News

City Council: Showalter, Rosenberg and Siegel win seats

Election an appparent victory for advocates of housing in North Bayshore

The city may eventually see some big changes to its landscape as a result of Tuesday's City Council election, which creates a council majority in favor of building a large new residential neighborhood near Google headquarters.

As results rolled in for the most competitive and unpredictable City Council election in years, residents and candidates eagerly watched the results Tuesday night to see who would take three open seats vacated by Jac Siegel, Margaret Abe-Koga and Ronit Bryant.

Candidates Pat Showalter, Ken Rosenberg, and Lenny Siegel (in that order) held the lead as the first portion of ballots were counted and election night parties were held across the city. The trend continued until all precincts reported their results in the early morning but some provisional and mail ballots have yet to be counted.

Showalter topped all the candidates with 16.57 percent of the vote. Rosenberg held 14.79 percent and Siegel had 13.31 percent. Trailing them was Lisa Matichak with 11.42 percent, Unangst with 10.70 percent, Ellen Kamei with 10.28 percent, Margaret Capriles with 9.85 percent, Mercedes Salem at 6.75 percent and Neal with 6.32 percent.

The city's growing jobs-housing imbalance was a key issue in the election, and Showalter, Rosenberg and Siegel were among those that promised the most aggressive measures to close that gap in an effort preserve the city's affordability and diverse character.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

Siegel lead the charge as founder of the Campaign for a Balanced Mountain View earlier this year, and benefited from the name recognition his activism has created since he moved here in the the 1970s, including his job running the nonprofit that oversees toxic cleanup efforts in Mountain View, efforts to save Hangar One at Moffett Field and to stop cargo flights at Moffett in the 1990s. He also spearheaded two failed efforts to bring rent control to the city decades ago and was an anti-war activist with the local group Voices for Peace, among other things.

"Some of the candidates had slogans about preserving neighborhoods but to me that was just verbiage," remarked Siegel about his opponents, as he spoke to the group of supporters and neighbors that packed his home in old Mountain View Tuesday night. If elected, he said he would call on the jobs-rich cities in the region to form a regional body to address the area's jobs-housing imbalance. He criticized candidates who seemed to be saying that Mountain View employees needed to go live in San Jose. "How can anybody trust us if we don't put our own house in order?" he said.

"If Pat, myself and Lenny are elected, I suspect we're going to see big changes in Mountain View," said Rosenberg at Tuesday's election night gathering at KMVT. It will mean "residents of Mountain View are looking forward to progressive changes."

Rosenberg, a financial adviser and member of the city's human relations commission, called out the current council for "approving lots of office space, or in other words -- jobs -- and not many homes. Essentially what they are saying is, 'we welcome you to work in Mountain View but not live in Mountain View.'"

When asked about what the results meant, Matichak said "I think that things have changed in Mountain View and big money and corporations have a lot of influence."

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Rosenberg and Showalter both benefited from independent spending linked to landlord groups, though Siegel spent little more than $12,000, raised mostly from individual donations. Little or none of Siegel's funding came from the real estate interest groups that funded campaigns of Capriles, Matichak, Kamei, Showalter and Rosenberg, who got the biggest boost with $25,000 in independent spending in support of him by the National Association of Realtors.

With a gap between Matichak and Siegel of only 408 votes, the results could change over the next two weeks as 100,000 to 120,000 provisional and mail ballots are verified and counted in Santa Clara County, on top of the 235,000 already counted, said Shannon Buchey, registrar of voters.

"Quite a few people will be waiting for results in many races as we process results for the next couple of weeks," Buchey said. She said that results would be updated every day at 5 p.m.

Matichak didn't want to concede the election, but said on Wednesday that "I don't expect the results to change." Siegel said he didn't expect results to change either after seeing a clear trend as results came in from all over the city.

Showalter, an engineer for the Santa Clara Valley Water District and a city planning commissioner for most of the 1990s, said what made the election unique and important is "the strong desire to open North Bayshore to housing. There's just been this groundswell of interest in the community."

The possibility of allowing as many as 5,000 homes to be built in the Google-dominated office park north of Highway 101 was the key issue of discussion during the race. It was a concept supported by Siegel, Rosenberg, Showalter, Greg Unangst and Jim Neal and opposed by the other four candidates.

The election appears to be a dramatic change as the three outgoing council members that had led the slim council majority opposed to a new neighborhood around Google headquarters in 2012 will be replaced by three new members who support the idea. There may soon be six out of seven council members who favor housing in North Bayshore.

Siegel said that if he was elected, he would call on the current City Council to halt its efforts to approve precise plans by year's end that will guide development for North Bayshore and the San Antonio area, and call on the council to allow the newly council members to take those plans on. The North Bayshore precise plan includes allowing 3.4 million square feet of new office development in North Bayshore, bringing as many as 20,000 jobs, but no housing. In the precise plan for the San Antonio shopping center area, council members recently backed away from plans to prioritize housing and are now set to create office space for more jobs than homes there.

Unangst said the election could mean Mountain View is embracing a more urban future.

Mountain View is "in a transition from a more suburban place to a more urban place and a lot of people are having a hard time letting go," Unangst said. "I think this election will determine how quickly we move in that direction."

Matichak said she wasn't sure that voters wanted that.

"A lot of folks are very concerned about the pace of growth in Mountain View and wanted to slow it down, so I'm not sure they are all supportive of housing in North Bayshore because that would imply more growth," Matichak said. She said residents were concerned about growth in North Bayshore even though it is out of sight north of Highway 101. "You still have an impact no matter where the growth occurs," she said.

Kamei, Salem, Matichak and Capriles opposed housing in North Bayshore during the election, saying, among other things, that there isn't enough infrastructure in North Bayshore to support a neighborhood, such as a school, transportation options to reduce traffic and a grocery store. Unangst said it was a "chicken and egg" problem because those things would come with or after housing development.

About 8,200 ballots have been accounted for so far with votes on Mountain View issues in the election, though there are just over 30,000 registered voters listed in the city.

