Editorials

It has been more than two months since Gilroy Garlic Festival volume 37 filled Christmas Hill Park and less than two weeks since that magic dollar number appeared as it has each year since this exercise in community bonding and bounty sprouted in a backyard on the highway south of town, across from the Garlic Shoppe. Perhaps fittingly, that shop of garlicky gastronomic delights is owned by the grandsons of one of the growers who introduced garlic processing to our wonderfully pungent environs.

Perhaps a short lesson in open records laws is overdue at some government agencies.

Californians, and perhaps South County residents in particular, should be aware of all the clawing going on in bobcat politics, and speak up before as many as 1,200 more are trapped for their beautiful, spotted pelts—most sold in China and Russia.South County is home to one of the state’s premiere bobcat rescue groups, the Wildlife Education and Rehabilitation Center (W.E.R.C.) in Morgan Hill founded by Sue Howell decades ago.Over the years, its volunteers have pioneered methods of caring for injured, sick and orphaned bobcats—such as teams of human surrogate mothers dressed in full-body bobcat costumes.At W.E.R.C., they know the bobcat’s importance in keeping nature’s balance. The animal feeds mostly on rodents, including ground squirrels that wreak havoc on farm and pasture lands.When the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW) needed a protocol to instruct rescue groups statewide in bobcat care, it turned to W.E.R.C. In January 2003, that protocol, titled Procedures for Bobcat Rehabilitation, was ready and adopted. Its pages are filled with instruction in bobcat health care, bobcat diet, the orphaned bobcat and bobcat restraint. It has the voice of experience, dedication and compassion.Along with like-minded Californians, the folks at W.E.R.C. delighted on August 5 when the California Fish & Game Commission voted to ban the trapping of bobcats for their fur. More than 55,000 Californians had signed petitions or written letters in support of the ban.It seemed the commission was finally in step with what’s going on around the globe: people are in increasing numbers demanding a halt to killing wildlife for no reason other than sport or pelts or trophies.So, on Aug. 5, everyone believed the ban was a done deal. It was not.Citing bureaucratic requirements, the DFW, which carries out commission rulings, stunned animal welfare groups when it announced the ban couldn’t start until November 2016.That means during the coming trapping season, Nov. 25–Jan. 31, upwards of 1,200 bobcats will be trapped and killed and their pelts ripped from their flesh. And for what?When the ban was announced, Nicole Paquette, vice president of wildlife protection for The Humane Society of the United States said this:“In the wake of the tragic death of Cecil the lion, the public has never been more aware that killing an animal for its pelt is no worse than for a head and hide to decorate a trophy room. This decision is a much-needed step in the right direction . . .  to protect California’s bobcats from this cruel and unnecessary practice.”So why, now, does the DFW seem intent on allowing one more killing season? Perhaps because of pressure from the hunting and trapping industries?The ban was enacted and so it’s in force, right? The question is up in the air and animal rights folk are asking the public to respond by writing to the DFW to demand that the ban go into effect immediately, as everyone expected.In a Letter to the Editor of the Dispatch, Eric Mills of Action for Animals in Oakland said allowing one more season of trapping is “not acceptable!”We agree. It’s bad enough that California still allows the hunting of bobcats. It’s far worse, and pointless slaughter, to allow another season of trapping when the ban has been ordered.If you have an opinion, you can write to Chuck Bonham, DFW director, c/o Resources Building, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento CA 95814, or email [email protected], or phone him at (916) 445-0411. 

After seven years at Gilroy’s helm, City Administrator Tom Haglund will depart to become general manager of the Tuolumne Utilities District in Sonora in the Mother Lode country where he has kept a second home for years. It’s a dream job as he moves closer to retirement.

In these times of distrust of public officials, attacks on police and hate mongering, it’s reassuring to know that the dedication of individual citizens to their communities is still recognized and honored. It means that legacies of good and selfless work can live on as examples to all and all who will follow.

Gilroy is fortunate to have an abundance of qualities other South Bay cities lack. It has a downtown of shoulder-to-shoulder historical structures that could easily be transformed into the walkable and inviting area it once was.

