Leadership sometimes is best demonstrated by quietly working
towards a solution to a major problem.
Anthony Botelho shows leadership
Leadership sometimes is best demonstrated by quietly working towards a solution to a major problem.
Anthony Botelho has shown that leadership in developing a solution to the greatest problem facing San Benito County – the unwarranted deaths on the the major highways in Northern San Benito County. Mr. Botelho in January 2000, while president of the Farm Bureau, started the process of reviewing the counties main highways – 25, 156 and 152 (yes, 152 does goes through San Benito County, albeit minor.)
While 152 has always been recognized as a death trap, no one would have anticipated that in the next three years, 43 lives would be lost in 25 fatal accidents on these roads – 10 on SR 152, eight on SR 25, and seven on SR 156.
While the original intent was to save farmland, that objective was expanded to recognize the significant loss of lives on these highways. It became clear to him that this could only be accomplished by building a divided highway with access roads so growers and property owners along these busy interregional highways could have safe access to their property.
Additionally, the citizens of San Juan have demonstrated that they want interregional traffic through their town eliminated. The plan Anthony developed, the 3-in-1 Proposal, was presented to Caltrans and COG. Caltrans thought the plan had merit as did COG, which forwarded it to Santa Clara County’s VTA to be included in the Southern Gateway Plan, which is a multi-county review of the traffic and highways on Santa Clara’s southern border.
As a grower and successful business owner, Anthony felt the 3-in-1 Proposal would save money while reducing regional accidents and traffic in the San Juan Valley. The engineers who studied the alternatives validated the 3-in-1 Proposal. They developed six alternatives with the best being the East-West Freeway (3-in-1). Anthony Botelho’s plan, the 3-in-1, is cheaper ($500,000,000 – that’s right, a five followed by eight zeros.) Essentially, the same cost as doing only SR 25. Additionally, it will reduce today’s traffic in the San Juan Valley by half and future traffic by a factor of three.
More importantly, Anthony reviewed how this road could be financed and realized all those trucks would bring funding through the state’s interregional transportation plan rather than from local sources. Funding means construction and the 3-in-1 has the best chance of being funded quickly by the state because Anthony Botelho’s plan addresses the region’s traffic – not just one specific highway, has a regional coalition of supporters, and saves $500,000,000.
One might question what the current supervisor’s position on this issue is and one answer is she is suggesting suing Caltrans. The other candidate suggests building out 156 with two lanes only and widening the other routes. First off, it will cost more to fix all the regional highways and just adding two lanes means you will have 80,000 pound trucks going 55 mph while a farmer is trying to move a tractor in the same lane. Just look at SR 101 north of Salinas as an example of this thought process and its lack of merit is obvious.
The residents of District 2 have a choice March 2. A vote for Anthony Botelho is one for leadership that will save you money, reduce traffic, save farmland, and more importantly, maybe save your life.
Greg Swett,
Paicines
Voting no on G gives us back rights
Democracy and capitalism are what exist in the USA and it was what I was taught when I went to school here in Hollister. Buying/owning land/property and expecting an appreciation of value is a basic right. This expectation in any bona fide venture is simply American.
Proponents of G want another form of government not yet named.
Let us not forget when the initiative was written, Cruz, Kesler, Scagliotti and Loe did not want the residents in the city and county to vote on G. That should say volumes about the arrogance and secrecy of the four. You may be next in a denied business transaction or have your property devalued due to four supervisors. Voting no on G takes back everyone’s rights now and for the future.
Anthony Borelli,
Hollister
Hard-working student needs help
Hello, my name is Elizabeth Gatto. I am an eighth grader attending Marguerite Maze Middle School. As an honor student, I have been selected to spend five days in our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. The cost of the trip is $1,600, which includes airfare, hotel and food. Some fellow classmates and I are trying to raise money so that we can experience this opportunity.
I am not just some kid trying to gyp you out of your money. I work hard in school. I get a 4.0 GPA every semester. I’m involved in many sports, such as softball, basketball and volleyball. I am also part of a club called Club Live, which promotes drug and alcohol free children and volunteer time at my local church.
I would love to go on this trip because I would be able to experience the ceremony for the Unknown Soldier and to see many other monuments that I have never seen before and might not be able to if not for this once in a lifetime opportunity.