Capriles said in an email "The disappointing concern I have about the election was the very low turnout. From my perspective this meant that the voters were 1) overwhelmed by the number of candidates and didn't have the opportunity to really get to know them personally or 2) not interested in the one issue of housing that permeated the campaign."

Siegel said it was interesting that Unangst came in fifth as the only candidate for rent control.

"I don't think enough renters voted to put him into office, but I think he's got a future in Mountain View politics," Siegel said. "He might have been elected if I hadn't run."

Salem said of losing the race, "I'm grateful for the support I did get. I was the newcomer and I came out of nowhere. The people who have won have been working for a better Mountain View for decades. I plan to stay involved in Mountain View politics and in the Mountain View community, definitely."

"I think that the results indicate that the residents of Mountain View are now ready for far more high density housing," Neal wrote in an email. "Over time we will see less single family homes and more high rise apartments and condominiums as Mountain View moves in a direction to accommodate all the people that want to work and live here. The demographics of Mountain View have changed rapidly in the last few years as people have relocated here that have lived in higher density urban areas, so it is not entirely unexpected that the residents voted to move towards more density and urbanization by electing Pat Showalter, Lenny Siegel, and Ken Rosenberg."

Measure A, which would raise City Council pay to $1,000 a month, was also favored by voters, with 59.9 percent for it and 40 percent against.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

City Council: Showalter, Rosenberg and Siegel win seats

Election an appparent victory for advocates of housing in North Bayshore

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Tue, Nov 4, 2014, 11:44 pm

The city may eventually see some big changes to its landscape as a result of Tuesday's City Council election, which creates a council majority in favor of building a large new residential neighborhood near Google headquarters.

As results rolled in for the most competitive and unpredictable City Council election in years, residents and candidates eagerly watched the results Tuesday night to see who would take three open seats vacated by Jac Siegel, Margaret Abe-Koga and Ronit Bryant.

Candidates Pat Showalter, Ken Rosenberg, and Lenny Siegel (in that order) held the lead as the first portion of ballots were counted and election night parties were held across the city. The trend continued until all precincts reported their results in the early morning but some provisional and mail ballots have yet to be counted.

Showalter topped all the candidates with 16.57 percent of the vote. Rosenberg held 14.79 percent and Siegel had 13.31 percent. Trailing them was Lisa Matichak with 11.42 percent, Unangst with 10.70 percent, Ellen Kamei with 10.28 percent, Margaret Capriles with 9.85 percent, Mercedes Salem at 6.75 percent and Neal with 6.32 percent.

The city's growing jobs-housing imbalance was a key issue in the election, and Showalter, Rosenberg and Siegel were among those that promised the most aggressive measures to close that gap in an effort preserve the city's affordability and diverse character.

Siegel lead the charge as founder of the Campaign for a Balanced Mountain View earlier this year, and benefited from the name recognition his activism has created since he moved here in the the 1970s, including his job running the nonprofit that oversees toxic cleanup efforts in Mountain View, efforts to save Hangar One at Moffett Field and to stop cargo flights at Moffett in the 1990s. He also spearheaded two failed efforts to bring rent control to the city decades ago and was an anti-war activist with the local group Voices for Peace, among other things.

"Some of the candidates had slogans about preserving neighborhoods but to me that was just verbiage," remarked Siegel about his opponents, as he spoke to the group of supporters and neighbors that packed his home in old Mountain View Tuesday night. If elected, he said he would call on the jobs-rich cities in the region to form a regional body to address the area's jobs-housing imbalance. He criticized candidates who seemed to be saying that Mountain View employees needed to go live in San Jose. "How can anybody trust us if we don't put our own house in order?" he said.

"If Pat, myself and Lenny are elected, I suspect we're going to see big changes in Mountain View," said Rosenberg at Tuesday's election night gathering at KMVT. It will mean "residents of Mountain View are looking forward to progressive changes."

Rosenberg, a financial adviser and member of the city's human relations commission, called out the current council for "approving lots of office space, or in other words -- jobs -- and not many homes. Essentially what they are saying is, 'we welcome you to work in Mountain View but not live in Mountain View.'"

When asked about what the results meant, Matichak said "I think that things have changed in Mountain View and big money and corporations have a lot of influence."

Rosenberg and Showalter both benefited from independent spending linked to landlord groups, though Siegel spent little more than $12,000, raised mostly from individual donations. Little or none of Siegel's funding came from the real estate interest groups that funded campaigns of Capriles, Matichak, Kamei, Showalter and Rosenberg, who got the biggest boost with $25,000 in independent spending in support of him by the National Association of Realtors.

With a gap between Matichak and Siegel of only 408 votes, the results could change over the next two weeks as 100,000 to 120,000 provisional and mail ballots are verified and counted in Santa Clara County, on top of the 235,000 already counted, said Shannon Buchey, registrar of voters.

"Quite a few people will be waiting for results in many races as we process results for the next couple of weeks," Buchey said. She said that results would be updated every day at 5 p.m.

Matichak didn't want to concede the election, but said on Wednesday that "I don't expect the results to change." Siegel said he didn't expect results to change either after seeing a clear trend as results came in from all over the city.

Showalter, an engineer for the Santa Clara Valley Water District and a city planning commissioner for most of the 1990s, said what made the election unique and important is "the strong desire to open North Bayshore to housing. There's just been this groundswell of interest in the community."

The possibility of allowing as many as 5,000 homes to be built in the Google-dominated office park north of Highway 101 was the key issue of discussion during the race. It was a concept supported by Siegel, Rosenberg, Showalter, Greg Unangst and Jim Neal and opposed by the other four candidates.

The election appears to be a dramatic change as the three outgoing council members that had led the slim council majority opposed to a new neighborhood around Google headquarters in 2012 will be replaced by three new members who support the idea. There may soon be six out of seven council members who favor housing in North Bayshore.

