Dear Editor, The Morgan Hill Times seems out-of-step with the
times! Notice your own poll … the four leading City Council
candidates, at the time of this writing (Schmidt, Mounteer,
Castelan and Galloway), have the most fiscally conservative
positions.
City needs a change, vote for College, Schmidt and Mounteer
Dear Editor,
The Morgan Hill Times seems out-of-step with the times! Notice your own poll … the four leading City Council candidates, at the time of this writing (Schmidt, Mounteer, Castelan and Galloway), have the most fiscally conservative positions.
The two endorsed by the Times are lagging. Mr. Constantine made it clear at the recent Candidate Forum that he likes the direction the city has taken and wants to continue with more of the same, then flip-flopped for the next question to sound like the conservative candidates. Wake up and smell the coffee, you great people at the Times!
The Tea Party represents mainstream American thought. Even CNN is adding shows that contain conservative commentary to their schedule. We want a government that will do what we have had to do in this economy – adapt, change the way we do things and tighten our belts while being positive, yet discerning.
Jan Comstock, Morgan Hill
City is doing just fine; Mayor Steve Tate deserves your vote
Dear Editor,
Be thankful. Morgan Hill is a well-run city. It is frugal and conservative yet is willing to build facilities and establish programs that many cities do not have.
We have a budget and we live within our means. We have cut labor while maintaining our core services. The city has a healthy savings account. During these difficult times, it’s using that account to fund needs just like you and I would and will continue to do that until such time that revenue increases and/or costs further contained. Many cities and the State can’t do that. And unlike a recent mailer, the city is far from being run into the ground as some would have you and try to make your believe.
Some candidates defile our recreation programs and say we should have put public safety first. Those are either not reading the reports or purposely ignoring them, but over 80 percent or every dollar expended by the city’s General Fund is for public safety! The department has one of the finest facilities around, well equipped and able to handle our needs.
Our recreation programs recover over 80 percent of all costs. This is so much higher than many neighboring communities. It’s absolutely false to say we have placed other vital services at risk because of recreation. Please call to question any candidate who says otherwise.
Over the past 10 years under Mayors Tate and Kennedy, we have built facilities for the community to serve the needs of youths, seniors and everyone in between. These facilities attract business, new residents and enhance our community’s image and reputation. As a resident you cannot be more pleased. That is why Mayor Steve Tate not only deserves your vote but he has earned it with his diligence, energy and willingness to guide this community to even better days. As someone who has worked directly with two of the candidates, Mayor Tate is the exceptional leader of choice. Please vote for Mayor Tate in November.
Mark Grzan, Former Morgan Hill City Councilmember
Don’t believe the rhetoric, vote for Proposition 23
Dear Editor,
California voters are facing a decision Nov. 2 about whether to delay the full implementation of AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, when we vote for or against Proposition 23. I will vote for Prop. 23 and encourage all Californians to do so, to delay the implementation of AB 32 and to provide time to repeal the legislation.
The projected impacts of implementation of AB 32 are enormously negative. It is estimated (see the report cited immediately below) that the implementation will cost California more than 1.1 million jobs with a direct cost to each small business of $49,691, and will cost each household an additional $3,857 per year in normal expenses (housing, food, power).
Quoting from the report conclusion:
“The study analyzes the potential economic impacts of AB 32 on the state of California, its consumers, and the small businesses. Using three different approaches to measuring the economic costs, the study finds that the potential loss of output, jobs, indirect business taxes and labor income is substantial and significant.”
Ref: “Cost of AB 32 on California Small Business – Summary Report of Findings” submitted to the California Small Business Roundtable in June 2009 by Varshney & Associates (Sanjay B. Varshney, Ph.D., Dean, College of Business Administration and Dennis H. Tootelian, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing & Director, Center for Small Business, both of California State University, Sacramento).
