Mike Wiltberger

Yes. Santa Clara needs more homes, including market-rate homes. I would be honest that building them will not produce an immediate, dramatic drop in prices. We still need to address the long-term shortage.

I support meaningful affordable-housing requirements, but I would not set them so high that otherwise viable projects never get built. The city should test what a project can support and look for other ways to fund affordable homes.

Yes, I would allow more duplexes, fourplexes and small apartment buildings, with clear standards for building size, design and infrastructure. We cannot accommodate more people while treating most neighborhoods as permanently off-limits to new housing.

I would do more than the minimum where Santa Clara can support it, especially near transit and jobs. Our housing decisions should serve the city’s needs, not simply meet a state target.

Yes, I could support interim housing despite majority opposition nearby. I would take residents’ concerns seriously and require a clear operating plan, on-site support, accountability and regular public reporting. A neighborhood’s concerns deserve answers, but families experiencing homelessness also need somewhere safe to go.

I would act immediately when an encampment presents a serious fire, health or safety danger, blocks essential access, or threatens the people living there. When there is no immediate danger and no permanent housing available, outreach and a realistic temporary placement should come before a clearance. Moving people from one block to another is not a solution.

I support the goal of bringing BART to Santa Clara, but cost increases and delays demand much stronger oversight. Before supporting any new city financial commitment, I would want an updated cost, funding plan and credible schedule.

Yes. The BART/Caltrain station area is a sensible place to consider high-rise housing. The plan must also address connections to transit, utilities and the effect on nearby streets.

I would consider city funding for public infrastructure and shared spaces that help Downtown redevelopment happen. I would not promise a dollar amount before seeing a proposal. Any commitment should have a defined city cost, private participation, milestones and a clear public benefit.

I would not reserve all new electrical capacity for data centers. I expect data centers to remain part of Santa Clara’s economy, but each new approval should be weighed against housing, other employers, grid reliability and the value residents receive from that use of limited power.

If revenues fell 10%, I would first cut or defer spending on nonessential outside consulting studies. I would review each contract publicly and protect core services as much as possible.

Raises should be fair to employees and affordable over the full term of a contract. When compensation is growing faster than revenue, the city must show how it will pay for an agreement without putting essential services or future budgets at risk.

I disagree with major 49ers-backed spending intended to influence who governs the city that oversees their stadium relationship. Residents need confidence that stadium decisions are made for Santa Clara. As mayor, I would pursue independent, professional management of that relationship.

Yes. If an outside organization spent more than $250,000 to elect me and I believed its involvement was damaging public confidence, I would publicly ask it to stop. I am funding my own campaign because voters should know whose interests I answer to.

Councilmember Kevin Park is running against me, but I respect his attention to city spending and basic infrastructure. He asks questions Santa Clara needs to answer, even when we disagree on the solutions. If elected, I would seriously consider supporting him as chair of the Governance and Ethics Committee. Working together means making room for capable people who see things differently.

After reviewing years of council meetings, I was embarrassed by the personal degradation and lack of communication. Grand-jury recommendations and training have not changed the culture, and some councilmembers have gone years without meaningful contact with the mayor. The city needs new leadership and basic professional respect.

Santa Clara needs anchor stores and destinations that give residents a reason to shop locally in Downtown, North Santa Clara, and other commercial areas. Retail activity should be treated as an attraction and a source of local revenue rather than something residents must seek in neighboring cities.

AI and its infrastructure demands are not going away. Santa Clara already regulates newer data centers for lower water use and carbon impacts, and the city can continue improving those standards. I do not want industrial boxes next to homes, but the high-technology economy will continue requiring this infrastructure.

The long-term answer is substantially more housing, especially higher-density housing along El Camino Real and other major corridors, paired with infrastructure. My children cannot afford to live near me, and Santa Clara cannot accommodate demand while excluding appropriate density from its principal thoroughfares.

I want Downtown restored, but Santa Clara must also invest in an Uptown entertainment district rather than direct every resource to one area. Starting tangible projects in both places matters even if full redevelopment takes many years.

The $400 million bond does not cover a roughly $624 million need, so another funding measure may eventually be required. The International Swim Center is a personal priority, and the city should finish complete projects rather than spread funding so thinly that facilities remain unusable.

Santa Clara compensation appears high compared with neighboring cities, and I would compare salaries systematically with Sunnyvale and Mountain View. I would also pursue partnerships with major local companies such as Nvidia and Intel so more of their civic investment occurs in Santa Clara.

The original promise was an entertainment district around the stadium. Santa Clara cannot wait for Uptown revenue eventually to trickle Downtown; it should begin visible work in both areas and distribute investment fairly across the city while preserving the entertainment purpose.

The relationship has become too personal for the current structure to work. I would bring in a professional third party to manage day-to-day stadium operations, remove routine decisions from council politics, and retain appropriate public oversight while rebuilding a functional partnership.

First, I would change the council’s tone and move beyond the same political patterns. Second, I would address data-center growth with realistic standards rather than slogans. Third, I would advance high-density housing where Santa Clara can support it.

A large share of Santa Clara residents are foreign-born, and many cannot vote, yet they pay taxes and are affected by city decisions. City government should engage and represent them now rather than wait for future generations to gain political power.

I would fight to preserve Great America and retain an entertainment destination rather than accept a technology-only campus. Prologis owns the land, but the city still controls land-use approvals and can negotiate; no redevelopment deal is final yet.

I had coffee with a 49ers representative, but we did not discuss the team or my campaign. I am self-funding and not soliciting contributions because I want voters to know that I will not owe political favors after the election.

The city manager reached out and spent more than two hours explaining the role and expectations for a mayor. I came away understanding the scale and importance of the job, found the conversation productive, and believe I could work well with him.

I came to Silicon Valley as a scientist, built companies, led high-level negotiations, and created substantial economic value. Santa Clara has given my family a good life, and I am running to give back by applying that business and management experience to city government.