Tag: community pulse

• Yes. Obviously the owner is responsible for his/her pet, and leaving the scene made it a much bigger crime in my mind. • Yes. If it is found that criminal laws apply. At the very least, he should be held civilly responsible and made to pay all damages. It is one thing to behave irresponsibly by allowing a dangerous dog off leash. It is entirely different to cowardly run and hide to avoid  responsibility. • No. Sometimes dogs get provoked even with the best training. I would suggest the owner get heavily fined and any medical payments be taken care of by the owner. • Yes. Owners are responsible for the actions of their minor children and their pets. In this case it should be charged as assault to commit bodily harm and whatever else, hopefully more than a misdemeanor. • Yes. Possession and misuse of a dangerous weapon in public. • It is not up to me to rewrite the law, so if a crime according to what is on the books has been done then, yes. I do understand there are some misdemeanors that should be assessed to this individual, which should certainly be applied. Also there is also the possibility of a civil lawsuit that could be applied by the victim. • Of course! Last time I checked we are all personally responsible for everything we own, right? Why would the actions of a dog be any different. • Definitely. If he was in public with an aggressive dog, no matter the breed, he should have had him secure with a good leather harness and leash to control him. Instead, he carelessly had no control and an innocent woman with her precious little pet were attacked. He is the one at fault, not his dog. • Absolutely yes! Aggressive dogs (no matter what the breed) need to be kept away from all public places. If someone wants an aggressive guard dog for their property, they must keep them behind safe, un-jumpable fences or on a chain. In addition, ALL dogs in Gilroy must be on a leash at all times unless they are in the Las Animas Dog Park. That includes 10-pound cuties as well as 120 pound dogs.  Why is it so hard for residents to keep their dogs on a leash??? It’s the law, and when this law is broken, the results can be traumatic and deadly! • Yes, certainly. Reckless endangerment, dog-off-leash, leaving the scene of an accident, malicious mischief. He should be liable for all of his victim’s expenses and maybe some pain and suffering (yes, civil court awaits him, too). • Absolutely! If for no other reason he left the scene like a coward! • If a crime is being really dumb/and or clueless about how people feel about dogs, on a leash or not, then yes.

• No no no no no. • Yes. 1/4% state sales tax is much easier to swallow than a full 1% locally. The best thing, though, everyone will have to pay it. Not just the homeowners. • No on Proposition 30, Gov. Brown’s tax  increase, which increase state income tax and sales tax. No on Proposition 38, State Income Tax Increase and No on Proposition 39, income tax increase for multi-state business. No tax increases at all until the spending cuts for all areas of government, not just the touchy-feely issues like schools, medical assistance, senior programs, etc. These cuts are applied to make citizens feel guilty. Meanwhile, the over spending of government continues with over-priced boards, duplication of work, mandated work contracts, payments into pensions … etc. etc. etc. When you stop these and get some serious cuts in place maybe we can balance a budget. Personally, I would like to see a legislative body that works only three months out of the year. It would automatically introduce cuts and stop these full-time lawmakers from thinking up insane laws that continues to depress California. How about the last one that surfaced? This is the approval of an $8,000,000,000 bond that will fund a bullet train from Fresno to Bakersfield. This is a government long-term investment with money that does not exist and will result in $500,000,000 in interest payments per year, not principle, just interest. I should accept a tax increase when the folks that are responsible for spending have no sense of fiscal responsibility? I think not.n I completely support an increase of taxes of some kind and somehow. We must stop thinking that our increasing population and needs for all kinds of services, from road maintenance to food safety to education, can be addressed by reducing spending. The bone has been cut to. We are shooting both feet by reducing education spending and infrastructure spending. Wake up, California. Our state needs funding. I support closing the commercial property tax loopholes and increasing income tax progressively on individuals and corporations. I don’t think this is what Gov. Brown has proposed, so I am undecided on these specific measures. • Absolutely no. • Undecided at this point, that's a fall reading assignment! • Undecided. I would really like to see pension reform, which he has included in his plan, play a larger role in cutting costs. • Yes, I’ve thought about them, and believe that unless people step up and understand that they need to be part of the solution, and actually think about the major problems we are experiencing due to a lot of wrong-minded decisions, our state will continue to be in decline. People need to accept that they have to pay for freedoms and rights that we experience as citizens of a working democracy. • Got to go with “undecided” … need more time to study all the ramifications. • Yes. But the initiative should have included funding for CSU’s! • I am undecided. I know we need to raise revenues, but is there a better way besides increasing taxes? • I am still undecided. I do not feel that excess spending has been properly addressed. Still too much fat in Sacramento, too much politicking and too little common sense budgeting.

• NO. This is a big bunch of BS. Students are not getting enough of their academics as it is with shorter class days and shorter class years. This is the government’s way of indoctrinating students in public schools into “serving the citizens”. If they want them to do 80 more hours put them back into the classroom. • Yes. Instilling community service at a young age rewards not only the young person but our community. They will hopefully see this as just a beginning in terms of what they can give back through service. The bigger lesson will be in what they receive! • Absolutely Yes. It forces involvement which can lead to a child finding a passion they didn’t even know they have as well as exposing them to all different needs within our community. • Honestly as a parent of a freshman, I really hated the rule. Now that a year has gone by and my son will be a sophomore my thought has changed. It is a really great idea that has helped me encourage my son to be more involved! Also, as a parent it has helped me to see all the diverse opportunities available for all ages to help keep Gilroy residents and families! • No. I think it is a good premise to raise awareness for teens, but the actual accounting for the hours, the paperwork, and the enforcement of students not walking if they don’t fulfill this requirement and the outcry from some parents if their student is affected is the reality. Perhaps this spirit of volunteering should be given back to the parents to model and do with their children. • Yes. Community service is character building and is not difficult especially with local organizations like Gilroy Gardens stepping up to provide plenty of opportunities to serve. • Yes. It provides experiences and learning opportunities they would never understand from a book. They will see a different perspective on life if they serve at St. Joseph’s or the Compassion Center or with a local service club project. It’s good for them. • Yes. I’m actually pretty cynical about this in that much of what passes for community service is questionably so. One hour here and a half-hour there doesn’t do it. Weekly volunteer at Lord’s Table or St.Joseph’s Family Center or Salvation Army or Operation Interdependence or clean up the creek or pick up trash along the streets or railroad tracks or helping at the hospital or convalescent home or senior center or logistical help (set-up/clean-up) with service organizations’ large events. These things give exposure to real-life, character building experiences, sensitivity to the less

For residents, which city do you believe is better run – Morgan Hill or Gilroy?

