Dear Editor,
Several years ago when I ran for council and mayor on a
conservation platform, I called for the elimination of the
so-called urban forest program that the city instituted several
years before.
Dear Editor,
Several years ago when I ran for council and mayor on a conservation platform, I called for the elimination of the so-called urban forest program that the city instituted several years before. My concern at the time was that a great boondoggle was costing the city thousands of tax dollars, and it continues to this day.
One issue you failed to mention is what would the homeowners’ new insurance rate be if the ordinance was instituted? The other issue is, the present repair program mandates a homeowner pay half the cost by signing a contract with the city when the city should be paying 100 percent of the repairs to start with.
I finally agree with the Dispatch on something and I want to commend the paper on its conservative point of view on this issue. But be careful, because you offered good advice when you said, “let’s not allow city leaders to keep their heads in the sand any more, and not allow them to get away with shifting the liability to homeowners” you might be labeled as a right wing kook.
As an army of one I would not allow the city leaders to put the burden on property owners. I would do my Paul Revere imitation and warn residents that more government regulations and higher taxes are coming. If the city fathers institute the ordinance, it might cause an awakening of property owners much like when the RDA was proposed.
Let’s not only have a plan to repair the sidewalks, curbs and gutters, but let’s get the city out of the tree business and let the property owners decide what they want on their property. After all, we do pay property taxes to the middle of the street.
This time Paul Revere could cry – referendum is coming, referendum is coming.
Rick Mello, Gilroy
