These are a great set of candidates who can really take Mountain View forward. They will listen to residents, especially the most vulnerable and marginalized members of our community. They will be a voice for our community's interests in regional and state decisions too! I am excited to see what our community can do with strong leadership from these excellent choices.

Please vote Yes on measure C! And please do not vote for Lenny Siegel and Pat Showalter. They are in favor of RVs having a place on every street in Mountain View. It’s ironic that Lenny lives on a street where you can not have a RV because it’s too narrow. I’d have more respect for him if he allowed a family to house their RV in his driveway.

Wow, I assumed you'd go with the incumbents. Thank you for stepping back and taking a careful look at all the candidates. Good analysis.

Mountain View has a history of being a mix - from large single family homes to older apartments where service workers can afford rent. With their willingness to weaken rent control and do the bidding of the California Apartment Association, Abe-Koga, Matichak and Gutierrez show that they don't mind at all if working families are pushed away. Yuck.

The Voice got it right! Nunez, Lieber, Siegel and Showalter all care about keeping Mountain View a place where both the well off and lower income working families can make a home.

What a wonderful slate of candidates for a Mountain View we can all be proud of. Great job, Mountain View Voice! Mountain View can be a caring place that serves all of its residents — with elected leaders who will take appropriate action. Go Lieber, Showalter, Nunez, and Siegel!!

In response to Peter you said:

“Please vote Yes on measure C!”

WHY? When the City itself is the most dangerous part of public health and is trying to use RV’s as a excuse for their failures You can read the following news report “Lawsuits against Mountain View and Sunnyvale allege sewage water leaking into creeks and Bay” found here (Web Link

“The Mountain View suit alleges that the city's old sewage system, mostly made up of breakable clay pipes, has leaks that have released bacteria found in human feces into the city's stormwater drainage system. From that system, the bacteria are being discharged into Stevens Creek and other bodies of water that feed into the Bay.

The pollution has been going since at least 2014, according to a state study that identified the water as polluted, said Sejal Choksi-Chugh, Baykeeper's executive director.

Eighty-nine percent of the sewage system is made up of clay pipes, which are susceptible to cracking and breaking, the suit claims. The sewage system is also aging: at least 26% of it is more than 60 years old, and at least 57% is more than 20 years old. More than a third of the system doesn't have a recorded age.”

This has been the whole misdirection campaign. If they can get voters to believe that RV’s are a public health danger, WHEN IN FACT THE CITY IS. You also stated:

“And please do not vote for Lenny Siegel and Pat Showalter. They are in favor of RVs having a place on every street in Mountain View. It’s ironic that Lenny lives on a street where you can not have a RV because it’s too narrow. I’d have more respect for him if he allowed a family to house their RV in his driveway.”

The reality is that this is just a distraction because the cost of MILLIONS of dollars to have to repair and refurbish the public sewage system.

Please read the story and do your own homework, you will find this RV attack was based on information from MISMANAGEMENT of the CITY’S SEWER SYSTEM.

Why should we elect Jose Guttirez, Margeret Abe Koga or Lisa Matichak?

Let’s keep the city in the hands of corporate “activists” like Jose Gutierrez, Margaret Abe Koga and Lisa Matichak that have lied about the Measure D which died in the last election. Or they abused their position by targeting residents to remove their homes simply because they are not “worthy” enough to have a home here. They made the state create a new law called SB330 the HOUSING CRISIS ACT OF 2019, because City Council members like these were punishing their voters for passing the CSFRA. These three only have the California Association of Realtors and the California Apartment Associations interests in mind and NOT the ENTIRE CITY.

Again voters do your homework and vote for the candidates you know will best serve you?

Voice is out of touch with residents, endorsing two candidates who were soundly voted out. Believe it or not, there are City issues other than rent control (which, by the way, has already been decided).

Abe-Koga, Matichek, Gutierrez, + ?

I'm deeply opposed to RVs parked on our streets and that is precisely why I'm voting for… Sally Lieber, Pat Showalter, Alex Nunez and Lenny Siegel, and against Measure C. Because the actual solution isn't a ban, it is to have and implement a plan. A plan which boldly tackles the actual underlying issues that cause people to need to house their families in RVs instead of affordable homes. Measure C is just the NIMBY version of Trump's border wall. Let's vote for people who can actually provide genuine leadership instead of sweeping the problem away.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Local

I agree with you on your comment

Sorry if it proves that the LIKES here do not reflect the public at all. It has been manipulated by many like yourself in the same way.

Again, the LIKE function should be secured. Just look at the posts made by Peter and many others. This is a SOCIAL network with no security so it is used like Facebook and Twitter, and YouTube in just the same way.

So many that it became a national issue regarding the last election, and they are still tying to figure out what to do about it.

I for one am for fact checking every post, even mine, so that the people here are not CONNED by unfounded statements like yours.

I WANT THE VOTERS TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK AND MAKE UP THEIR OWN MIND TOO.

But this platform is not a secured one, and many have abused it, until it is secured, the LIKE function does not represent anything but fiction.

For sure don’t vote for these 4 unless you want more construction crowding up our village and more trailers parked on the Street. Look at the other candidates a pick one, vote for one person and which makes them harder to be defeated

I plan to vote for only two candidates for city council. My choice does not include any of this "recommended" group.

You agree with me? and then you say my comment is unfounded? How does that make sense? Give it a rest, Goldstein... you and your troop of fakes aren't even amusing anymore, you are just a sad pack of people frantic for recognition.

You give yourselves over 100 "likes" in an hour? I know you said you have your friends upvote you - but I doubt you have 100 friends all of a sudden. You must have figured out how to manipulate "likes" recently, as your former posts were surprising if you got more than three. I suggest you find a way to be more productive in society.

In response to Rodger you said:

“For sure don’t vote for these 4 unless you want more construction crowding up our village and more trailers parked on the Street. Look at the other candidates a pick one, vote for one person and which makes them harder to be defeated.”

Lets do som quantitative analysis here:

Per the Mountain View Wikipedia website the City of Mountain View found here (Web Link consists of 11.96 Sq Miles. However the amount of residential zones in the city is about 40% of that land, and about 12.5% of that is taken up by roads and other functions, so we have 35% of the land being for residential use. That comes to 4.2 Sq Miles. Or if you multiply that by 640 you get 2,680 acres.

