Mayor responds to points made in advertisement on sidewalk
liability, raises for city staff, utility taxes and water rate
increases
Mayor responds to points made in advertisement on sidewalk liability, raises for city staff, utility taxes and water rate increases
Dear Editor,
I have tried to stay away from responding to the many accusatory comments made about me in the newspaper over the years by Mr. Mark Zappa. However, Mr. Zappa’s advertisement in the Friday, Oct. 26 edition is so full of incorrect statements and half-truths that it merits a response to set the record straight.
1) Sidewalk Liability: On Aug. 6, the city council voted 6-1 to direct staff to draft an ordinance to implement the Citizen’s Sidewalk Task Force recommendations. Their recommendations included an ordinance that the City of San Jose had passed that made the homeowner liable for injuries in the event that the homeowner failed to maintain their portion of the sidewalk. Our council voted unanimously to conduct more outreach and study the issue further in direct response to public concern and confusion on the draft ordinance. When the ordinance was up for adoption, council cut the section that included liability and sent it back for additional information without adopting the ordinance. The ordinance in question was never even adopted.
2) Employee pay: I did not “champion” the pay schedule for our exempt group, but after several study sessions on the issue I and four other council members voted in favor of the standard rate adjustment. About every seven years, the City of Gilroy conducts a classification study for police, fire, and miscellaneous employees. It was time to do one for the “Exempt Group” of approximately 42 employees. Your council voted to adjust classifications as was done for the other employee groups.
Police, fire and other groups are not settling for “peanuts”: From July 1, 1997 until July 1, 2006 the increases have been: police – 48 percent; fire – 45, AFSCME – 42 and “exempt group” – 40 percent. Once again, Mr. Zappa is making false statements.
3) Water Rates: The Santa Clara Valley Water District sets the water wholesale rates, not the city council. Recently, the SCVWD raised those rates 11 percent .The council passed on only a 5 percent increase to residents. Mr. Zappa fails to mention that at this same time, Mr. Craig Gartman sprang an “anonymous” accusation about use of water funds in downtown on the evening of the vote, using it as the reason he would not be voting in favor of raising the water rates. This accusation not only did not have any merit but cost taxpayers an estimated $10,000 to $15,000 dollars to investigate. Finally, on June 13, 2005 and on June 6, 2006, Mr. Gartman voted in favor of water rate increases. I’m surprised these votes didn’t also warrant outrage from Mr. Zappa’s group.
4) Utility Taxes: Neither I nor any of my colleagues “voted to increase utility taxes”. The city council voted to put the issue on the ballot for the voters to decide. The decision is actually whether or not voters want to decrease the current utility tax rate from 5 percent to 4.5 percent and update the ordinance to reflect newer technologies. Mr. Zappa is free to campaign against this measure, but it is completely untrue to say that I voted to increase utility taxes.
5) Budget: Mr. Zappa once again is misrepresenting the facts. In the 2006/2007 fiscal year, council approved a $2.4 million deficit budget that ended up at only $817,000. Mr. Zappa fails to mention Mr. Gartman also voted “yes” every year he has been on council to approve the budget up until the last two years. Mr. Gartman has voted in favor of at least three deficit budgets. Please note that once we have approved a budget, we go to work on closing the gap. In every year that we showed a deficit, we came in with a much smaller gap than projected.
6) Miller Avenue: Making tough decisions is part of being a team member of the city council. Our job is to look at the property rights of all individuals involved and vote for the outcome that is the best compromise. The city worked with the developer to be as sensitive to the neighborhood as possible, including reduction of units. More importantly, the property owner was well within his rights to develop his land. I would think that Mr. Zappa would be a property rights’ advocate as part of being a taxpayer advocate.
Mr. Zappa goes on to say in his ad that his group “strongly recommends a vote for Craig Gartman for mayor”. Given the fact that Mr. Zappa’s “report card” about me is completely bogus and more importantly that the citizens of Gilroy deserve clean, honest and fair campaigns, I humbly ask for your vote on Nov. 6.
Al Pinheiro, Mayor of Gilroy
From new taxes to closed-door government, it’s clear why this community should elect a new leader as our city’s mayor
Dear Editor,
I am going to recap my findings and refute current regime loyalists In my last election-related article.