• No, do we really need government regulating the size of our soda cups but allowing marijuana sales, alcohol sales and cigarette sales? Give me a break. • Yes. Not sure why we need to have more than 16 ounces. Also, there would be less waste. • No, 16 oz. seems to be a bit of an overreach. HOWEVER, I wouldn’t mind seeing action taken on much larger sized drinks. Banning huge drinks, locally, would be a small step taken in the right direction in getting citizens to recognize the physical and financial impacts on being fat and unhealthy for no other reason than eating poorly.  Some will argue that government should not interfere with culinary choices. However, when those decisions have huge financial impacts on our health care system, and inevitably all taxpayers, then government is obligated to act. 20 years ago, San Luis Obispo, made national headlines when it banned smoking in ALL buildings. Many argued against it in the name of individual freedoms. This once, outrageous government intrusion, is now widely accepted as common sense. • No. The idea is ridiculous just as it is in NYC. There is an equally ridiculous idea before the council now regarding smoking in parks and the big issue is enforcement, which would also be the case for soft drinks  Banning soft drinks over 16 oz. would be another law to punish business. • Too much “Big Brother” for me.  NO!! What happened to “This is a free country?” Let people decide for themselves whether or not they want to super size their drink. Who would enforce this ban anyway? The police need to be addressing real crime, not something as stupid as this. • Oh sure why not, then everyone will lose a lot of weight and stop cracking the sidewalks and the city’s problems will be over. NO! • No. Free choice is something we value, and if people choose to drink that much soda it is their choice. Wrong, but their choice. • No. This is government overreach. I do agree with limiting nutritionally questionable items within the K-12 school campus. That said, obesity is an epidemic in our country, and all of us are bearing the health care burden for those who choose to do harmful things to themselves, including eating junk food, smoking and drug use. A cultural shift through comprehensive public communications programs is a better way for our government to promote health in our communities. • No. Unlike smoking, soft drinks don't give off “second hand calories”. I believe it would be infringing on a person's personal rights. I don’t think anyone should drink sugary soft drinks very often, but that is my personal choice. • NO! I do think it would be very responsible for theaters/fast food establishments to offer smaller sizes and if they were really responsible they would make the larger sizes less attractive by increasing the price differentials between small and BIGGIE. • Hell no! I think our taxpayers have a lot more to be concerned about then limiting soft drinks over 16oz.n Pretty Big-Brother-silly. Let's educate. We have made the diabetes epidemic ourselves. Parent education, removing empty calories from school lunches, community gardens, youth physical activity opportunities, good health education. I support all, but the legal rout? No thanks. • No! Consider the source (Michael Bloomberg). According to da Mayor “One doughnut’s not damaging; it’s lots of doughnuts that are damaging. All we’re trying to do with full-sugared drinks is to give people encouragement to do things in moderation.” If you follow his faulty logic to its reasonable conclusion, we will have to downsize all food packaging and limit the purchase quantities. I see individually wrapped tofu cubes in our future!

• Certainly not higher than $200k. At that, this would be very generous. • $150,000 – he does a great job and that is a great compensation! • At the level of enrollment, he should be receiving close to $150,000 and perhaps some performance-based bonuses. • $150,000 or commensurate with  community college president salaries and benefits of comparably sized institutions. • The compensation level should be tied to the rate-of-pay of the rest of the employees. One formula could be 10% more than the highest paid employee. Another might be no more than 75% more than the lowest paid full-time employee. After applying some formula, the board needs to look at enrollment, budget, accomplishment of goals, customer (student and taxpayer) satisfaction, and faculty assessment. What we know for sure is that the current compensation is way out of line. • $250,000.  He’s already at that level, or pretty close.  It would be insulting to reduce his salary. Future salary increases need to be thoughtfully considered, though, based on Gavilan’s revenue, cuts to services, public opinion and salary comparisons of all Gavilan staff. It seems that top level staff receive hefty compensation packages while rest of personnel receive no raises or salary cuts to bear the burden. • Somewhere about $165k seems fair. • Our Gavilan College President has a payment contract as of last year. I have no idea what a president of a JC should be paid, but I’m guessing the amount can exceed $250,000 since his total amount when the payment contract is completed will be $276,000. • $200,000 is fair and reasonable • A very reasonable salary and benefit package should be $150,000. Then, attach an aggressive bonus plan of up to 25% of the package that rewards recipent based on Steve’s production.  Part of incentive plan must be related to how the student and taxpayer benefits from his leadership. Our elected officials have gotten way off course by chasing a false philosophy in which it is believed that to get great public sector managers, you must pay them private sector wages.  Higher salaries can be justified and  sustained only when they are tied to financial risk. If public sector managers want higher salaries they can find them in the private sector. • “Researcher John Curtis said that, according to a recent survey conducted by his organization, the compensation of public community-college presidents range from $81,000 to $390,000, not including extra benefits for housing and car expenses. The size of the salary is influenced by the size of the school, its location and the number of its students and employees.” Given this information, I think Kinsella's salary is too much for the size of the Gavilan student body. His salary today makes sense in a school that serves over 35,000 students at least – Gavilan has less than 6,000 students. The Trustees depend on him and his expertise, but competition for jobs is healthy and should be practiced for Gavilan’s presidency in the future, given that student fees are increasing and more students are relying on financial aid to finish their schooling … $150,000 to $200,000 is more reasonable.

