Dear Editor,
Unpleasant, YES. Living in the camp by the creek must be very
unpleasant indeed for those who have no other place to live.
Unpleasant, yes, but it should NOT be closed. You want to see the
people in the
”
Bamboo Village
”
removed from that property.
Leave homeless in Uvas Creek alone, let the panhandlers be
Dear Editor,
Unpleasant, YES. Living in the camp by the creek must be very unpleasant indeed for those who have no other place to live. Unpleasant, yes, but it should NOT be closed. You want to see the people in the “Bamboo Village” removed from that property.
How many of these people are homeless by choice? They are just trying to take care of themselves without bothering anyone. They stay there because they have nowhere else to go. Unless housing is guaranteed for all of them, which it is not, they need to be left alone. Then there is the question of the panhandlers, especially around Gilroy Crossings. I often drive there and I have never found this to be a problem or a safety issue. The only time it would become a safety concern is if someone is in too much of a hurry and becomes impatient, in which case that person would be as much a safety concern as are the panhandlers.
Again, these people are doing what they can to survive and they should be allowed to continue to do so. Nobody has to give to them, but we all have to respect their rights.
Since we are living in one of the worst economic times in our country’s history, the homeless rate will probably go up before we see an economic recovery. Moving people from one place to another will solve nothing. We have to find a solution to the economic problems we face before we make changes.
I admit that I know very little about all that is entailed in providing housing, but what about the old Walmart building that has been standing empty all this time? I have heard others wondering this same thing. It is in an ideal location – a non-residential area, no schools nearby, within walking distance of the new county medical center, and close to bus transportation. I know it would take money but the county and city should consider this.
I know many people will disagree with me. To you I say: I respect your right to your opinion even if I don’t agree with you. But – more important than your opinion – do you have a solution? Obviously, I don’t, but my hope is that we will all come together to work one out to make this a better place for everyone.
Let us treat the homeless with the dignity that they deserve.
Patricia Michelini, Gilroy
The Golden Quill is awarded occasionally for a well-written letter.
Water district would have to go against the U.S. Supreme Court
Dear Editor,
In 1964 the United States Supreme Court issued their ruling of “one person – one vote.” It was this ruling which set the standard for redistricting throughout the United States, which includes the Santa Clara Valley Water District redistricting effort.
The Supreme Court has ruled that electoral districts will be equal in population to ensure that no one electoral area would have a disproportionate influence on the voters. Further, there is the expectation that electoral districts be within a 10 percent deviation. To date the law has not changed.
After reading the editorial opinion (Dispatch Opinion, Feb. 11 and Morgan Hill Times Opinion, Feb. 22) it is clear that the Editorial Boards from both newspapers disagrees with the ruling of the United States Supreme Court. Unless the Editorial Boards are able to encourage the Supreme Court to reconsider its opinion, “one person – one vote” will remain the law of the land.
With regards to the new state legislation from Sacramento, there are many factors to be considered in how the seven districts will be drawn. I can assure you that the redistricting committee, as well as the full board understand and take their responsibility to weigh factors, including South County’s unique distinction, very seriously.
As I have done throughout my years of public service, I will continue to be a champion for South County. In this case, I will fight for a fair district which balances the ruling of the United States Supreme Court with the needs of South County. The current redistricting committee will make recommendations by April 13 to the water board but there will be opportunity for public input in Morgan Hill at 6 p.m. tonight (Tuesday, March 2) at the Morgan Hill Community and Cultural Center. If you feel that you have a map that you want the committee to consider, please participate. I urge you and your readers to draw your own map of what you believe South County district should look like.
Please go to www.valleywater.org/about/redistricting.aspx, then click on the related information box that has the Adobe file on Public Participation Kit to do your map.
Rosemary Kamei, Morgan Hill
Editor’s note: Clearly, secession from the Santa Clara Valley Water District for South County should be seriously contemplated. Perhaps the City Councils of Gilroy and Morgan Hill will consider placing an
advisory vote on the matter for the next general election.
Meaningful health care reform impossible without clear answers
Dear Editor,
Jan Saxton (letters, Feb. 26) wants “Medicare for all” in a “single-payer,” government-run, socialized health-care system. This is the typical California Democrat mentality – the government can fix and run everything … into the ground, including itself.
How is the bankrupt government, which this year needs to borrow 40 percent of what it will spend, going to pay for this? Medicare is already broke. Why is the cost of health care (in America) so high? That is what needs research.
For example, Switzerland, the richest country (per capita) in the world, has private health care (like we do). The cost per person in 2007 was $4,011. The comparable number in the United States was $6,096. Cost of care is clearly the issue, but has anyone broken down the where the money goes? Does the American diet result in more frequent need of care (thus escalating cost)? Is the health care industry, as a whole, still riding a false economic bubble like housing did from 1998 to 2008? Is there evidence of collusion in the insurance industry? Have the trade deficit (outsourcing of jobs, buying more than we produce) and the national debt (40 percent of the fiscal 2010 budget is borrowed!) finally caught up? i.e., have supply and demand caused such deflation in borrowed goods that what is not borrowed or outsourced (gasoline, health care, legal representation) are merely priced at their true cost?
I’m sure someone has asked these questions already, but the answers are nowhere to be found in the politically leftist biased printed and TV news. All we hear from our so-called “representatives” in the government are the usual lies about how much they’re doing for us, when it’s really “to us.” (Congressman Mike Honda is the worst.)
That’s what you get when you are dependent on them; letting them control our health care would only make the problem worse. (Try Canadian medicine if you doubt that.)
Suggestion for the politicians who pretend to represent us at the federal level: Take a simple random sample of 2,000 Americans. For each one, take a census of medical expenses over the last two years. Select the providers to whom the most expenses went, then audit those providers as well as the insurance company, breaking down all costs (expenses and charges).
Doing this right would take some work, but it would eventually answer, where does the money go. To office rent? To the hospital, and if so, how much is spent on mandates to care for illegal aliens? To insurance, and if so, where does that go? To the CEO for his new yacht? To pay off debt for medical school or equipment?
No reform is possible without the answer to these questions – without breaking down the cost and finding the root cause of its height.
Alan Viarengo, Gilroy
Readers might get a chance to vote for animal care grant money
Dear Editor,
As a follow up to a recent letter regarding funds allocation, I submitted a request to hopefully be part of the voting cycle in the month of March to, if we’re lucky, be awarded a grant to the Santa Clara County Humane Society (in Milpitas).
The money would be used to support a project where a local Gilroy vet office (hopefully Princevalle) is contracted to provide dog and cat humane society care to supplement the animal control services provided by the Gilroy Police Department. I hope the suggestion gets some votes. There is no link yet but the suggestion was submitted to www.refresheverything.com and they say they will send me an email shortly so that when March starts the idea can be voted upon. I will forward any information they provide for Dispatch readers.
Christine Taylor, Gilroy
