Letters

Vote ‘yes’ on cig tax

Let’s try pedestrian safety suggestionsI appreciated Kathy Sullivan's more expansive solutions to the serious concerns about pedestrian safety downtown.As a member of the Downtown Association, she presented more proactive suggestions than just saying that flashing pedestrian lights would detract from the ambiance of downtown. It's obviously a tricky proposition. How do we create a situation in which downtown businesses thrive, which is the obvious goal of the Downtown Association, while providing a safe environment for residents and visitors?Perhaps the dialog has now progressed to the point where these are not mutually exclusive endeavors. Downtown businesses need patrons and people will not venture downtown if they fear for their safety. Expanding our creative options to benefit both downtown businesses and the safety of their patrons should be our goal.She has offered many good starting points for reaching consensus. Among them is closing Monterey Street downtown on select weekends or even every weekend when commute traffic is not an issue. Her suggestions merit further discussion and trial implementation.Working together and thinking outside the box, we can create a win-win situation for our downtown businesses and pedestrian safety!Debra UllmanMorgan HillCut down on wasteful spendingVery biased views on downtown presented in last issue. Let's interview and talk with a vast array of real citizens without vested business interest in downtown and find out what they are thinking.Downtown is not the only place that feels unsafe. More traffic in the entire town by distracted careless drivers is pronounced.My opinion: too much taxpayer money is being poured into downtown. Instead, that money should have been spent on infrastructure such as road and pipe repairs. No new taxes please.Learn to spend the resources more wisely. City government tends to be somewhat wasteful spending our tax dollars. The economy isn't going to be like it is now forever. We need to spend more carefully.Marie LambMorgan Hill

Editor’s note: The letter below was sent July 26 to the families of students attending Silicon Valley Flex, located on Jarvis Drive in Morgan Hill. The letter has been edited for length and style.Dear Flex Families,It is with heavy hearts and the deepest of regrets that we make this announcement. After extensive deliberation, and after exploring every option available to us, the Flex Board has made the decision to close the school.K12, the school’s service provider who managed and operated the school for the board for the last five years, terminated its service contract with Flex on July 1, five years early. While the board disagrees with K12’s grounds to terminate the service contract, it cannot operate the school without K12’s financial support, and does not have alternative funding for the school. Please note that the K12 staff supporting the school are working hard to assist with this transition.While this late notice is very unfortunate, the Flex Board does not have sufficient funds to operate the school this year without K12, and attempting to begin the school year without a sound economic base would inevitably result in closure mid-year, thus forcing staff and students out at a point which would be much worse.Silicon Valley Flex has served its students and families well for the past five years, and our sincere hope was to find a way to ensure it could continue to do so. Sadly, in the past week it became clear that we are simply out of options and can wait no longer to notify our staff and our families.We know that you have many questions and we are working as quickly as we can to get you the answers you deserve. Over the next two weeks, members of the leadership team and representatives from our partner, K12, will be onsite to meet with you to discuss next steps and other options available to you. We appreciate K12’s effort in this regard. We have also included some Frequently Asked Questions at the bottom of this letter to address some preliminary questions that we anticipate you’ll have.We want to hear from you directly and to answer any questions you have. School and K12 representatives will be onsite July 27 from 7:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. and again on July 28 from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. For those who are unable to join us this week, we will be available next week from Tuesday through Thursday as well.Sincerely,Mark Kushner, Board PresidentOn Behalf of the Silicon Valley Flex Board of Trustees