I would greatly appreciate any donation, no matter how small, you could possibly give to make this trip a reality for me. Also, remember that the donations are tax deductible.
Thank you in advance for you generosity.
If any donations are made, please make them payable to Elizabeth Gatto and mail to: Maze Middle School, 900 Meridian, Hollister, Calif., 95023 ATTN: Mrs. Berry/Elizabeth Gatto.
Elizabeth Gatto,
Maze Middle School
Consider all options when voting
The San Benito County Growth Control Initiative (Measure G) has certainly stirred controversy over the best ways to manage growth and conduct good planning in the county. Granite Rock Company has followed the debate closely, and we are concerned that the potential affect of the measure on the Aromas community is being lost in the fray over larger issues. We have alerted the county counsel of our concern with wording of the measure.
One of the key features of Measure G is the creation of a program to establish and trade “Transferable Development Credits.” These credits are intended to be sold by landowners in agricultural areas targeted by the measure for minimal growth to developers that may use them to intensify development in other areas. The problem with Measure G is that it may allow the use of the credits to intensify development in Aromas.
In defining where the development credits can be used, Section 7(b) of the measure says, “Development credits may be used as the Board of Supervisors authorizes, consistent with this Plan, in unincorporated areas not designated Agricultural Productive or Agricultural Rangeland or areas west of Highway 101, to build dwelling units or commercial and industrial space that otherwise would not be permitted…” The “area west of Highway 101” in the county is, of course, the Aromas area.
Depending on the reach of the first “not” in the sentence, this provision can be read to mean either that the credits cannot be used to intensify development in Aromas or, just as plausibly, that the credits can be used to build developments in Aromas that would otherwise not be permitted.
We have talked with many people on all sides of the Measure G issue, including lawyers with expertise in ballot measures. Some argue that one interpretation is “more correct” and an equal number believe the opposite. The crucial point, in our view, is not whether one interpretation is “correct,” but that the measure is unclear. The fact that the meaning of the language is debatable in the first place means that the measure is ambiguous and the ultimate fate of development in Aromas may be made not by the voters, but by a court asked to resolve the meaning of the measure.
We have been assured by the sponsors of Measure G, some of whom live in Aromas, that it was not their intent that the measure promote development in the area. Unfortunately, when courts interpret ballot measures, the intent of the people who write or promote the measures doesn’t count. Courts look to a variety of other sources to determine what a “reasonable voter” believes when voting for the measure.
If Measure G passes and development is restricted in other areas of the county, there will be a tremendous amount of pressure to develop areas not zoned Agricultural Productive or Agricultural Rangeland, and that pressure will likely take the form of legal actions to have Measure G interpreted to allow the use of Transferable Development Credits in Aromas. The result may be just the opposite of what the sponsors of Measure G intend for the Aromas area.
Granite Rock does not support an intensification of development in Aromas and we urge our neighbors in the Aromas community to consider the local ramifications of Measure G when voting March 2.
Thomas H. Squeri,
Vice President and General Counsel of Granite Rock Company
Botelho will not let District 2 down
Five years ago, I moved back to San Benito County after 20 years on the Monterey Peninsula, of which the last 13 years were spent tin Pacific Grove. During that time, I watched a beautiful, historical, quaint community become overbuilt resulting in the same problems that are now the source of concern for San Benito County.
I made the choice to live in San Juan Bautista upon my return because it seemed that it may just be the last small hometown that hadn’t been exploited and the good people of this area were very involved in keeping it that way. Sadly, those people are being run over by private interests, but that is another story.
The reason for my letter today is to let the voters know that Anthony Botelho was one of the first people I met upon my return and he was one person I could talk to who really seemed to care a great deal about this community. Since then, Anthony and I have had many conversations about my concerns regarding the future of this county and this particular district before Anthony decided to run for supervisor.
I was very impressed with his knowledge and insight into all of the issues I would address. In addition, I learned that he and others were already working on finding solutions to the problems of overcrowded highways and water issues. All of this prior to considering a run for supervisor.
I was very happy to hear of his decision to run and I truly feel that Anthony has the best interest of District 2 at heart. If he is willing to work that hard for the quality of life in this area as a private citizen, I have no doubt that as our supervisor he will not let us down.
