Dear Editor, I always enjoy reading Robert Mitchell’s columns
and last Friday’s was no exception. His question was
”
Is the Good Life going to return?
”
which he sort of answered in his usual tongue-in-cheek humor,
but my question would be:
”
What exactly is the Good Life?
”
A balanced view of what we regard as ‘good’ is what’s needed
Dear Editor,
I always enjoy reading Robert Mitchell’s columns and last Friday’s was no exception. His question was “Is the Good Life going to return?” which he sort of answered in his usual tongue-in-cheek humor, but my question would be: “What exactly is the Good Life?”
The BBC ran a series called “The Good Life” (renamed “Good Neighbors” here in the U.S.) that centered on a young couple’s attempts to leave the corporate rat race and achieve self sufficiency in their suburban property. It made the point that money was not the only criteria in judging whether life was good or not. I was raised in the UK shortly after WWII when money and luxuries were in short supply and while it may have been tough for my parents, I was never aware that life was anything other than good.
A good quality of life is a result of many factors which include having sufficient money but this pales in comparison to other factors many of which are free or priceless. Good loving family, good friends together with faith, religious or otherwise, form a great foundation. I have a couple of personal ones I would also like to include.
One would be the security of knowing that a sudden illness or freak accident will not result in financial ruin. Great Britain initiated its National Health Service in 1948 and while many would argue that it is a flawed system, it has nonetheless stood the test of time and has benefited all levels of society. Meanwhile, 62 years later, the chances of any real reform in the U.S. seem less and less likely. I wonder why? Maybe it is because those who don’t need reform and who profit from the present system happen to be those with the money and the power that allow them to confuse the situation sufficiently enough to maintain the status quo. Meanwhile, people who really need reform watch as insurance rates skyrocket by as much as 40 percent! Where is government and leadership when we really need them?
Other good memories I have as a child include an awareness and attachment to the countryside around me. British laws include the provision for hundreds of public footpaths and rights of way (140,000 miles worth in England and Wales alone) over private lands so it was always easy to walk and appreciate the beauty around us. In Morgan Hill we are also surrounded by beauty but here the laws are different (which is fine) but these differences limit such access to city, county, state or national parks. Part of this access is now threatened because the funding for California State Parks has been severely cut to the point that the very future of some parks, including Henry Coe east of Morgan Hill, are threatened. There is a petition to add $18 to the vehicle registration fee to pay for the parks with free entry for all California residents; a proposal which Alan Viarengo tried to shoot down in one of his recent letters. I understand his concerns, but I believe these parks are vital if we as a society are to preserve these areas for current and future generations. It costs $8 per visit ($7 for an old fogie like me) so that would only take 2.5 visits to more than cover the extra cost.
An argument can be made that our current economic woes are due to greed at all levels and this greed came as a result of society trying to equate quality of life to the acquisition of money and the things it will buy. Maybe a return to a more balanced view of what we regard as good, will benefit us both as individuals and as a society.
Then if we do achieve the good life it will be based on a firm foundation, one that will not be blown away by the ill winds of foreclosures, unemployment and bail-outs. Like Robert Mitchell, I too remain an optimist.
Frank Bath, Morgan Hill
Editorial omitted facts and figures to truly inform readers
Dear Editor,
I opened the paper and read Our View. The article says “cut the fat” from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. But where’s the fat?
The article suggests cutting education programs and tours? Is that fat? Missing were the costs of these programs. Without these costs, I’m not sure if we were cutting $50 or $50 million. So what kind of view should I get from Our View? I am not sure, and it’s starting to get cloudy.
The Santa Clara Water District has a $300 million annual budget. Is cutting tours and education programs going to make a dent in that budget? I am not sure because Our View doesn’t give us that information.
Our View does not mention that the district has already cut $24 million from planned 2009-10 expenditures, and reduced staffing by 57 positions. It has absorbed millions in revenue reductions without raising rates.
Here is another fact Our View did not provide. Nearly 50 percent of the water the district receives is pumped from the San Joaquin Delta. Our water table cannot sustain the current population within the district boundaries. As we continue to sprawl, we continue to drain the delta at an ever increasing rate harming salmon, other fish and wildlife. This has drawn the attention of the courts and poses serious issues for the district and those who live here. Aside from the environmental issues these pumping and infrastructure costs are significant. Is this the fat we should cut?
Is Our View really our view or is it the view of disgruntled and myopic group whose careless article misinforms and misdirects and whose sole purpose appears to incite the public without validity. There is no doubt the Santa Clara Water District needs to continue to review how it spends its limited resources. However, those who want to contribute to the solution need to lead with facts and figure, Anything else is really hogwash.
Mark Grzan, Morgan Hill
