Tag: community pulse

• Yes. While bankruptcy is many times unavoidable, it still likely reflects some fiscal irresponsibility in getting there. It certainly would cause me to take a closer look at what may have been the reason and then a judgment as to their ability to understand city financial matters. • Yes. Public representatives should be held to a higher standard of care since they having direct control over our health, safety and welfare and the potential to abuse the power entrusted to them! • No. Especially if the bankruptcy was many years ago.  We need to concentrate on current issues and concerns. • Yes, somewhat. While I try to keep in mind that often bankruptcy is unavoidable, it does give me pause and make me consider their candidacy a little more. • Yes.  Personal fiscal responsibility reflects a person's ability to be fiscally responsible with our tax dollars. • Yes. I don't think knowing a candidate filed bankruptcy in the past would keep me from voting for them, but the voters need to know all the information that helps us make an informed decision about a candidate. Someone who filed bankruptcy may not be the best candidate to run our city. • No. I have voted already. That said we are asking candidates to manage city budgets so this could potentially be a deciding factor. • Of course it should. There’s judgment involved and we need our Council people to make good decisions and fiscal issues are critical to the health of the city. Spending all the city funds and declaring bankruptcy would not be a good idea. • No. However, personal monetary decisions made public through declaring bankruptcy can sway people into believing that this will transfer into the candidate’s decision making processes in a public servant position. I don’t believe this is true, given personal money issues have many factors that we may not be aware of nor should we be. • No. The bankruptcy itself would not change my vote. If I knew the reason why it occurred may change my vote.

• No. As long as at least one on-duty dispatcher is present. It would be interesting to know how a multi-lingual city such as San Jose handles this. It seems very unlikely that every 911 dispatcher in San Jose speaks English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Tagalog. • No. Our system has worked for years as is and with no crisis reported due to a language issue. Let it lie and inform the public that we have an activist running for the council who will do all she (Rebeca Armendariz) can to create problems where none exist. • No one who works in a public capacity needs to know another language necessarily, although it truly is helpful, especially in our city of Gilroy, to know Spanish. To require this as part of the job will limit job opportunities for people, and if someone is calling 911, they do know the basics of their need such as their address or place where they need assistance. • Given the demographic of Gilroy in 2010, yes. As long as English is their primary language I think it’s a good idea for Gilroy dispatchers to speak Spanish. • No, but a bilingual operator should be available on every shift. • No. I don’t think all of them should be Spanish speakers. At the very most, enough for one per shift seems adequate. • Yes. It would be nice if everyone moving to the United States learned to speak English, as I would expect to have to learn the native language of any country I moved to; however, that being said, the safety of our residents should be most important. • It depends. How many dispatchers are working at a time? If more than one, then at least one of them should be bilingual. If there is only one person at the helm, they should be fluent in Spanish. I would hate for someone to not get the help they need. We should look at other languages in our community as well. • No.  At least one person per shift should speak fluent Spanish to cover emergency calls from Spanish speaking and limited English speaking callers. • Emergency dispatchers should be fluent in English and Spanish with the first response being in English, but the ability to communicate in Spanish as necessary. That should be a basic requirement and not a skill that requires additional pay. Emergency dispatchers make a fine living already. • No. I think there should be a dedicated line for Spanish speakers only. • No. I do believe there should be one person on each shift required to be fluent, but not all dispatchers.

Do you support state Proposition 34 on the November ballot, which would abolish the death penalty in California and replace it with life in prison without parole?

Seems like things are improving economically, but it’s a slow boil recovery. Have always felt like the psychological aspect to recovery – or slide – is critically important. It’s almost as if you can “feel” whether the economy is moving. The numbers don’t lie, but they don’t tell the whole truth either. So, as Miss Jenny and I struggle to get the two daughters through college and the nation sputters to leave the Great Recession behind, I’m chagrined at the plethora of state, county and local tax measures dripping ink all over the upcoming ballot. There have been some reforms for public agencies in pension, benefit and pay structures. But honestly, it’s not nearly enough – not nearly enough to justify supporting all the tax measures on the ballot. One of our Community Pulse members answered a question about supporting the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s tax proposal  with this: “No. On principle, voting no on all tax measures until agencies, counties, Sacramento get their wasteful spending practices in order.” That’s on the money, and it seems to me that until the clear majority of voters adopt that principle – despite general support for schools, dam re-building, public safety or whatever the purpose – serious and sustainable reform will not happen.