Siegel said that if he was elected, he would call on the current City Council to halt its efforts to approve precise plans by year's end that will guide development for North Bayshore and the San Antonio area, and call on the council to allow the newly council members to take those plans on. The North Bayshore precise plan includes allowing 3.4 million square feet of new office development in North Bayshore, bringing as many as 20,000 jobs, but no housing. In the precise plan for the San Antonio shopping center area, council members recently backed away from plans to prioritize housing and are now set to create office space for more jobs than homes there.

Unangst said the election could mean Mountain View is embracing a more urban future.

Mountain View is "in a transition from a more suburban place to a more urban place and a lot of people are having a hard time letting go," Unangst said. "I think this election will determine how quickly we move in that direction."

Matichak said she wasn't sure that voters wanted that.

"A lot of folks are very concerned about the pace of growth in Mountain View and wanted to slow it down, so I'm not sure they are all supportive of housing in North Bayshore because that would imply more growth," Matichak said. She said residents were concerned about growth in North Bayshore even though it is out of sight north of Highway 101. "You still have an impact no matter where the growth occurs," she said.

Kamei, Salem, Matichak and Capriles opposed housing in North Bayshore during the election, saying, among other things, that there isn't enough infrastructure in North Bayshore to support a neighborhood, such as a school, transportation options to reduce traffic and a grocery store. Unangst said it was a "chicken and egg" problem because those things would come with or after housing development.

About 8,200 ballots have been accounted for so far with votes on Mountain View issues in the election, though there are just over 30,000 registered voters listed in the city.

Capriles said in an email "The disappointing concern I have about the election was the very low turnout. From my perspective this meant that the voters were 1) overwhelmed by the number of candidates and didn't have the opportunity to really get to know them personally or 2) not interested in the one issue of housing that permeated the campaign."

Siegel said it was interesting that Unangst came in fifth as the only candidate for rent control.

"I don't think enough renters voted to put him into office, but I think he's got a future in Mountain View politics," Siegel said. "He might have been elected if I hadn't run."

Salem said of losing the race, "I'm grateful for the support I did get. I was the newcomer and I came out of nowhere. The people who have won have been working for a better Mountain View for decades. I plan to stay involved in Mountain View politics and in the Mountain View community, definitely."

"I think that the results indicate that the residents of Mountain View are now ready for far more high density housing," Neal wrote in an email. "Over time we will see less single family homes and more high rise apartments and condominiums as Mountain View moves in a direction to accommodate all the people that want to work and live here. The demographics of Mountain View have changed rapidly in the last few years as people have relocated here that have lived in higher density urban areas, so it is not entirely unexpected that the residents voted to move towards more density and urbanization by electing Pat Showalter, Lenny Siegel, and Ken Rosenberg."

Measure A, which would raise City Council pay to $1,000 a month, was also favored by voters, with 59.9 percent for it and 40 percent against.

Comments

Jeremy Hoffman
Rengstorff Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 12:58 am
Jeremy Hoffman, Rengstorff Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 12:58 am

I'm optimistic about Showalter, Rosenberg, and Siegel being on City Council. I think they'll do a good job shaping a more inclusive, prosperous, and environmentally friendly Mountain View. Whoever ends up winning has a hard job ahead of them, and I wish them good luck and thank them for their service to their city.


Boo
Rex Manor
on Nov 5, 2014 at 6:55 am
Boo, Rex Manor
on Nov 5, 2014 at 6:55 am

A more inclusive, prosperous and environmentally friendly Mountain View? Or are they going to let developers have their way with the city and build so much that none of us will want to live here anymore, essentially driving all the long-time residents out? I certainly hope that's not the case, but I'm really NOT optimistic about these choices. Fearful is a better description.

And now we've also proven that outside money can have a huge impact on Mountain View politics, so the real control no longer sits with us. Now outside interests knows they can have their way with us. I'm really worried about the future of Mountain View.


MVResident67
Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:07 am
MVResident67, Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:07 am

I am SO freaking happy that I have land outside this city where I can build when the time is right. The land purchase was a hedge at the time. No regrets now.

I'm sure I won't be missed. Have fun "transforming".



Emily Patterson
Shoreline West
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:51 am
Emily Patterson, Shoreline West
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:51 am

Why are long term residents so afraid of change? I am young professional who thrives on change because I see the good that can come out of it. We need more housing so that other young professionals can continue to move here because, with them, they bring culture, arts, innovative ideas, and meet-ups... which, in turn, will bring a stronger sense of community. I have lived in many major cities throughout the United States and Mountain View is not strong in culture. To be frank, it is quite boring and I find myself driving to other places like Santa Cruz, Davis, and Berkeley to spend money during my weekends. If you want independent businesses to thrive here, you will need to keep the money in Mountain View and not encourage young professionals like myself to go elsewhere. Google brings in the talented and young spirited people so let them help 'build' Mountain View into a more interesting place by making it more affordable to live here.


DDD
another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:05 am
DDD, another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:05 am

The voters have spoken; more housing.


Progressive
Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:09 am
Progressive , Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:09 am

It now appears that three progressives who embrace change and growth will join three other council members who also support growth and change. The no growthers are a clear minority but vocal voice. Their claims of a destructive council were rejected by the majority of MV voters. The 3 current EPC members were soundly rejected. I am still amazed but not surprised that not one of them made the top three.

It's time for the no growthers to stop whining and get behind change. Otherwise they will continue to be ignored.


Patrick
Rengstorff Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:21 am
Patrick, Rengstorff Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:21 am

I'm glad to see that others in Mountain View agreed that more housing and infrastructure are needed for our city. It never made much sense that commercial projects were approved without supplemental approvals for residential projects.

Homes near jobs. It's the future.


MVResident67
Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:24 am
MVResident67, Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:24 am

Stop calling people who may be more moderate in their vision for Mountain View "no growthers". Seriously. Name calling and pejoratives...way to try to find common ground and be inclusive.

Progressive, my tushy. Try arrogant and condescending.


AC
Registered user
another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:37 am
AC, another community
Registered user
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:37 am

@Emily Patterson

A wonderful question. And although I am rather passionate about it, I'd like to give a real try at a real answer to you.

