Letters

Most people living in the greater Hollister community would agree with that statement. A solution is being proposed that will provide reliable, high-quality drinking water and support a better quality of life for everyone in our community.

The 4th of July Celebration Committee would like to sincerely thank the following for helping to make this year's 4th of July a special “original Hollister” event with the annual Kiddie Parade and Community Fireworks Show:

I said it would be epic and I was on the money. No pun intended there was plenty of money flowing. I am overcome with gratitude because the 2013 Hollister Motorcycle Rally was the best one ever. I’m so thankful that the city council unanimously voted to bring it back. Now they can all share in the pride of the most successful rally ever on their watch. The event manager, Mark Creswell, did a stellar job. I knew he was the right man for the job and he did not disappoint. He worked so hard. When the non-profit that signed up to handle garbage pulled a no-show he picked up garbage himself from the time the event ended until the sun came up Friday and Saturday night. That’s where I spotted him Sunday morning. He was still zipping down San Benito Street on that forklift picking up garbage. He is the one person I know of that got less sleep than I did over the weekend.

An interesting topic came up at church this Sunday morning which made me think about the current debate over California’s Proposition 8 and the Supreme courts decision; that made me decide to write a letter to the editor. It's really not about Prop. 8, but about how the whole issue has been handled, and how if I were an attorney I would feel that a large group of people would have a pretty good case. Whether or not you voted for or against Prop. 8 the bottom line is that at the time it passed by a 52 to 48 (or something close to this margin). Now maybe it was a close vote, but it was certified and legal and became the law of the land. At some point the attorney general of California decided that it was her right, or moral imperative, or just plain opinion to not defend it in court. The supreme court ruled that the party who did defend it had no legal standing and it was ruled against. I guess my question about this whole process is how can a law which was passed by the people of a state (and there are more than one going on right now) be ignored by a person, office or political party who happens to be in charge at the time? It bothers me that accused and convicted criminals are appointed legal representation, illegal aliens are given due process before being deported, a student and his parents may appeal to the superintendent or school board about an issue, but the 52% of voters of the state of California who voted for Prop 8 (and I would guess about 99% of whom are law abiding citizens), were not represented by the attorney general of the state that they represent. And as much as that bothers me I could actually respect the attorney general if for reasons of moral conscience she failed to defend the law, but if she didn't someone else should have. Basically all the people who voted for Prop. 8 were denied their legal rights. No one represented them in state supreme court, no one represented them in the United State Supreme court. It was always about fighting against the unconstitutionality of the law, and the rights of those people whom were being discriminated against, but what about the rights of those people who voted for the proposition. what about the people of the state of California? Don't they have rights also? Again I am not trying to debate the topic of same sex marriage – it could have been any of the hot-button social topics of the day, legalizing marijuana, abortion, affirmative action, etc. The idea is that the people of a state vote on a proposition it passes, and becomes a law. Then someone challenges it and a elected official refuses to defend the will of the people, and no one takes their place. That is wrong, and everyone should be represented: even in an unpopular issue or controversial belief. That is the American way.

The city makes things more complex than what they are. They seem like they are doing their job and acting like they are, but they really are not. They are out of touch with reality. When the election was over, I knew from what someone had told me and what I read in the newspaper, that they wanted to build a water treatment plant. I knew before the election, but they would not answer me. As of today, I still have not received any documents that I requested on this from the county water district. So why, knowing that people cannot afford to pay their bills as it is. That will only raise the water bill each month probably double. It's up to their discretion. City council made that vote. They implemented it to create a huge debt for the city and the tax payers, which are us. They do not want to take no responsibility at all. And you the people vote for them. Everyone, who is there on the council,.

We found the responses to last week’s “Around the Water Cooler” question to be very interesting. They seemed to go with the political leaning each respondent has exhibited judging from past commentaries. Ruth Erickson provided the best response and Richard Herrera really has no clue! Mr. Herrera, it is not the responsibility of the IRS to specifically target groups or individuals; they are there to work impartially for all Americans as governed by our tax laws. In this case they chose to target conservative groups who were not in line with the current administration, and hence are the ones responsible for making this a hot political issue. What they did was wrong!

I believe the description that you printed of my comments regarding the County Board of Supervisors were taken out of context because you did and include that I also said, “If you do feel it necessary to address the national debate on immigration reform, I would think it would be suffice to state that the city of Hollister 1) believes that immigration reform should be addressed, 2) cares about its residents, 3) supports keeping families intact, and 4) needs an adequate labor force, of which immigrants are a key component” and the point I was making was that the supervisors should not be addressing specific policies better taken at the federal level.