When we moved to Gilroy, 18 years ago, we moved from one of the
cheapest real estate markets in California to the outskirts of
Silicon Valley. Sticker shock is too mild a term. We experienced
sticker stroke.
When we moved to Gilroy, 18 years ago, we moved from one of the cheapest real estate markets in California to the outskirts of Silicon Valley. Sticker shock is too mild a term. We experienced sticker stroke.
We found a modest home for which we would barely qualify. One of the reasons we could afford our house was evident as we looked out the bedroom window on our first visit. Our neighbor, God rest his soul, was a junk dealer.
His driveway, garage, backyard, and carport were all about three feet deep in junk: scrap metal, mostly, with some lumber and assorted mysteries buried in the piles.
Probably most people would have left immediately, with a few choice words to the realtor. But my husband and I were both engineers, and our first words, as we looked through our son’s future bedroom window at our neighbor, his acetylene tank, and the fine shower of sparks, were, “Oh, super! The kids will be able to watch him weld through the window!”
And our neighbor and his wife turned out to be wonderful neighbors, virtually grandparents to our kids.
I write this prequel to explain that I have a high tolerance for people use their property in ways that might be viewed as detrimental to property values. I also have a huge regard for property rights. If my current neighbors decided to paint their house purple, I would wince, buy stronger sunglasses, and say absolutely nothing.
But I think Neil Mussallem is out of line in his effort to subdivide his Miller Avenue property. I think the neighbors, Robb Alonzo et al, have valid complaints.
The difference in my mind is that Mr. Mussallem does not plan to live on the property that he is wrecking. He is going to take a nice huge lot in an established neighborhood of big houses on bigger lots, build six big houses on six infinitesimal lots and go live somewhere else, probably in a big house on acreage.
Sure, it’s his property, and what he plans is within code, barely. But it is not right to irrevocably damage the character of the neighborhood, take the money, and run. If he does not want to live in that neighborhood, he should sell to some one who does. I hope council finds for the neighbors.
–––
I read Carly Apuzzo’s letter of Aug. 31, with interest: not that she had any valid arguments to make in favor of animal rights, but because I am always interested in seeing writing samples from Gilroy High School students.
The quality of Miss Apuzzo’s letter was much better than that of any of the letters students wrote a few years ago in support of retaining “Beloved” on the required list, and also much better than any of the letters students have written in support of Wayne Scott. Could this perhaps be credited to the adoption of a textbook for GHS English classes?
Her grammar, punctuation, and spelling were almost perfect, which is amazing, considering that sometimes The Dispatch mangles submissions from letter writers, or from columnists, for that matter.
Since Miss Apuzzo is now or soon will be in the throes of writing AP essays and college application essays, I venture to point out the only two grammatical errors I spotted, purely so she can perfect her style in these crucial endeavors.
Use “whom'” not “who'” when the word is the object of the sentence: “Important to whom, exactly?” And commit to memory the difference between the word “effect'” to bring about or accomplish, and the often confused “affect'” to influence.
On the minus side, Miss Apuzzo did no better than any other GHS student in her critical reading of my column, nor does she support her points particularly well. For example, I wrote that the reason I do not eat dogs, in spite of their reputation as tasty animals, is purely sentimental.
Miss Apuzzo misses the point entirely. She writes: “I believe that sentimentality should not play a role in food choice.” Miss Apuzzo, millions of dogs, cats, and horses would be out of luck if sentiment played no role in food choice.
