GILROY
– It has only been a week since Mayor Tom Springer announced his
decision to leave politics after his term expires in November.
GILROY – It has only been a week since Mayor Tom Springer announced his decision to leave politics after his term expires in November.
Now, folks on the wrong side of alleged ethical breaches that Springer said helped make up his mind to retire are speaking up.
From the school district and developers to fellow councilmen and residents who served on a city task force, few segments of Gilroy politics escaped Springer’s claims.
The mayor said the City Council knowingly violated California law when it brought a Day Road property into Gilroy boundaries. And he has claimed the recent purchase of a Seventh and Monterey street property that will become part of a future downtown arts and cultural center is tainted, since two members of the task force that recommended the site own homes or businesses nearby and may benefit from increased property values.
“I don’t see how two people can sway the whole thing,” task force member Richard Young said. “We had 15 members, and we looked at more than 20 sites. We had a matrix that scored each site until we came up with a top 10 and then a top three. Our final decision was unanimous.”
Young, whose family has owned Young Signs at 7393 Eigleberry St. since 1945, is one of the two members with property neighboring the future cultural hub. Young said he has no plans to sell or borrow against the value of his business or home.
Task force member Sherri Stuart is also surprised by Springer’s comments. She recalled Springer attending the group’s first meeting and trying to pitch an idea for a land swap that would involve the city buying vacant property near the existing Platinum Theatres on Monterey Street.
Stuart finds Springer’s conflict of interest allegation ironic since some task force members believe his land swap pitch would have circumvented the thorough task force process.
“We hadn’t even started looking at what we needed and the mayor was coming in with this plan,” Stuart said. “To say we were feeling a little rushed would be an understatement.”
Besides Young, the only task force member to own anything adjacent to the future arts center is Dennis Gaxiola. Gaxiola owns a photography business at 7391 Eigleberry St. which doubles as his residence. He does not own the property.
“I have very little to gain if anything by having the center near my business,” Gaxiola said. “Most of the performances there will be put on by nonprofit theater companies and if they’re looking for photography services, chances are they’ll need the services to be donated.”
Springer could not be reached for comment before Friday’s deadline. In prior interviews, he did not specify which property and business owners he believed had conflicts of interest.
The annexation
Springer is being criticized for his other ethics breach claim which involved a Day Road property sought by Gilroy Unified School District, the Catholic Church and Gilroy’s largest development firm Glen Loma Group.
At the heart of Springer’s concerns is the possibility that City Council violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it annexed the Day Road site. The project for the site is currently drawn up as a Glen Loma housing development and Catholic parish and school, but GUSD has been seriously interested in building a new high school there.
Environmental review of the annexation did not take the potential high school into account. To comply with CEQA, Springer said it was necessary to delay annexation until GUSD’s environmental review work is finished one year from now.
Springer’s concerns centered around a letter from GUSD Superintendent Edwin Diaz to Glen Loma Group developer John Filice, revealing the district intended to purchase the Day Road site since November 2002. Springer viewed it as a smoking gun because Filice had hawked the Day Road development as housing and a parish at public meetings.
“The letter is irrelevant, it has no legal import one way or the other,” Filice said.
Neither Filice nor the school district is absolutely clear on who requested the letter of intent be written or why it was important enough to put in writing. But both parties are clear that the letter was nonbinding and was ultimately rescinded once GUSD discovered it had jumped the gun and needed to do more environmental review before issuing such a document.
“The bottom line is we started the project three years ago (before GUSD was interested in the property) and the school district is an intervener that might not even buy the land (if environmental reviews find a better alternative),” Filice said. “I’m not going to do environmental work for the school district. That’s their job. What the mayor says is complete nonsense. It has nothing to do with ethics or fraud.”
