SJB project hardly a victory
As I was reading the Pinnacle article of Dec. 12,
”
Flushed with success,
”
I couldn’t help thinking, how could this be a success when the
city of San Juan Bautista lost a $3.8 million Federal EDA (Economic
Development Agency) grant? This loss, not only cost the city
residents money but also the high quality water they so
deserve.
After the many years the San Benito County Water District worked
trying to procure the grant for SJB, this was a disappointment for
everyone involved. Throughout this process, we simply could not
succeed because of the continued un-cooperative effort initially
demonstrated by Larry Cain and Mark Davis.
Before I left office, we re-affirmed our pledge to give the city
of SJB $2 million towards a new treatment plant once it was
completed. To add salt to the wounds they are re-structuring a $10
million facility, which is not qualified for the $2 million from
the water district.
It disappointed me to once again see the leaders of SJB make a
decision that does not take advantage of this monetary gift. Even
the Grand Jury report was very clear in their review
… that the SJB City Council, in this instance, was
un-cooperative throughout this entire process.
The tax-paying customers of the city will be the ultimate losers
through higher water bills and lower water quality. The residents
of SJB should demand better representation from their City Council.
In these economically distressed times, not taking advantage of
financial help when it is offered, is simply irresponsible.
Ken Perry
San Juan Bautista
SJB project hardly a victory
As I was reading the Pinnacle article of Dec. 12, “Flushed with success,” I couldn’t help thinking, how could this be a success when the city of San Juan Bautista lost a $3.8 million Federal EDA (Economic Development Agency) grant? This loss, not only cost the city residents money but also the high quality water they so deserve.
After the many years the San Benito County Water District worked trying to procure the grant for SJB, this was a disappointment for everyone involved. Throughout this process, we simply could not succeed because of the continued un-cooperative effort initially demonstrated by Larry Cain and Mark Davis.
Before I left office, we re-affirmed our pledge to give the city of SJB $2 million towards a new treatment plant once it was completed. To add salt to the wounds they are re-structuring a $10 million facility, which is not qualified for the $2 million from the water district.
It disappointed me to once again see the leaders of SJB make a decision that does not take advantage of this monetary gift. Even the Grand Jury report was very clear in their review … that the SJB City Council, in this instance, was un-cooperative throughout this entire process.
The tax-paying customers of the city will be the ultimate losers through higher water bills and lower water quality. The residents of SJB should demand better representation from their City Council. In these economically distressed times, not taking advantage of financial help when it is offered, is simply irresponsible.
Ken Perry
San Juan Bautista
Building cloaked in incompetence
In response to Mr. Ken Underwood’s letter concerning the hospital building project, being a good neighbor is like the old saying, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Those who made the decisions concerning this project have no conscience or any feelings for the neighbors.
I would like to invite those members of the then-Hazel Hawkins Hospital Board of Directors to my home to view what they have done. They are: Mrs. Beth Ivey, Ms. Sharon Scagliotti, Ms. Janet Vervaecke, Mr. Gordon Machado and Mrs. Mary McCullough. We might as well have the members of the Hollister Planning Commission, Raymond Friend, Chris Alvarez, Charles Scott, David Huboi and Frank Paura to stop by to see what they approved because “no one showed up to complain about it.” And, let’s have Mr. Underwood and all those from the city of Hollister Building and Planning departments join us also.
I have just one question for all of you: BY WHAT STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION IS THIS OK?
You have destroyed our privacy and devalued our homes. Oh sure, it will be a nice building when it is completed, and I say, sure, for an industrial park! A three-story building has no place in a residential area!
Regarding your assertions that every effort was made to contact us: I have signed affidavits from more than 10 property owners and residents on Memorial Drive, stating that they weren’t notified, did not receive or had any knowledge of this building being proposed. How do you explain that?
Also, regarding your statement that no work was done at any other times than between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, this morning (Dec. 31) work started before 6 a.m. If you would look on page 5, sec. 9 of City of Hollister Resolution No. PC2007-30, construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Sunday. That is every day of the week! And even at that, the contractors have violated those time frames.
And now to my final point today: according to your letter, you state that the city of Hollister Planning Department decided that planting trees along the property line was adequate mitigation. Those trees will be 35 feet apart and will not hide anything. Another question: who is going to be responsible for the leaves from those trees? Is the hospital district sending a cleanup crew to our homes to clean our yards and pools? How about the extra expense for chemicals, etc. for maintaining these pools?
The whole situation reeks of incompetence of the parties involved, or they just don’t give a damn!
Henry Petersen
Hollister
