League of Women Voters urges passage of Measure A

Dear Editor, The League of Women Voters of San Jose-Santa Clara
supports the efforts of the city of Morgan Hill to manage growth,
and recommends a
”
Yes
”
vote on Measure A on the May 19 ballot.
League of Women Voters urges passage of Measure A

Dear Editor,

The League of Women Voters of San Jose-Santa Clara supports the efforts of the city of Morgan Hill to manage growth, and recommends a “Yes” vote on Measure A on the May 19 ballot.

The city has already demonstrated thoughtful efforts to manage growth within its boundaries. They have adopted measures to use infilling and population growth in previous elections. Now, they are asking to take another step to encourage development within the downtown area. Downtown already has existing buildings, existing essential services – water, sewer, fire, police, etc.

The LWV continues to support principles of sustainability, consideration of regional carrying capacity, sharing an ethic of responsibility to each other and the future, and urban planning that enhances livability. These principles are evident in this measure.

We urge the voters of Morgan Hill, some of whom are League of Women Voters members, to vote yes on Measure A.

Sandra C. Mory and Sally E. Pyle, Co-Presidents

Sometimes, painful sacrifices must be made, vote yes on 1A and 1B

Dear Editor,

I must respectfully disagree with Lisa Pampuch’s conclusion in her May 5 column that Propositions 1A and 1B should be rejected because “Failure of 1A sends legislators and the governor back to work with clear direction to end the games and get serious.”

Unfortunately this is a mandate for grownups to beat each other up using children as cudgels. Defeating 1A tells the Legislature “we are so dissatisfied with the spineless job you did crafting a Band-aid budget that we are going to irreparably damage the state’s schoolchildren and keep damaging them for years to come.” Is that really how we want to send a message to Sacramento?

There are many things which will have to be cut back or delayed because of the current economic situation and the State’s crippling budget problems which, as Pampuch rightly points out, the makeshift budget did not completely cure. But I submit that children should be a special case in our analysis, and that by treating them the same as we would highway construction or maintenance of our parks we are being penny wise and pound foolish.

If, due to the current tough times, we decide to put off repairing the freeways for the next two years that will be an inconvenience – we won’t like it and we’ll grumble – but in two years when we get back on track and fund the repairs the delay will begin to fade from memory. But today’s second-grader can’t wait two years and then go back to get a better second-grade education; children only get one shot at each level in their upbringing. In two years that second-grader will be a fourth-grader who has fallen behind where he should be because we withheld the funds for his school in order to “teach the Legislature a lesson;” so who will we really be punishing? The legislators with whom we have a legitimate problem are far better able to take care of themselves than the kids who depend on us to provide them with what they need to become worthwhile productive adults.

Consequently, I’m going to vote “yes” on 1A and 1B because despite the expense and despite how it galls me to have to do the Legislature’s job, I believe that sometimes painful sacrifices have to be made. The question in this election is, should our kids sacrifice for us or should we sacrifice for them?

Robert B. Mitchell, Morgan Hill

Santa Clara Valley Water District just does not get it

Dear Editor,

I don’t believe that the Santa Clara Valley Water District will spend $14.2 million in zone W-5 of which the largest areas are in Morgan Hill, San Martin and Gilroy. Let’s put things into perspective. In 1996 the district had 609 employees, that same year, the CVP charged the district $108 per acre foot for imported water, the district charged us, the well owners, $108 per acre foot that same year. For the next three years, these water rates stayed very much the same with only a dollar or two difference for the district and the well owner.

In 2001 the district had 807 employees, that’s a 32.5 percent increase in just six years. From 2001 to 2005 the employment at the district increased by only six, yet over that same time period our charge for pumping water from our own wells was increased by 74 percent and the increased cost to the district for CVP water was only $2. In 2005, the district charged us 105 percent over what they paid for the CVP water. To date, the district has raised my water rate by 1,150 percent in the last 22 years. That averages out to 52 percent a year.

In 2007, the district asked the residents in South County to reduce their water use by 10 percent. I reduced mine by more than 10 percent and the district raised our water rates by 11 percent. Now, the district is asking us to reduce our water use by 15 percent. I can do that, but you are asking for another 3.6 percent increase.

Now that it has been brought to light that the district has violated their District Act along with Proposition 218, how are you going to fund these various projects that have been mentioned? This is not the time to be asking for a raise in water rates. You need to cut back on unneeded projects and employees. Also, you should not be giving any salary increases to anyone working for the district. The district just can’t bring itself to let people go. Yet we, the well owners, have to support this massive employment due to the greed of the district. Yes, that is a strong word, but keep in mind that in 2002 and 2003 the district had accumulated more than $500 million in unrestricted funds from us, the rate payers.

Robert Cerruti, Morgan Hill