Opinion

Much has been written in the Morgan Hill Times regarding a proposed deal for the county agriculture land in the Southeast Quadrant of Morgan Hill. This plan will cover 229 acres of prime farmland for a Catholic High School, as well as for sports, recreation and leisure areas.

Here in Santa Clara County, more than half the water we use is “imported,” meaning it’s conveyed to us from other parts of the state.Most of that water starts out as snow in the Sierra Nevada. When it melts, it makes its way into large reservoirs like lakes Oroville and Shasta.From these reservoirs, the water flows in rivers to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta where it is then conveyed through state and federally run infrastructure known as the State Water Project and Central Valley Project to us and other southern, central and coastal parts of the state.That close to half the water we use in Santa Clara County comes through the Delta means the health of the Delta is extremely important to us and should be a concern to everyone. But the Delta is quavering under pressure from aging levees, sea level rise and human and environmental demands. So we have been working with other water agencies, state and federal agencies, and other stakeholders to evaluate options.There have been a number of plans throughout the years to improve the health of the Delta and to try to meet the demands of urban and agricultural users and the environment. The latest is a pair of proposals by the state, called California WaterFix and California EcoRestore. The WaterFix plan aims to change the way water moves south through the Delta in an effort to safeguard drinking water and improve water flows for the environment. The EcoRestore plan aims to restore at least 30,000 acres of habitat by 2020 to benefit the Delta environment.The Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors is poised to make a decision on whether to support the WaterFix plan and whether to participate in it sometime this year. But before we can do that, we want to be sure we—and the public—fully understand it.That’s why we held a special workshop Jan. 26, where we invited representatives from the state Department of Water Resources, the California Natural Resources Agency and the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to present more information on this plan for the Delta. If you missed it, our board meetings are webcast and archived online for later viewing.Board members asked a number of questions, ranging from cost to governance to environmental impact, and we also heard from members of the community who voiced concerns and asked questions. This is an important part of the process, and we have more workshops and committee meetings planned to learn much more about this proposal and what benefits or challenges it could pose to our county, as well as how much it would cost to participate. These workshops and meetings are open to the public, and we invite you to attend so you too can learn more and provide input. The state of our water concerns everybody.Our next discussion of the plan is scheduled for a Feb. 22 meeting of our BDCP Ad Hoc Committee. Check back at valleywater.org for final dates and times. You can submit feedback to [email protected] Varela is Vice Chairman and District 1 Director of the Board of Directors for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. For further information, contact Varela [email protected].

The City of Morgan Hill’s plan to develop county farmland to preserve it lacks merit. It undermines broader regional efforts to enhance and protect productive farmlands throughout our valley. Dominated by financial self interests, the city has pushed forward a fiscally and environmentally irresponsible plan that will hasten the demise of local farming. With the impending effects of climate change, preserving our farmlands becomes crucial. This is why on March 11, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) must vote to deny the city’s plan.The city is seeking LAFCO approval to annex 229 of acres of farmland in the county for commercial development to fund preservation. But the funding plan is flawed and grossly inadequate according to the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority and American Farmland Trust, and LAFCO concurs. The city has 45 years’ worth of vacant commercial land within its current boundaries. It can use those lands and not develop any farmland at all.As the city touts its preservation policies, it has declined to work with the OSA, the county and LAFCO to address concerns they have with the plan.So what is the city’s plan? There is no plan. There are few if any viable projects proposed for the lands to be annex. If LAFCO approves the city’s request, the city can simply abandon the plan and rezone for commercial and residential use. There is no guarantee than any farmland will be preserved.The city has proposed a terrible recipe for 21st century urban sprawl. It’s greed, not need. And that puts our region at risk of losing an invaluable and finite resource, at risk of lowering our quality of life, at risk of damaging an important and valued economic industry in our valley. In fact, the county agricultural commissioner has recently reported, “The value per acre and the value per worker created by Santa Clara County agriculture has continued to increase and has never been higher.”Southern Santa Clara County contains the majority of farmlands in the county and their value cannot be understated. Our farmlands are utilized throughout the year. They are supported by a unique groundwater basin. They are well suited to lessen the effects of climate change through carbon storage, water retention, flood protection, local food production, habitat and biodiversity.The lands in question are county lands. While the cities have a part in protecting farmlands, it is the county that is in the best position to ensure a coordinated effort. The city’s piecemeal plan undermines all farmland at the cusp of regional efforts to preserve.Please add your voice to theirs and send an email to LAFCo before March 11th c/o Executive Director, [email protected] to urge LAFCo to deny the City’s proposal.Mark Grzan is a Morgan Hill resident and former City Councilmember.