Let’s look at our population which is about 84,000 people, you can divide that by 3 to establish how many units we would need which comes to 28,000 units. Now lets say these are all SFU and they use an average of .2 acres, then you need 5,600 acres of residential land.

A deficit of 2,920 acres. Now lets then look at the total acreage of the City which is 11.96 time 640 which comes to 7,655 acres. You see the problem here? The REALITY is that the city doesn’t have the land possible to avoid apartments or multifamily units.

Now you can argue that we should just let the excess people move out to only support the market, that would be an eviction of 2,920 acres times 4 time 3 or 35,051 people.

Is that rational?

In response to Seriously you said:

“I plan to vote for only two candidates for city council. My choice does not include any of this "recommended" group.”

Your choice, and I respect and appreciate it.

In response to to Goldstein you said:

“You agree with me? and then you say my comment is unfounded? How does that make sense? Give it a rest, Goldstein... you and your troop of fakes aren't even amusing anymore, you are just a sad pack of people frantic for recognition.”

First WHO are you, your posting name above was “LOCAL:”, a fictitious and anonymous poster. If you want to call us “fake” then you give us your real name? Your approach to just try to personally insult another group of people does not win you an arguments, like it really hasn’t with Donald Trump, by the way how sick is he? You said:

“You give yourselves over 100 "likes" in an hour? I know you said you have your friends upvote you - but I doubt you have 100 friends all of a sudden. You must have figured out how to manipulate "likes" recently, as your former posts were surprising if you got more than three. I suggest you find a way to be more productive in society.”

Again, your only argument regarding the topic is personal insults, fine, see how far that gets on election day. I am going to wait patiently.

The Voice also endorsed Siegel and Showalter in their last re-election bid several years ago. The voters threw their bottoms out of office for very good reasons. Voters kicking out incumbents rarely-if ever-happens in our city. The Voice has always been out of touch with our residents in our city. Perhaps if the editorial board from the Voice would live in our city, they would endorse different people.

Siegel is a pomp-ass, arrogant, self centered individual who only views himself as the one with the correct views on the issues. He routinely chastised, from the Dias, public citizens for speaking out and disagreeing with him on issues. Showalter turned into a Siegel puppet while they were on the council, that was very clear from watching those two.

We will be stepping back by electing those 2 back onto the council.
Siegel wanted to open up more areas in the city so we can have more RV's come to our city and live from the tax payer supported services that is being provided for them. Tent cities will not be far behind.

Nunez is nothing but a pure activist with no experience or qualifications for him to hold a city council seat.

Mountain View can do better than this list. Do not consider other activist unless you like their policy's and what has happened to other cities like Portland, Seattle. Do you want Mtn.View to be like Portland? Remember, the city council in those cities, activists, ordered the police to not stop the violence that has been happening every night. Do you want that here?

The MV Voice endorsements look good to me. Most especially, I want to vote out the current encumbents. Besides their attempts to undermine rent control, I haven't forgotten that they flouted the will of MV voters, and previous commitments, by banning cannabis storefronts in MV.

In response to Gladys you said:

“The Voice also endorsed Siegel and Showalter in their last re-election bid several years ago. The voters threw their bottoms out of office for very good reasons. Voters kicking out incumbents rarely-if ever-happens in our city. The Voice has always been out of touch with our residents in our city. Perhaps if the editorial board from the Voice would live in our city, they would endorse different people.”

Well, we will learn regarding the results of THIS election won’t we? You said

“Siegel is a pomp-ass, arrogant, self centered individual who only views himself as the one with the correct views on the issues. He routinely chastised, from the Dias, public citizens for speaking out and disagreeing with him on issues. Showalter turned into a Siegel puppet while they were on the council, that was very clear from watching those two.”

Personal attacks much? Please you have to have some unbiased research that makes them not good choices other than your ranting and raving? You said:

“We will be stepping back by electing those 2 back onto the council.

Siegel wanted to open up more areas in the city so we can have more RV's come to our city and live from the tax payer supported services that is being provided for them. Tent cities will not be far behind.”

Maybe TENT cities will grow, but it will not be because of the City Council, it will be tenants being evicted during the worst job situation since the Great Depression, ESPECIALLY if the GOP cannot get their act together and pass an economic life support bill. You said:

“Nunez is nothing but a pure activist with no experience or qualifications for him to hold a city council seat.”

HOWEVER, he succeeded in getting an AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER TO PASS. He followed a VERY complicate set of procedures showing excellence in understanding the way the Government works, unlike those you supported. They LOST on Measure D with a vote ratio of more than 2 to 1. Doesn’t that mean he is an effective leader for the entire CITY not just the CAR and the CAA. You said:

[Post shortened due to excessive length]

Mountain View Voice welcomes you to the new Mountain View, modeled after the Republic of Berkeley.

[Post removed due to same user posting using multiple names]

Sorry, I forgot to delete my old logon:

In response to Zed,

Oh didn't you remember, the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, California is a REPUBLIC. Santa Clara County is a REPUBLIC. And even the City of Mountain View is a REPUBLIC already.

So, what is your point?

[Post removed due to being off-topic].

I have seen groups of flyers at doorsteps - suggesting joint literature drops. No law against it. Usually when candidates are endorsed, they prepare a mailer or flyer including a reference to the endorsement. The editorial is this instance is well-written. It lacks appeal to some homeowners. But it may be good enough to distribute. Maybe the 4 endorsees will distribute it in a joint effort.

Terrible city council endorsements from the Voice! Those four recommended candidates are the exact four I will not vote for. By this endorsement the Voice is completely ignoring the long term residents who appreciate and value our neighborhoods.

Hooray for Mountain View Voice for endorsing these 4 candidates. Their vision and policies are clear, their expertise confirmed, and their honesty most welcomed!

Benemonios, who is a resident of Blossom Valley, not Mountain View, claims to speak for long-term residents of Mountain View. I am a long-term resident (more than 20 years at my current address and many more years at other MV addresses), and I wholeheartedly support the Voice's endorsements.

If I am mistaken about Blossom Valley, I apologize. Google showed it as being in San Jose.

