Editorials

Being unique can sometimes be a source of pride, but when it comes to a plastic bag ordinance, Gilroy’s failure to act is a bit embarrassing. Every city of any consequence in Santa Clara County has clamped down on single-use plastic bags. Milpitas, one of the last holdouts, passed a ban that went into effect on Jan. 1.

When I came to Gilroy in 1980, the Gilroy Dispatch was filled with letters about rampant growth. The development at the time was the Northwest Quadrant. The claims were that Gilroy was sprawling, we were becoming another San Jose and we were losing our small town charm.

The bungled attempt to slide the largest development in Gilroy’s history through the county Local Agency Formation Commission came off the rails this week when LAFCO sued the city in Santa Clara County Superior Court. It’s unprecedented for a city to be dragged into court by the very agency whose approval it needs, and the mayor and council members who voted to submit the half-baked application for a highly unpopular project should be embarrassed about the way this all was handled.Citizens elect leaders to make wise and cautious decisions that reflect the will of their constituents, and the North Gilroy Neighborhood District initiative reflected none of those qualities.Mayor Perry Woodward, especially, displayed poor judgment. He makes money litigating as a profession—he has sued the city of Gilroy and this newspaper in the past—and just signed on to work for a big San Jose law firm. He, more than anyone, should understand the need to follow procedures and keep the city out of court. Litigation between taxpayer-funded entities is a game that no one wins.Luckily, landowner Jeff Martin made a sound decision to withdraw the application, promptly and without fuss. He has been a part of the community long enough to know which way the wind’s blowing, and he wants to do the right thing.In our view, a project this big should undergo a community visioning period, or charette, otherwise the nice watercolors, elegant website and new name—Rancho Los Olivos—are just lip gloss on a boar. It should have widespread community buy-in before it is handed off to regional agencies for approval. The process should not simply move from a small political in-group clumsily and arrogantly telling Gilroyans what’s best for them to a slick PR campaign by an out-of-county agency hired to sell the plan. Instead, if it’s to move forward, there has to be a genuine willingness to listen to a community that has spoken up loud and clear.“I asked the applicant to please rescind their application to allow for time for the city and greater community to better understand the proposal, the benefits to our community, how it gains local control and fits within the collective long-term vision of Gilroy’s future,” Woodward said in the developer’s press release. First off, why was the mayor of Gilroy’s position expressed through the project publicist’s press release, rather than in a city announcement? Does the mayor work for the city, or the developer? Second, should the mayor, after two weeks on the job, be using the personal pronoun and instructing a private applicant how to conduct his business affairs? And, third, is the problem really that the citizens of this community are too uneducated about the project’s fabulous benefits to “understand”?If Woodward really wants to bring the community around on this defining issue, he can start by creating an inclusive city leadership, which means not hand-picking ideological soulmates for mayor pro-tempore and council appointee. If he goes ahead with Peter Leroe-Muñoz as his second-in-command and then engineers Bob Dillon’s appointment—many City Hall watchers believe that that backroom deal’s already been cut—Woodward will have a de facto four-member voting block to accelerate Gilroy’s expansion over the objections of a large number, if not a majority of residents. And because a new general plan is in the works, Gilroy will live with the results of this political gamesmanship for decades to come.We hope Woodward’s colleagues on the council will realize that a mayor who’s crashing into walls should not be followed blindly. Being aggressive and taking initiative can sometimes be confused with leadership.A proclivity for action, to be sure, can be a very good thing when accompanied by sound judgment and a consensus of support. But when a moral compass is spinning freely and ambition charts the direction, what appears to be a march forward can really be just a bunch of lemmings sprinting to the cliff’s edge, dazzled by the brilliance of a $3 billion payday.

The unusual series of events of December 2015 continue to reverberate. On Dec. 7, Mayor Gage resigned and the council voted to forward an annexation request to the county, ahead of the new general plan and over the objections of the planning commission.

On Monday, the Gilroy City Council will appoint the city’s new mayor. Within weeks, it will fill a council vacancy and consider a general plan in a community that is deeply divided over how big and how fast Gilroy should grow.The process highlights some flaws in the City Charter-defined procedure, which prescribes that one of the remaining council members be named as mayor.Three of the council members, Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Dion Bracco and Roland Velasco would have to give up the last three years on their council terms to serve less than a year as mayor, then run for office again two years earlier than they would have had to otherwise.The three remaining members—Cat Tucker, Terri Aulman and Perry Woodward—all have terms that expire in 2016. Of those three, Woodward seems the most ambitious of the bunch. He ran for mayor before and dropped out when Don Gage entered the race.Woodward, who says Gilroy shouldn’t listen to outsiders, led the effort to raise campaign contribution limits from $250 to $750 and maximum expenditures from $26,000 to $53,000. That, paradoxically, is likely to increase the influence of special interests, such as out-of-town developers, over the concerns of average Gilroy homeowners, for whom $750 is a big check to write.Woodward also chaired the commission that voted to abandon compact development, add 5,300 homes on annexed farmland and make Gilroy one of the county’s largest cities. Not everyone in Gilroy wants to see that happen.If residents are unhappy with the choice of the next mayor and the policies he or she espouses, the timing of Gage’s resignation leaves them little recourse. They can’t exercise their right to recall the mayor or the appointed replacement councilmember because the earliest possible recall election date would be the date of the next regular election. So the appointed mayor and the newly appointed swing vote (the current councilmembers voted 3-3 on the annexation) will serve for the majority of 2016.This is obviously a watershed moment for Gilroy, and the critical decision is being made following a series of political and legal maneuvers. A chair’s been pulled out of the circle and the music has started.Passing a new general plan under these circumstances, and over the objections of the Planning Commission, could well taint the document that will shape the city’s future over the next 25 years and beyond.Gilroyans should pay close attention to who will be named mayor on Jan. 4, as well as the process to fill the empty council seat and the growth options in the new general plan. The stakes are very high.

Should Gilroy grow out and grow bigger, or concentrate on creating a compact, efficient and thoughtfully planned community surrounded by green hills and agricultural lands? The answer may be a bit of both.

When the experts at Gilroy Unified School District spoke so sincerely about how important parents are in crafting education plans for their special needs students (Dispatch, Oct. 2, 2015), and that parents need as much support as their kids in securing services, the better part of who we are tends to take them at their word.

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.