I moved here when I was a young professional, which was in the early '90s. One of the things I loved about our city was its diversity. And part of that diversity is the age diversity. I liked being a young person who felt like I had come into my adulthood by looking at my elders differently. I had willfully moved to a city which was suburban, had lots of tech and people who are interested in the future, had an older (and yes, somewhat wealthier, due to their having solid financial habits and values, not being Internet millionaires) professionals, and their wonderful children and families, and ethnic diversity, and yes senior citizens too who had earned their right to live a good sunset.

We have a hospital and infrastructure that was designed to support that kind of community, and I saw that too.

And now, so much of the impetus and push seems based on a vision and values that I myself don't happen to subscribe to. I still live and work in Mountain View in the tech industry; but here's the thing... I don't use a whole lot of it; particularly social media. Seriously, just the other day, a friend of mine asked why I don't Facebook or Instagram; but I Yelp and LinkedIn and the like. I told her, and I was being a smart-ass I admit, "I'm in the tech business. We're like drug dealers. We sell the stuff, we don't use it." Did I mention, I'm not in sales or marketing or traffic targeting. I'm a systems and network engineer. I build and deploy and automate.

I have internalized what I hope are some of the finest of the values of the people who came before me. One of those is the friendly and neighborly and long-term view. In the '90s and early '00s I also, like you, found myself going far afield to hang out and pursue entertainments. Santa Cruz wasn't high on my list, but sure I went to the city or took road trips or waited for cheap fares to fly somewhere. I have a particular love for culture and arts as well. I've enjoyed travel, I speak four languages, and I'm a musical theatre fan. I haven't minded having to go far afield for these things, because this has been a great place to come home to. But Mountain View is where I came home to.

I hope I'm answering your question somewhat. "Why are long-term residents afraid of change?" Well, you're right there is some fear. But more than that, a basic unwillingness. I don't *want* to live in the city (SF). And I don't *want* to live in Santa Cruz. And I don't *want* to refurbish our downtown to look like Santana Row, or Downtown Sunnyvale, or some of the reworked parts of Livermore, or wherever.

I *want* to live somewhere where I know my neighbors, and I watch their kids grow up, and I care for them when they need help crossing the street after they've had a stroke, or let my neighbor come inside because he locked himself out because he's become kind of senile, and go out to eat at diverse places, and can hit by a bar every once in a while and be around the younger tech crowd, and ride my bike into downtown because I live near, but can quietly stand outside my door and look at a view of the mountains. And if I can afford it, I wouldn't mind growing old with neighbors like me, dying here peacefully and being buried up the hill at Gate of Heaven.

I'm Gen-X. Not a whole lot older than you, and a whole lot younger than some of the age demographics which I mentioned. I'm not trying to force my neighbors or long-term residents to share my views and values, or pay the bill for my ideas of how our city could/should be constructed. Most of the growth positions which I've seen or heard of..... are.

I support North Bayshore housing because I want to preserve the old, not throw it away. I want growth to enhance our city, not change it. Yes, I would like more young, vibrant professionals to be able to live here. But you know what? I want our old people to be able to live and die in the house they've been in for fifty years. And I want our not-old/not-young who have lived here a long time as *renters* (like me) to be able to continue to live here and be part of the bones of the city. So many renters here, raising kids, working hard, growing older. I don't want to see them squeezed out by big growth projects either.

I know I've written you a diatribe, but I was truly impressed by your post which I felt asked a basic no-bulls--t and honest question, and I really wanted to to my best to give you a real answer from at least one perspective..


time-for-petition
another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:50 am
time-for-petition, another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:50 am

Time to get signatures to block all development and demand more parks.

Money is speaking so loud in MV that it is deafening.
And the traffic, pollution ... already unbearable.

Builders are doing their job namely squeeze everything they
can to make most money for themselves (at the expense of
quality of life in MV). The city council is saying, go ahead and
destroy the city... just pay a couple of bucks as fine.

The residents are not standing up for themselves to save
their city.



Marcin Romaszewicz
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 10:00 am
Marcin Romaszewicz, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Nov 5, 2014 at 10:00 am

I'm also a long time Mountain View resident, and I think that growth is both good and inevitable. The bay area population is growing because we have vibrant industries here, which are attracting people from other parts of the US and the world where there is less opportunity. While this success continues, our population will grow, and they need to live somewhere. The good part of growth is that it makes more local business possible and more specialized businesses become plausible as there's a large enough population to support them.

The downside to what's happening in Mountain View right now is that you either have to be incredibly wealthy to move here, or you're "locked in" by a house you bought years ago and Prop 13's limit to your property taxes. This situation won't result in a vibrant diverse community, it will result in a wealthy single industry town as existing home owners sell and move away. Everyone else will need to commute in from far away, since nearby cities are resisting growth as well. Even the Googlers who are blamed for driving up the prices can't buy in Mountain View anymore, unless they started working there years ago and have serious equity - it can't be done with a paycheck alone.

Growth doesn't have to look like Santana Row or downtown Sunnyvale, which I agree are horrible. This happens because giant lots are sold to single developers to build cookie cutter developments. I think if the community is to grow in a way that preserves its character, the city needs to allow individuals to build denser on their own, allow mixed use commercial/residential buildings outside of a select few zones, and quit making deals with the same developers like Classic Communities or Merlone Geier who always build the same exact thing everywhere.


Common sense
Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 10:01 am
Common sense, Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 10:01 am

'Showalter said what made the election unique and important is "the strong desire to open North Bayshore to housing. There's just been this groundswell of interest in the community."'

Showalter could have added that the election was unique and important in attracting huge expenditure by outside lobbying groups, which benefitted her and may even have gotten her elected. A groundswell of interest in our elections was OUTSIDE the community too.

Emily Patterson: "Why are long term residents so afraid of change?" Wait until you have devoted a good part of your life active in the local community, maybe raised a family here, then find newcomers (who may or may not eventually become long-term residents too) telling you what they think needs changing, for their whim and convenience -- and dismissing any resistance to their ideas as "being afraid of change." Then you may start to understand.


progressive
Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 10:28 am
progressive, Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 10:28 am

The truth hurts. Amazing arguments. Lets get a petition to stop development. Folks, we just had an election and the voters were smart enough to identify candidates that supported their vision. Time to get on board for progressive changes in MV. Claims of doom and gloom from development are just hyperbole.


perspective
another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 11:28 am
perspective, another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 11:28 am


From the results below, it is clear that there are a good number of potential petitioners that can stop out-of-control, traffic grid-locking, pollution-causing, aesthetics-lacking, no-setback, sun-blocking,dreary, monstrous office and apartment buildings.

Mountain View City Council
Pat Showalter
3,571
16.57%

Ken Rosenberg
3,188
14.79%

Leonard "Lenny" Siegel
2,869
13.31%

Lisa Matichak
2,461
11.42%

Greg Unangst
2,306
10.70%

Ellen Kamei
2,215
10.28%

Margaret Capriles
2,122
9.85%

Mercedes Salem
1,454
6.75%

Jim Neal
1,362
6.32%


Jes' Sayin'
Bailey Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Jes' Sayin', Bailey Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm

Not progressive, but destructive. Forget the vistas and greenery of North Bayshore, that's for sure. Welcome to towers and more towers like Redwood Shores has.


Sparty
Registered user
another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 2:10 pm
Sparty, another community
Registered user
on Nov 5, 2014 at 2:10 pm

Don't blame outside money because the election didn't go the way you wanted. Plenty of people tuned that all out.

The biggest and most common signs, the most visible product of campaign money, made for a poor showing...


Recall
Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 2:25 pm
Recall, Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 2:25 pm

The problem is that there is nobody in the "Let's Keep Mountain View Beautiful And Livable" camp with the organizational skills to influence the election. Prometheus and other developers send money down to the Southern California soft-money laundromat to buy the election. Every single elected candidate received most of their campaign money from people that don't live here.

However, I do contest that is is outside money. It is companies that wish to make a profit by converting Mountain View into a high rent bee-hive of worker drones. I don't blame them. That is capitalism..the American Way.

Lenny Siegel is the only one that seems to care about MV with the organizational skills to influence city council and the election. That's why he was elected (or will probably be elected when the absentee ballots are counted). He got the council to wait a few months before caving into Merlone Grier. No other person in MV could have done that.

Unfortunately, Mr. Siegel appears to want to jam in as many people into the city limits as possible. Perhaps this is to respond to ABAG demands? Let's crap up the Shoreline area near 101 and Palo Alto in order to get our numbers up. I guess if you were going to destroy livability in MV, it's best to do it way over there.

Is there anyone that can stand up and force the city to listen to the silent majority? Initiate a recall? Or get signatures to stop a development from moving forward. (Like what happened in Palo Alto and what Mr. Siegel tried to do here.)

If not, then we're screwed. Developers will continue to fund campaigns with soft money and we will always have a council that is aligned with their interests.


Turnout
Cuernavaca
on Nov 5, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Turnout, Cuernavaca
on Nov 5, 2014 at 2:46 pm

One very notable thing about this election was the extremely disappointing turnout. Getting 2,000 - 3,500 total votes in a city of 75,000 is hardly a mandate...just more votes than the others received.

It's sad that in a city with so many current important issues and with 3 completely open council seats, that only about 8,000 residents voted in the election.

What is that saying? (I don't know the answer)


Nora Adams
Shoreline West
on Nov 5, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Nora Adams, Shoreline West
on Nov 5, 2014 at 2:49 pm

If more housing isn't built, but offices are, we can say goodbye to neighborhoods, diversity, and community. With skyrocketing rents and housing costs that are prohibitive for all but the very wealthy, unless there is more housing, this will become a rich, white, old suburb overrun with corporate office complexes and a few high end downtown restaurants.

I'm glad that Lenny, Pat, and Ken have been elected. They value the true values of Mountain View, which is one of diversity and community. As a long time Mountain View resident, I don't want to see my once robust community overrun with businesses, becoming a mecca of industry not neighborhoods. I don't want to continue to see the displacing of long time friends. I don't want to see so many kids on reduced or free lunches at our local schools and living in jammed packed apartments.

I look forward to the preservation of the true heart of what Mountain View is all about: a community where we care for our neighbors and value diversity.


An older guy
Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 3:22 pm
An older guy, Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 3:22 pm

Let us not forget that before there was a Google, Microsoft, Intuit, etc., there was housing in the North of Bayshore area. Not all of the streets were in good condition, however children of those residents were bussed to school - eight Powell Elementary (Leghorn & Independence) or the currently closed Whisman School.


Good news
Whisman Station
on Nov 5, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Good news, Whisman Station
on Nov 5, 2014 at 3:44 pm

This thread exposes the anti-housing crowd's argument for what it is. They'll stand by and say little or nothing when millions of square feet of commercial real estate is quietly approved, choking the roads with commuters and corporate buses. Yet extremely vocal they get when anybody suggests more housing. "Quality of life" ... indeed.

We have sat here and listened to these trolls tell us to deal with it or move out.

The voters have spoken. Electing council members with a pro-housing priorities. Finally a bit a good news.


Robert
Registered user
Slater
on Nov 5, 2014 at 4:00 pm
Robert, Slater
Registered user
on Nov 5, 2014 at 4:00 pm

[email protected] "The downside to what's happening in Mountain View right now is that you either have to be incredibly wealthy to move here, or you're "locked in" by a house you bought years ago and Prop 13's limit to your property taxes. This situation won't result in a vibrant diverse community, it will result in a wealthy single industry town as existing home owners sell and move away."

Well stated.

