Dear Editor,
I read with interest Serdar Tumgoren’s story detailing the
ongoing eminent domain procedures initiated by the City of Gilroy
to obtain the 1.17 acres at Seventh and Eigleberry streets in an
effort to secure land for a future arts center.
Dear Editor,
I read with interest Serdar Tumgoren’s story detailing the ongoing eminent domain procedures initiated by the City of Gilroy to obtain the 1.17 acres at Seventh and Eigleberry streets in an effort to secure land for a future arts center.
Tumgoren called it correctly by equating eminent domain and strong-arm tactics. If, as Bill Headley is quoted, “… the city really needs to get that land …”, then it is only reasonable the city really needs to pay the price the owners require to obtain that land. Is it true that the Geras are willing to sell but the city is not willing to pay the price the Geras ask? The design and original intent of eminent domain was to enable cities and municipalities to secure minimum parcels against the wishes of the property owners that the city deemed necessary for rights of easement and safety issues, not to be used as a “take someone else’s land for a bargain basement price” card. If Mayor Al Pinheiro is so certain that the proposed arts center is so vital to the city to act as a “catalyst,” he should also be so willing to pay the asking price for the land the city so desperately seems to want.
As a longtime resident of Gilroy, I am appalled at the growing arrogance of the City of Gilroy. The City Council turns its back on issues such as sidewalks buckling, yet has the gall to approve the disfigurement of one of the most beautiful streets in Gilroy besides Fifth Street. Our City Council plays favorites with it’s public servants by bringing Christmas early and often to Sixth and Hanna streets.
Our existing Council seems obsessed with the vast improvement of the land south of Seventh and Monterey while it routinely ignores the same stretch of Monterey only north of Fourth.
Our City Council supports discrimination and partisan negotiation yet refuses to address the growing tragedy of dwindling levels of low-income properties amongst the highest level of residential development this city has seen in nearly a decade.
Our City Council fails to fund small projects that will improve the lives of the residents of Gilroy, but will spend $60,000 for a new closed-circuit television system so they will not have to hear the motors squeak on the existing equipment, which is old but still functions, so that all the citizens of Gilroy can stay home and have a better view of them on Channel 20 in living color as they lie to us, cheat us, ignore our needs, steal another man’s property in the name of economy because they can and bring yet another huge box store to this city, further loading the city coffers with coin which will never be spent on a meaningful project that will actually benefit the people of Gilroy.
I indeed hope councilmen Craig Gartman, Robert Dillon, and Charles Morales use the fact they voted to steal property, negotiated in bad faith with firefighters and ignored the many citizens who fall and injure themselves daily on sidewalks that are damaged when they polish their resume after losing their seats.
I would suggest to Mayor Pinhiero and the council to stop thinking about who they are, but what they are. They are the elected servants of the citizenry of Gilroy. They were placed there by the people not to forward their own personal agendas, but to guard and hold dear the trust of the citizenry, provide for the best interest of the citizenry – which includes all the citizenry not just the beautiful people – manage the city in trust for the people of Gilroy, and to the best of their ability provide for the security and safety of all citizens of Gilroy.
Ben Anderson, Gilroy
