News

Election roundup: Endorsements roll in for Mountain View City Council and local school boards

Campaign signs at the corner of Church Street and Shoreline Boulevard. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

With less than two months to go before Election Day, several local and regional groups are weighing in with endorsements for Mountain View's races, including some divergent recommendations for the City Council.

Three organizations, the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance and the Santa Clara County Democratic Party, announced this week their picks for the City Council and whether to vote for Measure C, the city's proposed oversized vehicle ban. The local chapter of the Democratic Party also unveiled its picks for local school board races and the El Camino Healthcare District's board of directors.

The chamber of commerce backed both incumbents in the race, Margaret Abe-Koga and Lisa Matichak, along with Jose Gutierrez, a Mountain View Whisman School District board member, and Paul Roales, a Waymo engineer seeking to break into local politics. Previous coverage of the candidates can be found here.

The chamber of commerce surveyed its hundreds of members on top issues facing the city and held one-on-one interviews with each of the candidates, and recently hosted a forum quizzing each candidate on their approach to problems facing Mountain View's business community. Top of mind at the forum was each candidate's plan to save businesses struggling during COVID-19, and what they would do to ease the city's tough and sometimes aggravating permitting process.

"We support having Margaret, Lisa, Jose and Paul on Council as they have the mix of experience, inventiveness, and practicality that will lead to a healthy economy and community," said Peter Katz, the chamber president and CEO, in a statement announcing the endorsements. "We look forward to having them actively engage with the chamber to tackle our immediate challenges and in shaping the future of our city."

What's local journalism worth to you?

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

Learn more

The chamber is also supporting the the one-eighth cent Caltrain sales tax, and opposes Proposition 15 and Proposition 21. Proposition 15 proposes eliminating property tax protections for large commercial properties, and Proposition 21 would loosen statewide restrictions on rent control laws.

The Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance announced its own slate of candidates earlier in the week, starkly contrasting the chamber's picks, opting not to support either incumbent. Despite voters being asked to vote for four candidates this November, the alliance endorsed five: Former Assemblywoman Sally Lieber; former city councilmembers Pat Showalter and Lenny Siegel; and community activists Alex Nunez and John Lashlee.

All five candidates picked by the alliance said they would extend Mountain View's rent control program to include mobile homes, which has for years been a wedge issue for the organization.

The Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance held its own candidate forum on Aug. 15, which can be viewed here.

The Santa Clara County Democratic Party fell somewhere in between the chamber and the mobile home alliance, endorsing Abe-Koga, Lieber, Nunez and Showalter for the November election. Both the local chapter of the democratic party and the mobile home alliance endorsed a "No" vote on Measure C, while the chamber declined to take a position on the citywide measure.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

The Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition, a local community activist group, announced on Sept. 1 its endorsement of Lieber, Nunez, Showalter and Siegel. The group had received questionnaires from five of the candidates, comprised of the four picks and John Lashlee, and said all five "clearly support renters and housing justice."

The full list of endorsements are below:

Mountain View Chamber of Commerce

Mountain View City Council: Margaret Abe-Koga, Lisa Matichak, Jose Gutierrez, Paul Roales

Proposition 15 & Proposition 21- No

Measure RR - Yes

Nine candidates are running for four seats on the city council. Photo by Michelle Le.

Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance

Mountain View City Council: Sally Lieber, Alex Nunez, Lenny Siegel, John Lashlee, Pat Showalter

Measure C - No

Santa Clara County Democratic Party

Mountain View City Council: Margaret Abe Koga, Sally Lieber, Alex Nunez, Pat Showalter

Measure C - No

Mountain View Whisman School District: Laura Berman, Laura Blakely, Chris Chiang

Mountain View-Los Altos High School District: Phil Faillace

El Camino Health District District Board of Directors: Dr. Meghan Fraley, Dr. Carol Somersille, Julia Miller

Santa Clara County Board of Education: Melissa Baten Caswell

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

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

Election roundup: Endorsements roll in for Mountain View City Council and local school boards

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 1:26 pm

With less than two months to go before Election Day, several local and regional groups are weighing in with endorsements for Mountain View's races, including some divergent recommendations for the City Council.