I grew up on a prune ranch on Fisher Avenue bought in the 1930s by my immigrant grandparents, Gataeno and Anna Forestieri. My first job was picking 10 boxes of prunes to buy a lunch box when starting kindergarten. The year was 1960.My brother Steve and I worked summers, weekends and part-time jobs. My parents were adamant that farming was not a feasible career for us. Steve and I found other careers—an engineer and court reporter, respectively.Morgan Hill is a town rich in history, and my father helped build that image and was appointed to the Federal Prune Administrative Committee by Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland in 1980.You must understand the past to see the future. The freeway placement, which my father Duke Forestieri fought, cut off our land to the west. Dad took on other people's orchards to make ends meet for our family. He also pursued the idea of moving to Yuba County where prune farming was beginning. My father's love of Morgan Hill instead kept him here. He continued to sharecrop but as Yuba County's production increased, it drove the price of prunes down everywhere—including in Morgan Hill.The cost of farming escalated in the Valley, as more and more restrictions were enacted, utility costs increased, and labor for harvesting became harder to find even though my dad paid top dollar and provided free housing for the seasonal workers.  My dad's health began to spiral downward in his mid-70s. He gave up sharecropping and farmed only his land and the next door neighbor's..The pioneer farmers did not have stock options or golden handshakes; they had their families and their land. Dad joined others in working with the city in the 90s and early 2000s to carve out a plan for the pioneer farmers and include the needs of a growing Morgan Hill. Before he died in 2011, this plan was taking shape and he told me, “It lets people enjoy using our land, not just looking at it as they drive by, but to walk on it, play on it".This  final plan has been worked on for over 15 years. It provides an area where kids who cannot afford traveling teams can improve their skills in many sports and have a better chance at the coveted spots on the high school teams.It will provide a place for community sponsored events, where families can afford the tickets for the whole family.  If this cohesive plan is not put into place, landowners will go their own way, creating a haphazard tapestry for financial survival, which will not enrich our children's lives or improve the landscape.I firmly support this plan for the SEQ.Editor’s note: The Southeast Quadrant/Sports-Recreation-Leisure Urban Service Area expansion plan will be considered for approval at the March 11 meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission. For more information, visit morganhilltimes.com or santaclaralafco.org.

On Feb. 17, the Morgan Hill City Council once again displayed a lack of foresight and financial wisdom in handling Ordinance 2131. You might recall that last spring, voters signed a petition to suspend the ordinance that would change the zoning for a three-acre parcel of land on Lightpost Way and Madrone Parkway from “light industrial” to “general commercial.” The petition required the zoning change to be approved by the voters before it could be enacted. Instead of following the California Constitution, the city terminated the petition in an attempt to aid an out-of-town developer who bought the land cheaply. That developer will now make a windfall with the city council rezoning the land to commercial, which is worth more. Now the city is being sued by the Hotel Coalition for failing to abide by the requirements of the Constitution. Who will pay the bill to defend the city? You, the taxpayer.

“Valley of the Heart” is a heart wrenching story of actual happenings and how the almost forgotten Second World War affected the people of the time. It jars those of us that lived through that moment to remember a time we would rather forget. It also shows this generation what went on and cautions about it not letting the past happen again.

