YOUR VIEWS

Angry at Sobrato’s portrayal

Dear Editor, 

Over the past few weeks I have become more and more angry and frustrated with how Sobrato is constantly being bashed and shafted when it comes to being represented in this town of Morgan Hill.

The Times has over and over again given Sobrato the back page when it does something great and the front page when something bad happens, whether it be sports, or the occasional bump in the road, the school seems to find itself in the wrong area of the paper and in the eyes of Morgan Hill.

For instance: This year the Sobrato Bulldogs football team does the best it’s done in its short four-year history, it acquires a league championship, an undefeated season and is off to the CCS playoffs for the first time. Now, where would you think you would find that type of story? The front page? Nope, instead you find it on the back page in a seven by 11 box with a lame story, a small headline and no pictures. Keep in mind that this is also the same week that Live Oak is heading off to the playoffs because they got the WILD CARD for their league! Now, what do you think Live Oak gets? A massive front-page story, along with three pictures, a huge headline and even more on the back with one more picture and more to the story. Call me crazy but I think the paper got it a little backwards on that one. Even though it was not a home game for Sobrato (the excuse used by you), the milestone was significant enough to warrant a location other than on the back page of the Times.

The most recent issue at hand is the supposed “drug” problem at Sobrato. Not only does Sobrato NOT have a drug problem, it doesn’t have one anymore than Live Oak does. About a week ago, a student from Live Oak wrote to the editor stating that they were tired of the drug problem at Live Oak. He stated that the problem has worsened and it seems like nothing is being done about it. The interesting thing about this one article was that the title that was given to this letter was, and I quote, “Student tired of drug problem at Sobrato.” SOBRATO!?! Did you even read the letter? Or did you just see the word “DRUGS” and automatically think that it was talking about Sobrato? The student was from Live Oak and was talking about LIVE OAK! How can you get that mixed up? It is unbelievable how bias the paper and the city is towards Live Oak.

Sobrato is treated like the red headed step-child in this city, were the funny thing is that more people want to go to Sobrato than they do Live Oak, yet we are still seen as the eviler of the two. Sobrato from day one has been a school to hate! We have been called crooks, wreck loose, immature and an all-around bad place to go. Well I would love to be the one to give you a reality check. Sobrato is the NEW thing! The paper and the city are going to have accept that fact, and it’s going to have to happen fast. Sobrato is newer, nicer, safer, bigger, better off academically and more popular than Live Oak. It’s the facts of the time, and people better start respecting the more dominating of the two schools! SOBRATO! It’s out with the old and in with the new. Live Oak your time in the spot light is up, so move over and let the better one shine!  

FDominic Portera, Morgan Hill

Student at Sobrato High School

aka ” The Voice of the Dogs”

Eminent Domain ban vehicle is seriously flawed

Dear Editor,

It is very difficult to level a criticism at someone with whom I agree fairly frequently, but I believe that I have to respond to Lisa Pampuch’s Nov. 27 column headlined “Ban eminent domain on behalf of private developers.” If it were only so.

It is particular vexing because I fully agree with the sentiment expressed in that headline. For government to take private property in order to enrich another through the intervention of the state should be made illegal in every state, not just California. However, the vehicle by which this admirable goal is being pursued, euphemistically named the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, is even more seriously flawed than Proposition 90 that we defeated in 2006.

The more proper name for this act might have been the California Big Property Owners and Developers Protection Racket. While it does ban the use of eminent domain proceedings to transfer ownership of private property from one private owner to another with government being the broker, it would also ban a long list of very beneficial actions on the part of government. This would start with removing all rent control on apartments and mobile homes. It is generally seniors who are residing in rent control apartments and many can not afford to move in to other housing. What are we to do, blame the seniors for not being richer?

Section 19(b)(3)(ii) would prohibit even the use of eminent domain to acquire land or water rights for use by a public water agency. At a time when the Governor wants to build more dams for water, I am sure that he would hate to see this pass.

If those who collected these signatures. were to separate the “takings” issue from the specific case of eminent domain abuse, I would be at the head of the line to support it. As it stands, I urge you all to take Lisa’s advice.. “Inoculate yourself with the facts so you won’t become infected by the germs of half-truths, spin, and fear that will spewed by powerful, wealthy, well-connected opponents of eminent domain reform.” You won’t find the full truth from Californians for Property Rights Protection. I suggest that you start with the Legislative Analysts Office review. http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/ballot_source/BalDetails.aspx?id=603

“Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don’t, then you are wasting your time on this Earth.”

~ Roberto Clemente

Wes Rolley, Morgan Hill