Opinion

• Expand youth and rec programs. We need to get use to making due with

• Don Gage ... hands down. Don has the experience in both city and county government seats and has always put “Gilroy first.” • Dion Bracco. I gave him my word months ago. What good is my word if I don't keep it? • Don Gage. Don is very collaborative, considerate and open-minded. He has strong ties at the county level and will ensure Gilroy receives our fair share of resources and representation. I also feel Don Gage considers the good of the entire community. The other candidates seem to be myopic in who they represent, creating a very divisive atmosphere. • Dion Bracco. Although I wish he would have been more transparent with his past, I do believe he is the best person for the job. His heart and soul are for Gilroy and I support him. • My choice would be Don Gage. He has the demonstrated experience and the “ability” to get things done. Pretty clear choice in my opinion. • Based on his logic, leadership, personality, experience, track record, I will vote for Don Gage. • Don Gage. Mr. Gage is a tried and true leader with a vast amount of experience and contacts within Gilroy, Santa Clara County, Bay Area and Sacramento. Mr Gage has demonstrated his leadership in past roles and Gilroy Council member, Gilroy mayor, county commissioner, and most recently Santa Clara Valley Water District. His skills and management style will benefit Gilroy for the next four years. • Undecided. We could use fresh and new faces in our local government going forward. • I choose Don Gage. I feel with his past experience and connections he will be a valuable asset for our community. • Don Gage. His record, like the record of his opponents, speaks for itself. Don’s record is why I support him. • Gage is a proven leader, an integral part of our community who can unite our divided City Council and inspire them to act in our best interests. 

• This is not anti-Islamic sentiment, but a yes to the efforts to control terrorism. The proposed Cordoba Center is San Martin is a name similar to the Cordoba House used during the initial proposal for the Mosque in the NYC 9/11 area. This NYC project is now titled Park 51. Cordoba House is project initiated by Cordoba initiative run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who is a supporter of Sharia Law. Rauf also said he put up his own money to purchase/lease the buildings to be used for the Cordoba House. The August 21, 2010 article from the Canada Free Press, Background of Cordoba House/Park 51 New York mosque revealed on radio show brings forth interesting links that groups who funded Rual support terrorism such as Iran and the Saudis. The San Martin Cordoba project has links to the Cordoba initiative if only by their name and has funding links to CAIR, known supporter of terrorism.I do not feel the Cordoba project is good or safe for our neighborhood. • Unfortunately, I do. It’s very disappointing. • Yes. Very sad, especially when you consider Sal Aktar and Hamby Abass are part of the Mosque plan leadership. They are two of the nicest people you ever want to meet. If you hurt one American, you hurt all Americans. I am impressed that the County Planning Commission views this project as worthy to proceed.  Hopefully the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will have the same opinion. • Sadly yes, the reasons of those in opposition seem shallow. • Yes, I believe that it is mostly anti-Islamic. However, there are some concerns about the area where they are proposing to build and ground water issues. • Yes. As much as I would like to believe we are a tolerant society, the truth is we are not. Especially when it comes to Islam. • I think it is largely based on ignorance and emotion. There may be some validity to traffic, drainage, ingress/egress or general use of the property, but those things should be addressed by the county and mitigated by the applicant. I would lean toward more of a land use issue that needs to be thought through more thoroughly. • Unfortunately, yes. Too many Americans have closed minds about Islamic people and their beliefs. • Yes. And a lot of misunderstanding as well. • No, not entirely. It seems that there are a variety of reasons why people are questioning the project. That said, there would probably be less opposition to the project if it were a Baptist church. Many boutique cities around California have prevented fast food, big box and national chains from setting up in their downtowns because they argued the large corporations did not correspond with the local theme and were a threat to local business. Inevitably, members of the mosque will probably get their building. However, just because some San Martin Residences are nervous, uncomfortable and/or threatened by having a mosque in their neighborhood, does not mean they are anti-Islam. • Who do these xenophobes think they’re fooling. To state that their opposition is based upon water quality issues highlights their own ignorance. This brand of religious intolerance borders of fascism. Be carful what you ask for religious zealots. Your religion could be next!

President Obama has found time to golf; too bad he hasn’t also had time to fix economy

Hospital committed to transparency with patients, community

• 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.

Government survey warnings to Saint Louise Hospital ‘nothing new’ – ‘it happens all the time’

1. Wishing the troubling report to vanish just won’t make it so

Islamic Center has serious groundwater and zoning issues being ignored – why?  

• Yes. Obviously the owner is responsible for his/her pet, and leaving the scene made it a much bigger crime in my mind. • Yes. If it is found that criminal laws apply. At the very least, he should be held civilly responsible and made to pay all damages. It is one thing to behave irresponsibly by allowing a dangerous dog off leash. It is entirely different to cowardly run and hide to avoid  responsibility. • No. Sometimes dogs get provoked even with the best training. I would suggest the owner get heavily fined and any medical payments be taken care of by the owner. • Yes. Owners are responsible for the actions of their minor children and their pets. In this case it should be charged as assault to commit bodily harm and whatever else, hopefully more than a misdemeanor. • Yes. Possession and misuse of a dangerous weapon in public. • It is not up to me to rewrite the law, so if a crime according to what is on the books has been done then, yes. I do understand there are some misdemeanors that should be assessed to this individual, which should certainly be applied. Also there is also the possibility of a civil lawsuit that could be applied by the victim. • Of course! Last time I checked we are all personally responsible for everything we own, right? Why would the actions of a dog be any different. • Definitely. If he was in public with an aggressive dog, no matter the breed, he should have had him secure with a good leather harness and leash to control him. Instead, he carelessly had no control and an innocent woman with her precious little pet were attacked. He is the one at fault, not his dog. • Absolutely yes! Aggressive dogs (no matter what the breed) need to be kept away from all public places. If someone wants an aggressive guard dog for their property, they must keep them behind safe, un-jumpable fences or on a chain. In addition, ALL dogs in Gilroy must be on a leash at all times unless they are in the Las Animas Dog Park. That includes 10-pound cuties as well as 120 pound dogs.  Why is it so hard for residents to keep their dogs on a leash??? It’s the law, and when this law is broken, the results can be traumatic and deadly! • Yes, certainly. Reckless endangerment, dog-off-leash, leaving the scene of an accident, malicious mischief. He should be liable for all of his victim’s expenses and maybe some pain and suffering (yes, civil court awaits him, too). • Absolutely! If for no other reason he left the scene like a coward! • If a crime is being really dumb/and or clueless about how people feel about dogs, on a leash or not, then yes.