My wife and I fall into the latter group, and we are leaving, but not happily. Like so many that have come before us, we had planned to live out our lives here and retire here, as Mountain View has been a wonderful place to live, but the nerd invasion changed all that. People keep saying to us how can you leave a climate like this? What I answer is that there are many kinds of climate, not just weather. There is an economic climate that is going through the roof. There is a new social and cultural climate that has taken hold in our community, like Kudzu took over the South, brought here by the huge influx of new workers. The sheer volume of new, young people arriving here so quickly has not allowed sufficient time for either group to assimilate with the other. Change is always happening, but here, it is moving too quickly to control, and our best efforts so far have been reactionary. Acceptable change is like a gentle push as it gives us time to adjust, but what is going on now is a shoving match and it's getting uncivil. I could add transportation culture, a mindset which now favors bicycles over autos and public transit over private. This might be fine for young college age kids, but I am too old for that and our city was not designed that way.
Silicon Valley now reminds me of the Hornet trap in my yard. Just add the pheromones of weather and money and all the high tech Hornets become entrapped in their new "high tech ghetto", the brave new Mountain View of the future. How sad, they have more degrees than a thermometer, and not a whit of common sense.


too-many-office-buildings-MV
another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 4:02 pm
too-many-office-buildings-MV, another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 4:02 pm


Mountain View...
Keep building offices.
Then under the guise of "balancing jobs and housing",
Keep building apartments and fill them with residents.

Encourage these new residents to keep electing city council members
that will support building more apartments.

Traffic congestion and gridlock? Who cares?
The long term livability of Mountain View? Who cares?

The one thing that is even more annoying is that there
is absolutely no setback from the roads when these
new buildings go up.

Dilapidated 1 to 2 story buildings are far more appealing
than these new multistory glass and concrete buildings
hitting your face while driving through these roads.

San Antonio phase-1 ... these 330 apartments... where
is the aesthetics?

Why would any city want to self-destruct with this type
of "development"? MV city council needs to stop adding any
more jobs to this already congested city.

Drowning in traffic, pollution, new apartment buildings with
no aesthetics, over-crowding, etc. etc. Welcome to MV,
the developer's paradise!

Developers! Developers!! Developers!!!
Please rain apartments and office buildings on MV!!!
You, the developers... won't be suffering the traffic congestion...
so keep adding buildings!!!!
__________________


Observer
Rengstorff Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Observer, Rengstorff Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 4:36 pm

At least residents of MV can go and vote for/against development, housing, etc. People in majority of other countries just don't have any choice. Nobody asks for their opinion, governments just do what they want to get more money or power...


Actually
Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Actually, Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm

This election is a reaction to the imbalance that the former council created by selling this city out to commercial development. Let us not forget how many renters this city has. Any home-owning resident who thought they could protect their 'way of life' by insulting renters and basically supporting everything that made it more difficult for renters to transition to home ownership, you brought this on yourselves.

But, hey, chin up: after some more housing is brought on market, and the percentage of home ownership goes up, I'm sure that slower growth priorities will come back. Though I'm sure even in that circumstance you'll be on these boards looking for something to troll about.


Seems like google money
Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Seems like google money , Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 4:58 pm

and outsider money worked well.


Manipulated Election
Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 pm
Manipulated Election, Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Not true that Lenny did not have $$ & support from the developers. He said it openly! Is he now changing his tune?

He also had representatives from Prometeus and Greystar at his BMV meetings!

So what Matichak said in the article is totally on the dot: "...big money and corporations have a lot of influence." More than we'll ever know! I suspect Google, et al, and big construction corps of having their employees register in MV to vote here whether or not they actually live somewhere else. And also exactly for whom to vote: The big three overbuilding candidates on the ballot, exactly what big developers want so they can have build high to the sky and further ruin this place.

And those ballot boxes have to be transported. Tampering is easy then!

What can we do to demand an investigation on both these possibilities???

And, as Pat Showalter is an engineer with the Santa Clara County Water Board, is her becoming a MV City Council member not an outrageous conflict of interest?!! And what are we going to do about it???


Paranoia Will Destroya
Bailey Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 5:21 pm
Paranoia Will Destroya, Bailey Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 5:21 pm

"...and it goes like THIS!"

-R. Davies


NewbieResident
Bailey Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 5:23 pm
NewbieResident, Bailey Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 5:23 pm

What exactly did the no-housing in North Bayshore candidates propose? Build a few bike lanes? A new park? Put in place a City-wide shuttle? Reduce development of office space and limit housing, in hopes that the problems of traffic congestion and soaring housing prices go away? We don't need 4 years of that. We needed strong, well defined solutions.


MV since 1980
Blossom Valley
on Nov 5, 2014 at 5:32 pm
MV since 1980, Blossom Valley
on Nov 5, 2014 at 5:32 pm

If you want the city environment, then move to the city. I enjoy MV, the neighborhoods, friendly neighbors, green environment, and diversity. Not big on super tall buildings. Great environment for lots of crows. Urban jungle. Have you been to any big Asian cities?


MV in 2014
Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 5:58 pm
MV in 2014, Cuesta Park
on Nov 5, 2014 at 5:58 pm

It's not 1980 anymore ... there are tall, dense commercial buildings popping up everywhere that the current/former council approved. Or maybe you haven't noticed.

Sorry, I can't hear what you're saying over the noise of out-of-town commuters.


m2grs
another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 6:41 pm
m2grs, another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 6:41 pm

Palo Alto elected a city council that is at the exactly opposite spectrum of Mountain View.

Looks like Palo Alto is the Republican and Mountain View plays the Democrat role.

I guess this fits well for the local economy. One city for the privileged executived, next to it the city for willing worker bees.


David Harkness
Shoreline West
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:08 pm
David Harkness, Shoreline West
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:08 pm

I see the reasons on both sides, and both make sense. The problem for me is that it seems the current residents want to enjoy the tax dividends from new office space plus the higher home values from cramped housing.

I moved here from SF and LA (native to San Jose and Santa Cruz), and I'm finally ready to buy a condo/house. But the council built offices for many years without housing. So now I can't afford to pay $1.2M for a mediocre 2bd condo. And I'm hardly alone.