The June 3, 2015 letter gets right to the point. It starts out, “We have received complaints from Latino citizens and voters…that the use of an at-large city council election system results in Latino vote dilution and prevents Latino voters from electing candidates of their choice.” The letter threatens legal action absent a satisfactory response from the city.

About 50 years after my high school graduation back in New York, I read some of the best advice I know for those embarking on something new and unchartered. I’ll get to more about that best advice a bit later. In the meantime...

On June 1, 2015, the Mayor of Gilroy admitted contritely that he had not done his budget homework before suggesting big cuts in city funding to the Gilroy Welcome Center. He then reversed his position, which magically changed the votes of his three well-leashed city council allies. Mayor Don Gage did the right thing, but not before causing unnecessary grief and anger that brought to the surface pent up frustration with the mayor and the City Hall minions that appear too often to snap to his heel. A few days earlier, the mayor told Dispatch Reporter Chris Foy that his idea to cut Welcome Center funds was a“mistake;” that after meeting with center director, Jane Howard, and a local hotelier, he’d seen the light and reversed his position, he told Foy.When the budget was adopted on Monday, $300,000 a year for two years remained intact for the Welcome Center, which works hard and efficiently to promote Gilroy to the world and by doing so brings tax dollars to the city and other immeasurables that contribute to the general welfare.That unanimous vote to continue funding deserves a job-well-done to the council. The fact is, three members never wanted the funds cut. They are Dion Bracco, Cat Tucker and Roland Velasco. They deserve credit for seeing the right path. It takes guts to stand up to bullying and a wrecking crew. But when a mayor who has drawn a huge cumulative paycheck from taxpayers for years as an elected county official, and has sat though more hours of budget hearings than Christopher has garlic, does not do his fiscal homework and then, shooting from the hip, angers many by suggesting drastic cuts to a community asset, it kind of makes you wonder, what’s going on in Gilroy?The mayor wanted to take money from the Welcome Center and help at-risk youth, even though the city shares $2 million in grants to help youth. His explanation did not ring true. His critics are convinced it was mayoral revenge for the defeat of Measure F, a city sales tax increase whose biggest booster was the mayor. He denied it.Auto dealers ponied up big bucks to pass F, now the mayor is pushing for improved roads for easier driving to the dealerships. Friends and family of the mayor voted against F but never told him for fear of retaliation, according to several.During the F campaign, a merchant who was the face of the anti-F opposition and who had a makeshift storage unit at his shop for years without incident, suddenly received a citation for the unit.The Gilroy Chamber of Commerce opposed Measure F. After it failed, the mayor abruptly ended his practice of attending chamber breakfasts. He also cut off long-time friends and allies who opposed the measure, to their dismay and frustration. When the mayor demanded cuts in Welcome Center funding, just about everyone figured it was because the center director is related to the merchant who was cited but continued his vocal opposition to F. It’s a coincidence that kind of makes you wonder, what’s going on in Gilroy?Here is the other thing. When Mayor Gage originally suggested cuts in Welcome Center funding, three  council members, Terri Aulman, Perry Woodward and Peter Leroe-Munoz, agreed and voted with him to direct staff to rework the budget to include the cuts. A week later, when Gage explained his unpopular action by saying he didn’t understand the center’s operation and didn’t do his homework, those same three council members flip-flopped, too. The Welcome Center has been the most visible of many issues that have people unhappy with City Hall and this administration and what some describe as its arrogance. They ask why the mayor and City Hall are so anti-business, why it takes years to get permits, why some departments seem to badger and not help customers, why the mayor and his council allies are so unwilling to compromise, and how one person’s vision and petty likes and dislikes seem so easily to blind or dismiss the views and visions of others.The very real hope that swelled Gilroy’s collective community pride when local-boy-makes-good Don Gage gave up  his comfortable Santa Clara Valley Water District director position to come home and be the mayor again now is sadly deflated. It kind of makes you wonder, what’s going on in Gilroy?*With a nod to William Allen White, 1868-1944.

It’s a wonder every member of the city council isn’t sent packing by recall elections, since it appears all won their seats under a city ordinance that’s flat-out unconstitutional.