Three organizations, the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance and the Santa Clara County Democratic Party, announced this week their picks for the City Council and whether to vote for Measure C, the city's proposed oversized vehicle ban. The local chapter of the Democratic Party also unveiled its picks for local school board races and the El Camino Healthcare District's board of directors.

The chamber of commerce backed both incumbents in the race, Margaret Abe-Koga and Lisa Matichak, along with Jose Gutierrez, a Mountain View Whisman School District board member, and Paul Roales, a Waymo engineer seeking to break into local politics. Previous coverage of the candidates can be found here.

The chamber of commerce surveyed its hundreds of members on top issues facing the city and held one-on-one interviews with each of the candidates, and recently hosted a forum quizzing each candidate on their approach to problems facing Mountain View's business community. Top of mind at the forum was each candidate's plan to save businesses struggling during COVID-19, and what they would do to ease the city's tough and sometimes aggravating permitting process.

"We support having Margaret, Lisa, Jose and Paul on Council as they have the mix of experience, inventiveness, and practicality that will lead to a healthy economy and community," said Peter Katz, the chamber president and CEO, in a statement announcing the endorsements. "We look forward to having them actively engage with the chamber to tackle our immediate challenges and in shaping the future of our city."

The chamber is also supporting the the one-eighth cent Caltrain sales tax, and opposes Proposition 15 and Proposition 21. Proposition 15 proposes eliminating property tax protections for large commercial properties, and Proposition 21 would loosen statewide restrictions on rent control laws.

The Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance announced its own slate of candidates earlier in the week, starkly contrasting the chamber's picks, opting not to support either incumbent. Despite voters being asked to vote for four candidates this November, the alliance endorsed five: Former Assemblywoman Sally Lieber; former city councilmembers Pat Showalter and Lenny Siegel; and community activists Alex Nunez and John Lashlee.

All five candidates picked by the alliance said they would extend Mountain View's rent control program to include mobile homes, which has for years been a wedge issue for the organization.

The Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance held its own candidate forum on Aug. 15, which can be viewed here.

The Santa Clara County Democratic Party fell somewhere in between the chamber and the mobile home alliance, endorsing Abe-Koga, Lieber, Nunez and Showalter for the November election. Both the local chapter of the democratic party and the mobile home alliance endorsed a "No" vote on Measure C, while the chamber declined to take a position on the citywide measure.

The Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition, a local community activist group, announced on Sept. 1 its endorsement of Lieber, Nunez, Showalter and Siegel. The group had received questionnaires from five of the candidates, comprised of the four picks and John Lashlee, and said all five "clearly support renters and housing justice."

The full list of endorsements are below:

Mountain View Chamber of Commerce

Mountain View City Council: Margaret Abe-Koga, Lisa Matichak, Jose Gutierrez, Paul Roales

Proposition 15 & Proposition 21- No

Measure RR - Yes

Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance

Mountain View City Council: Sally Lieber, Alex Nunez, Lenny Siegel, John Lashlee, Pat Showalter

Measure C - No

Santa Clara County Democratic Party

Mountain View City Council: Margaret Abe Koga, Sally Lieber, Alex Nunez, Pat Showalter

Measure C - No

Mountain View Whisman School District: Laura Berman, Laura Blakely, Chris Chiang

Mountain View-Los Altos High School District: Phil Faillace

El Camino Health District District Board of Directors: Dr. Meghan Fraley, Dr. Carol Somersille, Julia Miller

Santa Clara County Board of Education: Melissa Baten Caswell

Comments

Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 18, 2020 at 1:53 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 1:53 pm
56 people like this

MVWSD, I think that the professional public school experience Teacher/Administrator of Berman is extremely impressive and important for this community. And, though I'm not a registered Democrat: Chris Chiang also has totally relevant public school professional experience. (Berman and Chiang each have over a decade's worth)


Peter
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:19 pm
Peter, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:19 pm
60 people like this

An absolute Yes on Measure C! It’s time to end the influx of RVs on our City streets and stop them parking everywhere in the City. Enough is enough!


