Just an Observation,

This was not done without announcement, The announcement was posted and discussed during the City Council Meeting on Dec. 13 the agenda can be read here (Web Link

The Los Altos news also reported it here (Web Link Second Mtn. View draft housing element presented Christina Casillas Dec 21, 2022.

The fact that the Voice did report it here (Web Link laying out the events that eventually took place.

In any event if Los Altos knew about it, and it is a free publication, then one can be held accountable for not being aware of it.

Given that I was once told that any electronic posting starts the clock, that rule applies to the entire city, there is no one being selectively dismissed here.

I hate to say it, but if Leslie did not make any comments during the window of time, unfortunately that meant she waived her rights to do so. Just like anyone else.

JAFO, democracy requires an informed electorate. How much of the public was aware that a new "draft" Housing Element Update was posted on 12/22? This is a tremendously important document related to density in MV, it has been a topic of great contention for over a year. You should know this, as you left comments on many relevant news stories.

"The Housing Element is a comprehensive, and long-term policy document that guides future decisions on housing preservation, protection, and production and reflects the community’s vision of equity and inclusion." - Web Link

The quote goes on:

"Community participation is vital to the success of a Housing Element update. Your input will guide the development of key ideas, policies, and programs to ensure the future of affordable and accessible housing in Mountain View."

Publishing this draft during the PEAK of the holiday season and providing such a short window of opportunity for the public to give feedback reminds of the shenanigans pulled by experienced politicos to time news dumps for Friday afternoons, when the public is distracted with weekend plans.

Publishing this draft during the PEAK of the holiday season and providing such a short window of opportunity for the public to give feedback does NOT demonstrate a SINCERE desire for "community participation". This is NOT "an example for other cities in how to run a healthy democracy."

"The fact that the Voice did report it here (Web Link laying out the events that eventually took place."

Please review that article, dated Nov 18, 2022 (over a month ago). It gave NO MENTION that a new draft would be published 2 days before Xmas Eve and NO MENTION that the public would be given only 7 days to provide feedback.

I come from a family of veterans, persons who have literally shed blood in defense of this country. What I see happening in MV these days literally makes me cringe.

Just an Observation,

The city had a deadline to meet. I believe the housing element report was required to be finalized by Jan 31 2023.

So the city has to perform its work so it can finalize its report to the state by that time. Otherwise the City would lose vital funds for any programs that are involving housing.

It simply had no choice but to perform the statutory requirements of public notice and commentary early enough to be able to finalize the report, AND have it authorized during a City Council Session. It has only 3 dates scheduled in January, so it must have been put ahead, so it can be completed before the deadline.

Perhaps you did not know that the deadline is approaching and it cannot be postponed.

But I understand your frustration

The city "having a deadline to meet" does not trump the public's right to transparency or to give public input on important public programs. And BTW, per reporting by the Voice the actual deadline is not January 31, 2023, it is a few months later.

"So the city has to perform its work so it can finalize its report to the state by that time. Otherwise the City would lose vital funds for any programs that are involving housing."

Please provide links so that interested readers can understand these facts for themselves. What funds, specifically? What programs, specifically?

I have seen lots of vague comments about how MV will be punished if we don't meet the demands of State politicians - who are primarily Democrats, never forget - but I have never seen it spelled out clearly exactly what will happen.

I've heard it said that the State will take over all zoning decisions for MV, which is rather like letting the fox into the hen-house, and all in the name of "saving the hens". The REASON that we don't have enough AFFORDABLE housing in these parts is NOT because evil SFH owners don't want it, it is because for-profit developers don't make enough PROFIT from building it. State politicians are on the side of DEVELOPERS. I'm willing to bet big $$$ that MV's "punishment" will do diddly squat to increase the supply of AFFORDABLE housing, it will merely help developers increase their profits EVEN MORE.

If that happens, there will be consequences to State politicians, believe me, but only if the press is willing to write stories to report on those events. I am still waiting to learn the exact CONFLICT OF INTEREST details that forced Sally Lieber to resign from the MV City Council. Will the public EVER learn the truth about that?

