EDITOR:
Items of interest within the Dec. 23 Dispatch:
1) Staff writer Lori Stuenkel (Cost to keep up new GUSD
facilities worries administration) begins:
”
School district officials are trying to plan ahead for higher
costs related to maintaining the improved, later facilities that
are planned for construction.
”
EDITOR:
Items of interest within the Dec. 23 Dispatch:
1) Staff writer Lori Stuenkel (Cost to keep up new GUSD facilities worries administration) begins: “School district officials are trying to plan ahead for higher costs related to maintaining the improved, later facilities that are planned for construction.”
That’s frightening! Even before construction of ‘improved, later facilities,” GUSD officials are laying the groundwork for gradual deterioration of those facilities due to lack of proper, ongoing, maintenance. This will then force yet another – SURPRISE! SURPRISE! – school bond measure … one more multi-year burden on Gilroy’s taxpayers.
After reporting the travails GUSD whines about to do needed daily maintenance on current facilities, writer Stuenkel says “Two school bonds make up the majority of funding for projects included in the district’s 25-year Facilities Master Plan. Measure I … designated $69 million to build new school buildings and upgrade existing buildings. Measure J, passed in 1992 but refinanced in 2001 for another $14 million, pays to modernize older sites.”
Where, and for what, has Measure I money been appropriated to date? More specifically, have such appropriations been given only to Gilroy firms? That was, after all, the major promise of the Measure I backers – that all Measure I money would remain in Gilroy. Has it to date? Will in toward future projects?
Since I’m not a financial genius: Are taxpayers saddled with the $14 million refinancing cost of the Measure J bond? Is that legal – to successfully pass a bond issue for a specific amount and, years later, change that amount while charging taxpayers for the added costs? Will this be done with Measure I in 10 years or so?
2) Megan Stevens, in a Special to the Dispatch (Commission: make funding for the arts a priority) quotes Gilroy’s Art and Culture Commission member Karen LaCorte: “The Cultural Center is in the works. We have all these new ideas and no funding from the city.”
Since when is Gilroy obligated to financially support the Commission’s ideas, old or new, Karen LaCorte? Also, don’t start a “keep up with the Joneses” mentality relating to the Commission’s grandiose visions for Gilroy. You claim “It is our commission’s hope that Gilroy would be comparable to other cities in budget.” Why should Gilroy “be comparable” – are you saying simply increasing money to your commission will enhance/uplift the community’s culture?
3) A commendation to letter writer William J. Flow. Contrary to your letter being one of “look how good I am,” it served its purpose well: to show that, in the smallest of ways, one person can make a very big difference in the life of another. It would be a sustaining thought to feel all individuals were willing, regardless of place or people involved, to do the right thing simply because it should be done. But all individuals do not have your compassionate gift for giving.
Thank you, Mr. Flow, for exemplifying the best of the human condition. Society is richer for your caring and understanding.
James Brescoll, Gilroy
Submitted Wednesday, Dec. 24