I have not seen or heard that any of the 4 candidates endorsed by the Voice (editorial board) want to attract to Mountain View city streets persons or families living in RVs or other vehicles. The issue for these 4 seems to be what to do. They all disfavor one of the 2 ordinances passed last year by the City Council. One ordinance prohibits parking in or inside bike lanes. The other - challenged by a referendum petition signing by many voters - bans parking of large vehicles and trailers (and boats) on city streets based on width of the street (40 feet). That is now Measure C. If approved, it would ban such things from being parked on most city streets and would apply even to adjacent homeowners. It could push persons living in such vehicles and trailers to other wider streets. So the debate seems to be over the solution and not the objective - except perhaps that - for some candidates - having and showing compassion is properly part of the objective.

In response to Gary,

Thank you very much.

What is REALLY happening in Mountain View?

Class warfare pure and simple. The other candidates namely Jose Gutierrez, Margaret Abe Koga, and Lisa Matichak are wanting to change the city into a place where only those with incomes moderate, or above moderate are allowed to live here. They figure the “servants” that make the city a good place to live should commute or “take the bus” to their work.

Given the fact that Microsoft is now going into more PERMANAT work from home seen here from Forbes (Web Link That now means 2 of the largest employment pools of Mountain View are now going to not have to be in the office for their work. That means another significant permanent loss of local business activities.

The systemic DECENTRALIZATION of work performed in the City and Santa Clara County is getting so large and yet these three think it is just a small short term event. The REALITY is that as the regions workforces disperse, the very idea that any city can be segregating itself based on class will collapse that city.

The only way to confront this is to diversify its economic support, and in this case transition to a higher percentage of residential delegated land and start shrinking commercial and industrial zones. But these three don’t have a clue what’s coming.

@Local,

I am glad that you, and others, have noticed that someone is manipulating-over-spam posting the "likes" for these pro-activist council candidates posts. It has been happening for the past several weeks. No one can get 72 instant likes. It just shows the dishonesty from people to try and influence and deceive voters opinion on how to make their vote.

It reminds me of the last time Lenny Siegel ran for re-election while he was on the city council. His 40 year long time and close friend of Jobe Lopez went out and stole, defaced, and wrote vulgar language on other council candidates opponents signs of Lenny Siegel. Lenny Siegel had Jobe Lopez listed on his campaign website. Lopez did this, in effect, to silence other council candidates, all in an attempt to try and influence voters to think that Siegel is supported by the residents of our city and not the other candidates.

Jobe Lopez was caught with video evidence showing his vandalism in the act. His picture surfaced in a different newspaper long before the Voice was forced to report on it. Lopez made a plea deal with the District Attorney and paid a fine and did community service. You had the "Business Man" the whole time defend Lopez, saying the picture is not him, and the plea deal that he made was not an omission of guilt but he wanted to settle the case. The "BM" person is dishonest, now he goes by the name of "SG"

If the Voice had wanted to do honest reporting for our residents in deciding which candidates to support for council, they should have written a story about why the residents voted out of office Siegel and Showalter the last time.

We know what kind of council members they where, we have their record and what their behavior was to the residents. 4 years is a long time to return bad people to the council before you can vote them out again.

Amazing, I am shocked. In our household (4 voters) we voted on the 5th/6th and essentially voted this slate (15 of 16 votes). I never expected the Voice to come to the same assessment. We voted primarily because though none of us would profit from or use a dispensary, the actions of the incumbents were antidemocratic.

Side note: In the days of mail in voting you need to endorse earlier.

In response to Gladys you said:

“I am glad that you, and others, have noticed that someone is manipulating-over-spam posting the "likes" for these pro-activist council candidates posts. It has been happening for the past several weeks. No one can get 72 instant likes. It just shows the dishonesty from people to try and influence and deceive voters opinion on how to make their vote.”

I find it funny you single me out, many others here are getting g the same or higher likes than me. It just seems your taking it personally. The LIKES do not influence votes at all, it is nothing but a "social network" and nothing more. Talking about being deceptive? You said:

“It reminds me of the last time Lenny Siegel ran for re-election while he was on the city council. His 40 year long time and close friend of Jobe Lopez went out and stole, defaced, and wrote vulgar language on other council candidates opponents signs of Lenny Siegel. Lenny Siegel had Jobe Lopez listed on his campaign website. Lopez did this, in effect, to silence other council candidates, all in an attempt to try and influence voters to think that Siegel is supported by the residents of our city and not the other candidates.

Jobe Lopez was caught with video evidence showing his vandalism in the act. His picture surfaced in a different newspaper long before the Voice was forced to report on it. Lopez made a plea deal with the District Attorney and paid a fine and did community service. You had the "Business Man" the whole time defend Lopez, saying the picture is not him, and the plea deal that he made was not an omission of guilt but he wanted to settle the case. The "BM" person is dishonest, now he goes by the name of "SG"”

WOW, now I agree that Jobe’s conduct was unacceptable. But what is EQUALLY or WORSE is personally attacking a DEAD MAN who cannot speak because he is DEAD! This is the reality of people like Gladys, they believe in the SCORCHED EARTH logic, if they can’t win on the issues, THEY TRY TO DENIGRATE THE OPPOSITION. This clearly is not what voter believe in I HOPE. You said:

“If the Voice had wanted to do honest reporting for our residents in deciding which candidates to support for council, they should have written a story about why the residents voted out of office Siegel and Showalter the last time.”

Why don’t you open up a website and publish your own report? This is your First Amendment Right. But at the same time the MV Voice has limited funds and resources so it reports the most important topics that impact the entire City You said:

“We know what kind of council members they where, we have their record and what their behavior was to the residents. 4 years is a long time to return bad people to the council before you can vote them out again.”

WOW, you really have a personal grudge against anyone that doesn’t agree with you. Why can’t you respectfully disagree, instead you label them as “BAD PEOPLE”. This is a “code” language inspired by Donald Trump to try to influence people into voting against their own interests. The readers clearly I hope do not let an anonymous poster influence their judgement. I don’t.

VOTER I implore you to make up your own mind and VOTE.

[Post removed due to being off-topic]

A news story that involved an election to our city council, and the same council candidate is running again.

Job Lopez, Political sign vandal to pay homeowner $1,000
Link here,
Web Link

As I said, this event is similar to what is going on now, with one individual trying to manipulate voters into thinking that the majority of people support these 4 candidates in the story by having one person doing hundreds of "Likes" on each pro activist posts.

Many people have heard that Lenny Siegel had his coalition members sign up these RV dwellers in our city, to be registered to vote in this election.
Does anyone see a Quid Pro Quo here?
Vote for me and your RV's are welcome here, forever.

In response to Gladys you wrote:

“A news story that involved an election to our city council, and the same council candidate is running again.

Job Lopez, Political sign vandal to pay homeowner $1,000”

Again, you are attacking a DEAD MAN! And more importantly you have NO EVIDENCE of any involvement with Lenny Seigel. Jobe cannot explain that Lenny had not part in it. And I suspect he would tell you himself given he did not argue the charge, he plead no contest. You are just making accusations with NO PROOF! You went on to say:

“As I said, this event is similar to what is going on now, with one individual trying to manipulate voters into thinking that the majority of people support these 4 candidates in the story by having one person doing hundreds of "Likes" on each pro activist posts.”

The LIKE function is not a reflection of voters or a scientific polling mechanism. IT IS SIMPLY A SOCIAL NETWORK. It does not INFLUENCE VOTING AT ALL. You are just upset that it is being proven to be a joke of a function. You said:

“Many people have heard that Lenny Siegel had his coalition members sign up these RV dwellers in our city, to be registered to vote in this election.”

Again you make a serious error of statement here because a person is eligible to vote under the following state requirements (Web Link

“Who can register to vote?

To register to vote in California, you must be:

A United States citizen and a resident of California, 18 years old or older on Election Day, Not currently in state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony (for more information, please see Voting Rights: Persons with a Criminal History), and Not prohibited from voting by a court because of mental incompetency (for more information, please see Voting Rights: Persons Subject to Conservatorship).

How do I register to vote?

To register to vote you must complete a voter registration application on paper or online at RegisterToVote.ca.gov. When you register online, the system will search the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) database for your California driver license or identification card number, date of birth, and last four digits of your social security number. If your information is found and you authorize elections officials' use of your DMV signature, an electronic image of your DMV signature will be added to your voter registration application after you click "submit" at the end of the online application. If there is no signature on file with DMV, all of your information will be transmitted to your county elections office; you will just need to click "print," sign the paper application, and mail it. Your county elections official will contact you when your voter registration application is approved or if more information is needed to confirm your eligibility.”

Even if Lenny provided any “advice” to register to vote, it is their right to do so in any case, there is nothing wrong here and you know it. You said:

“Does anyone see a Quid Pro Quo here?”

You don’t have any connection to establish a QUID PRO QUO because Lenny simply provide information of anyone’s rights, it is not a “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.” There is no favor or advantage in the matter. Because it was always the VOTERS right to VOTE. You know this. As far as:

“Vote for me and your RV's are welcome here, forever.”

That is a SEPARATE issue in this election called Measure C, if it is rejected it lost independent of Lenny Seigel.

I think my favorite part of this newspaper comments section is the cadre of Matichak and Abe-Koga supporters who are absolutely obsessed with Lenny Siegel. Those two candidates have egged on and encouraged their supporters for years (remember Matichak asking her supporters how to "thwart him"?), and now basically every article here has an unhinged rant about him.

Why won't they disavow the behavior of their online supporters?

@Gladys (whoever you are)
Job Lopez was a good man. If you had come to his funeral, you would have learned about his selflessness and dedication.
I knew him because our daughters grew up together at Landels School. I often tell the story about how a part-African-American girl and half-Mexican girl thought they looked like twins.
I was mayor when the sign defacement happened. I condemned it from the dais long before we knew that Job was involved.
When I recognized his photo, I told him that doing anything to opponents' signs was wrong. I was prepared to encourage him to turn himself in, but by then he had already talked to the police.
I can understand why Job, knowing the suffering of many fellow immigrants, did what he did. But he was wrong.

@Lenny S,

You had no problems not only mocking public citizens speaking out at the council meetings, you openly mocked sitting council members, like McAlister, past members like Tom Means and John Inks. Mountain View deserves better than to have such a divisive person back onto the council, that's you.

Your behavior towards other people leaves no doubt in my mind that you knew what Lopez did, and if there would have been a fly on the wall listening to your 40 year long close friend Lopez and you talking, you would have said 10 times worse things about people in our community.

Lopez was listed as a key supporter on your website. I bring up the past and facts. It makes no difference if the person has passed today, alive or dead, everyone needs to accept responsibility for what they did. That is not being disrespectful. I see a similar situation now with Steven G. posting hundreds of spam "Likes" on these pro activist posts. Just another person trying to influence this election and I am pointing it out.

You are responsible for getting on the ballot this measure to repeal the narrow street parking ban for RV's. You do not have the common sense to see how dangerous it is to have these big-over sized vehicle's parking on very narrow streets, less than 40 feet wide. You do not deserve to be seated on the council again.

Voters, just say NO to KING LENNY.

@Gladys -- I don't know a Gladys from Old MV, but the inside information on Council and unhealthy obsession with Lenny and Job Lopez (WHO IS DEAD) really sounds like someone else in Old MV that I do know

If this is the type of thoughts that persons leading our city also share, then im even more appalled than i was before.

In response to Gladys that said:

“You had no problems not only mocking public citizens speaking out at the council meetings, you openly mocked sitting council members, like McAlister, past members like Tom Means and John Inks. Mountain View deserves better than to have such a divisive person back onto the council, that's you.”

Sounds like another Trumpian sound bite without ANY evidence to prove it. Please send us a link with the City Council meeting and the time mark that demonstrates proof of the baseless allegation? You said:

“Your behavior towards other people leaves no doubt in my mind that you knew what Lopez did, and if there would have been a fly on the wall listening to your 40 year long close friend Lopez and you talking, you would have said 10 times worse things about people in our community.”

Again I REPEAT, your making nothing but personal allegations where you have no video demonstrating this argument. When are you going to stop trying to insult everyone and start conversing with some real information? You said:

“Lopez was listed as a key supporter on your website. I bring up the past and facts. It makes no difference if the person has passed today, alive or dead, everyone needs to accept responsibility for what they did. That is not being disrespectful. I see a similar situation now with Steven G. posting hundreds of spam "Likes" on these pro activist posts. Just another person trying to influence this election and I am pointing it out.”