Don’t push a ‘blank check’ on votersEditor’s note: The following letter was addressed to the Morgan Hill City Council regarding an agenda item at the July 20 council meeting, to consider a “resolution of necessity” for $38 million in bonds for city street repairs and maintenance—a precursor to placing the bond measure on the November ballot. The council approved the resolution unanimously, and will discuss a possible bond measure at the July 27 meeting. While this resolution is only a step allowing the council to preserve the option of placing a bond measure on the ballot, it is a step in a direction away from another issue that needs to be addressed. Issuing a bond doesn't resolve the problem of city leaders not being more attentive to their fiscal responsibility. These funding gaps have been a known issue for Morgan Hill for years, particularly with respect to street maintenance. Every budget available on the city's website, from 2008 to the present, has identified funding for street maintenance and repair as insufficient. Those same budgets continually noted increases in street maintenance backlogs.Yet other than minor attempts to reduce costs, such as the LED streetlight conversion, it's only been recently that the city has purposefully addressed the funding gaps through contracted analysis.I have heard many excuses for the decrease in infrastructure funding: economic downturn, elimination of the Redevelopment Agency, decline in gas tax revenue, lowest per capita tax level among cities in Santa Clara County. While all may be valid contributors to this deficit, there has been little mention of proactive steps to address projected funding shortfalls.Maintenance has continued to be deferred, maintenance backlogs have increased, and the funding gaps have grown larger. The response by the city has been to publicly advertise community engagement and use designed surveys as crutches to excuse their decisions as to what the community has voiced as its needs and priorities.What the city has not done is publicly advertise their responsibility for this fiscal problem.As the City of Morgan Hill has continued to grow, so has the infrastructure funding gap. It seems apparent the city cannot continue to grow at the rate proposed and add to an infrastructure it cannot already support. During the period of updating the General Plan and Residential Development Control System, the city council had the opportunity to make adjustments to the city's long-range plans that could have helped narrow these funding gaps. One of those adjustments should have included slowing Morgan Hill’s growth rate in order to lessen the burden of demands on city services and the associated costs. That the city council and planning commission continued their insistence on maintaining a similar level of growth that contributed to increases in these funding issues is irresponsible.The "quality of life" categories presented through the Godbe survey and the city's own attempts at community outreach are not things to be voted on or prioritized or subject to being questioned about their importance to the community. These are services expected to be provided by the city and managed accordingly. Paying off this debt with more debt is not a financial plan; it's a reaction.As the city has somehow been able to determine the amount of this potential bond at $38 million, officials should be prepared to explain to the community how the number was arrived at and explain the spending plan that comes with it.I will not support a "General Obligation" bond that does not detail where, how or for what my money is being spent. I will not support a blank check.Chris MonackMorgan Hill

On Tuesday morning, June 21, Morgan Hill firefighters and police officers stood watch on each of the U.S. 101 overpasses in our city in a moving and poignant tribute to show support for the memorial services for San Jose Police Officer Michael Katherman.

Graduation brings back memories

Dear Superintendent Betando and the Morgan Hill Unified School District,I implore you to rethink your high school graduation schedules. At the 2 p.m. June 3 graduation ceremony for Live Oak, the heat was so intense at least five people fainted. My 80-year-old parents were there to see their one and only grandchild graduate; they would not have missed it for the world. Unfortunately, despite sitting in the back row so that they could stay under umbrellas for shade and constantly spraying themselves with water, my father could only make it halfway through the ceremony. He became shaky and had to retreat to the car for air conditioning. My mother, whose heart is not functioning well, could barely make it back to the car after the ceremony.It was not just the spectators suffering. The entire front row of students was facing the sun in their full-length gowns. The teachers were in black gowns with no shade. The heat was so intense it was difficult to listen to the speakers. Those kids worked long and hard on their speeches, yet it was impossible to concentrate on what they were saying.After four years of supporting our children and their school, why would you subject us to sitting for hours in 100 degree temperatures on blazing hot artificial turf? June in Morgan Hill is often very hot and this is not the only year the temperature has been unbearable during graduation. Are you going to wait until someone actually dies in the heat before making changes?Please consider a morning or evening time for future graduation ceremonies.Becky WallingfordProud (but overheated) parent of a Live Oak graduate

Vote for experienceThe Voters within the Morgan Hill Unified School District will have a clear-cut choice to make in the election on June 7. Candidate Pamela Torrisi is a former paraeducator who worked for the district for over 30 years. She has proven leadership skills from several years as head of the classified employees union.Pam has been a member of our community for many years and is accepting campaign donations only from the local community. Her opponent Thomas Arnett has received $7,000 in campaign contributions from a group in Washington, D.C., called Leadership for Educational Equity. This is a pro-charter political action committee. He works as a researcher at an educational think tank that promotes disruptive innovation, yet he has limited experience as an educator in Teach for America and holds an MBA, but not a regular teaching credential.Voters must ask themselves what future they wish to see for our school district. Will it be a locally controlled free public education for all of our students, or a collection of for-profit corporate charter schools which could be controlled from anywhere in the country and selectively admit students to make their test scores look better and turn public tax dollars into profits for investors?Steven SpencerMorgan HillEditor’s note: See related news story on this website, in which Arnett says he is “not in favor of charter schools that are just trying to enroll students to make money.”Election should be about the issuesThe June 7 election is fast approaching, and as the national election gets more and more contentious, I’ve noticed that certain negative campaigning tactics have encroached upon the school board election here in Morgan Hill. I personally don’t feel that these methods have any place in a local election that involves two local Morgan Hill residents who both obviously have a deep dedication to education and to our school district.With that in mind, I’m writing to explain why, without cutting down the merits and reputation of Pam Torrisi, as a longtime Morgan Hill resident and alum of Live Oak High School, my family and I are supporting Tom Arnett in his run for MHUSD School Board. I’ve known Tom for over 15 years, my husband even longer, and graduated with him from Live Oak. At Live Oak, Tom was well known by other students, particularly in the music program in which we participated, for being a truly honest, caring person. It was no surprise to any of us when he was chosen to be the drum major of the Emerald Regime our senior year, and I wasn’t surprised either to see him pursue a career in education as his leadership skills were obvious even as teenagers.It seems like in the discussions I’ve seen on social media and in various local media outlets, there have been questions about Tom’s trustworthiness, even suggestions that he’s somehow shady or accepting money from nefarious sources who are seeking to, in the six-month time frame that Tom would be on the board, drastically change our school district in some way. Anyone who personally knows or has had a conversation with Tom would find these assertions almost comical, but I think it speaks to a bigger question of distrust in anyone running for political office. I often have those same misgivings where politics are concerned, but, fortunately, the decision to elect Tom or Pam does not need to be one based on who is corrupt or not.My family and I support Tom because we know he is dedicated to our district, we are interested in having someone with young children like we have with a voice on the board, and we are excited by Tom’s research and knowledge about innovative education methods.This election should be about the issues and policies that the candidates will be facing in the next six months. I urge you to make your decision in this election based upon which candidate best represents your interests and addresses your concerns.Sincerely,Hylary LocsinGilroy