There are some who have made comments like, “everything is good in Gilroy.” There are others who’ve said, “there is no place in Gilroy for negative ads or campaigns.”
Is disputing or questioning the sitting council negative? Tough questions tend to only offend those who don’t want to explain their actions or comments. Tough questions offend those who are afraid to admit to, or reveal the truth. Sunshine laws are essential to a truly open government.
As an example, for some time now, the mayor has been in a position to release a draft report prepared by an outside consultant regarding the police department. He has refused. After much prodding by The Dispatch and Councilman Craig Gartman, the mayor agreed to release it, after the election!
Why not now? A draft is just that. It is a rough document that requires no preparation. Is the mayor afraid of some of the data in the report? Could it be because of sharply higher crime rates? I guess that would put a wrench in the mayor’s re-election plans.
The mayor said he supported “sunshine laws”. Prove it mayor – and now. Certainly Mayor Pinheiro is not the first politician to be inconvenienced by meddling citizen’s who want to know exactly how their money is being spent or how their elected officials behave. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people …” The mayor should remember these words from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. It doesn’t say FOR the council or FOR the city manager or FOR the city attorney. It says FOR THE PEOPLE!Â
I supported and endorsed the mayor in the last election. He has changed. He has forgotten who he works for. It has become about egos and backroom deals. There are no facts in dispute in regards to my previous letters and advertisements. In Saturday’s Dispatch, one of the mayor’s friend’s attacks my advertisement on page 9. He claims my statements are not true. Each and every one of my bulleted items were facts. Don’t call me a liar if you can’t back it up.
I have learned that there are many insiders in City Hall, the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Development Corporation who have chosen to support the status quo. In one of the mayor’s ads, the list of endorsements is a who’s who in politics such as Supervisor Don Gage and neighboring mayor’s, five of six councilmen and on and on. Big surprise. Once you are part of the club, you are protected and supported by the members.
This type of political backscratching is ancient. If you choose to challenge the status quo, prepare to be assassinated. That is exactly what has happened to mayoral candidate, Councilman Gartman. He has dared to disagree and challenge the council majority on a number of important issues. When the mayor and council voted for massive pay raises for senior staff, only Gartman said no. When the mayor and council voted for approval of $5,000,000 deficit budget, only Gartman said no.
When the mayor and the council voted to put Measure A on the ballot selling it as a tax decrease, Gartman read the fine print and saw that while it decreased the tax rate by .5 percent, it widened the scope of taxable items to now include the Internet and satellite TV. Bait and switch, only Gartman said no. When city attorney Linda Callon cast her spell on the council advising them to shift sidewalk injury liability away from the city and onto the backs of her residents, only Gartman was able to break the spell and vote no.
He is the epitome of citizen statesman. He is the one who clearly has the pulse of the community closest to his heart. I come to this conclusion not because of what he says, but what he does. It is for these reasons that Citizen’s Against Waste and Fraud and the Silicon Valley Taxpayer’s Association wholeheartedly endorses Craig Gartman for mayor and Perry Woodward for city council.
Mark Zappa, Gilroy
Measure A will result in a huge tax increase for all Gilroyans
Dear Editor,
Reporter Chris Bone’s article on Measure A was very interesting, but seemed to miss a couple of points that all voters need to be aware of before casting their vote.
The city is presenting Measure A as a tax reduction (utility tax will go down from 5 percent to 4.5 percent) when in fact the average person will pay a lot more tax because Measure A will grant the city the right to tax all forms of telecommunications now and in the future (including some that have not been invented yet). Right now the federal government has prevented states, counties and cities from taxing Internet services, but unless Congress acts quickly that moratorium will expire Oct. 31. The House of Representatives has passed a bill granting the moratorium a four-year extension, but the Senate has yet to act.
It looks as if the city is getting itself positioned to put the reduced tax rate on all the residents of Gilroy if Congress allows the four-year moratorium against the Internet tax to expire.
Ask the city for a copy of all 19 pages of Amendment A and read it. The only thing that won’t get the tax is apparently the kitchen sink. Also, pay attention to all the powers that will be granted to the Tax Administrator without making clear just who will have the job; the City Administrator, or will a new position be created?
