The City Council should proceed toward the goal of purchasing
Gilroy Gardens. But council members should steadfastly decline to
institute a precedent-setting supermajority vote rule currently
proposed for the agreement.
1. Land deal still makes sense, but a supermajority clause is a bad idea
The City Council should proceed toward the goal of purchasing Gilroy Gardens. But council members should steadfastly decline to institute a precedent-setting supermajority vote rule currently proposed for the agreement.
The supermajority requirement would necessitate a 5-2 vote on Council’s part, rather than a simple majority, should our elected leaders find it necessary to consider shuttering the 536-acre horticulture-based theme park operations during the next two years because the business cannot sustain itself.
This Council should not handcuff itself from making a good business decision, nor should it set what would be a horrible precedent requiring a supermajority vote. What’s next, Westfield Corporation asking for a supermajority vote to kill the mega-mall project because they’ve invested so much money in it already? Should we require a supermajority vote for the city to purchase Gilroy Gardens? If so, this deal might be dead in the water. No Council member should sacrifice their independent vote. The people did not elect them to give away their voice.
2. Should a supermajority be required to purchase the park?
The Council took a straw poll on three issues Monday night as the Gilroy Gardens deal inches forward. The first was whether to give the non-profit Gilroy Gardens Board a sweetheart $1 per year lease deal. That “passed” in non-binding form 4-3, and our reaction is tepid. It’s certainly not looking out for the best interests of Gilroy taxpayers, and yet it’s not the end of the world for the two-year lease period.
On issue two, there are serious questions. Mayor Al Pinheiro, an insurance broker, recommended the park continue its $5 million umbrella plan while the city also beefs up its insurance policy, which would back up the park’s umbrella policy and add another $40,000 to $48,000 in city premiums per year. A $5 million insurance plan doesn’t seem like nearly enough to us. That would hardly cover attorney’s fees and liability costs for one serious accident. The Council should get a full report from the Association of Bay Area Governments, the city’s insurance partner, on what they believe the Gilroy Gardens Board should be carrying with regards to liability insurance. The Gardens should be required to keep that policy amount in force and pay for it in full.
3. Mayor’s shotgun proposal should be magnanimously withdrawn
Lastly, there’s the supermajority clause brought to the table in a last-minute surprise move by Mayor Pinheiro. There are many “important” Council decisions. How should Council members sort out which should require supermajority votes? Should it be proposed by Council members every time they take a special interest in a pet project or issue?
It truly would be a shame if the land deal were mucked up by the unnecessary introduction of a poorly thought out shotgun proposal for a supermajority.
Play it straight and proceed with the deal, it’s still a great land deal for the residents – and that’s really all it is or will be.
Act now: Let the City Council members know what you think. Vote in our Web poll and e-mail council members:
bo********@ci.us
ca********@ci.us
cr***********@ci.us
pe************@ci.us
pe************@ci.us
al*********@ci.us
di*********@ci.us