The entire report can be accessed at: http://suspendab32.org/AB_32_Report071309.pdf
Additionally, the “settled science” of the “incontrovertible” evidence of man-caused global climate change, that has been used to justify AB 32, is far from fact. Today’s scientists, or their mentors, have cycled through claims of “the coming ice age” (1960s to mid-’70s), “climate change” (mid-’70s to 1990), “global warming” (1990s to 2010), “global climate disruption (2010 to when?, to account for some projections of decreasing temperature over the next 30 years). This changing terminology would make Saul Alinsky proud of their application of the seventh of his Rules for Radicals, “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag,” so change the name to maintain the militant interest in the cause. (p 128)
Furthermore, one can rehash the arguments brought out concerning data bias and analysis integrity in the aftermath of ClimateGate regarding the UNs International Panel on Climate Control Assessment Report (AR 4) as the scientific basis for taking action to control greenhouse gas emissions. But sorting truth from fiction may be near impossible for other than a truly unbiased peer review panel (and according to the resignation letter cited immediately below, this option is not being allowed).
The use of scientific organizations to promote the “green agenda” has corrupted the scientific process. Consider the letter of resignation from The American Physical Society, dated Oct. 6 2010, of Hal Lewis, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, UC Santa Barbara and APS Fellow. Quoting from the letter:
“The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, …
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, …”
The entire resignation can be accessed at: http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
Please join me, and encourage others, in voting for Proposition 23.
Frank Ryan, Morgan Hill a former member of APS but not affiliated with any group regarding Prop 23
Stop-sign runners reflect disturbing thought process
Dear Editor,
At 9 a.m. one recent morning I watched six consecutive drivers speed right through a residential stop sign without even slowing down. I have watched the overall number of street sign runners increase steadily over the last year, and even called the police to request they drop by to take a look. Unfortunately, our police department has to weigh potential stop sign runners against other crimes that need attention, and this one doesn’t measure up – until there is an accident, which should be just a matter of time.
Recent comments in the MH Times reveal that this same behavior is happening at two other locations in Morgan Hill. These stop sign runners are not primarily teens, but moms and dads – sometimes with kids in the car. This behavior is concerning not only because it’s unsafe, but also because it models anarchy to our children. In civilized society, we are taught that we voluntarily give up small liberties for the safety and security of the population as a whole. I understand that we all tend to drive a few miles over the speed limit, and many of the street sign runners are driving above the speed limit by 5 or 10 mph, but running street signs takes a technically illegal behavior into a higher risk category.
On the other hand, perhaps I am missing some important shift in society. This is clearly a disturbing symptom of a collective thought process here in Morgan Hill, and I believe it’s important to understand the motivations behind the shift towards personal decision making on community safety issues. So please, if you are a stop sign runner, help me to understand your thinking. Do you drive through stop signs in San Jose as well or just here in your own community? What do you tell your kids when they ask why you just went through a stop sign at full speed? And finally, what would it take to convince you to stop from this particular behavior before we have a fatality?
On another note,
At 9 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 30, I will be standing at a downtown corner alongside the Tea Partiers with a “Rally to Restore Sanity” sign to align with the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert rallies in Washington D.C. After years of escalating hysterical political sound bites, I am using this opportunity to help me get back to a place of rational discourse.
Unfortunately, in times of stress, we all look for someone to blame for our pain and frustration, which is purposely channeled by political leaders to drive emotional support for their own teams. I have long wondered how Jon Stewart, a fairly liberal comedian, is able to use humor and courtesy to interview guests with very different points of view.
Admittedly, my reaction to the “other side” has not been as cordial so this will be an opportunity for me to move towards rational discourse myself. I would like to invite anyone with a similar desire to restore sanity to join me downtown Saturday morning.
Barbara Sullivan, Morgan Hill
Harmer’s views on education are extreme and short-sighted
Dear Editor,
“Abolish Public Schools” is the title of congressional candidate David Harmer’s August 2000 article in the San Francisco Chronicle. You can read the original article on sfgate.com. Harmer not only wants all public schools abolished, but all financing for public education so that we can return to “the way things worked through the first century of American nationhood.” This is supported by the implication that people were, on the whole, better educated then. Although reasonable people will debate how best to use our public education dollars, this is the first person I have heard of with such an extreme and short-sighted view. This is not someone I want in congress making any kind of public policy, let alone education policy.
Daniel Benefiel, Morgan Hill
Board’s endorsement for city council not based on facts
Dear Editor,
The Editorial Board at the Morgan Hill Times judged Lee Schmidt’s application of his business model approach as inappropriate, indicating that “the city is not a business, it’s a municipality.”