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:22 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:22 pm
57 people like this

The Chamber of Commerce supports candidates that will focus on helping businesses - including landlords and mobile home park owners. Got it. Please remember citizens can register to vote at their current addresses online at RegisterToVote.Ca.Gov


ML Kyle
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:26 pm
ML Kyle, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:26 pm
79 people like this

Lisa Matichak is horrible and should be voted out. There's a housing crisis because of people like her and her stance on housing and ADU construction. It is impossible to build an ADU in most of mountain view, and my parents cannot move in with me as a result.

If power lines are visible from your backyard, current ADU rules effectively make construction of an ADU impossible with no flexibility from permitting to build outside of the 20% rear lot. Lisa was completely unsympathetic and refused to even acknowledge that this was a problem, when literally ALL OF MOUNTAIN VIEW has power lines running through our back yards.

My parents are going to be pushed into a nursing home because of people like her. Let me build the right house for my family on my own damn property.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:38 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:38 pm
49 people like this

ADUs contribute to low cost housing. I in general support that policy. And I have definitely 'turned' from my previous support of Matichak for Council.

PG&E "easements" is apparently what is at play at ML Kyle's residence. I didn't know, or even suspect! I know my property has the same "power line easements" with the same 'down the back property line power poles'. I wonder what the new state housing laws say-on-that? I wonder if the City is 'too restrictive/not using local option' to allow "closer to the main house" type of ADUs. [Your Elected Council helps or fights ADUs. / @ML Kyle is correct on his focus on the Council majority on this issue]


ML Kyle
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:38 pm
ML Kyle, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:38 pm
72 people like this

Also: Please vote yes on Proposition 15. Google and many other companies are paying dirt in sales tax, starving our schools of revenue.

Are you tired of seeing dilapidated strip malls, who charge their tenants top dollar for rent and pay damn near nothing in property taxes? Vote yes to make sure our local kids get the education they deserve!

When you buy a house, that house is re-assessed at market value. When commercial real estate gets sold, they use a variety of backdoors to prevent the re-assessment of that land, and the new owner continues to pay taxes based on the 1970's value of that land.

Please vote yes! An endless number of good things will come from this for our kids and communities. Our property tax burden falls almost entirely on home owners.


ML Kyle
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:43 pm
ML Kyle, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:43 pm
50 people like this

*property taxes, not sales taxes.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:48 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 2:48 pm
53 people like this

ML Kyle - it would be nice if you had your 'thinking hat' on straighter about The Facts of Property Taxes in CA. Try reading something from the Legislative Analyst's office or the California Public Policy Institute of California. BOTH NON_PARTISAN. (I don't believe either the Howard Jarvis people or the Yes on 15 partisans) [example State Ed K-12 funding has risen to now be -post 2012 - $12,143, within $62 dollars of the national average]
event/Sept 23rd
Web Link


Property Taxes
Registered user
Cuernavaca
on Sep 18, 2020 at 3:23 pm
Property Taxes, Cuernavaca
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 3:23 pm
13 people like this

@Kyle

Prop 15 would RAISE taxes on strip mall owners, who would then likely pass increases on to tenants. Prop 15 is NOT friendly to small businesses. This is a terrible time to further hurt small business (and small property owners...who make up the bulk of landlords). Not everyone is Google. (The $3M property value threshold to be excluded is meaningless in the Bay Area).

Also...our local schools would likely take a long term hit with this measure, as a chunk of local property tax revenue that previously would've stayed local, would now go to the state.

