipality.”

No explicit rights exist for ANYONE in the City of Mountain View Specifically the City Charter states this:

[Portion removed due to excessively long post copying text from another website]

So far no declaration of anyone’s rights, like say the U.S. Constitutions Bill of Rights, or the State of California’s Declaration Of Rights. In reality the City Council does not have the power to recognize any Citizens rights as it is written in the city Charter.

So let’s cease putting anyone in the City Council until this is fixed. We do have that power by simply not voting for anyone, and put a ballot measure on the ballot defining the rights of Citizens into the City Charter.

Matichak is awful and I hope she doesn't get reelected. She is completely unsympathetic to the housing crisis and hostile towards home owners trying to deal with zoning issues. As part of the neighborhoods committee (previously) she had no interest in any neighborhood that wasn't her own.

Pat Showalter has clearly shown that she CANNOT be trusted - so anything she says is suspect. She stood at residents' doors during her run for the Council seat she won two elections ago, and swore that she would NEVER vote to let the VTA take away two lanes on El Camino for their busses. She agreed it would be a nightmare of congestion and spread this gridlock throughout our Mountain View neighborhoods. Then, when elected, she voted FOR letting the VTA have the lanes. Luckily she was outvoted by saner voices on the Council. Voters didn't forget her betrayal, and when she ran for reelection, and she was defeated. It seems she thinks we have forgotten this betrayal, so she is trying again.

Hey Pat... we REMEMBER, and it's still a NO.

In response to Local you said:

“Pat Showalter has clearly shown that she CANNOT be trusted - so anything she says is suspect.”

At least she DID NOT DISGRACE herself when the Santa Clara Democratic Party said it did NOT endorse Measure D. But Margret Abe Koga, Lisa Matichak, Chris Clark and John McAlister mislead the people into thinking the Democratic party supported Measure D seen in this mailing (Web Link THEY KNEW IT WAS MISLEADING AND I HOPE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PULLS ALL SUPPORT AWAY FROM THEM FOREVER. You said

“She stood at residents' doors during her run for the Council seat she won two elections ago, and swore that she would NEVER vote to let the VTA take away two lanes on El Camino for their busses.”

VERY MISLEADING SINCE 2 OTHERS THAT OPPOSED IT AS WELL EVENTUALY VOTED FOR IT FROM THE ARTICLE “El Camino bus plan faces backlash” found here (Web Link saying:

“But after hours of late-night deliberation, Rosenberg, Showalter and Councilman Michael Kasperzak last week gradually came around to signaling support for the BRT proposal”

And:

“In an interview on Wednesday, Rosenberg elaborated on his support for dedicated bus lanes, saying he understood why some Mountain View residents perceived his vote as a policy reversal. Since being elected, he said he reviewed more information and spoke with advocates from VTA and transportation advocacy groups. A major selling point for him, he said, was that bus-only lanes provided a transit solution for those struggling in Mountain View, including residents and workers commuting daily into town.

"I changed my mind on the dedicated lane specifically because I now have a different perspective," Rosenberg said. "You starting thinking to yourself, 'How do you take care of these people?' It's my job not just to support people living in Mountain View but also those who work here."

So nice try in attempting to make Pat look like she went out of her way to deceive anyone, when you know that is NOT TRUE. You said:

“She agreed it would be a nightmare of congestion and spread this gridlock throughout our Mountain View neighborhoods. Then, when elected, she voted FOR letting the VTA have the lanes. Luckily she was outvoted by saner voices on the Council.”

SANER MAYBE, BUT DECEPTIVE, CONNIVING AND DISLOYAL TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS WELL You said:

“Voters didn't forget her betrayal, and when she ran for reelection, and she was defeated. It seems she thinks we have forgotten this betrayal, so she is trying again.”
[Portion removed due to excessive use of all-caps]

To: The Business Man-
You DO understand that we are not posting here to you, specifically, right? I am so very weary of you thinking you moderate these posts and feel you are expected to respond to every post. There is a posting rule that prohibits "over posting" and I definitely believe you qualify for that category.
I know you have a lot of time on your hands, but perhaps you could go volunteer somewhere where you could do some good?
I see your name, and just skip your lengthy word-salad posts. Give it a rest, okay?

In response to Local and anyone else it may concern you said:

“You DO understand that we are not posting here to you, specifically, right?”

YES I DO, But I AM REBUTTING YOUR SPECIFICA POSTING You said:

“I am so very weary of you thinking you moderate these posts and feel you are expected to respond to every post. There is a posting rule that prohibits "over posting" and I definitely believe you qualify for that category.”

I am allowed to respond to any posting as long as it is based on objective facts and I do not violate the erms and conditions of the website. In my history of 8 years I mave have crossed that line maybe 6 times, and apologized publically for it. You said:

“I know you have a lot of time on your hands, but perhaps you could go volunteer somewhere where you could do some good?”

MY “GOOD” IS TO REBUT POOR ARGUMENTS MADE AND DISPROVE THEM BEFORE THE PEOPLE SIMPLY ASSUME THEM AS FACT. You said:

“I see your name, and just skip your lengthy word-salad posts. Give it a rest, okay?”

Your right to do so, but given that Measure D failed 2 to 1 in the last election, I will conservatively claim I was at least responsible for 3% of the No votes because I do not allow misinformation to go unchallenged.