Opinion

On Monday, Dec. 7, the Gilroy City Council will be taking up the important issue of whether in the next five years to plan for and build new residential neighborhoods on the approximately 721 acres roughly bounded by Monterey on the east, Santa Teresa on the west, Fitzgerald on the north and the existing city limits on the south. Specific project details are not yet available but the development will likely consist of somewhere between 4,000 to 5,300 new residences.

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.

TEN YEARS AGO, in November 2005, the City of Gilroy passed the Downtown Specific Plan. Its goal was to “create a unique and identifiable Downtown for Gilroy that is economically vibrant, pedestrian-oriented and a local and visitor destination.”Obviously, that didn’t work. Instead of colorful signage, sidewalk cafes and aesthetic trash enclosures, we have “for lease” signs, empty storefronts and construction fences surrounding projects that seem frozen in time. The dilapidated cannery buildings remain dilapidated. Music is piped in, lending a bizarre lite rock soundtrack to an eerily quiet downtown.Last year, the city formulated an “action plan” to “develop a thriving Gilroy downtown.” As before, it was an exercise in words, not actions. It lacked a timeline and was presented without buy-in from stakeholders.It mis-prioritized seismic safety as the No. 1 goal, above economic development and a welcoming environment. The execution was all stick, no carrot: slapping liens on buildings, fining owners and even criminally charging a 90-year-old woman.That came on the heels of two decades of inaction downtown and the failure to learn from other cities’ experiences. While downtowns around Santa Clara County—Morgan Hill, Los Gatos, Campbell, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Willow Glen—upgraded their unreinforced masonry buildings, formed redevelopment agencies, invested in public improvements and paid attention to the retail mix, aesthetics and pedestrian experience, Gilroy repeated the 1960s-era mistake made by San Jose and countless other cities: building a large retail center on the outskirts while neglecting the city’s core. So we have a downtown that’s nearly half a century out of step but bursting with potential. The city has to do more than hang flower baskets and plant a few skinny trees. There should be millions in coordinated public and private investment and a cooperative, can-do ethos at City Hall.If the city is going to cry poor and not properly fund downtown revitalization, then the least it can do is provide some fee waiver exemptions, expedite approvals and stop arresting property owners. It should implement the aesthetic improvements it promised a decade ago. And it should stop taking a narrow view of cost recovery on investment and instead look at the general benefits a downtown offers. Unlike a Costco or Walmart, downtown’s value cannot be measured in direct sales tax recovery. A beautiful, active downtown would raise the overall asset value of the Gilroy brand, and with it the economic future and quality of life of the entire community.

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.

 

There's an old saying “Something smells like rotten cheese.” My point is that something might be “rotten” in Gilroy and Morgan Hill when it comes to new residential construction and the drought.

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. 

Is the “quality of life” for Gilroy small businesses such that small business owners should invest more money here? Or do the confiscatory taxes/fees/fines/assessments/mandates combined with crucifying, strangling and suffocating regulations and ordinances, blight us out of business,