Prop 13 needs tweaking, but this not the right fix.


one voice
Registered user
Shoreline West
on Sep 18, 2020 at 6:08 pm
one voice, Shoreline West
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 6:08 pm
16 people like this

How can one be against Measure C and for Abe-Koga who has a long history of adding to our housing crisis by supporting office construction without housing for the added employees


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 18, 2020 at 6:29 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 6:29 pm
61 people like this

Again,

The "Chamber of Commerce" is NOT unbiased nor a governmental agency.

It is a private political action committee and nothing more, the idea that the press and the government lends them any legitimacy in my opinion is just amazing.

Margaret Abe Koga, Lisa Matichak, Jose Gutierrez, and Paul Roales in the City Council would ensure that the citizens rights would never be given equal weight regarding private interests. Look at all the lies that Margaret Abe Koga, Lisa Matichak, and Jose Gutierrez made in trying to get Measure D to pass in the last election. The voters clearly were NOT deceived by them.

WE CANNOT afford to have any “private political interest groups” agents to be on the City Council, everyone here should be careful to not let the “Wolves” guard the “Hen House”

As far as Measure C goes It does not provide any “answers” for affordable housing, which somehow uses affordable housing as an argument for it if you read this from the City website (Web Link):

“The housing crisis has hit Mountain View as it has hit other cities. It is heartbreaking to see people living in vehicles. Thus, the Mountain View City Council is working hard to build more affordable housing and mitigate displacement. The City of Mountain View has led the way to ensure that people living in vehicles are safe. Our Safe Parking Program still has capacity and offers displaced Mountain View families, families with students in local schools, people who work in Mountain View, and elderly or disabled individuals a safe place to park, as well as assistance with their daily needs, and more importantly assistance towards securing more stable housing.”

Led the way in affordable housing? Keep people living in Mountain View safe? Increased “stable housing”? They have been removing affordable housing and especially targeting it since CSFRA passed in 2016. So much that the state enacted SB330 to make cities stop trying to socially engineer their voters.

As far as the other Props go, my opinion is to say yes to Prop 15 and 21 to reform the real estate market.


Gladys
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 18, 2020 at 7:47 pm
Gladys, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 7:47 pm
37 people like this

I agree with the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce for city council members and for a No vote for Prop 15 and 21.

Those individuals are not activist. We have seen more than enough across our country of what activist council members will/can do to their city. We do not need or want that here.

Gov. Newsom also has come out for a No vote on Prop. 21. That proposition would have a negative effect on affordable housing stock.

Link here,
Web Link


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 18, 2020 at 8:24 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2020 at 8:24 pm
58 people like this

In response to Gladys you said:

“I agree with the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce for city council members and for a No vote for Prop 15 and 21.”

I respect your opinion but you went on to say:

“Those individuals are not activist. We have seen more than enough across our country of what activist council members will/can do to their city. We do not need or want that here.”

Corporate “ACTIVISTS” like the Chamber of Commerce do more damage with the use of a pen then anything. Look at the TCE pollution in Mountain View, surely the Chamber of Commerce advocated for the Semiconducter business in Mountain View. In reality businesses are normally making decisions that in fact KILL people. Over and over again when building codes, safety codes, and other regulations are violated they cause injury and death. And these "ACTIVISTS" want to remove any regulations they can. Look at the Ford Pinto and Explorers that burned and killed the people in their vehicles. These were acts with knowledge beforehand of how dangerous they were. So, you cannot get away with trying to make businesses look like they are protecting anyone but themselves. You said:

“Gov. Newsom also has come out for a No vote on Prop. 21. That proposition would have a negative effect on affordable housing stock.”

