Dear Editor:
I read the recently publicized letter from Jon Campisi, attorney
for the Silveiras, and today’s article entitled
”
High school site or 300-home development?
”
and had to laugh.
Dear Editor:
I read the recently publicized letter from Jon Campisi, attorney for the Silveiras, and today’s article entitled “High school site or 300-home development?” and had to laugh. The Silveiras, the monsignor and the Filices would have us believe that the proposed site for the new high school is “speculative,” “a red herring” and “not an issue.”
Who do they think they’re kidding!
This is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to backdoor annexation of the Silveira site under the auspices of a housing development only to turn around after the fact and do as intended all along and make an expedient sale to the school district.
In the process, they will have increased the market value of the land to be purchased with public money via the school bond.
The fact that the school board issued an initial (albeit premature) letter of intent on the property back in November of 2002, voted to select the site as their designated preferred site in June of this year, and then most recently gained permission from the Silveiras to conduct preliminary environmental work looks like the actions of a serious buyer working with a willing seller.
Next they’ll be asking us to believe the school board didn’t really mean it when they picked the site!
Regardless of what one thinks about the merits or detractions of placing a high school on the site, asking city council to pretend that the high school “is not an issue” in the upcoming annexation bid is ridiculous. C’mon guys. It’s more than “not an issue.” It’s THE issue. In fact, it may be the single most important land use decision city council will make.
Who runs this town anyway?
Cammie Brown, Gilroy
Submitted Monday, July 14