I am tired of seeing City Council members bending over backwards to give the state EVEN MORE THAN THE STATE REQUIRES via their new power grabs, and disregarding the opinions and feedback of MV residents. That is not DEMOCRACY, it is certainly not a model that should be embraced by other communities.

Just an Observation,

THat extended deadline is contingent on many factors, of which I beleive do not apply to the City of Mountain View. THe reporting shows that under the proper circumstances the city MAY get an extension of up to 120 days.

October deadline

About two-thirds of local governments in Southern California (SoCal) are on the hook for missing a 2022 deadline with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

And since the state REJECTED the Mountain view report, it simply has to get it done fast.

I am sorry, but if you think that by just expressing anger and not being on the topic will be beneficial to the readers here, I think you are mistaken. Again it APPEARS you claim someone was trying to hide this process. So far I have demonstrated that is incorrect.

But I do understand where you are coming from. Please understand though complaining about the problem is not solving the problem. What alternatives do you have to suggest? So far I haven't seen one from you.

You have the right to express your opinion, but you haven't provided any other ideas. To me, that means you are just expressing frustration.

@JAFO, unless you can provide links or other evidence to support your claims, I'm sorry but they are simply not credible. I note you completely ignored my request for information to support: “Otherwise the City would lose vital funds for any programs that are involving housing." I assume that most voters would like to understand the TRUTH of the situation. Wild conjecture is simply not helpful.

Now you write, “THat extended deadline is contingent on many factors, of which I believe do not apply to the City of Mountain View.” Again, you don't provide a link so your words are just words. Here is a link that supports my claims: "All Bay Area jurisdictions are required to submit a final, compliant Housing Element to the state by Jan. 31, 2023 … If the local Housing Elements are not fully certified by May 2023, the state will apply sanctions.” - Web Link

Sadly, unless I missed something, the details of what exactly those “sanctions” would be HAVE NEVER BEEN explained, I made a request for clarification about that on the original article (dated 10/4/2022).

“And since the state REJECTED the Mountain view report, it simply has to get it done fast.”

Or what? The state will apply mysterious “sanctions”, oh no! IMHO, a giant game of chicken is being played out in front of all of us. We “have to comply” with the demands of the state, or else “something bad will happen” to us. But voters have not even been given the courtesy of an explanation as to what those consequences would be, or even how those consequences will better advance the cause of truly AFFORDABLE housing, especially not for lower income and average workers who NEED HELP the very most.

You wrote, "But I do understand where you are coming from."

Respectfully, @JAFO, you don't appear to understand. I am speaking out now because I believe that the principles of democracy are worth fighting for. It is NOT “healthy democracy”
- for important documents to be published with no (or insufficient) alerts being given to the public
- for important documents to be published at times when the majority of the public will not have time or interest to read them, much less provide feedback
- for local politicians to prioritize “compliance with State demands” over representing the very voters who put them into office

Apparently you missed the solution I offered in my original post? “Hopefully some clarification (and apologies) will be issued by someone important about this situation?” Here is what I suggest:

At a very minimum, the public should be alerted that a new "draft" Housing Element Update is now available for public review (maybe the Voice could write an article to mention it?). Furthermore, the deadline for supplying public review should be extended. Ideally the same amount of review time should be given as was provided for the first draft, but in the spirit of compromise, I think one solid week of review time might be acceptable.

If notifications were made today (January 2), I think that the feedback period should be open until end of day Mon Jan 9, 2023. People need time to read the thing (the first one was IMMENSE), and then more time to construct feedback.

Lust an Observation,

Here is a news report from the Merc Web Link

"Bay Area cities running out of time to convince the state they can build 441,000 new homes

As of last week, the state had rejected 14 of the 15 housing plan drafts it received from local jurisdictions

By ETHAN VARIAN October 13, 2022 at 8:27 a.m.

