Measure A: Complete Lack of Respect for Property Rights That
Voters Should Reject
Measure A: Complete Lack of Respect for Property Rights That Voters Should Reject
Dear Editor,
Over the last several months I have read many a quote or opinion on Measure A, and am appalled at the complete lack of respect for property rights promulgated by the proponents of Measure A. A few quotes and opinions are as follows:
1. County Supervisor Liz Kniss said that she has head many complaints about Measure A being unfair to rural property owners but “equality depends on where you sit.”
“Do you sit on many acres of land and feel you have a right to develop it in a certain way or if you sit on a fifth of an acre in Palo Alto and (Measure A) doesn’t affect you but you like the hillsides.” ~ The Business Journal, Sept. 22.
2. Walter Hays of Palo Alto wrote: “Development in unincorporated areas is huge mansions”… “Stanford University is excluded.” ~ The Gilroy Dispatch, Oct. 19.
Most proponents of Measure A (a property grab without paying compensation) are opposing Proposition 90 (a further protection against government taking of property without just compensation).
Let’s look at what is really being said:
n Development of homes in unincorporated areas such as the hillsides of Los Altos Hills, Page Mill Road, Silver Creek is OK, but it’s not OK anywhere else (why the discrimination against large homes in any case – large and small housing, barns, packing sheds and tasting rooms would all be severely restricted if not prohibited under Measure A);
n Stanford University is given a pass on the
Measure A land-use restrictions;
n The farmer or other owner of agricultural land would be required to provide for public pleasure with no compensation rights to their property and;
n Those who desire to take property rights are also opposed to a further protection of just compensation to a property owner whose property or property rights are taken by government.
According to Barron’s, property is “The rights that one individual has in lands or goods to the exclusion of others.” These rights are not just the physical land and structures on the property but the bundle of rights appurtenant to the property. Is it fair to strip a property owner of his land, structures and rights without paying for taking these rights away? Of course not. It’s plain stealing.
Like most folks I love to see open meadows and green hillsides, but I am also realistic; if the public desires these, then it has to purchase the rights unless people are willing to voluntary give them up. It is disturbing to witness the trends in this great state and nation against individual property rights, as these property rights have been a fundamental pillar in the foundation of this country and an impetus to our entrepreneurial spirit.
I encourage the public to get informed. The entire text is available at www.smartvoter.org.
Don’t allow government to strip your property rights, vote No on Measure A and Yes on Proposition 90, and consider this quote:
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free …”
~ John Adams,
A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787
Chris Vanni, Gilroy
The Golden Quill is awarded occasionally for a well-written letter.
Thanks to Leadership Gilroy for Paying for Skydiver and Fireworks at Homecoming
Dear Editor,
Thank you to the 2006-2007 Gilroy Leadership class for sponsoring such a great homecoming for our high school and our community!
You should be so proud of yourselves. The floats, parade and football field looked fabulous. I am a very proud parent of a senior football player, and I was so excited to see the fireworks and skydiver hired for the football game.
I just stood there in awe with tears of joy running down my face knowing he has had four wonderful years as a Mustang and what an awesome year this is going to be for him. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart for such a great night. I will miss these times as we graduate in 2007. I can hardly wait for Senior Night.
Lori Jeske, Gilroy
Enforcing Current Laws Would Go a Long Way to Adding More Charm to Gilroy
Dear Editor,
After reading Serdar Tumgoren’s story “City Hard Pressed to Define Charm” I share the disappointment some expressed. I can also understand Councilman Russ Valiquette’s concern about the lack of progress and his desire to make changes to “preserve character.”
All of these expressions of concern sound pretty hollow when there is no current enforcement of already existing ordinances which would resolve much more egregious things ruining our fine city.
For example, while riding around Gilroy this weekend, we were astounded with the contrast between the clean and tidy new main street and the rundown housing area immediately behind the street. In the latter we found clothes hanging on fences, trash in the yards, broken down cars, grown men urinating in broad daylight and what appears to be permanent garage/yard sales.
One of the biggest problems facing our neighborhoods is the presence of an increasing number of homes with two, three or four families living in homes zoned as a single-family residences. Often associated with these situations are rundown yards and homes, driveways and streets clogged with parked cars and a lowering of property values.
Ordinances are already on the books that restrict frequency of yards sales, the presence of broken down cars, public urination, the number of families allowed to live in a single family residence and many similar things that are damaging our city’s charm.
Perhaps we need new laws. However, all such laws will be wasted effort if we don’t first enforce the existing laws which deal with much more basic and impactful rules of societal charm.
Kim Kehrer, Gilroy
Volunteers Can and Should Play an Important Role in Our Local School District
Dear Editor,
As a parent I have always felt that I needed to contribute to my son’s education, as well as to his class and school, in as many ways as possible. It wasn’t too long before I came to the realization that there are lots of other parents that do feel the same way, not just in my school but all the schools.
I would venture to say that this force is so strong that it could be counted as a solid backbone of our public schools in Gilroy. Parents are involved in every aspect of Gilroy Unified School District. We provide help with yard duty, the classrooms, numerous committees, help with lunch lines, bake goods and we wash cars to raise money to complement our school’s budget and teachers. We do this because of our love for our children, not because we want to become teachers or lab technicians. We dedicate our time in school because there is a need for it and we have our children’s best interest at heart. We are called volunteers.
There is a clear division between outsourcing and volunteering. One is much more threatening to a unionized work force than the other.
When asked by CSEA as to “what is my position on contracting out of school services, such as food-service, custodial, maintenance, and transportation, etc?” I had only four words to say “I don’t favor outsourcing.”
I do respect CSEA’s decision but am not subscribing to their course of reasoning. I can’t help to wonder how many of CSEA’s members who are parents volunteer in their children’s schools?
The concern brought forth by CSEA that their members’ work (product) is unappreciated and the increase in work due to the growth of the district outweighs the available positions is a reality that I can’t deny. If elected, my interim solution to this problem would be the use of volunteers. Needs assessment, budgetary adjustments, securing source of funding and the hiring process is not an overnight process. I don’t see a need for our children to suffer a lack while waiting for this process to happen. Nor do I see a problem with willing volunteers stepping in to assist where we fall short in resources.
If we are to succeed then we need to rise above our self interest: A true partnership is broader than any one partner’s interest.
Ardy Ghoreishi, Candidate for the Gilroy Unified School District Board of Trustees