THIS WEEK’S POLL: Will you vote for or against the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s 15-year, $548 million parcel tax measure on the November ballot?

• Yes, it’s the lawful and ethical practice to follow. The founder of Mi Pueblo came to the U.S. as an undocumented resident by his own admission, as did many others, including affluent Gilroy residents. They were given opportunities and were intelligent enough to benefit from those opportunities. Although some view his choosing e-Verify as hypocritical, he must follow proper employment processes in order to protect his business. • Yes. It is the appropriate thing to do in the hiring process. I do when I hire and I hope you and others do, too! • Yes. Mi Pueblo and all companies within the U.S. should use eVerify to ensure that workers are citizens or have the proper work permit and are in our country legally. This is a country of rules and we need to follow the rules or risk losing our country. • Yes. I believe it is the law to ensure employees have the legal right to work in this country. • Yes, this is an American business and should follow all the rules of this country. • Unquestionably, yes. It’s the right thing to do in every way. • Yes. This should be a normal business practice when hiring employees, but because of the nature of this business, as well as any other service industries, this is a sticky topic for management for many reasons.  For Mi Pueblo to have the integrity to say this will be their policy is definitely in their favor. • Yes they absolutely have made the right decision! The fact that the union Is contemplating protesting is ridiculous. MI Pueblo will not only be following the law they will be creating an environment that makes employment for legal immigrants and citizens more fair. If Mi Pueblo follows through with the checks, I will shop there more because of it. • Yes, not sure where a “decision” comes in, it’s the law! • Yes. In these economic times, it is fiscally responsible for Mi Pueblo to protect themselves against costly fines associated with employing undocumented workers. • Absolutely YES! This is the law, all the rest of us have to follow it, check our employees or be checked as an employee – this is a legitimate business and does need to follow the law, the rules and the regulations of the land.

• Expand youth and rec programs. We need to get use to making due with

• Don Gage ... hands down. Don has the experience in both city and county government seats and has always put “Gilroy first.” • Dion Bracco. I gave him my word months ago. What good is my word if I don't keep it? • Don Gage. Don is very collaborative, considerate and open-minded. He has strong ties at the county level and will ensure Gilroy receives our fair share of resources and representation. I also feel Don Gage considers the good of the entire community. The other candidates seem to be myopic in who they represent, creating a very divisive atmosphere. • Dion Bracco. Although I wish he would have been more transparent with his past, I do believe he is the best person for the job. His heart and soul are for Gilroy and I support him. • My choice would be Don Gage. He has the demonstrated experience and the “ability” to get things done. Pretty clear choice in my opinion. • Based on his logic, leadership, personality, experience, track record, I will vote for Don Gage. • Don Gage. Mr. Gage is a tried and true leader with a vast amount of experience and contacts within Gilroy, Santa Clara County, Bay Area and Sacramento. Mr Gage has demonstrated his leadership in past roles and Gilroy Council member, Gilroy mayor, county commissioner, and most recently Santa Clara Valley Water District. His skills and management style will benefit Gilroy for the next four years. • Undecided. We could use fresh and new faces in our local government going forward. • I choose Don Gage. I feel with his past experience and connections he will be a valuable asset for our community. • Don Gage. His record, like the record of his opponents, speaks for itself. Don’s record is why I support him. • Gage is a proven leader, an integral part of our community who can unite our divided City Council and inspire them to act in our best interests. 