Donna Hagins,
San Juan Bautista
Vote yes on Anthony Botelho, no on G
Hollister is still a small enough town where nice guys can win ball games. Anthony Botelho is one of the nicest around, the genuine article, a concerned and helpful friend to his neighbors with a history of public service who has never failed to step up to the plate when there is a hard job to do. He has guts, too. Let’s elect him to the Board of Supervisors from District 2.
And while we are at it, let’s defeat Measure G, which is a simple-minded non-solution to a complex problem and one that, if passed, the county and its residents will spend years regretting and decades undoing the damage.
It will wipe out the county’s ability to pay for and modify the infrastructure that its proponents say they are so worried about. It will discourage, if not completely kill, any improvement in the economic condition, which according to the recent reports is plain not good. This weird answer to “over development” is authored by big out-of-town environmentalists who have absolutely zero stake in the community and have persuaded some hapless locals with equally little to lose to sign on to make it an easier sell.
If you love Hollister, San Juan, Aromas and the Bolsa, vote for Anthony Botelho, and if you love San Benito County, vote no on Measure G.
Steve Hudner,
Bolsa Ranch
Botelho’s concerns are for the best
I encourage all voters of San Benito County Supervisor District 2 to vote for Anthony Botelho.
I have known Anthony for over 20 years, both as a friend and having the honor and pleasure of serving with him in the fire service. We have worked on day to day operations, budgets and emergency incidents in the fire service. Anthony has shown me the skill of handling all of the aforementioned. Anthony knows how to take on tasks that are very time consuming. Furthermore, I have seen firsthand Anthony make life saving decisions in an instant.
Anthony’s concerns are for the best for the individuals of San Benito County. He will serve all of San Benito County and listen to the concerns of each individual.
I encourage all voters of District 2 to contact Anthony and ask any questions they may have.
James W. D. Ingram,
San Juan Bautista
Cruz is honest, up front with issues
Bob Cruz has served the people of San Benito County in many capacities during his tenure of public service: City of Hollister Planning Commission, San Benito County Planning Commission, San Benito County District 5 Board of Supervisors.
During his service on the Board, he has served on numerous related commissions, committees, councils, taskforces, etc. Among them are: Council of Governments (COG), Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), Williamson Act Board Representative, four county (Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz) Agriculture Taskforce on Farmworker Housing.
Bob’s service has always been above reproach. He is honest and up front with his positions on issues. District 5 will benefit by re-electing Bob Cruz to the Board of Supervisors.
No, he can’t walk on water, but he knows where the rocks are.
Henry Pulido,
Hollister
Act like adults on Measure G differences
This letter is not about the merits or demerits of Measure G. I may be the only person in the county who still doesn’t know how he will vote on it. It’s about personal relations and decency.
I know some of the proponents of Measure G. I even attended one or two of their public meetings when the measure was being written. I didn’t continue for reasons of my own. But I do know this: Mandy Rose, Richard Saxe, Janet Brians and Margaret Cheney are not evil socialist conspirators trying to make government control all lands. They’re not even trying to make Richard Scagliotti rich. They’re good people and good neighbors. Pat Loe has been a consistent voice for slow growth for a couple of decades, and I have never known her to be less than honorable.
I know some of the opponents of Measure G: Tom Tobias, Anthony Botelho, Paul Hain, Joe and Julie Morris. They are not evil capitalists trying to pave the San Juan Valley for their personal gain. I served with Joe and Paul with pleasure for 10 years on the Board of the San Benito Agricultural Land Trust, whose sole purpose is to provide farmers and ranchers with ways to keep on farming and ranching. These, too, are good people and good neighbors.
Emotions are high and there is much at stake. That’s no excuse for the kind of innuendo, implication and flat out garbage I’m reading in the papers. We are supposed to be adults. We are supposed to be able to have differences of opinion without this kind of nonsense.
In my kindergarten class, there would have been a whole bunch of time-outs for this kind of behavior.
Franz M. Schneider,
Hollister
Huston best choice for District 1
With the future of our county at a pivotal point, there is a candidate in District 1 that understands all the issues on the table, not just “special interests.”
