Opinion

Dear Editor,

Dear Editor,

Dear Editor:

The following organizations and individuals deserve either

• Back into the Gardens. Let’s keep this jewel sparkling. • I’m going with the South Valley Pool!  Those kids over there need that fabulous summer fun! • Gilroy Gardens, that makes the most sense!n If Gilroy Gardens needs maintenance and they don’t have funds in their budget, by all means put the money into park maintenance. Of course, my other suggestion would be South Valley Middle School Pool.  I’m sure the city has other funds to pay for the pool though. Regardless, the city needs to pay for the pool.  Most of their sales tax and TOT funds come from the east side. They need to keep a positive asset in that community with some of those financial resources. • Gilroy Gardens. I imagine there has been deferred maintenance and it’s important to continue to invest in this wonderful community asset. Gilroy Gardens is just as important as the pools and parks are to our community. The venue has the additional benefit of drawing visitors which is another important aspect in determining where to invest our dollars. • It should go back to Gilroy Gardens. • Monies into the park. This city purchased the park and has devoted money, time and work into keeping it a viable activity for Gilroy citizens and our tourism. It has a great relationship with the managing board, which is doing a good job keeping the park running and, as you see by this question, in the black. No matter what happens to the park the assets belong to the city so continued investment at this time is very important. • Gilroy Garden’s maintenance, we brought it this far don’t lose it now! • Hands down the money should be used for the South Valley pool! • Gilroy Gardens. The city owns the entire property including the Gardens, the unused areas, the open space and all the improvements. Just like any other City owned property, it is in the City’s interest to maintain its assets. The cost to not do so will far exceed the $130,000.  • For the Gilroy Gardens maintenance as it was earmarked for. That park is beautiful and should not be shortchanged.  • I think “plow” is a poor description, but I do think that the city should direct the money back into the park to maintain it’s investment for the long haul. I think the park board would have a pretty good idea of how to do that.

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor,