Guest View

In late November 2015, a plan of sorts was proposed by the city of Morgan Hill where water rates for hillside communities would be raised considerably. Depending on where you lived, starting in 2016 some residents would pay up to 300 percent more than the previous year. It was argued that it was only fair since extra costs were incurred to serve the hillside residents.  In early December and after much discussion coupled with a petition submitted to the city council, the planned increase was modified and the city proposed that hillside residents pay a surcharge to cover the electrical cost for pumping water up to hillside properties. This will become a “done deal” later this month when addressed by the city council.I’m in my fortieth year of living in Jackson Oaks, and I believe it is ill advised to create classes of ratepayers when paying for city services. I’m against this approach as I believe it is divisive to the city at large.In my neighborhood, there are no curbs or sidewalks and the streets are so narrow that only the brave try parking a car on the street. The amount of street lighting in the hillside is scant versus many areas in the flat land. I can recall seeing a street cleaner once in my 40 years of hillside living. There are no city parks in or close to my neighborhood. All of these have costs tied to them and it’s fair to ask, why are residents asked to pay for unequal amounts of city services?  Remember when the city committed about $5 million (in conjunction with the Santa Clara Valley Water District) to renew the out-of-date environmental study for the city flood control project?  Although this was Redevelopment Agency money, hillside residents are probably not going to be underwater.   Do we not all remember when perchlorate threatened some of the city water supply from the Olin Corporation Tennant Avenue facility? Even though not all parts of the city were affected, a citywide surcharge was imposed to pay for equipment to filter out the perchlorate at contaminated wells.The police know the areas in the city where their resource is spent, just as they know where there is less (or little) crime or public safety issues. Why not create classes of ratepayers in the city to make it fair? Use more, pay more.What does this have to do with paying for the electrical power to pump water to hillside residents?  Let’s be clear: Morgan Hill is a city, and city services should come with a flat rate structure for all services, including water.  I don’t support classes of users allocated on costs. The perchlorate citywide surcharge was just. The notion that police costs should be set up by zone is nuts. I defend the city’s flood control expenditures. As for Jackson Oaks’ narrow streets, absence of parks or minimal street lighting, I knew this when I moved here.Also when I moved here, and for 40 years after, all city residents paid the same rate for water. It was sound policy then and that wisdom should prevail today.The Morgan Hill City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed water and wastewater rate increases 7 p.m. Jan. 20, at council meeting chambers, 17555 Peak Ave.

Our top priority remains an effort to retrofit and strengthen Anderson Dam, home to Santa Clara County’s largest reservoir, so it can safely withstand a strong earthquake.

John McKay’s avocation for an “not perfect” Measure S is exactly the reason it should be rejected. It is this imperfection wrapped around vague and ambiguous language that leaves the measure open to interpretation. If passed, the measure at best will likely end up in the courts, resulting is costly and unnecessary litigation. At worst, it could lead to the destruction of our precious open spaces.For example, John cites in his article that 300 agricultural units can be set aside in Morgan Hill’s “developable areas” for preservation. But John, how do you define “developable?” As a Planning Commissioner, you know that when we define lands and boundaries we use terms such as the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary), City Limits or Sphere of influence, etc. These are legal terms. They are well known and there are maps with lines that define them. But none of these terms are used in the measure. Instead, we find the term, “developable lands.” All lands are developable and that includes county farm and agricultural lands. And therein lies the problem.The city has already spent over a decade in an effort to develop county farm and agricultural lands at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, only to be rejected by the state regulatory agency—not once, but twice. There is good reason to distrust the ambiguity of the measure as a continued pursuit to pave over our open spaces.John’s article fails to mention that those 300 agricultural units are specifically identified for housing, encouraging urban sprawl and untold costs to our community. And again, I have to ask, what is a unit?Measure S doesn’t solve problems, it creates them. It is labeled to “conserve water and preserve open space,” but it does none of that. Measure S is a “smoke and mirrors” effort to undermine our slow growth policies and encourage excessive development.If you discount that, just look at where our pro-growth incumbents are getting their campaign funding: real estate companies, landowners and developers. Councilmember Marilyn Librers, the strongest advocate for sprawl, received $3,000 alone from a Cupertino developer with land interests and projects in Morgan Hill.John, you want facts, and so do I. But the wording in Measure S lacks factual language and likely by intent. It deserves a NO vote until it can be rewritten clearly and factually. Your comment that it is not perfect is correct and we agree but no measure such as this should have ever have been brought before the community unless it is openly clear as to its intent and impacts.Mark Grzan is a former Morgan Hill City Councilman and Mayor Pro Tempore. 

Measure A affirms the unanimous decision of the Morgan Hill City Council and Planning Commission to allow construction of two new mid-size hotels on vacant land in the Madrone Village Business Park.