I would like to thank Marci Huston for her devotion to the needs of all San Benito County residents. I feel she is best suited to help us finish one of the biggest projects in our community, Highway 25. She is the only candidate in her district that even knew about the “Stay Alive on Highway 25” project.
Brad Pike Sr.,
Founder, Stay Alive on Highway 25
Consumers will guarantee success of open space
I had to write and hopefully explain a farm wife’s view of Measure G. My husband and I are both third generation California farmers. Laws and measures cannot guarantee the economic success of California agriculture, thus the success of open space. Only you, the consumer, can.
If you want to keep open space, farmland and all the industries that it supports, become an educated consumer. Ask your grocer the country of origin for all your products. Make sure the fruits, vegetables and meats you buy are from California. It will be win/win situation.
You, as the consumer, win with great, fresh and safe fruits, vegetables and meats, plus a winning ag economy maintaining our counties open space and adding to the local economy.
We do not need regulation to preserve our ag land, your consumer dollars will be able to create, maintain and expand it. Remember, buy Californian, it’s the best for all of us! Please vote no on Measure G.
Cathy Alameda,
San Juan Bautista
Trying to remain neutral to special interests
I need to make a clarification about a recent occurrence regarding my campaign.
I have been doing my best to remain neutral in regards to any special interest groups. I have repeatedly told the voters that if elected I will sit unencumbered on the Board and make the best decisions for all the residents of San Benito County. Unfortunately, something has occurred to change this perception.
I noticed the most recent “No on Measure G” campaign propaganda included my name as an endorsement for their campaign. This was done without my knowledge or approval. I have been very public, and clear, about my feelings on Measure G; however this did not give anyone the right to use my name without my knowledge or permission. I am not sure why or how this happened, but it did.
I have repeatedly stated that if elected, I will work with both sides to make a good useable, healthy growth initiative.
In my personal campaign for Board of Supervisors, I am not endorsing either side of Measure G, I have made my opinion public and that is it.
I am not sure how these brochures are being distributed. If you happen to come across one of these brochures, please simply cross my name off the list. It is spelled wrong, anyway.
Please remember to vote March 2. It is a precious privilege we have here in the United States.
Marci Huston,
Candidate for Supervisor, District 1
Measure G takes away people’s property rights
Measure G is what it is. A taking away of property rights! The proponents have gone to great lengths to hide this fact. They tell you it’s greedy developers who are fighting it. They say there is no fiscal impact against the county.
Many people, including Arnold Fontes, the county assessor, have filed reports and made public statements to the adverse effect it would have on the negative fiscal impacts of this county. Still, they come out and say that these people are wrong; the people who actually deal with taxes and revenue for this county.
I’m going to ask each and every one of you potential voters to honestly think about and answer this question before you vote on this important issue. Most of us work for a living. If your boss told you that the company wasn’t doing well financially and that he would not be able to pay your salary any longer, would you actually still continue to work for this company? What if he told you if you continued to work for free, that you might be able to collect retirement? If you answered these questions honestly, the answer would most likely be an astounding no! This is simply because the majority of us, would not be able to afford this situation.
Once outside a local market, JJ Vogel approached me regarding the growth issue. When I presented him with the same scenario, he had to agree with me that he would not be able to work for free. Most cattle ranches barely make enough to pay taxes, and some years, we don’t even make enough to pay taxes.
My family and I have lived on the same ranch for 45 years. My parents have broken even on the good years and lost money on the bad ones. Both my father and my mother have always worked to subsidize the ranch and keep it in the family. The motivation for every rancher is the love of the lifestyle.
In the back of every rancher’s mind is the thought that if he gets hurt or too old to take care of his cattle and ranch, that he could always sell a piece at act as their 401(k). Then the rest of the ranch could stay in the family for generations to come. If Measure G passes, these families would lose their property value and the ability to keep land in the family.
Because ranching is not sufficient enough to pay all the bills, I have had to keep a full time job. I have been a contractor in San Benito County for 20 years to help subsidize living on my ranch. If you think we are overcrowded because of all the contractors in San Benito County, let me also inform you that in the last 20 years I have built an average of about two homes per year. Does it sound like the little guys you are putting out of business have hurt this county half as much as the politicians who have brought in hundreds of homes on their property?
