Opinion

• 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.

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.