With the mayor’s surprise resignation, the fast-track approval of a massive annexation initiative and the word that the council will appoint a replacement on Jan. 4, Gilroy residents should be asking some tough questions. What’s really happening over there at City Hall?
The North Gilroy initiative came up quickly, during the holiday season, when many people are a bit distracted. Nonetheless, residents spoke up clearly. In polls. In emails to the council. On social media. And with their attendance at the meeting. Almost unanimously, they implored the council to hold off on the farmland conversion—and they were ignored.
Councilman Perry Woodward, who made the motion, lashed out at opponents. He misrepresented non-supporters as zero-growth advocates, even though no one actually called for that. There’s room for thousands of new homes within the existing city limits, including large approved developments and infill opportunities. A zero-growth option just isn’t in the cards, so in bloviating about that to discredit adversaries, he engaged in pure demagoguery.
Woodward also referred to residents of other county cities who took the time to communicate their concerns as “tho-o-o-se people.” That was another disingenuous attempt to suggest that locals who want to preserve agricultural land, avoid worsening traffic congestion and prioritize local job development over commuter housing were somehow loyal to evil outside forces.
Interestingly, the people whose opinions were most disregarded were some of Gilroy’s most dedicated community volunteers and public servants. In making his motion, Woodward ignored the unanimous recommendation of the planning commission and sidestepped the General Plan Advisory Committee—which, ironically, Woodward himself chaired.
“This project should not have been given special consideration by the council in circumventing the General Plan Advisory Committee. It was disrespectful,” councilman Roland Velasco, who opposed the annexation vote, observed. “It was disrespectful to the 20-plus residents who have given so much of their time and energy looking at, evaluating the chief planning document for our city.”
The annexation champions should not be playing the outside influence card. Woodward makes his living as a San Jose lawyer representing banks and developers. And Peter Leroe-Munoz, who seconded Woodward’s motion, was elected in 2014 with the help of bundled contributions from the family of Chester “Skip” Spiering, the Peninsula-based developer of the North Gilroy farmlands.
From what we’ve heard from our readers, the council’s vote was out of step with what residents want. They don’t think Gilroy should become a sprawling, congested urban area with houses in every direction and longer commutes.
Three key votes are coming up: the naming of a new mayor, the appointment of a new councimember and the passage of a 25-year General Plan. In making these critical decisions, the council needs to conduct meaningful outreach, take adequate time, listen to constituents and restore balance to the process.
Gilroyans should be invited to apply and interview for the council vacancy. Otherwise it will look like council was too interested in its own agenda to let the citizens of Gilroy participate in the process.
Note: An earlier version of this editorial called for the city to delay the mayor’s appointment until a new councilmember is seated. The City Charter, however, specifies that a mayor be named “forthwith,” which according to Black’s Law Dictionary means “without delay,” so we removed that sentence and added the city’s announced Jan. 4 appointment date.