So fine. If you want to keep Mountain View small, don't build offices that attract people who want to live here to avoid commuting two hours each way. Either stop all growth or make sure it's balanced between offices and housing.

And yes, this will require coordination among all the peninsula cities. The office explosion was given a green light by the current residents.

Now work together to solve this mess!


Progressive
Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:18 pm
Progressive, Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:18 pm

This was clearly a mandate since two of the newcomers were elected and there were 3 current EPC members running. Voters are smart and recognized who would best carry put their vision of the city. BTW, a town of 75000 does not have the same number of voters. To suggest that developers influenced the election is laughable. The no growthers continue to whine about doom and gloom and offer no ideas about how to improve projects.


MV Resident
Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:19 pm
MV Resident, Monta Loma
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:19 pm

Election manipulation, before you go around spreading conspiracy theories, maybe read up on the sources of the various candidates' campaign finances. Here's a link to get you started:

Web Link

Also, it's not possible to register to vote in a city if you don't live there. You need to provide a residential address in Mountain View.


ignorance
Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:53 pm
ignorance, Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:53 pm

It's sad to read so many ignorant words here.

"So fine. If you want to keep Mountain View small, don't build offices that attract people who want to live here to avoid commuting two hours each way."

Fine, then why don't you move to a town that has build almost no offices like Los Altos Hills, Atherton or Woodside? According to the smart people on this thread, rents should be very low there. Without offices, nobody wants to live there, right? Oh! No... rents are much higher there!!! I guess people are willing to pay a lot of money to live near trees and not live in a concrete jungle. Hmmm....

MV is hardly enjoying the "tax dividend" of new office development. I pay property taxes every year, so have yet to get my check.

You could build 5,000 apartments in the next few years and rents will still be going up...as long as the economy continues to flourish.

The best thing to do is very, very little. Build up schools, parks and infrastructure. Make it a desirable place to live again.


In Mountain View since 1984
Gemello
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:00 pm
In Mountain View since 1984, Gemello
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:00 pm

I'm disappointed that all new elected City Councils are pro North Bayshore Development. What diversity is this about?? It looks very much like "money talks". What will happen to the environment and the wildlife that lives there? All things with no voice are trampled to extinction and will be lost forever. I hope the voters will not regret their choices some day. I would rather see more housing in the Whisman area, where a school could be reopened.

Another comment about the developer that built a way too big Safeway at the San Antonio Shopping Center and want to push the Milk Pail out. Bigger is definitely not better!!!


m2grs
another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:51 pm
m2grs, another community
on Nov 5, 2014 at 9:51 pm

Imagine a utopia Mountain view. 10,000 households, but 100 million sqft Class A offices.

At $2/sqft property tax, the city will have $200 million property tax from offices alone. With additional sales tax, fees, and residential property taxes, this utopia Mountain View can afford the best parks, roads, libraries and schools.

Alas, it won't happen, because renters want more housing, and less offices.



My two cents
Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 10:58 pm
My two cents, Old Mountain View
on Nov 5, 2014 at 10:58 pm

Let’s give credit where credit is due.

Big credits to the Voice for selling the illusion that stepping up high-density housing will stabilize prices. Daniel DeBolt’s articles were a constant drum beat for Lenny and his agenda.

I’m sure that Lenny believes in his cause (the environmentalist gospel of building densely in urban areas, to cut down on sprawl and long commutes). But it won’t drive down housing prices.

Let’s see if he can deliver on his promise of affordable housing. I don’t think that’s what Prometheus and other major developers have in mind for Mountain View.

Big credits to the local papers for their election recommendations: Siegel/Showalter/Rosenberg, from both the Voice and the Mercury. A lot of low-information voters make their decisions that way.

And big credits to the sources of the outside and “dark” money (nearly $60,000 for Rosenberg, over $20,000 for Showalter) that made a mockery of the $23,000 voluntary expenditure limit - There’s a great investigative article there for some reporter who truly wants to dig out the individuals and networks that made this happen.

All in all, a great sales job!

We did get some nice promises from both Siegel and Rosenberg about respecting neighborhoods. We’ll see about that.


-2 cents
Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 1:42 am
-2 cents, Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 1:42 am

Or more accurately, -$163 per square foot for your commercial real estate fetish.

Google is buying office at $625/sq ft -- which is on the peak price for commercial, and in residential the AVERAGE is $788/sq ft according to Trulia. So yeah, you do the math. Adding housing supply certainly can't do anything but improve the situation for home buyers. Given the reckless abandon by which offices have been added to Mountain View, it's really the only thing that can be done to address the issue.

The people opposed to housing are just another breed of NIMBY or developers with an interest in North Bayshore astroturfing. Given the posts we see here, it's clear that they are not interested in community or a balanced plan for all residents of this city, 60% of whom are renters. It's not "dark money" that won this election, it was the legit concerns of a majority of the actual community of the city. So, yeah, deal with it.


Really?
Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 2:39 am
Really?, Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 2:39 am

So, it was a complete coincidence that the candidates with the most soft money won the election?


m2grs
another community
on Nov 6, 2014 at 7:41 am
m2grs, another community
on Nov 6, 2014 at 7:41 am

@-2 cents, you are clueless in multiple levels.

First, I'm talking about tax revenue per sqft, not the sale price per sqft. Secondly, not all of the 1+% property tax goes to the city. State gets a big chunk. $2/sqft is my estimate the city will get.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, in the long run residential property tends to consume more city resources than the revenue it generates, even though the price per sqft is higher than office.

A household is likely to have kids going to school. They use libraries, parks, etc. in weekends, which need to be maintained. Office employees have none of that.

An office is also likely to be updated more frequently in order to maintain employee satisfaction or attract new tenants. A household has no such incentive.

BTW, Google has signed giant multi-million-sqft leases in Sunnyvale and Redwood City. They are diversifying. Don't ever think Google is a trapped cow in Mountain View.


My two cents
Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 9:22 am
My two cents, Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 9:22 am

@-2 cents, You are caught up in your own vitriol. Let me clarify:

"commercial real estate fetish" - I said nothing about this. In fact, I'd like to see a freeze on new office space. Google can go elsewhere - in fact, they are already doing that.

