The bungled attempt to slide the largest development in Gilroy’s history through the county Local Agency Formation Commission came off the rails this week when LAFCO sued the city in Santa Clara County Superior Court. It’s unprecedented for a city to be dragged into court by the very agency whose approval it needs, and the mayor and council members who voted to submit the half-baked application for a highly unpopular project should be embarrassed about the way this all was handled.
Citizens elect leaders to make wise and cautious decisions that reflect the will of their constituents, and the North Gilroy Neighborhood District initiative reflected none of those qualities.
Mayor Perry Woodward, especially, displayed poor judgment. He makes money litigating as a profession—he has sued the city of Gilroy and this newspaper in the past—and just signed on to work for a big San Jose law firm. He, more than anyone, should understand the need to follow procedures and keep the city out of court. Litigation between taxpayer-funded entities is a game that no one wins.
Luckily, landowner Jeff Martin made a sound decision to withdraw the application, promptly and without fuss. He has been a part of the community long enough to know which way the wind’s blowing, and he wants to do the right thing.
In our view, a project this big should undergo a community visioning period, or charette, otherwise the nice watercolors, elegant website and new name—Rancho Los Olivos—are just lip gloss on a boar. It should have widespread community buy-in before it is handed off to regional agencies for approval. The process should not simply move from a small political in-group clumsily and arrogantly telling Gilroyans what’s best for them to a slick PR campaign by an out-of-county agency hired to sell the plan. Instead, if it’s to move forward, there has to be a genuine willingness to listen to a community that has spoken up loud and clear.
“I asked the applicant to please rescind their application to allow for time for the city and greater community to better understand the proposal, the benefits to our community, how it gains local control and fits within the collective long-term vision of Gilroy’s future,” Woodward said in the developer’s press release. First off, why was the mayor of Gilroy’s position expressed through the project publicist’s press release, rather than in a city announcement? Does the mayor work for the city, or the developer? Second, should the mayor, after two weeks on the job, be using the personal pronoun and instructing a private applicant how to conduct his business affairs? And, third, is the problem really that the citizens of this community are too uneducated about the project’s fabulous benefits to “understand”?
If Woodward really wants to bring the community around on this defining issue, he can start by creating an inclusive city leadership, which means not hand-picking ideological soulmates for mayor pro-tempore and council appointee. If he goes ahead with Peter Leroe-Muñoz as his second-in-command and then engineers Bob Dillon’s appointment—many City Hall watchers believe that that backroom deal’s already been cut—Woodward will have a de facto four-member voting block to accelerate Gilroy’s expansion over the objections of a large number, if not a majority of residents. And because a new general plan is in the works, Gilroy will live with the results of this political gamesmanship for decades to come.
We hope Woodward’s colleagues on the council will realize that a mayor who’s crashing into walls should not be followed blindly. Being aggressive and taking initiative can sometimes be confused with leadership.
A proclivity for action, to be sure, can be a very good thing when accompanied by sound judgment and a consensus of support. But when a moral compass is spinning freely and ambition charts the direction, what appears to be a march forward can really be just a bunch of lemmings sprinting to the cliff’s edge, dazzled by the brilliance of a $3 billion payday.