There is another question I would like an answer to. Say you bought a home a few years ago for about $300,000 and are ready to sell it today. Your neighbor’s home just sold for $450,000. Would you tell your realtor that was too much and that you only want $310,000 for your home? I think not!
That is one of the problems Measure G is causing. It is taking away the rights of the landowners to sell their property. If you agree with communism and believe that the government should control everything you own or do, then go ahead and vote “yes” on Measure G. But, if you believe in America and the freedoms that we have fought for in order to become a sovereign nation, then join me and all of the people in San Benito County who are proud of what this nation stands for and vote “NO” on Measure G.
Manuel Lima,
Hollister
Kesler should step out, endorse Freitas
I will always carry a little place in my heart for Ruth Kesler and another for Mrs. Bowling. I miss Rita. She was one of a kind. We had our differences, but one thing I have to say is that you can count on her word. With me, she never failed.
I got your letters asking for support. First, I never could support anyone who supports Measure G. Second, I supported you four years ago because I wanted to see you get back what you had lost with Richard Place. Third, I saw Anthony Freitas and encouraged him to run. He told me you offered him a deal if he didn’t run, and you want to appoint him your planning commissioner. After the four years, you stepped out and endorsed him. I feel good about that.
You can say what you want, but in my opinion at 82, it’s time for everyone to retire. I’d like to see you keep your word and end up on top. If you don’t, this might be your downfall. I would hate to see that.
Step out and endorse your commissioner – it would be the honorable thing to do. You could finish with glory. Then if you are healthy and want to help by attending the meetings you can use your expertise by speaking up when you see fit.
I would like to continue being your friend, but I would like to let you know that I will publicly endorse Anthony Freitas. I support Anthony because I have been watching him as planning commissioner. He has learned a lot and has great common sense. I think he could make a super supervisor.
I hope this won’t hurt our relationship. I am on old timer who believes in the word.
Amador Lima,
Hollister
Defending city’s Rainbow Theater
Clay Lee’s claim to fame is that he has been working for the city for 18 years, much of that as as operational services manager. Lee stated at last week’s Council meeting that he has built a respectable recreation program for our community. Let’s be honest, Clay. Recreation “respectable” worthy of appropriate behavior or proper conduct. I think not! How about abusive, sexually harassing, perverted, unprofessional, embezzling, hypocritical, fraudulent, incompetent, manipulative, untrustworthy, swindling, deceitful, scheming charlatans. That’s the truth, try it some time, Clay!
Now let’s move on to some other dishonest statements. Clay said, “The financial crisis is the sole factor for reviewing these agreements.”
Again we find, Mr. Lee, that you failed to do your job. These contracts were to be signed in July based on the fiscal year. True story!
Yes, another whooper! Lee said, “The city must provide recreation programs at full cost recovery.”
Well, you may as well close down the recreation department because its programs operate at about a 50 percent recovery rate. Hello, is anybody in there?
Mr. Lee said, “It was never the intent to cancel the theater program.”
When you first allowed Robert Ornelas to try to eliminate parts of this production during the middle of the program, it’s harassment. When the Millers e-mailed you and left a voice mail Monday, Jan. 26, and you responded a week later with your coordinator when she handed them a new contract stating the program will be terminated at the end of clean up of the final show April 3. Terminate: To bring an end to or halt. Hey, that’s still harassment.
When Mayor Bruscia asked, “if the city was making a profit off of Rainbow Theater” and I hope this was cleared up at your meeting,” Lee said no the city was not, the numbers show we were spending more than we are taking in. We are refining the numbers; staff and facilities are not charged back to the program.
Mr. Miller did hand over the city’s proposed budget and actual budget for the last 12 months. In that information, it showed four performances, there were actually five, one of which the city only made programs for. Rainbow Theater gave the city a check for $1,250.
That was not included in the actual budget. Also, there was $5,600 in capital improvements in the actual budget, as well as facilities cost are in this budget. Oops. It showed a positive with $5,600 in capital improvements. That’s a $6,000 positive. Oww!
It seems to me that Clay Lee is an incompetent manager. Being the city is in financial crisis, shouldn’t we have people who are qualified in positions of management? How about honest and accountable?
Steven Medina,
Hollister