Gladys, No one here can “influence” the election except the voters. But your arguments are not doing any good if your trying to as Carnegie would say “Make Friends and Influence People”. You seem to be demonstrating how to “Make enemies and Alienate Everyone”? You said:

“You are responsible for getting on the ballot this measure to repeal the narrow street parking ban for RV's. You do not have the common sense to see how dangerous it is to have these big-over sized vehicle's parking on very narrow streets, less than 40 feet wide. You do not deserve to be seated on the council again.”

He simply gave the voters the right to determine the policy, which is the ultimate power being we are a REPUBLIC. Nothing wrong with tat in my humble opinion, and lets let the voters make up their mind. Instead of getting constantly berated and insulted by some anonymous poster.

@Gladys
I have no problem debating Measure C or any other city policy, but I am politely asking you now to desist from your continuing libel of me and secondly, to identify yourself so people can consider why you are so obsessed with this unfortunate episode.

@Lenny S,

You are yet demonstrating again how you have always conducted yourself, and continue to do so, and why you should not be returned to the council. Threatening people always works well when you are asking people for their votes.

If the truth offends you, go ahead and send your members of your "Housing Coalition" to come and intimidate me. Just as they do with council members when an issue comes before them and you do not agree with the way they are going to vote.

You are running for council again, your record is what it is. If you wish for me to stop commenting about your record, then drop out of the race today.

I hope one day Abe-Koga and Matichak make a statement on the toxicity of their supporters.

Until then, however, keep up the good work, Gladys! You're definitely coming off as cool and level-headed, not at all unhinged.

A candidate rarely controls his or her "supporters."

Lenny Siegel was the first online (that I remember) to criticize the defacing of campaign signs promoting Libertarian John Inks in 2018. Mr. Siegel noted that the action was not only wrong but could yield sympathy votes for John Inks

Mr. Inks finished last in the 2018 City Council election. He had finished 6th in the 2016 primary for state Assembly with 4.2% of the primary vote. Most voters do not have a good impression of Libertarians- although many probably would agree with basic Libertarian principles.

Whether Mr. Lopez got John Inks more or fewer votes is unknown - but it did not matter for John's City Council election bid in 2018.

On the other hand, the incident may have cost Lenny Siegel some votes - but not legitimately so. And raising it now is just plain silly.

In response to Gladysv who wrote:

“You are yet demonstrating again how you have always conducted yourself, and continue to do so, and why you should not be returned to the council. Threatening people always works well when you are asking people for their votes.”

Gladys, here is a reality check, Libel IS any published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation, a written defamation. Lenny has the right to make that claim given you have made so many unsubstantiated statements on the MV Voice stories I lost count. You said:

“If the truth offends you, go ahead and send your members of your "Housing Coalition" to come and intimidate me. Just as they do with council members when an issue comes before them and you do not agree with the way they are going to vote.”

If you are charged with Libel, you WILL have to PROVE your truth. NO ONE IS INTIMIDATING YOU. For example, if the people “LIKE” a comment, that is NOT INTIMIDATION. Providing a counter argument to an unsubstantiated claim is NOT INTIMIDATION. Proving a false claim is NOT IMTIMIDATION. Establishing that other candidates have cause serious harm to the City is NOT INTIMIDATION.

What it is, is that you cannot tolerate any opposition, and the mere existence of it you cannot stand. Thus, you then try to PLAY THE VICTIM? You make another false claim that you are being mistreated unfairly. You are the perfect example of “crying fire in a crowded theater” when there is no fire at all.

This does REMIND me of behaviors of those with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but I can’t diagnose that because I am just a lay person and not a professional therapist and you haven’t allowed me to examine you. You finally said:

“You are running for council again, your record is what it is. If you wish for me to stop commenting about your record, then drop out of the race today.”

Unfortunately for you, your continued behavior could warrant an investigation into your identification, the MV Voice cannot block any cyber investigation when a valid claim of Libel is found. You better have PROOF of everything you wrote because you will have to present it to defend yourself if such an investigation does occur.

I believe in recycling, but this is not what I had in mind.

Margaret Abe-Koga, Lisa Matichak and Jose Gutierrrez evidently have engaged in a joint campaign from day one. Matichak is also receiving support from the National Association of Realtors - for undisclosed reasons. All three candidates have been endorsed by the city firefighters UNION. Political support for financial support. Firefighters do things I wouldn't and are appreciated. So are police officers. But money does not grow on trees.

It now appears (as of October 11) that candidates Sally Lieber, Pat Showalter, Alex Nunez and Lenny Siegel may be doing a joint literature drop. Good idea. Mountain View is too big for separate drops. And the fewer visits to front doors in a pandemic - the better.

Three of these four candidates have been elected before. I am not an expert on what voters want to see. But pictures of smiling candidates in self-serving advertisements using BUZZWORDS and GENERALITIES do not seem especially useful to me.

This October 9 VOICE editorial is more specific about what the four candidates endorsed could bring to the City Council. Voters face a long ballot This editorial may persuade far more voters than colorful campaign pieces and signs.

How many voters will ever see this editorial with the VOICE now only online? That is the question that may determine the outcome of the city council race.

In response to Gary you wrote:

“Margaret Abe-Koga, Lisa Matichak and Jose Gutierrrez evidently have engaged in a joint campaign from day one. Matichak is also receiving support from the National Association of Realtors - for undisclosed reasons. All three candidates have been endorsed by the city firefighters UNION. Political support for financial support. Firefighters do things I wouldn't and are appreciated. So are police officers. But money does not grow on trees.”

What I find amazing is that JG, MAK, and LM have been waging a political and economic war against the Citizen of Mountain View they deem as unworthy to be citizens here.

I am sick an tired of the National Association of Realtors, the California Association of Realtors, the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, and the California Apartment association buying and using local politics to push the citizens around, The VOTERS have the power if they choose to use it. I agree:

“How many voters will ever see this editorial with the VOICE now only online? That is the question that may determine the outcome of the city council race.”

Too bad that the paper is not published on paper now, it would surely have a major impact on the election

So the answer Steven is that the 4 candidates need to put out the editorial with their flyers.

Gary,

YOUR A GENIUS!

5,500 views of this editorial might be half that many people. There are 35,000 registered voters in Mountain View. If these 4 Voice-endorsed candidates cannot agree to jointly put out the editorial to all registered or likely voters, it could cost them seats on the council.