Those peers should have attended the Candidate Orientation hosted by the City. City Manager Ed Tewes explained to the candidates that attended the event that their role as City Council members, including the Mayor who is a City Council member with a few exceptional powers would be to “run a large complex corporation.” Nothing in Mr. Tewes statement defined running the city as anything but a business. The Editorial Review Board critics formed an opinion that is not based in fact.
By the way, I attended the Candidate Orientation and I felt that City Manager and each of the department heads did an exceptionally good job of providing the candidates with an overview of how the City operates and how each department conducts it’s day-to-day business.
If Lee Schmidt is elected to the City Council, I hope that he brings his vast knowledge and expertise of running large complex corporations to the dais at City Hall.
Rich Jensen, Morgan Hill
Steve Tate worthy of your vote for mayor
Dear Editor,
I have known Steve Tate personally for over 33 years. We have worked together on many projects over that time here in Morgan Hill. He is truly worth your support this Tuesday.
Bernie Mulligan, Morgan Hill
Why Cy Mann is seeking seat on county board of education
Dear Editor,
There needs to be change, accountability and transparency.
The county education system needs change. There has been for some time now a need for change as our children in this valley are facing very difficult times ahead as the need for education in the workplace is key to insure that these children will have that chance to be productive members of society.
There has been very limited or no accountability demonstrated the county board of education superintendent.
Alternative Education: Making sure we making every effort to educate the students rather than merely housing them.
Services: Making sure that our services to districts are indispensable, ergo the COE is a service provider and can do more cost effectively routine things (i.e. payroll, teacher training, etc.). If districts aren’t buying our services, is a cost issue or a value-added (quality or fulfilling needs). The COE should be providing (selling) services that districts need and end those where the demand is weak.
Leadership: The BOE needs to pump up it’s oversight responsibility ensuring the superintendent understands he/she is accountable to the BOE (not the reverse).
Boardsmanship: Board members need to focus on education, not petty personal politics as demonstrated by the non-educational matters on the board’s agenda since June. Board should not agendize matters that are not under their authority and responsibility as outlined by the CA Constitution.
Budget: $259 million budget should be aligned with achieving the district’s five goal areas with a laser-focus on students. Administrative overhead should be evaluated as “value-added,” dollars to students and adults providing direct service (teachers, support staff), NOT to unnecessary management (if any).
The other candidates in the race I have never heard of and their reason for running for this seat is to keep me out of office is very sad. They should be running to make change and contribute. The only thing I could find out is one is a lawyer and the other a retired deputy superintendent whose claim to fame was three years running Ravenswood District, which has the worst performance and test scores in the three years he has been there. They have done nothing for the children of South County as far as I can tell our schools in South County have been needing things for years.
I represent change and accountability. I want deliverables from the superintendent not direction from the superintendent!
Cy Mann, Morgan Hill
Farm Bureau endorses Gage for Water District
Dear Editor,
Over the years, the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau has had the pleasure of working with Don Gage in a variety of capacities and we confidently endorse him for his next step, District 1 Director of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Don Gage offers District 1 voters just what they need in a candidate for the water district: access, common sense, and good government. Gage’s primary goal at the water district board is to create consensus so the board can focus on priorities of a balanced budget, appropriate use of ratepayer funds, transparency, and accountability. And he actually has the political experience and knowledge to get it done. During his almost thirty years in public office, Gage has set the standard for accessibility – even giving out his personal cell phone number – and he effectively addresses constituent concerns in a timely manner. He has consistently demonstrated fiscal restraint and practices the notion that a government for the people, by the people should be accountable to the people. You can always count on Don Gage to vote his conscience and give it you straight, and we can count on him to serve this area well on the water district board. Vote for Don Gage for SCVWD District 1.
Jan Garrod, president of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau
Stand against big money and vote Democratic Nov. 2
Dear Editor,
The U. S. Chamber of Commerce is spending $76 million on attack ads against Democratic candidates. Democrats stand against outsourcing of American jobs and Democrats intend to eliminate tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs to improve their profits. On Nov. 2 voters have to stand against big money if “government of, by and for the people” is to survive.