He is only saying it because he is threatened by organizations like the CAA that say to him, we will quit and leave. That is true the existing owners will quit and leave. BUT, does that mean that Newsome is right? I argue he is simply acting because the drop in market values WILL impact the state. BUT those market CORRECTIONS are necessary and will balance the housing market back from the bubble it is in now. Even though the COVID, the Fires, and AB5 are already doing a number on the market regarding apartments anyway if you read this:

You should look at Zumper price trends in Mountain View found here (Web Link)

A Studio Apartment at its peak in Aug 2019 on average was $2899, now it is $2095 a reduction of 28%. A Single Bedroom Apartment at its peak in Jun 2018 on average went for $3990, now it is $2499, a reduction of 37%. A Double Bedroom Apartment at its peak in Jun 2018 on average went for $5000, now it is $3200, a reduction of 36%. A Triple Bedroom Apartment at its peak in Dec 2018 on average went for $5500, now it is $4300, a reduction of 21%

We don’t need any specific owner or business in CA.


Gladys
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 19, 2020 at 11:09 am
Gladys, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 19, 2020 at 11:09 am
19 people like this

The San Francisco Chronicle says No to prop 21.
They are not a tool of the CAA.

The people behind the campaign of Prop 21 have stirred up a controversy. They claimed the veterans group are for Prop 21, but the veterans group came out and said NO, we are against Prop 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposition 21 Campaign Ad Blasted by Veterans for Using Actor to Portray War Hero

Proposition 21 is opposed by the state’s leading veterans’ groups.

State law, which Chavez authored, expressly bans “A person who knowingly, with the intent to impersonate, for the purposes of promoting a business, charity, or endeavor, misrepresents himself or herself as a member or veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States, the California National Guard, the State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia by wearing the uniform or military decoration authorized for use by the members or veterans of those forces.”

Link here,
Web Link


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 19, 2020 at 12:26 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 19, 2020 at 12:26 pm
69 people like this

Gladys,

OK, lets address the Gorilla in the room, the San Francisco Chronicle publishes an entire section on Sunday for real estate advertising and does in every edition. It is dependent on Real Estate Advertising and the market crash if Prop 21 passes would make a significant risk to the Chronicles existence. That explains that the Chronicle has a financial conflict of interest that it cannot separate.

As far as the Veterans claim you made here: “Proposition 21 is opposed by the state’s leading veterans’ groups.

State law, which Chavez authored, expressly bans “A person who knowingly, with the intent to impersonate, for the purposes of promoting a business, charity, or endeavor, misrepresents himself or herself as a member or veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States, the California National Guard, the State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia by wearing the uniform or military decoration authorized for use by the members or veterans of those forces.”

Link here,

Web Link

You should read your resources more carefully. First this web page is a political blog and not a news report.

The First link in the webpage is from a newspaper here (Web Link), BUT it also makes this statement:

“It is not unusual or illegal for an actor to portray a member of the military or a veteran. But Jim DeBoo, a consultant with the “No on Prop 21" campaign, noted that this ad does not disclose that the man in the ad is an actor.”

But it also does not indicate WHO that man was, it simply is an advertisement. If you look on the Yes on 21 website, they ARE endorsed by the group Veteran Voices. So the claim that they were “impersonating” an officer is grossly misleading and that Veterans Groups oppose it is an exaggeration.

The other link here (Web Link) is from a paid PR group called BusinessWire run by the Berkshire Hathaway Group and it clearly states it works to:

“Business Wire, a Berkshire Hathaway company, is the global leader in press release distribution and regulatory disclosure.

Investor relations, public relations, public policy and marketing professionals rely on Business Wire for secure and accurate distribution of market-moving news and multimedia.

Founded in 1961, Business Wire is a trusted source for news organizations, journalists, investment professionals and regulatory authorities, delivering news directly into editorial systems and leading online news sources via its multi-patented NX Network. Business Wire has 18 newsrooms worldwide to meet the needs of communications professionals and news media.”

