Guest View

Aah! Summertime! Here we are, many of us stretched out in front of the television set, munching on snacks, with our iPhones stuck in one hand while playing video games with the other. Perfect, right? Actually, we should answer no! Summer has a higher purpose!...

If Bay Area housing stakeholders are to ever address factors that have led to construction delays and the rise in costs for constructing desperately needed housing, we must delve deeper into how a well-intentioned law has inadvertently led to difficulty in producing sufficient housing....

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when the city committed about $5 million (in conjunction with the Santa Clara Valley Water District) to renew the out-of-date environmental study for the city flood control project?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.

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. 

BACK TO THE DUCK POND

When word of the Morgan Hill/Gilroy neglected horse herd launched on Facebook in response to the mistreatment of more than three dozen horses on two South County ranches (in the summer of 2014), we knew that they needed the help of the equine community, so we stepped in.Since Santa Clara County Animal Care and Control was doing nothing to assist in the seizure, rescue, and placement of these horses, we worked side by side with the Center Horse advocates and San Martin Animal Shelter to ensure each horse found a safe rescue, sanctuary, foster or forever home. The whole thing was a huge debacle because of ACC’s negligence in addressing this case. Horses were taken off of the property, new horses appeared on the property, and most horses did not end up in rescues in Santa Clara County.We decided that with the help of a few friends, we could take on one of the pregnant mares.  That’s when Cinder came into our lives.Cinder and several other horses from this herd used to belong to a local breeder in the performance horse industry. Most of these horses were registered Quarter Horses with outstanding pedigree and careers in the cutting industry. Cinder had a successful career as a cutting horse, but eventually this sport wore her down. They turned her into a broodmare for years, producing foal after foal, year after year.Eventually, they discarded her and that’s how she wound up with the South County herd.  Cinder’s story began the day she was born to a 23-year-old mare, who died after her birth.  Like so many of the horses from this herd, Cin came to us pregnant, her conception date unknown due to the fact that this herd was living with numerous stallions and mares together on a small lot on Center Avenue in Gilroy.Cin got the best care she could get in the months following her departure from Center Avenue. Her board was $315 per month for her to stay at Lakeview Stables in San Jose. The first thing we did was have a vet out to assess her. She was not only pregnant, but had a significant limp that was found to be caused by Navicular, a debilitating syndrome in horses, and fused hocks—most likely the result of the physical demands of being a cutting horse. The extra weight of her foal made her very uncomfortable so we purchased special boots for her to ease some of the pain. Cin adjusted to her new life at Lakeview. The owners agreed to let us build her a stall and a paddock on the hill where she and her new foal would live safely.  All along, we knew Cinder was at risk.Our daily routine included taking her for walks, letting her graze, and feeding and grooming her. She loved to roll in sand arena, but even this was becoming too difficult for her. I still cherish the times I spent braiding her hair as she grazed on the hillside. She loved her life at Lakeview, and we loved her.On April 1, just before midnight, Cinder finally delivered a very large, very healthy filly. The delivery was quick and all seemed well. We were relieved, but this relief did not last long.  Within hours CinCin started showing signs of distress. We rushed her to Steinbeck where she received several transfusions due to a ruptured uterine artery. She was bleeding internally. She fought all day to stay alive, getting up time and time again, calling to her foal. But they couldn’t save her. I can still see the pain and longing in her eyes…she’d fought so hard to deliver her foal despite the neglect and abuse she’d suffered. We decided to name the foal Belle because after all, she was Cinder’s belly.Belle required round the clock care with feedings every two hours. We managed to recruit our Lakeview family to help with the feedings and care of Belle that will go on for several months.  We were able to find an older mare at the ranch to look after her in her stall and teach her how to be a horse. But Belle is still an orphan...no person or horse can replace her mom.Belle is a very healthy young filly who reminds us of her beautiful mother. She will grow up in our care and she will never go hungry. But raising an orphan foal is never easy; she will require a lot of extra time and effort. Her formula alone is averaging over $500 per month.This is the story of just one of the horses from the South County herd. We have spent countless hours rehabilitating and caring for this mare and her foal because we have a broken system that refused to recognize the need for tougher laws and enforcement.  We cannot continue to expect the horse community to pick up the pieces. It has to be controlled at a state and county level.We MUST change the way we manage our horses in this county. We need to have our own county rescue and partnership so that we can take in horses in need sooner. It is time to reform Santa Clara County ACC.Loera will give a presentation on the aftermath of the 2014 South County abused horses case at the May 14 Santa Clara County Animal Advisory Committee meeting, which takes place 6:30 p.m. at the County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose. Rivas, the owner of the nearly 40 malnourished horses, was convicted of felony animal abuse in January.

Many know how downtown restaurant Rosy’s at the Beach got its name, but few know about the role Title IX played in saving owner Rosy Bergin’s academic career at Santa Clara University. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the landmark civil rights federal...