Frank Crosby, Morgan Hill
Failure to look behind the slogans and soundbites could spell disaster
Dear Editor,
As I read the Times, there is a huge ad for meeting Mike Wasserman, running for County Supervisor, in San Martin with a $120/500 person charge. It is being hosted by the largest land owners in the south valley. The ad tabloids future growth, land and zoning. Put all this together and I have cause to become concerned. Many of the land owners listed as sponsors would like nothing better than to develop this treasured open space and dramatically change our landscape into perhaps another L.A. basin. We cannot build from eastern to western foothills in this confined space we call home. Let me remind everyone that such urban sprawl brings with it congestion, pollution, further depletion of our ever-declining water table and an increase cost to local municipalities.
So if Mr. Wasserman is thinking about paving over precious farm land and destroying habitat let remind him that being in the pocket of landowners and developers does not sit well with many South County residents who have maintained smart growth policies, championed the preservation of open space and have held steadfast in maintaining the country charm that make us unique.
It is not unusual for those running for elected office to lean to where the money flows, and become obligated to those who have funded the campaign. So it’s a concern that land owners are backing Mr. Wasserman and the question is why and if elected whose interests will be served? Will it be a handful of wealthy contributors or the thousands of other South County residents? These are fair questions to ask as we near the November election. Questions everyone should ask and not only of Mr. Wasserman but of everyone running for office because our failure to look behind the slogans and sound-bites could be a disaster for all of us.
Mark Grzan, Morgan Hill
An independent city clerk and city treasurer are needed
Dear Editor,
Your paper recently endorsed the incumbent mayor, citing as one of your reasons: “Mayor Tate understands the value of the Redevelopment Agency, which has purchased numerous downtown properties that it can now sell to developers, just as it is doing with Barry Swenson Builder for two lots that include the Granada Theater…”. I attended the Oct. 20 Council meeting at which the Swenson team presented their preliminary plans for review. They brought a host of specialists in order “to be able to address any questions..”
After listening to an extensive presentation, I asked one: “Will these proposed residential units be rentals or ownership units?’ I didn’t think it was a trick question, nor, a particularly complicated one. However, I am still listening to the sound of crickets, which is disappointing, concerning the Mayor’s recently proclaimed availability. There wasn’t an even perfunctory, ‘Geez, we’re not sure, we’ll look into that and get back to you.’ The attitude seemed to be, ‘If I don’t answer, then, it didn’t happen.’
As a frequent attendee of City Council meetings, this was not the first time that I experienced or observed this lack of response. I bring this to your attention because the City is in the process of potentially committing, by their estimates, tens of millions of dollars to this project. As a citizen, I should like to know what “sell to the developers” actually means. The project plans show the underground garage and ground floor parking dedicated for “public parking”. I strongly suspect that this means that the public is going to be paying for the parking structure and providing the developer with, either, a “free foundation or a subsidized one. So, I am taking this opportunity to “ask the Mayor, are we going to be subsidizing, paying, or “partnering” for part of this project? How much are you willing to throw into the deal to make it “pencil’ for the developer?
Lastly, the Mayor, in his campaigning, repeatedly stated ‘that he is proud of his record and accomplishments during his tenure on the Council.’ He has consistently, either ignored or refused to answer a legitimate question, posed by several residents, concerning his participation in the hiring of the current City Manager, as it related to events that occurred at the City Manager’s prior post in Modesto. The ‘Village 1’ fiasco still haunts that city to this day, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
http://www.modbee.com/2002/06/28/128610/village-i-warning-came-in-98.html
http://www.modbee.com/2002/07/07/128614/village-i-red-flags-date-to-94.html
http://www.modbee.com/2003/02/14/127254/no-crimes-found-in-village-i.html
The reason that this is pertinent to our Mayor and the current election, is that he, and a faction of the Council and the City Manager, initiated, and are currently promoting Measure P, which asks the voters to change the City Treasurer and City Clerk positions from elected posts to appointed posts.
Right now, those posts are independent and potentially serve as a critical, additional, check and balance for any impropriety or malfeasance. Should these positions become appointed, they would most likely be, “recommended by the City Manager and appointed by the Council,” and realistically, no longer in a position to act independently without fear of censorship or reprisal.
