Letters to the Editor

Organizing against Measure T
My name is Steve Scaglione. I have been a resident of Hollister
along with my family since April 1996. In response to the article
featuring Measure T, the 1 percent sales tax increase for San
Benito County, I’m opposed to the measure. I would like to hear
from other residents who are apposed to Measure T. I feel that our
city officials are bright enough to come up with other ideas to
increase county revenue without another tax increase. I, as well as
other residents, am getting tired of hearing about cutting city
services because the city and county are in debt. Where there’s a
will, there’s a way. Please ask the city residents or come up with
another way to increase city and county revenue. More than likely
once a tax increase is imposed, we will never see it go down.
I would like to hear from other residents for your support and
possibly form a group if there is not already one out there,
524-2926.
Steve Scaglione, Hollister
Organizing against Measure T

My name is Steve Scaglione. I have been a resident of Hollister along with my family since April 1996. In response to the article featuring Measure T, the 1 percent sales tax increase for San Benito County, I’m opposed to the measure. I would like to hear from other residents who are apposed to Measure T. I feel that our city officials are bright enough to come up with other ideas to increase county revenue without another tax increase. I, as well as other residents, am getting tired of hearing about cutting city services because the city and county are in debt. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Please ask the city residents or come up with another way to increase city and county revenue. More than likely once a tax increase is imposed, we will never see it go down.

I would like to hear from other residents for your support and possibly form a group if there is not already one out there, 524-2926.

Steve Scaglione, Hollister

Blame it on cement

Recent comments in the Pinnacle are confusing. On economics, isn’t it a good thing that the market brings down the cost of housing by penalizing both the lender and lendee for making poor decisions? Ms. Foley’s article stating the market softening was bad is kind of misleading. The market hasn’t been allowed to reflect the true cost of housing. Voter pressure to lower requirements in fannie mae, as well as other lenders, caused speculators and borrowers uanble to adjust to market pressure to over enter the market. This caused a false demand for housing. Now when prices go down, this is BAD? I don’t think so. No one has a right to automated equity increases indepedent of market pressures. Purchasing a house is a risk and is a liability.

The budget. Republicans attempted to inject some fiscal sanity on the budget, as the Governator PROMISED when he ran. Taxpayers are the winners, not the Democrats or Republicans. We need to lessen the influence of the government. Of course some will, as usual, say the poor are losers. Why is it that programs for the poor ALWAYS exceed inflation, my yearly salary increase, state revenues and yet receive no fiscal constraints? Arguments are always framed around, “it’s for the children.”

The airport is one big white elephant. If it went private, adjacent land would get purchased at market rate and someone would respond to business, and therefore jobs, instead, we just get business evil message from everyone. Totally frustrating, no one knows who Adam Smith was. The California budget is based on government mandates for growth, not a real need for housing. You can’t run a society based solely on building houses. What is the critical mass of the number of houses to attract business to compliment revenue from the housing sector? It is fiscally irresponsible to build houses as the revenue source for government. I see very little except cronyism to develop arbitrary paths of development to the detriment of the taxpayers of Hollister. I guess we can all just be high tech desk jockeys and complain about supposedly endangered species which every rancher around here knows how easy it is to attract, but don’t because of property rights. Environmental alarmists continue to badmouth ranchers and large property owners without facts, citing university professors as solitary sources of what is right. The same group of university professors who told cattlemen to switch to continental breeds and raise frame 8 cattle and focus on genetics requiring high inputs for feed to fatten.  I love how we as a society know nothing about free markets other than to manipulate them for the benefit of the few.

Cement, in my opinion, is the largest contributor to global warming and if we allow the development at Hwy. 101 and Hwy. 25, the heat wave from that development will turn Hollister into Gilroy, a pollution and temperature trap. To me, Democrats think job creation is government jobs and regulations or activity that generates fees such as housing or strip malls, usually with TAX BREAKS. I’m an independent, and am thoroughly disappointed with local Republicans who can’t project a pro business theme without inviting the usual business evil chants from the socialists.

Cement will be our undoing.

Mark Dickson, Hollister

Bilingual education is beneficial

I am a first grade bilingual teacher. Many Spanish- speaking parents ask me if their children will benefit more from learning in Spanish or English. This is a very complicated question which requires an answer that is based on research in education.

My answer is simply that students who speak Spanish at home should learn in Spanish before learning in English. Academic studies about bilingual education show us that students who learn how to read, write and communicate in Spanish and become proficient in their primary language will learn English much more easily. In reality teachers, professors and researchers agree that bilingual education is beneficial to students.

Currently, the federal and California state governments have created policies to intimidate and force local school districts to eliminate bilingual education. For example, the federal and state governments have cut funding that was formerly directed to bilingual education. California requires that all students take standardized tests in English even though the students do not understand English.

The goal of the government is to pressure school districts to force students who speak Spanish to attend classes in English before they are ready. For example, students who speak primarily in Spanish and can say a few simple words in English, but do not posses an academic vocabulary in English, are assigned to an English only classroom. Generally, the result is that the students become confused in both languages.

Parents can defend the rights of their children. They can demand that the school district do what is best for their children. Also, if parents believe that their children will benefit from studying in Spanish so that they will become proficient in their first language and transfer their academic knowledge into English, they should put their children in a bilingual program. The truth is that the government is destroying the bilingual program a little at a time. If parents do not defend the bilingual program their children will suffer.

Parents have a ray of hope, which is that under California law there is a section that allows parents to remain in a primary language setting in kindergarten and first grade. It is called the “waiver.” Parents have the right to get an application from the school office when their children enter kindergarten. Otherwise, their children will not be allowed to be in a bilingual program in first grade.

This is a temporary solution, and the permanent solution is to change the laws.

Joe Navarro, Hollister