DEAR EDITOR:
Dennis Taylor likes to use the phrase
”
butt out
”
which implies
”
butting in.
”
Since Mr. Taylor is obviously ignorant of the history of the
last two years of joint meetings and discussions over school siting
and other activities, here are the details in case it matters to
Mr. Taylor.
DEAR EDITOR:
Dennis Taylor likes to use the phrase “butt out” which implies “butting in.” Since Mr. Taylor is obviously ignorant of the history of the last two years of joint meetings and discussions over school siting and other activities, here are the details in case it matters to Mr. Taylor.
A number of meetings to discuss future school sites have been held between myself and GUSD board members Jim Rogers and Bob Kraemer, as well as Supt. Edwin Diaz, going back to the spring of 2001, before the school bond was even formulated. All were initiated by Mr. Kraemer (I have all of the e-mails requesting the meetings), except for the few held in Supt. Diaz’s office that were initiated by his secretary. (The collection of e-mails makes for really interesting reading, maybe someday they should be read …)
If people ask why such meetings occurred for something that “should be a GUSD decision,” one only has to look at the California Government code, section 65352.2, that describes how cities and school districts (and counties) are supposed to work together to plan for new and expanded school sites (i.e., the “authority” or “guidelines” for this joint effort).
Here are the actual words at the beginning of that law: “65352.2. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to foster improved communication and coordination between cities, counties, and school districts related to planning for school siting.”
This law goes on to stress cooperation between cities and school districts when cities are developing general plans, and when school districts are developing future school sites; it talks about the parties (cities and school districts) jointly reviewing and considering, in the words taken directly from that law:
1) Methods of coordinating planning, design, and construction of new school facilities and school sites in coordination with the existing or planned infrastructure, general plan, and zoning designations of the city and county.
(2) Options for the siting of new schools and whether or not the local city or counties existing land use element appropriately reflects the demand for public school facilities, and ensures that new planned development reserves locations for public schools in the most appropriate locations.
(3) Methods of maximizing the safety of persons traveling to and from school sites.
(4) Opportunities to coordinate the potential siting of new schools in coordination with existing or proposed community revitalization efforts by the city or county.
(5) Opportunities for financial assistance which the local government may make available to assist the school district with site acquisition, planning, or preparation costs.
(6) Review all possible methods of coordinating planning, design, and construction of new school facilities and school sites or major additions to existing school facilities and recreation and park facilities and programs in the community.
The meetings that started in the spring of 2001 were focused on the needs of new schools, discussions that led up to the district proposing the Measure D bond in March of 2002. We had some very frank and open discussions about the need for a new high school in that bond. (One of our meetings actually occurred the morning of 9/11/2001 in Supt. Diaz’s office, so all of us know and won’t forget exactly where we were when that day of infamy occurred as we began to realize the extent of the attack on our country).
As Measure D was being prepared, the district did not see a need for the new high school and omitted it from the bond; that’s why I did not support Measure D, as I believed even then the new high school was needed (and those in the discussion know this well).
Fortunately, new consultants for the district subsequently re-analyzed the enrollment projects and determined that the original projections were wrong, and that the need for the new high school was there (and was needed soon than anyone had actually expected) and Measure I was created as a result of the discussions our group had during the summer of 2002 with the new high school included.
Once Measure I passed, even more discussion occurred, usually between myself, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Kraemer, regarding a suitable high school site. For a long time the focus was on the north central area, primarily the Rancho 101 area, because of the thought that it would be easier to deal with a larger parcel than trying to aggregate a series of smaller parcels. Until the offer of the Silveria site came along, no sites west of Santa Teresa had been discussed.
When that site was offered, and first disclosed in The Dispatch, no meeting had occurred where it came up and to the best of my knowledge, no discussion of that site had occurred. The subsequent immediate editorial by The Dispatch in favor of that site also occurred before any discussions as to feasibility, infrastructure, costs, etc. had happened, which sort of set the efforts on a different course as the pressure to select the Silveria site was now getting ahead of a full analysis of the site issues.
Lastly, for the record, this spring there were additional discussions regarding a potential north central site, what has become know as the Kern/Wren location; one of these discussion was set up by Supt. Diaz’s office, to which I was invited (as a proponent), along with Mr. Rogers, Mr. Kraemer, and Mr. Van Meter and Ms. White from GUSD staff. Mr. Rogers and Mr. Kraemer and I met at Mr. Kraemer’s request as late as 4 p.m. Memorial Day, 5/26/2003, to discuss this site.
Now, Mr. Taylor you know the history and the involvement. If you still feel this is “butting in,” then obviously I plead guilty proudly. One of the duties of the mayor is to meet with citizens, groups, agencies and anyone else who requests help, advice, opinions, or just ones thoughts about things. It’s not only good policy, but in the case of school site planning, as you can see from section 65352.2 of the Government Code, it is even required.
When invited, I participate; next time I just hope the invitation clearly says “come butt in.” After all, I wouldn’t want to be accused of shirking my duties, would I?
Tom Springer, Mayor of Gilroy,
Submitted Saturday, July 12 to ed****@****ic.com