• 1.5% to 3% depending on the benefits package. As it stands, the benefits package is so comprehensive it would be more than fair to offer a 1.5% cost of living increase. That said, I do appreciate very much all that our GPD does for our community and they should be compensated fairly. • 1.5%. I also feel that the police should be paying into their pension and medical programs and not expect taxpayers to pay them for the rest of their lives. • No raise. It’s too soon to come out! This is going to be a long and bumpy recovery. • 1.5%, just to show appreciation for what they do.  Any other increases should be on an individual basis based on performance. • No raise. During difficult times, every employee of the city should understand that sacrifices must be made by all.  For instance, Boise, Idaho’s police department have already decided to give up a 2.5% raise they were going to receive in October, 2012. This move will save their city $1.2 million.  We all need to step up to help our community. • Out here in real life, especially in the non-profit world (I think the city

• I’ve had concerns for a very long time, rarely do you hear of a positive experience at St. Louise. • Yes, after reading all the news about it, I am concerned. This is something the hospital should have known was going on, should have addressed it for improvements and, definitely, should have been prepared to speak to the press and the residents of South County when the report came out.  The “unavailability of the CEO” on something so important is disappointing. • No more than any other hospital, as those are places just riddled with opportunities for people to contract something, unfortunately. The only thing I have a concern about is that it limits options for women due to the parent company’s beliefs. I don’t think medicine and religion should limit one another. • No. I have been a patient in the past and received great care. • No. Not serious concerns. I do have some concerns about the ability of this organization to meet the community’s needs. I also continually wonder why their services are so expensive relatively speaking. I had an MRI at Saint Louise and it ran around $3,000. The same MRI at another service provider was $1,800. It’s hard to “stay local” when there is a dramatic price difference. I also think they need to work harder at recruiting new doctors into the community. Many times we have to leave town to find common specialists. • No, I have received care at Saint Louise Hospital and have always found their care to be adequate. • No. I don’t have any experience with the ER or trauma functions at this hospital. • Not serious – yet.

• Yes! While I appreciate council’s approach of carefully vetting the idea of spending the money, this is something we should definitely support. With re-emphasis on crime prevention through recreation, the pool can be considered an important piece of that puzzle. Look to San Jose for this one: Nicely funded recreation programs with low crime rates. It’s a proven method. From purely a local perspective; how can we allocate millions to the west side and not spend a couple hundred thousand on the east side. Also, very disappointed to read city officials comments about how hard it is to find and hire lifeguards. The Culture-of-No has got to go! • YES!!  Both of my children learned to swim during Summer use of the pool by City of Gilroy Parks and Recreation programs. Over the years, thousands of children have utilized that pool for Summer cool off, excellent exercise opportunities and positive activities.  $117,000 is a small price to pay for the beneficial use by many Gilroy youth. • Yes! I think is is ridiculous not to provide community recreation equally for all of our children. The city spent a lot of money on Christopher High’s pool and they should invest equally throughout the community. The amount to repair and maintain the pool is small compared to the community impact of not providing recreation for ALL of our children during the summer. • Yes. Good partnership for GUSD/Parks&Rec for summer programs and school year phys ed. Cost is in reality very minimal but GUSD must pick up part of the tab. • No. There simply is not enough population surrounding the pool to warrant the repair cost and upkeep – 50 kids per week for 6 weeks then only 20 per day average does not pencil out! • Definitely. We now have public “neighborhood” pools in the northwest quadrant (CHS) and in the southern central area (GHS). We need to keep one for our residents on the east side of Gilroy. Not everyone can afford their own swimming pool and cooling off in a pool on a hot summer day is an American tradition! • Yes! Our town needs pools. Of course, I am a swim teacher and I have a very strong bias, but pools in neighborhoods are so important. Knowing how to swim is so important. I am a strong proponent of city-GUSD partnerships for recreation and this is one place to do it. Parks and rec employs local youth as lifeguards and swim teachers and serves the community with rec and instruction. If we neglect it any further toward ruin, we’ll never get it back. • My vote is a unanimous YES! The South Valley Middle school pool would provide a source of entertainment for our youth and extra jobs in our community.  First, it’s the only pool on the east side of town for the residents in that area. Some of the children that use this pool would not have the means to travel across town. Second, my daughter swims for the Gilroy Gators, and this is the pool they use for their practices. The Gators have been established for almost 30 years and currently are looking for a pool to have their practices over the summer.  Unfortunately the parks and recreation programs are taking up most of the available times at the Christopher and Gilroy High pools. The Gilroy Gators program may potentially have to look outside of Gilroy for a location. Don’t we want to keep our Gilroy Gators in Gilroy? • No. Gilroy operates two swimming pools in Gilroy. Our city administrator says that participation of swimmers in the summer at the SV pool is 20 or less per day. The SV pool maintenance has been shoddy and now requires $117,000 - $300,000* in repairs. Seems that $183,000 was suddenly not necessary based on dollar estimate in the April 9, 2012 article. Move away from the older pool and concentrate on the maintenance and support of the two high school pools. *$300,000 Dispatch Feb 9, 2012, South Valley Middle: Too pool for school?". “The pool requires nearly $300,000 in repairs and ongoing operating funding to stay open.” • Yes, provided the city can reach an equitable cost sharing agreement with GUSD. This is, after all, GUSD property and responsibility. • They should. It serves an area of town that is often forgotten, and now with the ridiculous water slides at CHS the disparity is glaring.