As of last week, the California Department of Housing and Community Development had rejected drafts from 14 of the 15 Bay Area municipalities it had reviewed so far – with Alameda the lone success.

The agency told San Francisco, Oakland, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Redwood City, Antioch and others to rewrite their drafts to provide proof the sites identified for future homes have a realistic chance of development, and to offer the possibility of rezoning certain neighborhoods for denser housing, among various other instructions."

This is where the extension of deadline would start, thus if 120 days is starting in October, that would set the deadline in Jan 2023. I know you should have seen this article if you just googled the topic.

Remember also even when the commentary period would end on Jan 9, it probably would delay the finalization of any report beyond the deadline. Unless absolutely NO ONE made ANY commentary.

You are intentionally trying to avoid accepting the reality of this situation. This is kind of concerning because it reminds me of a lot of recent political behaviors from those that refuse to adjust. Most famously recently the Kari Lake election.

@JAFO, you have attempted to minimize my concerns as “just expressing anger” and that I “haven't provided any other ideas”. Am I angry? Yes, I am, for very good reasons. I come from a family of veterans, persons who have literally shed blood in defense of this country. All of that sacrifice, and for what? To see the rights of “we the people” evaporate because of the actions of clever politicians?

Many people don't seem to realize that ours is “an experiment in democracy”, the experiment is not over. Many young people fear its loss Web Link and for good reason. In 2014 a Princeton study Web Link showed that America is actually an oligarchy: “the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.”

Political maneuverings that have the net effect of silencing the voice of average Americans obviously strips away at what little power we still have away from us. Publishing an important document (without LOUDLY announcing its availability) and providing a SHORT review window during the PEAK holiday season is a stealth maneuver that silences feedback from the community.

If this was an accidental oversight, THE REMEDY IS SIMPLE: make an announcement about the document NOW, apologize for the confusion, and provide at least 7 days for the public to provide feedback. To do otherwise makes a MOCKERY of the words, “Community participation is vital to the success of a Housing Element update.”

Once lost, democracy is extremely hard to regain. Sadly, I think that many people don't realize what the ultimate cost of their apathy on this matter will be. Why even have a review period for public feedback on such documents? Do voters' opinions even matter? Clearly complying with State demands, whatever they are, is the highest priority. God Bless America!

Just an Observation,

As Thomas Jefferson once said "THe price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

So Leslie, you can be angry, but at the same time you must bear responsibility for the failure to do your due diligence.

From what I understand you work in the IT field, like myself, but I work as a CISSP in IT Security. Thus I have to perform "due diligence" to prevent problems, if I don't, I cannot pursue any actions against those that take advantage of it.

In fact if I don't perform "due diligence" I and my clients cannot be protected regarding losses if individuals get injured. So all I am saying is that you have to do the same regarding your government.

Remember it is described by Abe Lincoln as "“that these dead shall not have died in vain– that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” (U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863) It is one of the best known speeches"


So we all are personally responsible for the actions of the government, thus we all have the responsibility to ensure that the systems are working.

The bottom line is you are still ignoring the fact that the history was well documented, and thus so far there has been no violations of any state or federal civil codes to complain about.

This forum should be educational, and I hope that my input is constructive, though not being in total agreement with your premise.

@JAFO, I agree with your TJ quote: "THe price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Which is why I wrote this post in the first place. It came by surprise to me that a new "draft" Housing Element Update had been posted on 12/22, and that a short 7-day public review period had been established and had already expired. I felt it my duty to raise a flag for others about what local officials have done.

I find it wild now that you would actually seek to blame ME for, what exactly? Taking a vacation and enjoying Christmas with my family? Doing what I can to alert the community to what local politicians have done? Not examining what gets posted on Web Link each and every day?

THE ISSUE IS TRANSPARENCY – DOES THE PUBLIC HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT POLITICIANS ARE DOING AND PROPOSING?