Gary,

Yes, one person can look at the page as many as 100 times.

So the views are not unique ones.

The candidates really do need to print out the story and include a copy with their "drop off", but they can divide the cost by 4 for each one.

This way is perfectly legal and ethical since the newspaper was free to read anyway by the public.

I have to admit, it was unexpected to see the Voice endorse 4 non-incumbents, but I think they really chose wisely. And if you stop to think about it, 3 of the 4 they endorsed have already been on council and represented our City well in their year as Mayor. I support their endorsements.

For years, there has been an outsized conservative tilt to the commenters here on Town Square. If there is a candidate or an actual councilmember who shows an ounce of compassion for those experiencing tough economic times or are victims of jingoistic national policies implemented by the Trump administration, comments here have been swift and unkind. At times, they’ve been outright rude. First amendment rights aside, you don’t have to be mean when voicing your opinion. I know our nation is divided right now, but decency and decorum still have a place in our conversations.

In 2014, while I was a candidate, outside money spent money to help me get elected. It was uncomfortable, it wasn’t asked for, and I didn’t welcome the help. And I publicly disavowed it. But in that election, they weren’t helping only me. In this election, Lisa Matichak has been the chosen one for the development community. They are spending more than $29,000 to help her retain her seat. If she’s following the voluntary spending limits, they are spending more than her. Has she publicly disavowed it? Although I don’t agree with everything she stands for, I can imagine she is feeling like I did at the time. But one has to wonder why they are spending that kind of money to help her. What do they expect in return? I’m assuming a continued tough stance against rent control. That would be important to them. I’m confident that’s why they supported me at the time. I didn’t like rent control and didn’t support it from the dais. But that issue went to the voters and my stance was proven wrong. As an elected official, it was then my job to support what the people wanted. So I tried to vote in favor of things that would make that law better.

Best I can tell, Lisa and Margaret Abe Koga are still intent on rolling it back, not supporting it. And their solution to the RVs parking on our streets is to make them go away, whereas the solutions that the four endorsed candidates offer are ones to make it so people don’t have to live in their vehicles. In my opinion, one side feels compassionate while the other heartless. Vote accordingly.

For the record, I wish the MVPD and MVFD would get out of the endorsement game. Once someone becomes a councilmember, they control the purse strings for these departments. The conflict of interest in these endorsements are through the roof. And it places those who win a seat, but didn’t get the endorsement in an awkward position. No, a City funded department should not be endorsing and making it appear that one candidate has a higher value of public safety than another. That’s not a reality, when every councilmember I’ve ever spoken with thinks our Police and Fire departments are top notch and first rate…and want to keep them that way.

I always thought the only endorsement that mattered for a MV candidate was that of its local newspaper. Through that lens, I am so happy the Voice endorsed who they did. Now it’s up to you voters. How shall Mountain View be governed for the next 2 years?

Fire houses and Police station / public pickets / KEEP YOUR UNION $$ OUT OF OUR ELECTION

As I recall, the “compassionate” former city council members did very little to actually help RV residents, beyond a failed voucher program to empty waste from their tanks, a tiny church based “Lots of Love” Program for up to four vehicles (cars, not RVs), and maybe the start of a tiny, expensive safe parking That finally opened a month ago.. The new board open two large safe parking facilities and enacted a measure clearing bike lanes, which had the added benefit of freeing Eagle Park. As they say, “talk is cheap.” For all the name calling on both sides, the current board has actually done a lot more than Mr Rosenberg’s crowd.

In response to MV neighbor you wrote:

“As I recall, the “compassionate” former city council members did very little to actually help RV residents, beyond a failed voucher program to empty waste from their tanks, a tiny church based “Lots of Love” Program for up to four vehicles (cars, not RVs), and maybe the start of a tiny, expensive safe parking That finally opened a month ago..”

However you didn’t have Jose Gutierrez, Margaret Abe Koga and Lisa Matichak purposely deceiving the voters to try to pass Measure D. The previous City Council would not dare try to pull this stunt. Is THIS “compassionate”?

Also the previous City Council would not target people to exile simply because they lived in rent controlled units like MAK and LM. In fact thatCity Council listened to the citizens and enacted the eviction protections under CSFRA uner a emergency order to PREVENT widespread abuse of teants and exil of Mountain View Citizens. So far as saying:

“The new board open two large safe parking facilities and enacted a measure clearing bike lanes, which had the added benefit of freeing Eagle Park. As they say, “talk is cheap.” For all the name calling on both sides, the current board has actually done a lot more than Mr Rosenberg’s crowd.”

Yes, like using their position to run people they don’t approve of out of town because their apartments were rent controlled. Thus, forcing the state to enact SB330 so that no more affordable or rent controlled units can be destroyed without in kind housing to replace it.

MV Neighbor is a class warfare warrior trying to kill the “classes” beneath them, pure and simple.

Steve Goldstein, my comment was in response to Ken Rosenberg’s statement about the candidate positions on RV parking and the fact that it took six years for safe parking to open up, notwithstanding all the “talk” from his compassionate board. That compassionate board also approved a number of apartment tear downs, claiming its hands were tied. As to rent control, don’t disagree with your points about records, but on RV parking, the compassionate board he served on did far, far less than the heartless board he attacks. Less name calling and more real help is needed.

In response to MV neighbor you said:

“Steve Goldstein, my comment was in response to Ken Rosenberg’s statement about the candidate positions on RV parking and the fact that it took six years for safe parking to open up, notwithstanding all the “talk” from his compassionate board.”

BUT you are IMPLYING that Ken Rosenberg was blocking such actions. Maybe you should document whether he was voting for expansion while others like Chris Clark, John Inks, and R. Micheal Kasperzak in 2015, Maybe you should document whether he was voting for expansion while others like Chris Clark, John Inks, and R. Micheal Kasperzak, in 2016. Maybe you should document whether he was voting for expansion while others like Margaret Abe Koga, Chris Clark, John McAllister, and Lisa Matichak in 2017. Maybe you should document whether he was voting for expansion while others like Margaret Abe Koga, Chris Clark, John McAllister, and Lisa Matichak in 2018.

You get the picture, the candidates representing the National Association or Realtors, the California Association of Realtors and the California apartment Association has been dictating the policies for a long time. Any of these people could have done more but did nothing. You said:

“That compassionate board also approved a number of apartment tear downs, claiming its hands were tied.”

