Vote No on Prop 98 and Yes on Prop 99 Dear Editor,
This time Lisa Pampuch got it wrong in urging the voters to support Proposition 98. If you want eminent domain reform that speaks to the Kelo v. New London case, which she cites, then vote no on Proposition 98 and yes on Proposition 99.
The Kelo case involved a local government using eminent domain to acquire a single family-owner occupied residence for economic development purposes. In California, redevelopment agencies can use eminent domain to make a similar acquisition to advance an economic development effort. For example, currently, an agency could buy an owner-occupied residence using eminent domain and then resell the property to a shopping center developer. A yes vote on Proposition 99 will prohibit the use of eminent domain in such cases. This speaks directly to the concerns generated by the Kelo case.
I think the public understands that there are legitimate uses for eminent domain, which is used rarely but may be necessary in legitimate public works projects or projects to protect public health or safety. What the public does not like is when it is used to advance an economic development activity. Proposition 99 speaks to that legitimate concern. It's also why it has gained the support of such diverse groups as AARP, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Building Industry Association.
On the other hand, Proposition 98 is an over-kill solution. Not only does it want to do away with eminent domain for private uses, such as economic development, but it attaches a number of sneaky provisions that also tries to do away with rent control, and local zoning and planning decisions. Local land use decisions could become subject to protracted and expensive litigation. Unfortunately, I believe that this is the true hidden agenda buried in this initiative. And unfortunately, it can hurt many local residents, such as those who live in mobile home parks. There has been an effort to force cities, such as Morgan Hill, to dismantle local ordinances that protect mobile home owners (mostly seniors on fixed incomes) from wild and devastating rent increases. The same people behind this effort can be found to have written Proposition 98.
So let's fix a current problem with eminent domain by voting yes on Proposition 99 and no on Proposition 98. Let's keep it simple and to the point, and avoid unintended problems that hurt our neighbors. Laura Gonzalez-Escoto, Morgan Hill
Bill Monning for 27the Assembly District Dear Editor,
I would like to comment on your May 6 article in the Morgan Hill Times regarding the race for Assemblyman John Laird's seat in 27th Assembly District, which includes all of Morgan Hill and part of San Martin.
While there are six declared candidates, and while it seems that this gives us a wide range of choices, there is, is my opinion only one candidate that will continue the work that John Laird has started with a fresh fight regarding the issues facing AD 27.
Bill Monning is one of those rare politicians that will easily step into the very large shoes that John will leave. Monning has those wonderful qualities necessary to fill those well worn shoes, and his presence in Sacramento will help lessen the loss that we all feel about John moving on because of term limits.
First and foremost, Monning is deeply committed to protecting our health and welfare as well as protecting our fragile environment. He is the co-founder of the Pesticide Coalition of Monterey County and has used his experience as an attorney and mediator to build a consensus regarding the harmful impact of some of the most toxic pesticides poisoning our Farm Workers. Bill has been endorsed by the Sierra Club and The League of Conservation Voters, and strongly believes in a sustainable and green economy. Monning has worked as an activist for labor and the environment and as a teacher he educates working families how to solve conflicts with negotiation and with non violence. In times like these it is one of the most important qualities a lawmaker can have.
Monning also will work hard to finally have a single payer health care system for all Californians as he believes this is THE most efficient and economical way to deliver high quality health care. But most of all, if you liked Laird's integrity, honesty, negotiating skills, and the ability to forge alliances on both sides of the aisle in Sacramento, you will love Monning. He is just a really nice guy! Monning is not the politician of double speak and back room deals, he is a man of Laird's open, honest, "let's get it done" policy. A vote for him means we won't lose all of the great ideals that Laird brought to Sacramento, it means we will have the best person possible to carry on John's Legacy! Swanee Edwards, Morgan Hill
Thanks for Gary Lomanto condolences Dear Editor,
On behalf of Gary Lomanto's mother, his two children Tina and Paul and his sister, Lydia, we would like to express our gratitude for the unbelievable outpouring of support from te community. We would also like to thank Father Eugene O'Donnell, Johnson Funeral Home, Golden Oak Restaurant and all of our friends and neighbors that have sent flowers, cards and condolences. Your kind words and gestures have meant so much to each of us. Thank you all for assisting our family through this difficult time. Tina Owen, Morgan Hill
As a resident of Morgan Hill for more than 50 years, I've seen many changes, some for the better and some not.
One of the unintended consequences of the implementation of Measure C has been the approval of a disproportionate percentage of below-market rate units compared to the total number of new units constructed each year.
The result is that our city is accommodating far more than our fair share of low-cost housing. Among other things, this policy has artificially inflated the cost of new, market-rate homes to subsidize the cost of the low-income units, making our city less affordable for the middle class.
Those who supported Measure C did not intend to distort the housing balance in our community; they just wanted to control a gradual rate of growth.
These are just some of the reasons why I signed the initiative petition to put a cap on the below-market-rate units. The initiative will help preserve the balance and character of our community in the future. Gayle Richter, Morgan Hill
No Transient Occupancy Tax for the arts in San Martin Dear Editor,
A March 21 Morgan Hill Times story outlined how the incorporation of San Martin will result in the loss of $200,000 annual funding for something called the Arts Council Silicon Valley (ACSV). Apparently the county collects a Transient Occupancy Tax from hotels located in the county controlled areas; such as CordeValle. This money for some strange reason is then passed onto the ACSV whose stated purpose is to provide "a private, nonprofit arts organization dedicated to improving the quality of life for Santa Clara County residents by creating and fostering arts and culture throughout the region."
Why I ask, is the county collecting money from hard working taxpayers to support a nonprofit organization like this? Now I appreciate the arts as much as the next guy and as a point of fact, I have a few original paintings of my own. I love to go to The City to hear the San Francisco Symphony when I can stomach the traffic and the Taiko drum performance at the Morgan Hill's recent Haru Matsuri festival was a real blast. That San Jose Troupe has to be the super bowl champs of Taiko and how anyone can make such beautiful music from a bamboo stick with holes in it is absolutely mind boggling. But I digress. I thoroughly enjoy these luxuries in life but I certainly don't feel the hard working taxpayers should subsidize them just for my or anyone else's enjoyment.
Every day we hear how the state is running a deficit in the billions, school funds are being slashed, teachers are being laid off, and state parks may have to be closed, etc. etc. All this and the county is collecting $200,000 per year from little San Martin to give to the ACSV.
Now we all know the lefties love to rob the rich and give to the poor; particularly if it's someone else they are robbing. But this is far worse. This is essentially robbing the poor for the aggrandizement of the well-to-do. When hard working people are struggling to feed their families, how can we justify the county's actions? Couldn't this money be better spent on schools, road maintenance, crime control, fire/police protection and other services that really are in the purview of government? I can assure you if this money went directly to an incorporated San Martin, it would be spent in a much more sound and fiscally responsible manner.
Most are familiar with the expressions, "when push comes to shove." Well folks, we're already at the shove stage. We can no longer afford nor should we permit government to collect and spend taxpayers' money frivolously. So to the bureaucrats out there, I challenge you to work tirelessly to make a leaner more efficient government that truly serves all the people, not just you. Jim Becker, San Martin
The Community Got a question or a comment? Send us an email.
Although the Morgan Hill Times does not have any obligation to monitor this board, the Morgan Hill Times reserves the right at all times to check this board and to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to the Morgan Hill Times in our sole discretion and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. The Morgan Hill Times also reserves the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions. All threats to systems or site infrastructure shall be assumed genuine in nature and will be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Submission of any comments will be considered permission to use online or in print.
