What about her little "gaffe" in accidentally emailing stuff about keeping Lenny down? And then lied about it. We don't need any more liars in politics. I think I have had my fill. She is NOT getting my vote.

Plus she is pretty much anti-school funding. Parents, remember that at voting time.

Lisa Matichak who claims she supports "strong" neighborhoods. What neighborhoods are "weak" Lisa Matichak?

Oh the ones with rent controlled apartments, so she worked to accelerate their destruction along with MAK. Thus the state enacted SB330 which requires now any affordable housing that is removed to be replaced with housing in kind in order for a development project to move forward. This was because MAK and LM were "ACTIVISTS" and trying to penalize voters for enacting the CSFRA.

She also simply lied her teeth off with regards to Measure D, which fortunately the citizens of Mountain View did not buy. In fact Measure D failed by a greater tha 2 to 1 ratio.

Voters you make your judgment, it is your right and your choice.

I just received a mailer in support of Lisa Matichak from the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors "Paid for by National Association of Realtors." How do realtors make money?

Gary,

Aren't the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors "Out of Town" ACTIVISTS?

Just curious because you here people like Jose Gutierrez, Margaret Abe Koga, and Lisa Matichak complaining about out of town ACTIVISTS meddling in the City politics?

This Institutionalized ACTIVISM has been going on for decades, right?

Time to purge it out of the City Council for good.

When Lisa Matichak met with members of what later became the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance in 2017, she told us we should just apply to the Rental Housing Committee to get coverage for our residents through CSFRA. But in this Voice Profile, Lisa stated that the CSFRA does not cover mobile homes. She told the reporter that the original ballot statements said coverage merely “could be extended” to mobile homes. But even a cursory examination of the original November 2016 Voter Information Pamphlet shows that is not true.

The original argument for Measure V states that the measure “Allows the creation of similar protections for mobile home residents”. And the original rebuttal to the argument says, “Measure V Allows the Committee to protect mobile home residents”.

We in the Mobile Home Alliance know that over the years, Lisa Matichak has done everything she could to prevent mobile homes from being covered by CSFRA. This Profile by the Voice shows that Lisa is being deliberately deceptive to manipulate voters into re-electing her.

Thanks beelia for the background. I would add that the current city council could have also enacted mobile park rent control by ordinance and placed on the ballot (last March or this November 3) a charter amendment with the same provisions (just to make sure it could not be found to be inconsistent with the CSFRA). But now we see that LISA MATICHAK IS SUPPORTED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS (PAC) that just filed a statement admitting it has already spent over $29,000 for her candidacy so far. Realtors provide valuable services but they make money when mobile homes and immobile homes are SOLD.

"Resident" from "Another Mountain View Neighborhood" wrote: "What about her little "gaffe" in accidentally emailing stuff about keeping Lenny down? And then lied about it."

I saw the emails when that happened. Matichak accidentally broadcast a message mentioning "thwarting" someone; Siegel then publicized it. Frankly the episode didn't reflect well on either of them. But at the time, the context and exact subject of Matichak's message was unknown and undisclosed. She explicitly denied it had been about Siegel.

If "Resident" above knows of public evidence that the vague Matichak message really was about Siegel, and that she "lied" about it, that evidence needs to be cited here.

Otherwise the comment by "Resident" is libelous (not just snarky) and needs removal.

That email stuff seems like a side show. Why are realtors bankrolling Lisa Matichak's campaign?

Gary,

Good Question, one answer:

They want city councils to prevent the affordable housing projects and move forward high-priced exclusive housing.

Thus, only selling the 93 Octane Gas Housing in the area, in effect forcing home buyers to spend more than what “NATURAL” housing markets would go for regarding market equilibrium. Given that the housing situation is so manipulated that there is almost infinite price elasticity the buyers accept because of artificially low interest rates.

Ever since 2007-9 the Fed has tried to return the rates to a normal state. Then the Realtors and the Mortgage people say, “HEY YOU DO THAT AND HOUSNG PRICES WILL FALL”. And then they intentionally start selling homes at lower prices to boot.

And since Property Taxes are initially set at the purchase prices, the City. County, and State has to behave and let it happen or they will see their property tax revenues drop.

Maybe COVID and AB5 have a silver lining, if the contractors need to leave the state, the demand will drop. COVID will continue to encourage the Tech industries continue to relocate their tech workers to work remotely and out of state the demand will continue to drop.

FINALLY, if buyers don’t get conned into buying properties at anywhere near the prices being asked, the prices will really drop.

So, is this a good explanation?