As I pointed out, Ken Rosenberg and others TRIED to stop it, but these people pushed it through in cases under threats that the city would have to go to court and spend thousands of dollars in legal fees. Fortunately, SB330 finally put a stop to it. You said:

“As to rent control, don’t disagree with your points about records, but on RV parking, the compassionate board he served on did far, far less than the heartless board he attacks. Less name calling and more real help is needed.”

As I pointed out, you are going to have to produce some kind of evidence that Ken was NOT trying to improve the situation. I have proven that there was a coordinated effort to dictate to the city by OUTSIDE interest groups.

@Ken Rosenberg, Who are you trying to help? In your campaign your group of candidates was supported financially by outside money,$ 85 000 to be precise. I was hoping it was not coming up, since one of those recipients is running again. But you knew that. So lets not put the Matichak contribution a focal point to attack her. If I remember correctly Prometheus and other local developers were also generously contributing to that same campaign. The financial pages are open to the public on the City of Mountain View website.

Ken Rosenberg, You state here about Matichak and Abe-Koga: "their solution to the RVs parking on our streets is to make them go away, whereas the solutions that the four endorsed candidates offer are ones to make it so people don’t have to live in their vehicles. In my opinion, one side feels compassionate while the other heartless." You seriously need to explain this statement!

Lisa and Margaret have set up Safe Lots to get qualified oversized vehicles off MV streets and provide water, power, sewage and trash removal, and security. The people then interact with Community Services to work towards being actually housed. HOW do you think this "makes them go away" - except to make their lives dramatically better? Safe Lots are an excellent use of our tax and City money, as I believe nobody deserves to live on the streets. MV taxpayers cannot (and should not) be responsible for the entire Peninsula, but we CAN take care of our own and make their lives better. The scope is wide: prior work connection to MV, children in our schools, elderly or handicapped.

Then you state "the solutions that the four endorsed candidates offer are ones to make it so people don’t have to live in their vehicles." PLEASE explain how you EVER came to this conclusion? If Measure C doesn't pass... the "four endorsed candidates" have NO plan except for oversized vehicles to park anywhere in MV that doesn't have a bicycle lane - perhaps in front of your house? Tell us how that is "making it so people don't have to live in their vehicles"?

Other cities have to step up to take care of their people. MV taxpayers have already spent $2.5M for services... with another $1.5 scheduled to help those on the street. Don't you want people to live peacefully and respectfully housed? Measure C (sponsored by the current Council) works towards that. The four endorsed by the Voice have no plan to help make people's lives better. Street living is not "good enough" for anyone!

Local [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
why do you insist on lying about the content of Measure C? Measure C provides $0 of funding to any services and does nothing to make any services available to vehicle dwellers [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

If Lisa Matichak received contributions from realtors or developers, she can do nothing about that. It's an independent expenditure which she cannot control. I imagine they support her because she supports great neighborhoods and an excellent quality of life in Mountain View - which is good for all of us.

Even individual contributors do so for a reason, don't you agree? I contribute to Lisa because she is the hardest worker on the Council I've ever witnessed, she wants a good life for every single resident and works towards that. I donated to Biden, because hopefully he can return our country to decency, decorum and honesty again. Every contribution has a reason behind it and a hope that the person we are supporting will make life better.

There seems to be a great deal of judgement being made with much negativity and often false accusations... where does that get us? Lisa, Margaret and Jose are hard working, compassionate, thoughtful and can be trusted to keep their word - exactly the kind of candidate I want guiding my city.

Local, if you want to restore "honesty", why do you repeatedly lie and mislead about the contents of Measure C? If you start by admitting that Measure C provides $0 of funding to any services and does nothing to make any services available to vehicle dwellers, others might take your statements about decency and honesty seriously. Until then, your repeated behavior here shows you are simply a reflection of those same things you claim to hate about Trump.

In response to Local you said:

“Lisa and Margaret have set up Safe Lots to get qualified oversized vehicles off MV streets and provide water, power, sewage and trash removal, and security. The people then interact with Community Services to work towards being actually housed. HOW do you think this "makes them go away" - except to make their lives dramatically better? Safe Lots are an excellent use of our tax and City money, as I believe nobody deserves to live on the streets. MV taxpayers cannot (and should not) be responsible for the entire Peninsula, but we CAN take care of our own and make their lives better. The scope is wide: prior work connection to MV, children in our schools, elderly or handicapped.”

So far no PROOF of any TRANSISION to other housing has been documented, it was a pipe dream with such limited slots it was designed to EXILE people from the city with the RV ban, currently under Measure C in the election.

In response to Cindy Lane that said:

“Local (a.k.a. Shari Emling), why do you insist on lying about the content of Measure C? Measure C provides $0 of funding to any services and does nothing to make any services available to vehicle dwellers. Have you no shame, or do you believe in your own righteousness that a few lies are worth it to you?”

This is just a cloaked way of exiling those like Local feel are unworthy of living here, even if the work for Google.,

In response to Local to Rosenberg you said:

“If Lisa Matichak received contributions from realtors or developers, she can do nothing about that. It's an independent expenditure which she cannot control. I imagine they support her because she supports great neighborhoods and an excellent quality of life in Mountain View - which is good for all of us.”

Actually all of these people ACTIVELY SOLICIT these funds to make them PAID advocates of OUTSIDE FINANCIAL INTERESTS and NOTHING MORE. They will never uphold any citizens interest above their contributors interests and you know it.

Time to elect theses people out and never EVER let ANY person with similar financial backing to get elected FOREVER! You said:

“Even individual contributors do so for a reason, don't you agree? I contribute to Lisa because she is the hardest worker on the Council I've ever witnessed, she wants a good life for every single resident and works towards that.”

Like the exiling of citizens that paid their rent in a rent controlled housing unit she TARGETED for destruction thus forcing the state to pass SB330 to block it from happening again. That was not looking out for EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT. And you know it. You said:

“There seems to be a great deal of judgement being made with much negativity and often false accusations... where does that get us? Lisa, Margaret and Jose are hard working, compassionate, thoughtful and can be trusted to keep their word - exactly the kind of candidate I want guiding my city.”