On Feb. 2, I attended my first and, I think, last Morgan Hill Unified School District Board of Education meeting.The meeting started out normal enough with recognition of community members and programs. Then came the open comment period, where several speakers asked for Trustee David Gerard’s resignation, plus a couple who supported him—one saying he was just “talking smack” and it was no big deal (certainly the threshold for acceptable behavior for some can be remarkably different than mine…).Then came the big agenda item which was the public hearing for censure of embattled Trustee Gerard involving his emails from his MHUSD address.The usual administrative readings were followed by questions/comments from the trustees themselves. Trustees Ron Woolf and Donna Ruebusch expressed how they had felt attacked and belittled in the now infamous emails.Not surprisingly, Trustees Rick Badillo and Gino Borgioli offered Gerard their support.It appeared to me that the cornerstone of Badillo’s comments was freedom of speech. I am prepared to accept that what Gerard said was not illegal but if we are to use minimum legal standards to justify actions then we are operating in the basement of behavior.I think we all expect our elected public officials to operate at the highest levels of behavior, and not merely squeaking by on a legal judgment.Then came one of the most incredible things I have ever seen in a public meeting, and I’ve been to a lot: Trustee Borgioli’s comments and alternate resolution for censure. I felt that the atmosphere at the meeting was turning a bit theatrical but this moved it into three-ring circus material.Borgioli had previously asked President Benevento who wrote the current resolution under consideration. The answer from the president was fellow trustees, community members and an attorney.All eyes were on Trustee Borgioli as he read a prepared statement, which I was not convinced he wrote himself from his reading. Then he proposed an alternative resolution which no one had seen and he could not easily describe.President Benevento then asked Trustee Borgioli who wrote the resolution. You would think that what happened next was part of a comedy skit.Trustee Borgioli, now faced with question reciprocity, did not answer for several seconds. I can only imagine how long those few seconds felt as all of the eyes in a packed room were on him.  “Armando Benavides” finally spilled out of Trustee Borgioli’s mouth, and there was a murmur in the room.Apparently Mr. Benavides has been at odds with the three that were supporting the censure resolution. I was gobsmacked.Is Armando Benavides the fourth man allied to the apparent trinity of Gerard, Borgioli and Badillo? He sure seemed to exert some influence over the hearing from his seat in the audience.I left during Trustee Gerard’s very long prepared speech which finally included the apologies many had been asking to hear for so long. That apology rang hollow to me since he was under the pressure of a censure resolution.Apparently I missed an incident later in the evening where Trustee Badillo was requested to be questioned by the MHPD. More theater was created when Badillo moved briskly to the front door past the audience and away from the police. He was met at the front door by another officer, and a chaotic scene ensued in which it was later learned that police received a report that Badillo might have been carrying a weapon (he was not; it was a utility tool on his belt).This is getting ridiculous and I feel that the community of Morgan Hill is now starting to pay for the behavior of Badillo, Borgioli and Gerard.Morgan Hill is becoming a laughing stock with the behavior of the trinity which I now call the “Holy Cow!” trinity.Holy cow! We need a change in behavior at the MHUSD board level now!John McKay is a Morgan Hill resident, city planning commissioner, Vice President of the Morgan Hill Downtown Association and co-founder of the Morgan Hill Tourism Alliance.

I am responding to your guest view by Sen. Bill Monning, Jan. 22. The discussion of homelessness and mental illness has been a perennial discussion. There have been calls for affordable housing, an end to homelessness, and support for mental illness for as long as I can remember. Monning’s guest view is no different.Today we put way too much credit in the opinions, suggestions and programs pushed by politicians. Based on the continuing nature of the problem, the suggestions and work of the politicians and the government has been ineffective. I recall an essay by Bertrand Russell, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish.”It is an essay that should be mandatory reading by anyone that is concerned with the operation of government.“As soon as we abandon our reason, and are content to rely on authority, there is no good end to our troubles. Whose authority?” Russell writes.He was referring to people’s practice of relying on scripture. I choose to believe that he would also consider the reliance on the words of a politician, as if they were scripture, as almost the same thing. Mr. Monning is pushing the same old, but repackaged, ideas as solving a problem that has yet to be solved. His conclusions are optimistic at best and unfounded at their worst.  They are based on anecdotal evidence and wishful thinking. He ignores criticisms of his ideas. There is not unanimity in the arena of affordable housing, homelessness or mental illness that promotes a one-size-fits-all solution.One-size-fits-all solutions come part and parcel with politicians like Mr. Monning. It gives them access to lots of money handed out by the federal government. It also allows them to pretend that they lead solutions, which supports their reelection.“Politics is largely governed by sententious platitudes which are devoid of truth.” Those words by Russell still ring true today:“The power of governments over men’s beliefs has been very great ever since the rise of large states….But the power of governments over belief in the present day is vastly greater than at any earlier time. A belief, however untrue, is important when it dominates the action of masses of men.”Russell was referring to war, but it could easily reference any effort by government and politicians to influence belief.  He laments:“No one can deny, in the face of evidence, that it is easy, given military power to produce a population of fanatical lunatics. It would be equally easy to produce a population of sane and reasonable people, but many governments do not wish to do so, since such people would fail to admire the politicians who are at the head of these governments.“I am persuaded that there is absolutely no limit to the absurdities that can, by government action, come to be generally believed. Give me an adequate army, with power to provide it with more pay and better food than falls to the lot of the average man, and I will undertake within 30 years to make the majority of the population believe that two and two are three, that water freezes when it gets hot and boils when it gets cold, or any other nonsense that might seem to serve the interest of the state.”It should be understood that the essay was written six decades ago. He continues with some additional important observations that you can read for yourself.It is worthy to think of ways to help the homeless and the mentally ill. I choose to reject the ideas that come from politicians or government. Clearly these solutions have proved ineffectual by the persistence of most of the problems. Claims of success are either wishful thinking or out and out lies.The involvement of government has been counter-productive. Government programs do not solve problems because problems are generally complex and defy central planning. Flexible and innovative approaches tried by a host of problem solvers will always outperform top-down government and political solutions.So by all means address the plight of mentally ill and homeless. Just don’t count on government or politicians to do it. So maybe government and politicians should step back and not lead.  Rather they should listen to quiet voices that speak and advocate for real solutions.Mike Brusa is a retired Morgan Hill resident and an avid reader of history, politics and economics.