A lack of transparency in government has been a problem for only forever. Obama promised to be the “most transparent president ever”, and then turned a blind eye when his own Secretary of State set up a private email server in her basement which she used for official correspondence instead of the “.gov” account(s) that she was “required” to use. Obama knew about that server, he exchanged correspondence with her on it. Instead of condemning her for what she had done to escape even the lowest form of oversight of her work - that done routinely by IT staff to support her accounts - he allowed her use of an off-the-grid server to continue. But I digress.

FYI, I write mostly for lurkers. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I leave it to others to reach their own conclusions about who bears most responsibility over the publication of an important government document for review with a short review period and without properly notifying the public. As I said before, if this was an accident the remedy is simple. The more time that goes by without following that remedy, the more doubt that the incident was indeed “an accident”.

“The bottom line is you are still ignoring the fact that the history was well documented, and thus so far there has been no violations of any state or federal civil codes to complain about.”

As a former Math teacher, I am aware that many students do not understand the rigor that is required to prove a case. Respectfully, you are making pretty wild claims that you have not in fact proven. Hypothetical explanations are not the same as proof. Offering links to sources are only helpful if they contain content that supports your case; otherwise, not so much. I have written these words as gently as I can.

What has happened here is that the public's right to review and give feedback about a highly controversial document, the latest draft of the Housing Element, has been seriously abused.

And as we speak, the public's right to elect who represents us on the MV City Council is in peril. Tomorrow, Jan 5, the Council will decide whether to hold a special election to fill the seat vacated by Sally Lieber, who was forced to resign because she did not properly understand matters of CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Web Link Some people believe that Li Zhang did really well in the recent election and has an inside track on running in a special election. Some say the money required to hold a special election could better be spent elsewhere; however, they fall silent when I ask for specifcs about WHICH other project is more worthwhile then upholding democracy itself in Mountain View. A pedestrian mall? IMHO, NO OTHER PROJECT on the table is more worthwhile than allowing voters to choose who represents them on the City Council.

If the Council chooses to appoint some candidate other than Zhang, instead of choosing to approve a special election, they will be ignoring the voice of voters as expressed TWO MONTHS AGO and subverting democracy itself. If they don't want to appoint the 4th place finisher from November, then clearly the only other alternative with any integrity would be to hold a special election, so that the RIGHT of voters to choose their elected leaders is not subverted.

Just an Observation,

As far as Zhang is concerned regarding the appointment, a LOSING candidate does not get a WIN by default. Since the candidate did not earn enough VOTES to win in the election. Sorry that really doesn't make ANY logical sense.

I would agree a new election would be optimal, but very costly and would delay all city functioning of the City Council. So for efficiency, it may be the only alternative to appoint a replacement.

But your premise that a previous candidate that lost should be "MOVED UP THE CHAIN" is completely wrong. It would be more appropriate that the person leaving office has the discretion to suggest the appointment, and the city council can them chose whether to approve it or not.

A LOSING candidate has NO RIGHT to an office they lost. Your idea makes absolutely no sense.

Under a functioning democracy, leaders don't have to resign because they are confused about matters of CONFLICT OF INTEREST. We are in this position because of Sally Lieber. The actual details of what that conflict of interest actually is has not been reported in the Voice. Why on earth not? Doesn't the public have the right to know?

“@LongResident, where did you learn that the telecom equipment in question is owned by Google? Do you have a link?

So now I'm starting to suss out what the conflict of interest might be ... since Google HQ is in MV, apparently City Council views them as an entity for whom they must "fight for", apparently including lowering their tax burdens?

But as a member of the SBE, Lieber has a responsibility to ensure that imposed taxes are fair for everyone. And since she can't do both at the same time, it creates a conflict … Have City Council members been fighting to lower tax burdens for Google? Have all of them been doing it, or just Lieber?” - Web Link

Under a functioning democracy, the City Council would be fighting for what is best for RESIDENTS, not what is best for Google. Do I really have to say that out loud?

Under a functioning democracy, voters have the RIGHT to cast a vote for their preferred candidate.