Measure A is a tax increase, not a tax decrease for all Gilroy residents.
James Brescoll, Gilroy
Leadership qualities apparent in one of mayoral candidates
Dear Editor,
We need a mayor who knows how to lead – someone who listens to anyone who wants to express an opinion, and isn’t afraid to give his; someone who brings people together in order to build the best possible solution; someone who respects others, and in return is respected; someone who isn’t intimidated by strong colleagues and employees; someone who sets direction and goals, and then let’s others achieve them; someone who let’s others take the credit; and someone who gives all he has to make Gilroy a better place. We need Al Pinheiro.
Joel Goldsmith, Gilroy
Shame that the death penalty isn’t used for such brutal killers
Dear Editor,
Themis, the goddess of justice and law as personified by a female clothed in white, blindfolded and holding scales, must be weeping upon hearing the news (Dispatch article 10/30) that the confessed killer of Ms. Franca Barsi will probably get a miserably short 32 years in prison for his dastardly crime.
This monster, David Vincent Reyes, as The Dispatch reported, brutally murdered the victim after tying her arms and legs behind her back and then suffocated her to death. Reyes has a history of violence toward women, armed robbery, and is an unregistered sex offender, and now leaves Ms. Barsi’s son motherless.
How unfair for Ms. Barsi’s son and her family, and how pathetic that criminals like this are not given the death penalty. A charge of voluntary manslaughter is the result of a plea bargain, and so we taxpayers will have the “privilege” to keep another monster alive in prison so that he can study law, lift weights, get fed three meals a day and receive free medical treatment.
A very wise king wrote some 2,000 years ago “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.” Reyes deserves a rope around his neck and a quick drop to justice so that he will never murder again. Too bad our society has turned so politically correct to make murderers like Reyes an example that crime really does not pay.
James Fennell, Gilroy
Businesswoman responds to outdated viewpoint on tattoos
Dear Editor,
In regards to the views of J.G. McCormack and what tattoos “USED” to symbol. This is 2007 NOT 1946. A nerve was touched.
I am a 49-year-old businesswomen and mother of three, still married to the man I married in 1982.
When my son turned 18 in 2002, we both decided to celebrate his birthday and coming into the adult world with each getting a tattoo. He designed a beautiful piece of art for me that symbols our family initials … we are all JRs. We both went on to have our ART tattooed. Mine on my ankle and his on his arm.
When my daughter turned 18 in 2005, we both decided to celebrate her new world with two pieces of ART that symbols our relationship as mother/daughter. She has a beautiful tiger lilly flower and mine; irises (that was my mom’s favorite) tattooed on our back shoulder. Again, it was a symbol of the love for our family.
I hold strong values for my children and celebrate their independence and strength to do what’s right in the upcoming years of their lives. Their tattoos have NOTHING to do with them being low-class citizens, having VD or anything negative. Today’s world is regulated and sterile and I do not advocate anything illegal.
As long as parents are involved ART can be of fine taste whether tattooed or not. I am proud to be part of this world with my children, it’s 2007, times have changed, and it’s about time adult’s change with it!
I cheer Gilroy High School for having this page in their yearbook, it symbolizes today’s teenage world and those beyond.
Oh, and by the way, I just had my 30 high school reunion, myself, and two of my longtime friends (who are also strong business woman) all had our nose pierced to celebrate our long-lasting friendship.
Julie Robinson, Gilroy
Just who will the candidate represent if elected to council?
Dear Editor,
During the past couple of years, I have participated in several conservation, land-use, and watershed meetings as they relate to our town of Gilroy.
At a previous Pajaro River watershed meeting, each attendee introduced themselves around the table. Only one attendee did not wear a nametag, and when it was his turn to identify himself, he simply said, “I am just an interested party.”
Gilroy attendees most certainly recognized him or had worked with him. I believe there are actions or inactions by people that are a window into their souls. Bob Dillon’s coyness and refusal to identify himself seemed disingenuous to the concerns of the group especially since he was representing the interests of Sargent Ranch.
Does he still represent the interests of Sargent Ranch? Protecting our watershed should be paramount to anyone elected to the city council.
Jodi Avery, Gilroy