• This is not anti-Islamic sentiment, but a yes to the efforts to control terrorism. The proposed Cordoba Center is San Martin is a name similar to the Cordoba House used during the initial proposal for the Mosque in the NYC 9/11 area. This NYC project is now titled Park 51. Cordoba House is project initiated by Cordoba initiative run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who is a supporter of Sharia Law. Rauf also said he put up his own money to purchase/lease the buildings to be used for the Cordoba House. The August 21, 2010 article from the Canada Free Press, Background of Cordoba House/Park 51 New York mosque revealed on radio show brings forth interesting links that groups who funded Rual support terrorism such as Iran and the Saudis. The San Martin Cordoba project has links to the Cordoba initiative if only by their name and has funding links to CAIR, known supporter of terrorism.I do not feel the Cordoba project is good or safe for our neighborhood. • Unfortunately, I do. It’s very disappointing. • Yes. Very sad, especially when you consider Sal Aktar and Hamby Abass are part of the Mosque plan leadership. They are two of the nicest people you ever want to meet. If you hurt one American, you hurt all Americans. I am impressed that the County Planning Commission views this project as worthy to proceed.  Hopefully the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will have the same opinion. • Sadly yes, the reasons of those in opposition seem shallow. • Yes, I believe that it is mostly anti-Islamic. However, there are some concerns about the area where they are proposing to build and ground water issues. • Yes. As much as I would like to believe we are a tolerant society, the truth is we are not. Especially when it comes to Islam. • I think it is largely based on ignorance and emotion. There may be some validity to traffic, drainage, ingress/egress or general use of the property, but those things should be addressed by the county and mitigated by the applicant. I would lean toward more of a land use issue that needs to be thought through more thoroughly. • Unfortunately, yes. Too many Americans have closed minds about Islamic people and their beliefs. • Yes. And a lot of misunderstanding as well. • No, not entirely. It seems that there are a variety of reasons why people are questioning the project. That said, there would probably be less opposition to the project if it were a Baptist church. Many boutique cities around California have prevented fast food, big box and national chains from setting up in their downtowns because they argued the large corporations did not correspond with the local theme and were a threat to local business. Inevitably, members of the mosque will probably get their building. However, just because some San Martin Residences are nervous, uncomfortable and/or threatened by having a mosque in their neighborhood, does not mean they are anti-Islam. • Who do these xenophobes think they’re fooling. To state that their opposition is based upon water quality issues highlights their own ignorance. This brand of religious intolerance borders of fascism. Be carful what you ask for religious zealots. Your religion could be next!

• Back into the Gardens. Let’s keep this jewel sparkling. • I’m going with the South Valley Pool!  Those kids over there need that fabulous summer fun! • Gilroy Gardens, that makes the most sense!n If Gilroy Gardens needs maintenance and they don’t have funds in their budget, by all means put the money into park maintenance. Of course, my other suggestion would be South Valley Middle School Pool.  I’m sure the city has other funds to pay for the pool though. Regardless, the city needs to pay for the pool.  Most of their sales tax and TOT funds come from the east side. They need to keep a positive asset in that community with some of those financial resources. • Gilroy Gardens. I imagine there has been deferred maintenance and it’s important to continue to invest in this wonderful community asset. Gilroy Gardens is just as important as the pools and parks are to our community. The venue has the additional benefit of drawing visitors which is another important aspect in determining where to invest our dollars. • It should go back to Gilroy Gardens. • Monies into the park. This city purchased the park and has devoted money, time and work into keeping it a viable activity for Gilroy citizens and our tourism. It has a great relationship with the managing board, which is doing a good job keeping the park running and, as you see by this question, in the black. No matter what happens to the park the assets belong to the city so continued investment at this time is very important. • Gilroy Garden’s maintenance, we brought it this far don’t lose it now! • Hands down the money should be used for the South Valley pool! • Gilroy Gardens. The city owns the entire property including the Gardens, the unused areas, the open space and all the improvements. Just like any other City owned property, it is in the City’s interest to maintain its assets. The cost to not do so will far exceed the $130,000.  • For the Gilroy Gardens maintenance as it was earmarked for. That park is beautiful and should not be shortchanged.  • I think “plow” is a poor description, but I do think that the city should direct the money back into the park to maintain it’s investment for the long haul. I think the park board would have a pretty good idea of how to do that.