Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Sep 12, 2013
> "Help us understand why you are not putting a stop to this deluge and not representing your constituents." <
I would like it very much if each city council member would honestly answer this question, and to reply with something along the lines of "I believe I am representing my constituents" appears to be patently false, at least over the last year or so.
People are lined up addressing city council and imploring them to listen to their input, and yet, all these residents receive in return is akin to a slap across the face. No hyperbole.
I am so disappointed in our city council that I vacillate between putting my house on the market and moving out of the city and washing my hands of all of it...or sticking around and actively campaigning AGAINST certain members of council (should they choose to run again) while actively campaign FOR qualified candidates who are interested in slowing down this malignancy of development that is destroying the quality of life for the residents of this city.
The many homeowners of Cuesta Park strongly agree with those questions posed by Ms. Pinto. I an many of my neighbors are very disappointed in our City Council and their contrary initiatives - increased high density housing, removal of local small businesses, reducing lanes on El Camino Real and Castro.
Why did the Voice print this nonsense. Ms. Pinto comes off as a complete whiner with a condescending view of council based on her own ignorance. Council is not forcing small business out of town. It is landlords that own and decide the use of their land. There is plenty of parking downtown. Council studies the impact of all projects.
I applaud Ms. Pinto for publishing this in the Voice and I'm sure that most residents will agree with the intent.
It is unfortunate that we have a few vocal "citizens" who continue to berate anyone who raises questions about how development is negatively affecting our quality of life. For example, the so-called 'Political Insider' uses the following non-constructive words in his latest rant: whiner, condescending, and ignorance. This same person claims to have been a planner from a nearby city...but that is really scary.
His view is that the landowner can do anything they wish with their land without regard to any impact. He probably just rubberstamped any approval requests that came across his desk and fought like crazy to support any developer/landowner that wanted to suck the last bit of beauty out of a neighborhood just for short-term profit. I'm sure he will deny it, but he said very explicitly: " It is landlords that own and decide the use of their land."
Is this what all local city planners are like?
We really need a city council that will work to protect the beauty and (declining) peacefulness of Mtn View. That council must hire a city manager that is aligned with this goal and that manager must hire and fire accordingly.
What we have now are either rather ineffective councilmembers that may want to preserve the neighborhoods, but are unable to do so. Or...we have highly skilled councilmembers that are trying to maximize profit for landowners over preserving our city.
Again, hats off to Ms. Pinto!
"It is unfortunate that we have a few vocal "citizens" who continue to berate anyone who raises questions about how development is negatively affecting our quality of life."
Ms Pinto chose to put her opinion in a pubic forum and deserves a reply to her hyperbolic rhetoric. I explained my use of harsh words which you chose to ignore. Instead, you also engage in offering subjective rhetoric as fact. You make claims about developers, myself and council that merely reflect your personal subjective biased opinions.
Contrary to what you think, your opinion is in the minority. Over 10,000 residents voted for these council members and entrusted them to make decisions in the best interests of all of Mountain View, The City of Mountain View City Council Code of Conduct states the following in chapter 3.2.1:
3.2.1 Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, Councilmembers shall work for the common good of the people of Mountain View and not for any private or personal interest. Councilmembers must endeavor to treat all members of the public and issues before them in a fair and equitable manner.
Just because a few residents show up at a meeting (like last Tuesday) doesn't mean the council is going to make their decision based solely on who shows up to provide public input. The majority of us are busy and don't have the time to show up and tell council they are doing a good job.
> "Contrary to what you think, your opinion is in the minority. Over 10,000 residents voted for these council members and entrusted them to make decisions in the best interests of all of Mountain View, ..." <
Hindsight being 20/20 and all...I wonder if the same 10,000 residents would vote for all the same city council members again?
"Hindsight being 20/20 and all...I wonder if the same 10,000 residents would vote for all the same city council members again?"
I believe so since they have all been re-elected to 2nd terms.
> "I believe so since they have all been re-elected to 2nd terms." <
Uhhhh, I'm pretty sure John McAlister and Chris Clark are first term council members. Wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of your narrative, however.
Please, carry on.
Was referring to only those 5 that have run for a 2nd term and all have been re-elected. Clark and McAlistar are first timers and have not yet come up for re-election.
Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 15 comments | 3,915 views
Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,262 views
The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 887 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
© 2018 Mountain View Online
All rights reserved.