I was stunned and could not believe that I was able to walk into
the girls locker room from an unlocked side door. There were a
couple of girls showering at the time I entered the locker room.
Anyone could have walked into the girl’s locker room and could
seriously harm the girls that were in the facility.
Serious, ongoing theft and security issues with GHS locker rooms
Dear Editor,
Last year my daughter’s gym locker at Gilroy High School was broken into and more than $700 of items were stolen. During the time of the theft, my daughter was participating in an after school sports program. Upon entering the locker room, my daughter realized her lock was missing and several items were stolen. I immediately went to the school and called the Gilroy Police Department. An officer met me within minutes and took a report.
I was stunned and could not believe that I was able to walk into the girls locker room from an unlocked side door. There were a couple of girls showering at the time I entered the locker room. Anyone could have walked into the girl’s locker room and could seriously harm the girls that were in the facility. The police officer also walked into the girls locker room (we made sure there was nobody in the room). This was very disturbing to both of us.
I communicated via email to Mr. Greg Camacho-Light several times regarding the incident. I also met with him in person. Over the course of a few months, minimal effort was put forth to resolve this issue and more importantly to address the lack of security in the locker rooms. Mr. Camacho-Light advised me they had a suspect, however they were not 100 percent certain she was the person who broke into my daughter’s locker, therefore they could not take the investigation further. By the way, several girls recently had their lockers broken into during the same time period.
The issue of locker room thefts has been an ongoing problem that has not been addressed by GHS. What will it take to resolve the problem? In the meantime, I can only hope that a student will not be assaulted in the locker rooms. Who is held accountable at GHS or at the district level for this issue?
Kathy Torres, Gilroy
Planning commissioner questions the appointment process follies
Dear Editor,
Surprise, surprise!
I am not talking about the Planning Commission appointments by the City Council even though it was surprising. I am talking about the comments made by City Councilmen Dion Bracco and Perry Woodward on why they appointed Ben Anderson and Jim Gailey. Bracco was quoted as saying that he supported Jim Gailey because he builds nice houses and then says that there is a need for change on the Planning Commission. He said, “We needed to make changes at the planning commission level and not just run projects through.”
Not only is that a slap in the face to Tim Day who was our chair on the Planning Commission last year and was looking to get re-appointed but to the other commissioners who take their responsibilities very seriously. If you want an example of this look at the tape from the meeting on Nov. 1.
Mr. Gailey had a request for interpretation of the zoning ordinance requiring a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet in an R2 designation (two-family residential). I remember asking Mr. Gailey why he was going this route instead of trying to get a planned unit development or minor deviation? He replied it was too expensive and time consuming to go the normal route. Mr. Tim Day advised him along with the majority of the planning commission that he has two choices – the PUD or minor deviation route which other developers have done.
If we would have let Mr. Gailey go ahead with this project based on his questioning of the interpretation we would have opened the door to anyone who interprets the zoning ordinance their way. Yes, we went against staff’s recommendation but I say this with all due respect to the city planning staff which does a great job and is always professional. It is not a matter of questioning staff, as Mr. Bracco states, but taking their recommendation which they base on city codes and regulations and interpreting that into what is best for residents. Councilman Perry Woodward’s reasoning on his selection was that the people of Gilroy wanted a change and Tim Day was the status quo. I think the need for change was at the Council level not the Planning Commission. Maybe Mr. Woodward has never been to a Planning Commission meeting to see for himself or maybe he was rewarding his campaign manager?
Councilman Woodward should be transparent and instead of trashing a good community volunteer (Tim Day) tell the people of Gilroy the real reason. Bracco’s reason to appoint Ben Anderson was to show him how the stones that are thrown feel. Well, for Mr. Anderson to get the full impact of those stones I think he needs to sit in Bracco’s Council seat. It should be an interesting year coming up.
Arthur C. Barron Sr., Planning Commissioner