According to the above cited articles, an independent, City Clerk was instrumental in exposing the problems experienced in Modesto.
I believe that these questions are legitimate, and that they deserve to be answered, before the election. Mayor Tate?
Frank Manocchio, Morgan Hill
Beware – a full ballot plate of tax increases before us once again
Dear Editor,
I urge your readers to vote NO on Propositions 21 (parks should be paid for by those who use them), 24 (gouges businesses), 25 (removes 2/3 protection for tax hikes) and 27 (reinstitutes gerrymandering), and Measures A (more Santa Claus County welfare, funded by an unfair parcel tax) and B (roads that our gas tax should already fix).
These are all TAX HIKES! Learn from history! What has happened every time they con us into paying more? They spent more (particularly on state employees’ compensation).
Just last year, they doubled our vehicle (property) tax (and they’re still just as deep in the red). They have cut NOTHING!
We saw county measures named A and B in the late 1990s, asking for more money for roads. Within year, half the money was diverted to prop up the worst (most inefficient) bus system in the nation. During the tech boom a decade ago, the state employees all received generous raises, starting with the prison guards. They soon all were in line for their handouts from Gov. Davis (Jerry Brown’s former chief of staff).
The average California public employee – be it county or state – already makes 75 percent more than the average private-sector worker in total compensation. In the last 15 years, our sales tax has risen from 6 to 9.25 percent. This oligarchy overspends every year and thinks we will just keep picking up the tab. In the late 1970s, Moonbeam & Co. (the state led by Jerry Brown) was taxing people out of their homes. Now they’re whining about the late budget. Is it affecting you? Only if you’re a state employee, beholden to your overlord in Sacramento, which makes you part of the problem.
Vote NO on 21, 24, 25, 27, A, and B!
Alan Viarengo, Gilroy
Time to buckle down and get to work
Dear Editor,
An opponent might say I am inexperienced. And I would answer: Our state needs real people and small business owners in office as opposed to entrenched politicians who have made a career out of living off of taxpayer dollars.
Being a strong-willed independent candidate with strong principles, I’ve funded my campaign entirely with contributions from small business owners and individuals like you and me. As a result I am beholden to no group, special interest, or corporation and am free to stand by my own principles and listen to the voice of the people.
My opponent on the other hand has primarily funded his campaign with money from PAC’s, Unions, and businesses like Walgreens, Blue Shield, Blue Cross, and Comcast. I wouldn’t even know how to begin asking a business like Blue Cross or Comcast for money! What’s in it for them?
Too often there is not enough thought given to who we are voting for. We have been taught to vote the simplest way possible – just look for the letter by the candidate’s name. This time we need to take a closer look.
My opponent, Bill Monning, doesn’t seem to see a problem with deficit spending and increasing debt for the rest of us. He speaks openly of a bigger state government, providing single payer health care for Californians, and above all, more environmental regulations. He rarely, however, talks about how he intends to pay for all of it: More taxes, higher fees, more debt? Take your pick!
High taxes and regulations are driving jobs out of state (California is now one of the top five worst states to do business in). Agriculture has historically been one of California’s top sources of income- yet during the worst economic downturn in the last 70 years the government shut down farms in our Central Valley, where unemployment in some places now approaches 17 percent. And our state representatives supported this.
Our current legislature supports job creation – as long as they are government jobs. I support job creation in the private sector by fostering a business friendly environment, including tax credits.
Many citizens are stepping up to voice their outrage over Smart Meters due to the invasion of privacy and possible health concerns. Cities are being forced to fluoridate their drinking water, against the wishes of the voters who are protesting this toxin being forced upon them. Local governments are responsive to the public’s concern but are ultimately claiming their hands are tied because they are being controlled by state mandates. As a member of the state legislature I will work to repeal both the Smart Meter mandate and the water fluoridation mandate, returning control to local governments and the people they represent.
My experience in business and finance combined with my deep love of freedom are the tools necessary to put our state back on track to prosperity. I ask you to step outside the world of big-money TV ads and advertising and even political parties to consider casting a vote for a better future.
Linda “Ellie” Black, Republican Candidate for the 27th District State Assembly
