Dear Editor,
Save Open Space
– Gilroy agrees with The Dispatch’s editorial headlined
”
Moratorium Now
– City Doesn’t Need Land, It Needs a Better Plan
”
in the Friday, Oct. 9 edition.
Adding 2,250 homes and 633 acres to the city makes no sense now
Dear Editor,
Save Open Space – Gilroy agrees with The Dispatch’s editorial headlined “Moratorium Now – City Doesn’t Need Land, It Needs a Better Plan” in the Friday, Oct. 9 edition.
It is obvious that the City of Gilroy is attempting a land-grab that is reminiscent of sprawling Los Angeles and San Jose in the 1950s and ’60s. The thinking then was “let’s bring in as much land as we can even if we don’t need it right now – we’ll plan later.” We are not sure this obsolete thinking has changed much here in Gilroy.
The three proposals, which include 633 acres and 2,250 homes, are asking to be included in Gilroy’s Urban Service Area (USA). The proposed areas are the Lucky Day Ranch near Burchell Road, Wren Investors, near Antonio Del Buono School and Thomas Neighborhood District, near Thomas Road and Santa Teresa Blvd.
An Urban Service Area is the boundary that includes land that a city intends to annex and to provide urban services (police, fire and schools) and infrastructure (water, sewer and roads) within the next 5 years. This definition is one that all 15 cities in Santa Clara County as well as the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) recognize. Only those lands that are ready to be developed in the next 5 years are to be included in the USA. None of these developments are planning to build in that time period, so bringing these lands into the USA at this time would be premature and a violation of the USA’s intent.
Gilroy doesn’t need more land for development. It already has 3,484 houses that have been approved but haven’t been built – according to city staff, at least an 11-year supply. And this is based on Gilroy’s past 10-year average of 360 homes per year during boom times for the housing industry.
With a slower recovery, it could take up to 20 years to complete these 3,484 houses. And when they are completed, will the city be even worse off financially than we are now? It is well known that housing costs the city more money to provide services than it takes in from taxes. Will our schools be overcrowded? How bad will traffic be? Shouldn’t the city know some of these answers before bringing in more land for housing?
Because it can’t be proven that the City of Gilroy has less than a 5-year supply of land, nor can it be proven that the city is planning to provide infrastructure and services to these areas within the next 5 years, the City Council should reject all three USA requests. Gilroy City Council will be voting on these proposals on Monday, Oct. 19 at 7 p.m. Please attend the meeting or contact the City Council if you have concerns about this issue.
Carolyn Tognetti, Save Open Space – Gilroy
Abysmal planning for turn lane at new high school needs to be fixed
Dear Editor,
Several weeks ago, I believe you published something in the paper concerning the left turn from Day Road, at the new high school, on to Santa Teresa Boulevard going south. Is the Great City of Gilroy Public Works Department and the Great Mayor of our City going to do anything about this?
I know that there is a traffic light now working, but the center median is really going to have a major problem. The other day, I saw a truck making the left on to Santa Teresa from Day Road and I thought he was going to flip when he could not make the turn in that short space. All I can say is – “POOR PLANNING ON THE PART OF OUR GREAT GILROY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONTRACTOR.”
John F. Berger, Gilroy
An absolutely ridiculous letter opposing dispensary for marijuana
Dear Editor,
The (Oct. 13) letter by Paul Kloecker concerning medical marijuana brings back (bad) memories of when this person tainted City Council. He claims to oppose a medical marijuana dispensary in Gilroy because “adequate safeguards and controls do not exist to prevent misuse of this product.” He apparently thinks the “controls” in place for 40 years are really working. Has he been living in a cave in the since he lost his re-election bid in the ’90s?
It’s been “misused,” like alcohol (which is legal and more destructive to the body), since its discovery, and all the sacrosanct laws against it have failed. Kloecker’s other slippery-slope statements – that it will harm nearby businesses, that it will increase availability to youth, that “crime” will increase – are equally ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated.
His closing paragraph was the most ridiculous; that allowing the dispensary will change Gilroy from the Garlic Capital of the World to the “Marijuana Capital of the Bay Area.” The only such attention will be drawn due to folks like Kloecker telling us how the sky is falling. This is a states’ right issue; it’s high time to thumb our California noses at “federal law.” They already tried prohibition; it failed, much like the current marijuana laws. Neither this state nor our city can afford to enforce all the idiotic laws on the books. Freeing this up will allow resources to focus on violent crime, or at least crimes with true victims.
My fellow conservatives often ask me why I support legalizing marijuana. Because you cannot protect people from themselves (but you can educate them). I have personally seen this drug provide the only pain relief a sick person can take and allow that person the necessary sleep to recover from illness. The expensive, addictive, prescription pain-relievers do not work on everyone; they do make some people sick.
Alan Viarengo, Gilroy
