DEAR EDITOR:
Staff Writer Eric Liens (
”
School bond sails to victory – Nov. 6
”
) quotes Gilroy Unified School District Superintendent Edwin
Diaz:
”
The passage … is a message from the community …
”
DEAR EDITOR:
Staff Writer Eric Liens (“School bond sails to victory – Nov. 6”) quotes Gilroy Unified School District Superintendent Edwin Diaz: “The passage … is a message from the community …” Like varied comments Mr. Diaz made throughout the campaign, this is nonsensical. The “community” sent no message via the ballot box since some three-quarters of community residents didn’t vote.
But congratulations to you, Mr. Editor. Your strong efforts in support of Measure I included your refusal to print opposition views in any form throughout the campaign’s last week. You did allow supporters all space to promote Measure I’s fiscal irresponsibility as something good for Gilroy. Yet even that, it seems, isn’t enough as you now begin the subtle campaign to convince taxpaying Gilroyans Measure I was their complete and absolute choice.
In the mood of Mr. Diaz’s erroneous assumption, your editorial (Nov. 7) claims “Gilroyans clearly know a good school bond proposal … Gilroyans forced school district leaders … Our schools … Gilroyans did their homework Tuesday.” Your use of “Gilroyans” suggests all 41,000+ community residents willingly participated in Measure I’s passage.
Mr. Editor, that’s a continuation of Measure I’s shuck-and-jive and you know it.
Of the 41,000-plus city population, 8,469 took the time and responsibility to cast a ballot. Of those voting, 5,287 supported measure I (62.4 percent). Those supporters, weighed against 41,000 or so Gilroy residents, represent roughly 13 percent of all Gilroyans. That means just over 10 percent of “Gilroyans” burdened all Gilroy taxpayers with a 25-year millstone. Mr. Editor, everyone wasn’t “in” knowing “a good school bond proposal” – the majority didn’t care enough to vote.
Columnist Denise Baer Apuzzo goes you one better. She proclaims (Nov. 7) “Now that we have settled on fixing the facilities problems which plague our schools …” How has that been settled, Ms. Apuzzo? Considering the horror stories supporters bemoaned about school conditions (including the photo gallery of ignored maintenance problems within one brochure), you should have shown Measure I money will correct needed repairs/improvements/problems and how much will be committed toward ongoing maintenance to avoid ant future lack of responsibility.
Columnist Cynthia Walker (“No on Measure I – and here’s why” – Oct. 18), quoting the Measure’s text, says it’ll “purchase land, install utilities, extend the road, and build the administration buildings and half the needed classrooms.” The unanswered question: Why administration buildings to serve the “leadership” greed (new and bigger offices, more impressive surroundings, et al) when emphasis throughout the campaign was on the new high school to serve students’ need?
It’s hoped, Mr. Editor, you’ll treat Measure I’s mandated requirements more as “news” than as a continuing effort to glorify what the tarnished GUSD Board of Trustees caused requiring Measure I. Toward that goal, it’s hoped you’ll report on individual contracts generated with Measure I monies: what they require, what each will cost and to what individual and/or firms they are issued. Since Measure I supporters repeatedly claimed Measure I money would remain in Gilroy, it should be your responsibility, for all Gilroyans, to fully report that’s happening.
Don’t you agree?
James Brescoll, Gilroy
Submitted Monda,y Nov. 11 to [email protected]
