Dear Editor,
I am writing
&
amp;#8194;in response
&
amp;#8194;to the letter Rhonda Callen wrote to you about my
argument regarding the new school boundaries.
&
amp;#8194;It is true that my opinion is biased
&
amp;#8194;to the specific situation that I have and this is why
I not only wrote and spoke with the board members but
&
amp;#8194;also attended the boundary meetings and spoke
publicly.
&
amp;#8194;Those meetings were designed for feedback.
It’s not about which high school is better, it’s about student safety
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the letter Rhonda Callen wrote to you about my argument regarding the new school boundaries. It is true that my opinion is biased to the specific situation that I have and this is why I not only wrote and spoke with the board members but also attended the boundary meetings and spoke publicly. Those meetings were designed for feedback.
Ms. Callen and anyone else could have also done the same in opposition or support of the proposal. 
What I want to point out is that a very small portion of what I said and what I have written has been published. True, we do have two children at two separate schools to accommodate each child’s specific needs. Maybe she is not informed that Rucker Elementary has an after school program which alleviates our issue with transportation after school. We understand that both high schools are not easy walks. We only believe that Christopher High School is the EASIER walk, and thus makes more sense for our attendance boundary to follow what is the most logical and SAFEST route.
Surely, she cannot believe that crossing Welburn Avenue, First Street, Miller Avenue at Sixth Street and 10th Street is easier than traversing Mantelli Drive to Santa Teresa Boulevard?
We specifically did not move to a rural area because we assumed that if we lived an unacceptable walking distance to our child’s assigned school that busing would be provided – paid or otherwise. Busing to the rural areas seems like a luxury that GUSD can’t really afford but still offers. Ms. Callen states she lives 3.5 miles from CHS. She found it “comical” that we have an issue with my daughter walking 2.5 miles. I find it interesting that her child will attend a school further from her home than CHS is from my own. As it stands, if the current boundaries are adopted, we will not have busing as an option at either high school. So doesn’t it make sense for our daughter to walk to the NEAREST school which has the SAFER route?  
After all, these were some of the main objectives of the committee. Next time we look to buy property, perhaps we will move to the outskirts of town and simply expect the public school to pick up the cost of transportation and make our lives much easier. I have said in the past and I repeat that if in city busing was offered I would not have a problem with either high school.  
Please do not paint me out to be the “bad” guy. I am a very involved parent of a family who donates much time and energy to both our children’s schools. If the transportation is a true logistical nightmare, then when the time comes for our child to attend high school, we will have to evaluate what is best for our family – and we will donate our time to the school that makes the most sense.
Melonie Gonzalez, Gilroy  
Kayaks and other non-motorized boats permanently banned?
Dear Editor,
My husband and I just bought kayaks and were kayaking in Uvas Reservoir this past weekend – and it was wonderful. No power boats to worry about getting run over by or pollution in the water. Now I hear all the lakes will be closed temporarily due to the mussel problem and only a handful will reopen.
The article stated that all non-motorized lakes will not reopen ever. This is such terrible news. Why are they making this decision? They should ban motorized boats in all lakes permanently, not non-motorized boats and their lakes! The inspections would be easier and our lakes would be cleaner. Is there a way to find out why they made this decision and is this indeed a permanent decision to only open a few lakes? 
Ingrid Robertson, Gilroy
New GUSD boundaries don’t make any common sense for families
Dear Editor, 
I am writing in response to the many comments about the new Gilroy Unified School District boundary lines. The boundaries that will be implemented for Christopher High School will not apply to my family for some time. My oldest daughter is a student at Gilroy High.
When CHS opens she will be a junior and will be able to continue attending GHS. What angers me is the boundaries set for middle schools, as one writer mentioned. I have another child who will soon be entering middle school, and one entering preschool at Antonio del Buono. We live between Rod Kelley and ADB, and yet we will also have to PASS Brownell to get to South Valley. Can someone please give me a logical explanation on how that makes any sense?
I have to leave every morning at 7:30 to get my daughter to GHS on time, to then turn around and get my youngest to ADB on time (which is right by my house). I cannot fathom how I am going to make it to GHS, and then over to South Valley, and then to ADB, all before school starts.
My house is nowhere near South Valley! My daughter could literally walk to Brownell from our house. 
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for the boundary lines, but I am very curious to see how they came to these conclusions. I can’t help but wonder if any of the board members have multiple children in school.
T. Archuleta, Gilroy