Deadlock censure vote a sign of disrespectAccording to the dictionary, the verb “recuse” means to withdraw from a position of judging as to avoid any semblance of partiality or bias. Trutee David Gerard recently voted in his own disciplinary reprimand (at the Feb. 2 Morgan Hill Unified School District board of education meeting). Not surprisingly, he voted against the motion. Two of his other board members voted with him to deadlock the board from taking action.Here is the real important story, not the unfortunate incident involving Trustee Rick Badillo and the police. The story is about how three board members did not view the outrageous disrespect shown to Superintendent Steve Betando and their fellow board members to be worthy of censure. They all agreed that using racist and sexist comments as well as encouraging a parent in the recall of Board President Bob Benevento is just satirical fun protected by freedom of speech and not breaking the law.The argument that Mr. Gerard did not expect the emails to become public is a little ridiculous based on the fact he was copying his comments to others and using a MHUSD server.The fact Mr. Gerard saw no ethical problem and did not recuse himself from his own disciplinary action, speaks to why he is still a threat to the good governance of our children. The fact that two of his fellow board members, Mr. Badillo and Trustee Gino Borgioli, are not even willing to censure him for his admitted actions speaks to their acceptance of these violations of education codes and agreed upon board norms as OK.Mr. Gerard gave his verbal apology but took no responsibility for his actions.Instead, he went on about mob mentality and how the attacks on him were orchestrated and not a true reaction of community members to his behavior. He called out names of citizens who reacted to his offensive behavior and claimed they were threatening him. He continues to see himself as the victim and martyr, and refuses to see the damage he is responsible for to this community and the good work MHUSD is trying to do.Censure is not taken lightly. It does not keep the elected official from attending meetings or voting. It monitors and limits the damage the elected official can do when they have violated policies and procedures in a grievous manner. It is a shame three of our board members do not see Mr. Gerard’s violations as being important enough to warrant this step.I wonder if it is because they recognize their complicity in these events since two of these board members were copied on these emails?Kathy Sullivan, Morgan HillTrustee not a victimI went to the Morgan Hill Unified School District Board of Trustees meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 2 hoping to see David Gerard resign from the board. For the past two months a parade of Morgan Hill residents and district employees have spoken to the board asking, and even demanding, David Gerard's resignation over his despicable and hate filled email messages to some parents and trustees Gino Borgioli and Rick Badillo.Instead, the entire audience at the meeting was subjected to ridiculous arguments by Borgioli and Badillo justifying Mr. Gerard’s horrible behavior and trying to avoid a censure resolution up for a vote before the board.Acting as apologists for Mr. Gerard, these two trustees embarrassed themselves with twisted logic trying to say that Mr. Gerard was entitled to free speech and simply made an error by sending his hateful emails through the district server and that Mr. Gerard never intended for these emails to be published.Unfortunately, Trustee Badillo failed to recognize the fact that, as elected officials, their communications sent through district channels are public records which are open to inspection by the public.Finally, David Gerard made us endure a 27 minute rehash of the other trustees arguments and attempted to make himself look like a victim. Well, let's be very clear about this, Mr. Gerard is no victim and his insulting, hurtful and racist language used to describe his fellow trustees and district staff members have caused a great deal of anger within our community, justifiably aimed at him. Trustees Badillo and Borgioli appear to tacitly condone Mr. Gerard’s horrible behavior by attempting to explain his unacceptable actions as freedom of speech and a mistake.I think most everyone at the board meeting recognized Mr. Gerard’s arguments for what they were: a pathetic attempt to shift blame and attention away from his despicable acts and claim to be a victim of mobbing behavior by members of the community.Apparently, Mr. Gerard will force members of the community to mount a recall campaign against him, culminating in a special election which will cost thousands and thousands of dollars from the district’s general fund.Anyone in the community who has not read the horrible emails that Mr. Gerard wrote needs to educate themselves and read those emails! Community members need to attend upcoming board meetings and demand Mr. Gerard’s resignation. Mr. Gerard is no victim in this and he will ultimately be held accountable for his behavior both in the emails and his refusal to do the right thing and resign.Steven SpencerSan Martin