Dear Editor,
Regarding the residents who live near the James Ranch, I have a
hard time feeling sorry for them. The James Ranch was there before
most of them decided to buy their adjacent homes, so it takes a
great deal of audacity to even hint that the facility should be
relocated to accommodate them.
Dear Editor,
Regarding the residents who live near the James Ranch, I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. The James Ranch was there before most of them decided to buy their adjacent homes, so it takes a great deal of audacity to even hint that the facility should be relocated to accommodate them. Where to? Next to anybody else but them?
Who do they think they are? And how naive must one be to think that only “addicts, petty thieves, and vandals” are housed there? Why would a vandal need to be housed anywhere? Use some common sense!
I hate to sound so high and mighty, but the arguments some of these residents have is akin to those people who buy homes directly under the flight path of the San Jose Airport, and then have the nerve to complain about the noise. They have a right to be safe, but if safety and freedom from fear was at the forefront of their minds when they were buying their homes, they probably should have listened to their gut instincts and investigated the ranch a little better than just taking the advice of those with ulterior motives.
My advice is to put up a fence, accept how it looks, and live in peace. That is, ultimately, what they want, right? Or is it equity? Or is it safety, equity, and the ranch in somebody else’s back yard? I’m confused.
John Rinck, Hollister