JG, MAK, and LM lied their teeth off in the Campaign for Measure D, even the Santa Clara Democratic Party REJECTED it. They said any lie they could to try to con the voters to vote for it, and it lost by a greater than 2 to 1 ratio. YOUR CITY? Since when do YOU own the City? All of us OWN the city, but SOME of us are undesirable and are targeted for EXILE.

WOW!

You said, "So far no PROOF of any TRANSISION to other housing has been documented, it was a pipe dream with such limited slots it was designed to EXILE people from the city with the RV ban, currently under Measure C in the election."

The anti-C people say there are only 60 Safe Lot spaces. Not true - there are 80. And so far, 160 people have been moved to actual housing.

I won't take the time to respond to all of your comments, but if you truly believe that no candidate with outside financial backing should be elected - that knocks out the four endorsed by the Voice.

I know you're angry, but you and others would be better served to call the City and check before you bluster your way through another long post, and therefore make mistakes in what you are claiming.

(I see, also, that your crew is busy giving yourselves multiple "likes". Wow... does that really make you feel more successful??)

In response to Local to Goldstein you said:

“You said, "So far no PROOF of any TRANSISION to other housing has been documented, it was a pipe dream with such limited slots it was designed to EXILE people from the city with the RV ban, currently under Measure C in the election."

The anti-C people say there are only 60 Safe Lot spaces. Not true - there are 80. And so far, 160 people have been moved to actual housing.”

WHERE IS THE DOCUMENTATION? Should I just take your word for it? Just like the lies said by JG, MAK, and LM for Measure D? You said:

“won't take the time to respond to all of your comments, but if you truly believe that no candidate with outside financial backing should be elected - that knocks out the four endorsed by the Voice.”

Please identify what group that has a conflict of financial interest that the endorsed candidates have? Otherwise you are making nothing but another UNSUBSTANTIATED claim? You said:

“I know you're angry, but you and others would be better served to call the City and check before you bluster your way through another long post, and therefore make mistakes in what you are claiming.”

Please, provide documentary proof from an unbiased and a resource with NO FINANCIAL conflict of interest, the CITY isn’t one of them because they have a political measure on the ballot.

Wow! So much vitriol here! A few of you really need to throttle back on your comments; your points, valid or not, are getting drowned by the accompanying rancor. With that observation stated....

Here are a few wishes:

1) That never again will Mr. Siegel nor Mr. Showalter occupy a seat on the Mountain View City Council, let alone as mayor. The former, particularly as mayor, was as condescending, full of himself and his alleged mastery of a topic, and dismissive of opinions not aligned with his own as any MV council member I've ever observed -- and I've attended or viewed countless council meetings over the decades I've lived here. As for the latter, there's ample reason to question her judgment and honesty, but one specifically comes to mind: her flip-flopping on the vote to support (she did) VTA's absurd intention to rip up El Camino Real to accommodate more near-empty buses. Oh, and then there's the fact that in 2018, during a candidate forum, she simply wouldn't answer the question of what special-interests funding her campaign received that year. No thank you to either!

2) That the Voice get out of the candidate-endorsement business. The publication is fine for covering local news and broader stories that affect Mountain View, but its endorsements in election years continue to be based more on suppositions and candidates’ claims than on thorough research and thoughtful assessment. And while you're at it, Voice, please suspend or remove that ridiculous "like" option in Comments -- it's ripe for abuse through anonymity, as evidenced here by the preponderance of them favoring comments supporting the slate of candidates you endorsed. (Clearly, it isn't difficult for someone, not excluding a candidate, to sound the horn asking supporters and their friends, families, neighbors, etc. to blindly hit "like.")

3) That pro-housing advocates stop using the misnomer “affordable” -- *any* time of year but especially during an election -- because affordability is relative to a resident’s income and not merely to a reduction from market rates. Developers and apartment-building owners are going to offer the absolute bare minimum of “affordable” below market rate (BRM) units available in order to get a green light on their projects. And by the way, go talk to someone on a service-worker income who’s applied for an "affordable" BRM apartment – hundreds, if not thousands, of applications for a handful of units. Let's not be fooled by that appealing adjective, fellow Mountain View residents!

I’ll take any one of those wishes coming true, but if I had to choose one, it’d be the first. Please remain out of politics, Mr. Siegel and Ms. Showalter!

In response to Longtime Resident you said:

“Wow! So much vitriol here! A few of you really need to throttle back on your comments; your points, valid or not, are getting drowned by the accompanying rancor. With that observation stated....”

I strongly agree as far as wish 1 that begins with:

1) That never again will Mr. Siegel nor Mr. Showalter occupy a seat on the Mountain View City Council, let alone as mayor….”

I respect your choice no matter what, but please make sure you don’t elect anyone that has deceived or abused the citizens of Mountain View? (reference Measure D) You also had wish 2 that started:

“2) That the Voice get out of the candidate-endorsement business. The publication is fine for covering local news and broader stories that affect Mountain View, but its endorsements in election years continue to be based more on suppositions and candidates’ claims than on thorough research and thoughtful assessment.”

However all other newspapers do the same and it is only an “endorsement” it doesn’t tell anyone who to vote for. You went on to say:

“And while you're at it, Voice, please suspend or remove that ridiculous "like" option in Comments -- it's ripe for abuse through anonymity, as evidenced here by the preponderance of them favoring comments supporting the slate of candidates you endorsed. (Clearly, it isn't difficult for someone, not excluding a candidate, to sound the horn asking supporters and their friends, families, neighbors, etc. to blindly hit "like.")”

Again, I totally agree, as you can see, I am NOT anonymous, a situation some have in fact “abused”. But I understand that especially any “housing providers” will find it more difficult to get buyers or renters if they can be “googled” and see how they act regarding politics. I too believe the LIKE function is a joke. You said:

“3) That pro-housing advocates stop using the misnomer “affordable” -- *any* time of year but especially during an election -- because affordability is relative to a resident’s income and not merely to a reduction from market rates. Developers and apartment-building owners are going to offer the absolute bare minimum of “affordable” below market rate (BRM) units available in order to get a green light on their projects. And by the way, go talk to someone on a service-worker income who’s applied for an "affordable" BRM apartment – hundreds, if not thousands, of applications for a handful of units. Let's not be fooled by that appealing adjective, fellow Mountain View residents!”

WOW, I can’t improve on this.