"Adding housing supply certainly can't do anything but improve the situation for home buyers." - One of my points was that developers are not interested in building ownership housing, or "affordable" housing (ownership or rental). Very little ownership housing is being built these days.

The most lucrative possibility for developers is to build "luxury" apartments, enabling them to skim $40,000+ per year off the top of a tech worker's $120,000+ per year salary. I'd love to see ownership housing built rather than luxury rentals, but that's not how it's going. The promise of affordable rentals and ownership housing was just a sales pitch.

Finally, if you don't mind, knock off the "NIMBY" slur. That's been a way to dismiss legitimate concerns of citizens who want to avoid damage to their neighborhoods. This forum has been surprisingly civil in the last few months, with only occasional trollery. Let's keep it that way.


Susan
Castro City
on Nov 6, 2014 at 11:00 am
Susan, Castro City
on Nov 6, 2014 at 11:00 am

Amidst all the discussion about more housing, I am still waiting to find out the definition of Affordable Housing. Without some target cost there can be no possibility of middle income and lower income being able to remain here. Current costs are over the moon and not everyone makes $100K per year. Definition, Please?


@Susan
Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 11:27 am
@Susan, Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 11:27 am

No need to wait for an answer! Here you go: Web Link


@m2grs
Monta Loma
on Nov 6, 2014 at 11:35 am
@m2grs, Monta Loma
on Nov 6, 2014 at 11:35 am

"Looks like Palo Alto is the Republican and Mountain View plays the Democrat role."

All I can say is Michael Savage phrased it correct in his book, "Liberalism is a mental disorder"


Jerry
Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Jerry, Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 12:09 pm

Higher density housing is more energy efficient and good for the environment b/c it uses less land per capita and being close to work centers cuts down on pollution. I'm surprised so many people in a liberal Northern California community is against such policies.

I'm glad the people have spoken. More housing!


Ugh
Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 1:50 pm
Ugh, Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 1:50 pm

Re: the myth, adding housing "damages" the existing community.

Massive office parks and commuter logjams do, though, and we're not anywhere close to 50% occupancy through the approved office developments yet AFAIK. The best is yet to come! Enjoy your gridlock.

Re: the assertion the city's infrastructure & schools cannot support additional housing (therefore, that housing advocates are too stupid to think about infrastructure concerns... apparently)

I don't think anyone who has advocated housing has been against improving infrastructure and adding schooling to go with it. Some argue it cannot be done. I'm not sure why anyone would be against improved infrastructure unless it was clearly unnecessary. We saw that with Prop 1 (aka the water bond) which passed easily. Of course, it took a historic drought to bring that change, but it has happened.

Everybody who has advocated housing has squarely been on the side of improved schools & infrastructure. I don't think anybody wants to wait for things to get worse, but you know, "worse" is the corner the last council has painted us into.

I can't remember anybody on the anti-housing side screaming about the lack of infrastructure or the damage that would result to the "community" as a result of 7-8 million square feet of office workers coming on board in the next 2-3 years. We've always talked about traffic but it's been divorced from these office projects, people peeved about things like the San Antonio throughfare. I guess because it was off Ellis or over in Bayshore, you probably thought, well, not my problem.

Where are the solutions? The anti-housing group doesn't have any. They just say "no" to things because they are probably in a position (have the luxury) to do that, as home ownership affords them, and others like me. A lot of people don't. The vague answer to them -- 60% of the residents -- is basically deal with the status quo or move out. The vote is clear push-back against that status quo. If anything the message is from renters: solve the housing problem, or don't -- to your peril.

You resent the "NIMBY" term not because it's trolling -- but because it's true and it's a pejorative. If there's a non-pejorative term for NIMBY you'd like to be used, by all means, submit one. As a former NIMBY myself I can relate, but I try to take a wider view of things now. Because, in the most honest light, your dissent on additional housing isn't really about what the "community" needs, it's just about what you think YOU need. And that's really more optimistic than the other conclusion I could reach: which is that you just want to keep watching your home value go up so that you can cash out at peak and retire to Petaluma or something. The thought had occurred to me as well.


@Ugh
Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 2:44 pm
@Ugh, Old Mountain View
on Nov 6, 2014 at 2:44 pm

@Ugh - "If anything the message is from renters: solve the housing problem, or don't -- to your peril."

Your candidates won. Developers won, too. Now let's see if they can "solve the housing problem."

Build all you like. We'll see if anything gets "solved."


Voter
Cuesta Park
on Nov 6, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Voter, Cuesta Park
on Nov 6, 2014 at 4:36 pm

There are many ways to grow a city, but finding that balance between infrastructure (schools, streets, police, etc), housing, jobs, and quality of life requires very careful consideration and a true dedication to the current and future citizens of Mountain View. I congratulate our newly elected City Council members and wish them great success.

I agree with the poster above that advised us not to put our city in Google's hands. Google will always do what is best for Google. They owe their loyalty to their stockholders, not to Mountain View. At any moment, they can move their headquarters to another city, county, or even state. We hope we can make it favorable for them to stay, but how far should we go and change the character of our city to accommodate them? Mountain View has think of itself both in and outside of the Google box.


Maher
Registered user
Martens-Carmelita
on Nov 8, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Maher, Martens-Carmelita
Registered user
on Nov 8, 2014 at 2:29 pm

It looks like we need a new town name: GOOGLEVILLE seems the most honest. I'd hoped for a better bigger turnout of voters who care about our bay access and views but that didn't happen.

Too bad, I've liked Mountain View's concern for these open spaces.


Sparty
Registered user
another community
on Nov 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm
Sparty, another community
Registered user
on Nov 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm

with google totally destroying MV, good thing their building project is going to be on Federal Land.

And now the anti-bridge balance is gone from city council....

So much for the "MV does whatever google wants" crowd...there now you have it.

"Democracy" is horrible when people don't vote the way you think they should.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.