It is NOT a newspaper or a journal, it is a PR Group

The investigation is ongoing, so far no determination has been made. And yes, the Proposition if passed will CORRECT the bubbled real estate values, but they are overvalued and everyone knows it. So these “Veterans” opposition posted on the No on 21 webpage are involved in a conflict of interest and thus we all should take that into consideration.


Gladys
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 19, 2020 at 1:45 pm
Gladys, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 19, 2020 at 1:45 pm
23 people like this

This is you standard MO. Distract, divert attention from the original point.

You can do a Google search and read the story from any source you want. It does not change the fact that the ad fully appears to have broken the law in that they illegally tried to portray a veteran in the ad, who is not a veteran, in support of their proposition and did not disclose that fact in their ad.

The issue with you is, and most everyone here knows this about you, you are an activist with a chip on your shoulder. You hate all business, you love the Government, which is your employer.

Your support of Prop 15 and 21 displays that fact again.

Why anyone uses the excuse to say we need to tax the likes of Google, in the Prop 15 case, and yet disregards the impact on 95% of the other small businesses who can not survive with that ever increasing tax expensive in California is beyond me. Small businesses, like the Milk Pail had they still be open today, would have never been able to stay open if Prop 15 were to pass.

NO votes on 15 and 21.
Yes on 22 for me.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 19, 2020 at 2:19 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 19, 2020 at 2:19 pm
46 people like this

In response to Gladys you said:

“This is you standard MO. Distract, divert attention from the original point.”

Actually you brought up a point that turned out to be an exaggeration at best. You do not like “fact checkers”. You said:

“You can do a Google search and read the story from any source you want. It does not change the fact that the ad fully appears to have broken the law in that they illegally tried to portray a veteran in the ad, who is not a veteran, in support of their proposition and did not disclose that fact in their ad.”

Again, WHAT authority has adjudicate4d your argument? You are in no authority to make that determination unless you are a judge or a prosecutor, and you know that. You said:

“The issue with you is, and most everyone here knows this about you, you are an activist with a chip on your shoulder. You hate all business, you love the Government, which is your employer.”

Finally, we get back to the personal attacks again. You amongst so many selected anonymous posters here. I am not against business if it follows rules and doesn’t use systemic deception as a market model. For example, a Computer Services contractor cannot work on another corporations’ computers, it must work on only their own, in order for it to be a contract. The computers managed by said contractor cannot be used by employees of the onsite company, it makes it illegal because that means the equipment must be owned by the onsite business. This is a violation of IRS standards as well. Your argument:

“Your support of Prop 15 and 21 displays that fact again.”

I am for the market reforms that have been long overdue since Costa Hawkins was passed on the false pretense that housing would be more available, and that corporations are not paying for the wear and tear on the community assets they abuse, like highways, roads, and many other services. You said:

“Why anyone uses the excuse to say we need to tax the likes of Google, in the Prop 15 case, and yet disregards the impact on 95% of the other small businesses who can not survive with that ever increasing tax expensive in California is beyond me. Small businesses, like the Milk Pail had they still be open today, would have never been able to stay open if Prop 15 were to pass.”

I just explained at least 3 costs that Goggle has increased on the County. There are many more. You said:

“NO votes on 15 and 21.

Yes on 22 for me.

You obviously work as either a contracting company owner or a contractor. I am sorry that AB5 is reforming the labor market. But the facts are contracting companies are being used illegally under the Microsoft federal case in 1996 and the Dynamex case of 2018, and Prop 22 will not overturn those decisions. The standards will still exist, just that contractors will sue their previous companies instead of the labor market preventing the cost of litigation.

Only a California Constitutional Amendment can change the Courts rulings.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Sep 22, 2020 at 10:23 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Sep 22, 2020 at 10:23 am
53 people like this

IMO Steven Goldstein - you now need to tone it down on this line_of_comment. Please. Gladys has made a few reasonable points to think about (it is always hard to get PRIMARY SOURCES - but she obviously tried and was very forthcoming about posting hyper-text-links). You made some points about PR or "blog" sources. PLEASE U do not need now to belabor the points!