On June 7, 2016 voters will once again have an opportunity to demonstrate their support for the acquisition, development, and operation of regional parks for everyone in Santa Clara County. With approval, Measure A will continue the Park Charter Fund, ensuring a critical local, stable funding source for Santa Clara County Parks until 2032.Measure A is NOT a new or additional tax— it simply dedicates a small portion of existing property tax revenue for County Parks. The Park Charter Fund equates to about 1 percent of the county’s total budget, and includes a mandate to acquire more parkland and develop new park facilities. The measure has been endorsed by scores of regional leaders, including all five county supervisors.Since 1972, Santa Clara County’s Park Charter Fund has acquired over 50,000 acres, including 29 parks, which provide a diverse range of recreational opportunities to residents and visitors alike. From kayaking on the bay to camping in the redwoods to learning about the history of agriculture in Silicon Valley, our regional parks provide enjoyment and inspiration for residents and visitors throughout the county.Santa Clara County is one of the fastest growing and most diverse regions in the country. Regional parks offer a multitude of ways for communities to connect and refresh.Upon the passage of Measure A this June, the county can use Park Charter Fund to ensure safe and well-maintained parks, open more lands to public use, enhance visitor experience, fund the regional trails network and complete the connected system of regional parks. In addition, Measure A will allow the parks department to continue to protect and preserve the natural beauty and biodiversity of our parks so current and future generations can enjoy all that nature has to offer.Larry Ames, former Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Commissioner, said, “The county has done a remarkable job of acquiring and preserving land both for environmental protection and for future public enjoyment. But the county currently can’t open nearly a quarter of the land to the public yet; the lands need to be made safe and accessible. For example, old mine shafts need to be fenced off and old wells capped, and then amenities such as parking lots and sensitively sited hiking trails are needed so that the public can safely enjoy the lands they have helped preserve.”Yes on Parks! is leading the campaign to secure the next 15 years of park funding in Santa Clara County. For more information, visit YesOnParks.com.We are proud that our endorsers include: Honorable Zoe Lofgren, US Congress; Honorable Evan Low, CA State Assembly; Gustav Larson, Vice Mayor, Sunnyvale; Don Rocha, Councilmember, San Jose; Carl Guardino, President & CEO Silicon Valley Leadership Group; Peninsula Open Space Trust; Sempervirens Fund; SPUR San Jose; Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition San Jose? Parks Foundation.Garnetta AnnableChair, Yes On Parks

I am a Morgan Hill resident and have a question about the warning signs posted at Paradise park regarding Glyphosate (trade name: Roundup) spraying.Many people, including myself, walk this path everyday. There are kids being walked through the park to Paradise Valley Elementary School, people walking their dogs, squirrels, cats and other wildlife. Lots of ball games on the grounds, too. All that chemical poison and pollutant is going right into the groundwater and creek.Why is the city spraying with something so unhealthy when there are better alternatives? Not to mention the fact that we're enjoying seeing green after four years of drought!There’s an abundance of research on the dangers of Glyphosate.Experts at National Institutes of Health, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, World Health Organization and many countries are banning this based on medical evidence. WHO calls it "likely carcinogenic.”  There are a number of cities in the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond this state that are going green. Integrated Pest Management, which substantially reduces the use of pesticides, has been implemented in San Jose, San Francisco, Boulder, Davis, Santa Monica, Isla Vista and other cities. Some of the so-called “inert” ingredients in Roundup appear not to be so in Argentina, where the miscarriage rate is 100 times the norm. Thirty thousand physicians there have asked to ban it.Given all the foot traffic in the park, especially the little ones, I would respectfully request that the city investigate healthier “green” alternatives, especially with the drought situation.Sincerely,Marilyn HawkeMorgan Hill