Dear Editor,
The porn issue
– rather, the arrogance on the part of the library
administration – is just one of several good reasons to reject the
third library tax.
Measure F, the library bond, is for fools – Gilroy’s library is a ‘joke’
Dear Editor,
The porn issue – rather, the arrogance on the part of the library administration – is just one of several good reasons to reject the third library tax.
I say “third” because we already pay two additional property taxes. One of the other two is the “county library” parcel tax of $33.66, a recent con job that took them multiple times at the ballot to pass.
The second is the “county library retirement” at a rate of 0.00240 of assessed value, which keeps us paying for the precious public employees’ pensions and retiree health benefits (luxuries most of us regular people don’t receive).
1. This is a property tax – the most unfair of taxes levied.
2. We already have a library. Due to gas prices, we’re paying about 20 percent more for everything than we were last year. We will see this again next year; prices are expected to rise about 15 percent more (while our wages go up two percent if anything). Yet, according to the library-tax folks, we’re all supposed to build them a shiny new temple.
3. The Gilroy library is a joke. It’s more of a day-care center. Now that the school year has started, drop by on a weekday afternoon and see for yourself. Borrow a DVD or CD; it’ll most likely be damaged and unplayable.
4. Libraries, like labor unions and public transportation, are becoming a thing of the past – a collectivist entity created in the bad old days. With the Internet, there is absolutely no more need of libraries. If you actually want to read a book (meaning on paper, as opposed to a CD played on your computer screen, which saves paper), buy it on the Internet (avoiding sales tax), read it, and then re-sell it. The only net cost is postage, which will be far less than the hundreds of dollars this tax hike will cost us annually.
5. Look at who is supporting this (library tax hike): It is the same, pathetic group of local socialists. They cling, in vain, to their pipe dream of public property. Their public transportation system is only funded 15 percent by those who use it; the rest of us pick up the tab for the remaining 85 percent so the precious county employees can ride free. Some of them even want the state, constantly mired in debt despite the highest taxes in the country, to take over our health care. Tell them they can live within their means just the rest of us and vote NO on F! F is for “fools.”
Alan Viarengo, Gilroy
Thankfully Gilroy doesn’t have an RDA, look at the governor’s plan
Dear Editor,
It has finally happened. Gilroy Dispatch, Sept. 9, 2008 – “Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed taking 5 percent of redevelopment funds annually for three years …”
Council Bob Dillon, who with three others, opposed a redevelopment agency for Gilroy, have their foresight vindicated.
Along with many other objections to RDA, the chief of which was the misuse of eminent domain, the critics pointed out that an RDA board was really a state of California agency, and not subject to local voter controls. This latest move by the governor proves the point. Gilroy should rejoice that it did not adopt a RDA.
Jack B. Kazanjian, Gilroy
Picture made it look like the sign was there illegally – and it isn’t
Dear Editor,
I am responding to the recent picture in the paper regarding signs placed illegally around the city.
To begin with, as far as we have ever known, our sign is not placed illegally. We have always received permission from the owners of the property for the last 18-plus years before placing our sign there. That is years before South Valley National Bank was ever built on that corner.
In all of that time, the city has never contacted us regarding its legality, nor asked us to remove it. If they had, we would have gladly removed the sign.
Secondly, your reporter took the time to contact the owners of Tiny Tots about their signs before printing the story, but did not bother to give the same consideration to us before plastering a picture of our sign in the paper, which gave the public the impression that we are doing something illegal.
Finally, this is the second time in a little over a year that your paper has made direct negative references to our business by publishing incorrect and untrue information.
In both instances, we were never contacted, or asked if the information had any validity (it did not). If you want the public to believe in your paper and what you print, then print the truth, otherwise you continue to perpetuate the belief that some people have that you cannot trust the media.
Judy Bonino, LJB Farms
