Opinion

• 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.

1. Good reasons not to rush a parcel tax onto the ballot

• No no no no no. • Yes. 1/4% state sales tax is much easier to swallow than a full 1% locally. The best thing, though, everyone will have to pay it. Not just the homeowners. • No on Proposition 30, Gov. Brown’s tax  increase, which increase state income tax and sales tax. No on Proposition 38, State Income Tax Increase and No on Proposition 39, income tax increase for multi-state business. No tax increases at all until the spending cuts for all areas of government, not just the touchy-feely issues like schools, medical assistance, senior programs, etc. These cuts are applied to make citizens feel guilty. Meanwhile, the over spending of government continues with over-priced boards, duplication of work, mandated work contracts, payments into pensions … etc. etc. etc. When you stop these and get some serious cuts in place maybe we can balance a budget. Personally, I would like to see a legislative body that works only three months out of the year. It would automatically introduce cuts and stop these full-time lawmakers from thinking up insane laws that continues to depress California. How about the last one that surfaced? This is the approval of an $8,000,000,000 bond that will fund a bullet train from Fresno to Bakersfield. This is a government long-term investment with money that does not exist and will result in $500,000,000 in interest payments per year, not principle, just interest. I should accept a tax increase when the folks that are responsible for spending have no sense of fiscal responsibility? I think not.n I completely support an increase of taxes of some kind and somehow. We must stop thinking that our increasing population and needs for all kinds of services, from road maintenance to food safety to education, can be addressed by reducing spending. The bone has been cut to. We are shooting both feet by reducing education spending and infrastructure spending. Wake up, California. Our state needs funding. I support closing the commercial property tax loopholes and increasing income tax progressively on individuals and corporations. I don’t think this is what Gov. Brown has proposed, so I am undecided on these specific measures. • Absolutely no. • Undecided at this point, that's a fall reading assignment! • Undecided. I would really like to see pension reform, which he has included in his plan, play a larger role in cutting costs. • Yes, I’ve thought about them, and believe that unless people step up and understand that they need to be part of the solution, and actually think about the major problems we are experiencing due to a lot of wrong-minded decisions, our state will continue to be in decline. People need to accept that they have to pay for freedoms and rights that we experience as citizens of a working democracy. • Got to go with “undecided” … need more time to study all the ramifications. • Yes. But the initiative should have included funding for CSU’s! • I am undecided. I know we need to raise revenues, but is there a better way besides increasing taxes? • I am still undecided. I do not feel that excess spending has been properly addressed. Still too much fat in Sacramento, too much politicking and too little common sense budgeting.

1. Monetary charges to the dog’s owner just aren’t enough

• NO. This is a big bunch of BS. Students are not getting enough of their academics as it is with shorter class days and shorter class years. This is the government’s way of indoctrinating students in public schools into “serving the citizens”. If they want them to do 80 more hours put them back into the classroom. • Yes. Instilling community service at a young age rewards not only the young person but our community. They will hopefully see this as just a beginning in terms of what they can give back through service. The bigger lesson will be in what they receive! • Absolutely Yes. It forces involvement which can lead to a child finding a passion they didn’t even know they have as well as exposing them to all different needs within our community. • Honestly as a parent of a freshman, I really hated the rule. Now that a year has gone by and my son will be a sophomore my thought has changed. It is a really great idea that has helped me encourage my son to be more involved! Also, as a parent it has helped me to see all the diverse opportunities available for all ages to help keep Gilroy residents and families! • No. I think it is a good premise to raise awareness for teens, but the actual accounting for the hours, the paperwork, and the enforcement of students not walking if they don’t fulfill this requirement and the outcry from some parents if their student is affected is the reality. Perhaps this spirit of volunteering should be given back to the parents to model and do with their children. • Yes. Community service is character building and is not difficult especially with local organizations like Gilroy Gardens stepping up to provide plenty of opportunities to serve. • Yes. It provides experiences and learning opportunities they would never understand from a book. They will see a different perspective on life if they serve at St. Joseph’s or the Compassion Center or with a local service club project. It’s good for them. • Yes. I’m actually pretty cynical about this in that much of what passes for community service is questionably so. One hour here and a half-hour there doesn’t do it. Weekly volunteer at Lord’s Table or St.Joseph’s Family Center or Salvation Army or Operation Interdependence or clean up the creek or pick up trash along the streets or railroad tracks or helping at the hospital or convalescent home or senior center or logistical help (set-up/clean-up) with service organizations’ large events. These things give exposure to real-life, character building experiences, sensitivity to the less

‘This means that you, Fido, and your prize petunia now have equal rights …’

What we have here – again – is a failure to communicate. The infamous lines from the classic movie “Cool Hand Luke” come quickly to mind these days in Gilroy. Miscommunication seems to be the prevailing wind blowing through City Hall, and it’s an ill wind indeed.

The things that make Gilroy a special place, and the one reason that really stands out