To call Zhang's finish a "distant 4th" and a "rejection by voters" is nothing but subjective spin-meistering, IMHO. Clearly she earned more votes than ANY OTHER POTENTIAL candidate for the opening that now exists. You call Zhang a loser, yet you think that some candidate who received ZERO VOTES in November is more qualified than her? Talk about new math ... how does ZERO VOTES make someone a viable candidate, but Zhang's highly-respectable-for-a-newcomer 4th place finish make her a “loser”.

Let me repeat myself, loud and clear: If the Council chooses to appoint some candidate other than Zhang instead of choosing to hold a special election, they will be subverting democracy itself. If they don't want to appoint the 4th place finisher from November, then clearly the only other alternative with any integrity would be to hold a special election, so that the RIGHT of voters to choose their elected leaders is not subverted.

If the Council does otherwise, crowing about how MV is a model democracy for other to follow is nothing but rank hypocrisy.

Just an Observation,

To coin a phrase 2nd place is first loser, fourth place is first loser as well,

Lets look at the facts, the election results indicated that Zhang got only 389 (11.3%) votes out of 3,493. To me it is obvious that one that could not even get more than 15% minimum of votes in an election CANNOT be an appointed City Council. But to rely in a minority of 11% of voters to choose the next City Council member is insanity

The facts are the WINNERS got at minimum 26.1% about 2.3 times the votes, a 2.3 vote to one margin. That was WORSE than the election results for Measure D.

Of course Leslie you do not want to declare a LOST election as a LOSER. But that is what happened here. Stop trying to get a minority supported candidate a FREE ride.

This is SIMPLE math, are you going to claim my observation is incorrect?

I am not asking for a free ride, @JAFO. Please read my words again, perhaps more slowly this time so that you can understand what I actually wrote:

"If they don't want to appoint the 4th place finisher from November, then clearly the only other alternative with any integrity would be to hold a special election, so that the RIGHT of voters to choose their elected leaders is not subverted."

Denying voters the right to vote for the person who some/many believe would be the front-runner candidate in a free and fair election would be the worst kind of subversion of democracy.

I am asking that the City Council respect the RIGHT of VOTERS to choose who represents us on the City Council. There is nothing more fundamental to a healthy democracy than that.

Just an Observation,

I understand that an election would be the "most voter friendly" approach.

However, the City Charter only provides 30 day to make the decision whether to appoint of perform the election. It looks like it is practically impossible to hold an election. But since the charter does state this:

Section 504. - Vacancies.

The council shall, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY VACANCY ON THE COUNCIL FROM WHATEVER CAUSE ARISING, EITHER FILL THE VACANCY BY APPOINTMENT OR CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL THE VACANCY. If the vacancy is filled by appointment, the person so appointed shall hold office until the first Tuesday following the next general municipal election at which a successor could be elected and until that person's successor qualifies. At that next general municipal election following any vacancy, a councilmember shall be elected to serve for the remainder of any unexpired term. If the vacancy be filled by election, the person so elected shall hold office for the unexpired term of the former incumbent and until that person's successor qualifies. When any vacancy occurs, if there are two councilmembers at that time serving terms to which they were appointed, then in that event, the vacancy shall be filled solely by election. Notwithstanding the provisions of Charter Section 1302, a special election to fill a council vacancy may be held on any date.

(As amended, April 12, 1960; June 3, 1980; November 6, 1984.)

Since this deadline does in fact exist, there really is no time to perform an election, thus the only realistic process is appointment. If you want this changed, you better start a ballot measure to establish a longer deadline and to eliminate the appointment process. But at this time the City Council is NOT able to do an election within a 30 day period.

Can you do SIMPLE math regarding this time sensitive deadline? To me you are now simply out of time.

Just an Observation,

I need to correct a previous post, the total votes Li Zhang got from the city was 6,678 votes out of 55,000, again only a 11.95% where the lowest winner Lucas Remirez, received 14,725 votes.

The simple reality is that he got 26.3% of the vote which is STILL a 2.2 to 1 vote against Li Zhang. In effect a supermajority to reject Li Zhang by 55% compared to Lucas.

To me I am confused as to how Li Zhang would perform any better in another election.

You accused me of asking for a free ride, @JAFO. I did no such thing. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that. I am asking that the City Council respect the RIGHT of VOTERS to choose who represents us on the City Council.

Results from the November election are available at Web Link .

The incumbents received 15347, 15040, and 14725 votes. Or about 15000 votes each.

Li Zhang received 6,678 votes. Or about 7000 votes. In mental math, 7000 is about half of 15000.

Or if you want to look at percentages, the incumbents receieved 27.5%, 26.9%, 26.3% of the vote.

Li Zhang received 12%. In mental math, 12% is about half of 27%.

None of this is news. I'm glad you are aware of these details too, now.

“To me I am confused as to how Li Zhang would perform any better in another election.”

She would not be running against ANY INCUMBENTS. The race would be MUCH EASIER as a result. Incumbents have many advantages, you don't appear to comprehend or acknowledge that fact.

Zhang received more votes in November than ANY OTHER POTENTIAL competitor than she would face in a special election. How's that for SIMPLE math?

Just an Observation,

Your theory that incumbents have an UNFAIR advantage is completely wrong. They are in fact burdened with a long public record that can be used against them by their opponents. A great example was the Clinton and Kerry presidential campaigns. The fact that Donald Trump and George W Bush were young in politics gave them the advantage.

Li Zhang again was given a big chance because she was part of a SMALL pool of voter choices, only 5 in the election. In which 3 were going to win.

So you cannot in reality base your opinion on any evidence that the election would be easy. I suspect that anyone with a good knowledge and also has an appropriate background would be VERY strong as a competitor in any election.

I have watched so many people making wild arguments with very little data to base it on. As a mathematician, you need to make sure the formulas you use will be reconcilable. You remind me of the episode of Star Trek TNG Chain of Command part 2, when Gul Madred character turns on four lights and asks Picard how many lights are there he answers four. But you would be Gul Madred telling all of us it is five lights.

This kind of magical thinking is going to continue to threaten the future. Especially when so many people say, "just trust me I am the only one that can fix this"

There are forces so powerful that I think that no politician, or business person can avoid the trouble we have coming in the next 20 years. But these people are trying to avoid just telling the people the truth.

I missed the final decision, what was it?

“Your theory that incumbents have an UNFAIR advantage is completely wrong.”

Anyone can do an internet search for “why do incumbents have an advantage” (Duck Duck Go works great AND it protects your privacy). Even the incumbent MV City Council members agree (they talked about this last night) that whoever they might appoint would have a great advantage if they run for reelection in two years. They asked if there was a legal way to ask an appointee to promise not to run for reelection, staff said no.

“What Are Four Advantages Incumbents Have When Running for Office?” - Web Link

“Four advantages incumbents have when running for office are: visibility, experience, time and money. Incumbents who run for office often win. For example, in November, 2004, 25 of the 26 incumbents running in the United States Senate election and 396 of the 401 incumbents running in U.S. House of Representatives election won their seat.”

YOUR theory that incumbents do NOT have an advantage is dangerously misguided and not based on fact, but you have the right to hold it.

Li Zhang obtained 6,678 votes in November, which happens to be exactly 6,678 votes more votes than ANY OTHER potential competitor she would face if a special election is held. Those are FACTS.

The City Council also talked about the need for transparency if they choose to appoint a candidate. They seem to want the process to be "fair", even though there is nothing FAIR about denying VOTERS the opportunity to choose who represents us, or about handing the advantages of incumbency to someone who never earned them.

Li Zhang would have the advantages of visibility and experience in a special election, advantages that she earned fair and square by participating in the normal, DEMOCRATIC process.

If she loses in a free and fair special election, so be it. If she is not even given the opportunity, it will forever be a black mark on the reputation of the City Council, especially on Mayor Lucas Ramirez. Apparently paying $2.1 million for DEMOCRACY is too much.