‘Tourist Trap’ Reference is Offensive
Dear Editor,
In the Friday, May 25 article regarding the American Institute of Mathematics, staff writer Tony Burchyns describes the Flying Lady Restaurant as a “tourist trap.” I find the term insulting.
I stand on two dictionary definitions.
Ramdon House Webster’s College Dictionary: tourist trap – a place , as a restaurant, shop or hotel, that exploits tourists by overcharging.
Webster’s II Riverside New University Dictionary: tourist trap – a place, as a shop or resort area, that offers goods or services to tourists at inflated prices.
The Flying Lady was a popular restaurant and gathering place for locals and tourists. I enjoyed dining there myself, driving from across the county at the time.
Karen P. Anderson, Morgan Hill
Trails Would Endanger Local Wildlife
Dear Editor,
As an avid outdoor enthusiast, I boat, bike, ATV, hike, kiteboard, SCUBA and snowboard. This isn’t meant to impress you, but rather to impress upon you that I advocate new recreation areas.
Notwithstanding this, my opposition is the placement of public trails within a residential community.
While most people respect nature and other people, it only takes a few who don’t to have a damaging and oftentimes irreversible affect. I could elaborate on the increased traffic nuisance, fire hazard, police and ambulance response, erosion of open space, litter, noise, crime, the decreased property values, blah, blah, blah. Everyone has heard this. Instead, I will tell you how this will impact my family.
Three years ago, my mother-in-law, Janet, suffered a massive stroke leaving her unable to talk, walk or eat (food and medication are administered via a feeding tube). If her nose had an itch, she could not scratch it or ask anyone to scratch it for her. At the time of Janet’s stroke, my wife Stella and I lived in Willow Glen. Our house could not facilitate the care Janet required. Janet was always fond of Morgan Hill and discussed moving there someday. After her stroke, we searched six months for an appropriate environment. Eventually, we found our new home in Jackson Oaks.
Janet is still 100 percent mentally aware and can comprehend (this was unaffected by her stroke). Janet can see, experience and react to life. Everyday she watches the dear, turkeys, foxes, quail, squirrels, blue jays and other wildlife that visits our home. Her face lights up with a distinct smile and sometimes she tries to talk to them (although it is unintelligible).
These trails would go through our side and backyards. Besides the loss of privacy, peace and tranquility, Janet would also lose the one thing that makes her smile each day: the wildlife.
It would be horrifying if the reasons people moved into Jackson Oaks were to vanish. Public recreation belongs in non-residential areas. This project will negatively impact too many people’s lives. I understand the views of the few who support the Jackson Oaks project. The problem is that these people can go back to their homes where they would not have to live with the daily consequences we will face. Disrupting so many lives on a permanent, daily basis outweighs the limited recreational convenience of not having to drive a mile or two down the road. The exclusion of Jackson Oaks from this project will not damage anyone. Inclusion will damage many. Not the least of which are Janet and Christina.
Rev. Jim Helton, Morgan Hill
In Support of Community Trail System
Dear Editor,
Recreational walking in the United States has been surging in popularity over the past several decades, recognized as being at once healthy, relaxing and fun. Right now, Morgan Hill has a wonderful opportunity to expand local walking resources with the assistance from a State of California Metropolitan Transportation Commission grant.
To access the currently proposed network of neighborhood and open space trails, many of us would not need to pack up and drive across town to a park. For some, the trails would literally be out the back door or down the street a few blocks. The more accessible they are, the more we will take advantage.
While we are not the last community to recognize the benefits of developing this type of recreational walking resource, we are definitely latecomers. The towns of Woodside and Portola Valley have had a network of trails for almost half a century that wind through their communities, literally crossing people’s back and side yards. Each town has volunteer Trail Committees to oversee maintenance and improvements. Trail easements are recorded on property deeds. Their trails are community resources used almost entirely by the local residents.
For a much longer time, many European countries have had government-supported and maintained trails. Switzerland in particular is famous for its intricate network of trails (signed for distance and difficulty) that connects cities and villages, crosses meadows, mountain passes and river gorges, and passes through urban and rural private properties alike, bringing its users (in this case, almost half are visitors from outside their country) close enough to rest in the shade of private homes (which walkers do) and pick flowers from private gardens (which walkers don’t).
Morgan Hill is fortunate to be situated in one of the more scenic parts of Santa Clara Valley, and at this moment we have the opportunity to use state funds to help us design and build a network of neighborhood and open space walking trails that could enable anyone of us 38,000 residents to share in the enjoyment of this scenic resource, while at the same time participating in a healthy, relaxing activity.
Ten years ago the citizens of Morgan Hill spent many months in a “visioning” process that revealed we want our City to invest heavily in recreational resources. A network of walking trails through our neighborhoods and open spaces would nicely compliment the other recreational facilities our City has been developing for us in recent years. And it would be the cheapest element to build and maintain.
Walking. It’s not just for parks anymore.
Peter and Elena Anderson, Morgan Hill
Trail Proponents Are Confused
Dear Editor,
Whoever the doofus is who thinks that trails in Jackson Oaks are a good idea is confused. When owners bought their property, the adjacent land was “open space” not park land. Buyers paid dearly to have that open space. Get real. It’s an idea that doesn’t fly.
Bob Rich, Morgan HillMorgan Hill
Should Contract County for Police Services
Dear Editor,
I am perplexed as to the on-going budget issues for the city of Morgan Hill and the continuing street talk about the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department taking over the services for our law enforcement needs. I say, quit talking about it and “just do it.” It’s time to get over the pride of having our own police department. We don’t have the funds necessary to get these men and women the pay and benefits that they deserve today let alone the pay increases and benefit increases that they will want in years to come. Morgan Hill’s revenues won’t support it. It’s time for us to swallow our pride.
In our business climate of “out-sourcing” this makes total financial sense especially if it saves money! It sounds like the city needs to do just that – “save money” and as much as possible and to do it as soon as possible. You only need to drive by the new indoor recreation center and see that the grass is not getting mowed due to “budget” issues – it looks terrible. If we can’t afford to keep the grass mowed, how in the world can we ever plan on taking care of our police officers?
The new courthouse in Morgan Hill will be staffed with sheriff’s deputies. The sheriff’s substation in San Martin is staffed with sheriff’s deputies, sheriffs investigators, community services, etc. The VTA bus system that runs through Morgan Hill is patrolled by sheriff’s deputies. There are already more deputies working around us than what the whole Morgan Hill Police Department has on its payroll roster.
F. Perry, Morgan Hill