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 22, 2020 at 10:55 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 22, 2020 at 10:55 am
47 people like this

In response to Gladys,

I apologize. I am getting really gun shy because so many people made bad comments in the past. This is no excuse, and I never intended to be disrespectful, but upon retrospection, I was very disrespectful and I am sorry.

I admit I an hyper vigilant because I am this way all the time. My normal work usually benefits from it, so I never turn off that switch. It is not appropriate in many other places, like this.

I have been an exploited IT professional here in the valley since 2007. No place hires any employees to manage their IT infrastructures here anymore. I had no choice to be a contractor. My last work here was with a group called Compucom, and they would send me on assignments that were only days in length. And required high skills but paid about minimum wages.

This greatly made the employment statistics completely false in the valley. The measures are who are Currently receiving unemployment insurance. This group would have me work off and on with sometimes weeks separation.

When Dynamex was decided, I knew that the Valley was going to wind up with a lot of problems, and AB5 sealed the deal. I am trained in Human Resources Management in Business, and my law class told me this was a disaster waiting to happen. It did.

Even Before COVID hit the tech companies were systemically going to have to terminate their contracts and not renew them. And relocate their Contractor workers out of state or hire them as employees. They really don't want to have more employees on their budgets.

The reality was that thee widespread illegal business practices was immense, it existed in the 1980s long before it was called the gig-economy.

This area is going through a DRAMATIC change and no one is going to walk away unscared. But it was inevitable

In response to Steven Nelson,

Thanks


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 23, 2020 at 2:14 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 23, 2020 at 2:14 pm
53 people like this

OMG,

Google just announced it will move forward to continue long term plans of "flexible" working by its workers.

Meaning the majority of them are not going to need to be onsite for a much longer period of time.

It looks like they are going to have no need for larger offices, or onsite work forces.

The City of Mountain View is in for a major disappointment. The proposed new offices are likely going to be put on hold if not cancelled. The local businesses are going to be losing that revenue for the long haul.

The City depended too much on Google and other similar businesses to survive, and it did not diversify in any way all during the 2000s and 2010s. This failure is going to make a serious dent in the city.

To have all of this hit at once was not predictable, but all the parts were there. What are the City Corporate managers going to do about this?

Google will move forward on plans that create a corporate "hotel" so that workers will travel in, stay a few days, and then go back to their homes, maybe most likely not in the state of CA since these workers are Contractors.

But "Housing" is not going to be feasible at this time I think.


Hello Corporate Power
Registered user
The Crossings
on Sep 25, 2020 at 4:25 pm
Hello Corporate Power, The Crossings
Registered user
on Sep 25, 2020 at 4:25 pm
5 people like this

The Santa Clara County Board of Education race is unfortunately not about improving education.

This is about the interests of a $190-million corporation-that-shall-not-be-named and others in the family.

These corporations have made plain that their top priority is driving out public charter schools and they are using all available political levers to make that happen.

The challenger in this race has a campaign team composed of well-known opponents of Bullis Charter School.

Next year the SCCBOE will decide on renewal of the BCS charter. Coincidence?


MyOpinion
Registered user
Shoreline West
on Oct 7, 2020 at 11:45 am
MyOpinion, Shoreline West
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2020 at 11:45 am
2 people like this

If we had a stringent black tank inspection process for RV"s parking all over the city I might be OK with it, but Bay Area environmental group sued Mountain View, earlier this year saying they are in violation of the federal Clean Water Act for discharging raw sewage and polluted storm water into creeks, sending bacteria pollution to levels more than 50 times legal limits. There are NO dump stations in Mountain View, black tanks are not inspected to ensure they are cleaned regularly and that their sensors are working, is this what you want for your city? There is no code enforcement, city just responds to complaints. That is no way to keep our city safe. Vote YES on Measure C.


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

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.