No. As a veteran I recall getting the opportunity to talk to any type of doctor when I was discharged. I was given a discharge physical and was offered a chance to speak to a chaplin and I don't recall if a psychological examine was offered, but I would have refused. My recollection is that the GI's in my era were all but focused on getting home as a civilian from Vietnam and not dealing with any more military bureaucracy. In this era the Veterans Hospital has more evaluations for PTSD than ever in the history of the military and let veterans that this service is available. I don't know if having any number of counseling hours would change anything. Getting discharged is a treasured moment, and in my thinking no one on the brink of discharge is going to do anything to keep that from happening. • No, I just don’t trust the government to be able to put in place a program to truly help the military vets. I do think more emphasis should be placed on screening and following up with current military as well as those leaving who are showing signs of post traumatic disorder and/or have suffered injuries which might effect their mental stability. Our current tragedy would not have been diverted by counseling upon departure! • Yes. I suspect in most instances it would be welcomed. • Absolutely! And, I believe there should be follow up every 6 to 12 months. • Yes. They should receive counseling and support during their tours as well. We need to be vigilant that our service men and women get any help they need all along the way. • I don’t believe it should be MANDATORY for the men and women to go through counseling AFTER their term is over. I believe that it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to have them go through counseling regularly while they are IN the armed forces not just after they've been on a deployment. • Yes, with follow up if there are questionable behaviors or attitudes. • Counseling for sure, but I think each soldier’s requirements for time incounseling will be different. The armed services needs a way to gauge how much is enough, economically, but the soldiers need sufficient counseling to re-integrate successfully. • Yes, and there should be a schedule of follow-up visits for one year that are mandatory to complete the discharge process. • There should definitely be mandatory psychological screening during the discharge process. Seems to me that I’ve read that all troops in combat zones receive counseling, but if screening reveals need for more it should be given. Maybe follow up contacts through Veterans Affairs is in order after discharge. Many of these soldiers are reserves and could be offered/given counseling services as a regular part of that program. • Absolutely. They have so many potential needs. Financial hurdles. Re-integration with family. Employment challenges. Physical injuries that lead to mental stress. Guilt from returning while others did not. The list of needs is long. • Certainly for those returning from a tour of duty in a war zone.