Measure L: Fire Station Construction—City of San Jose
You might wonder: Why am I being asked to decide this? And you might ask: Don’t decisions about where to locate fire stations require some kind of expertise? Isn’t this what elected officials are supposed to do? And didn’t we just approve an emergency plan authorizing the city to build fire stations? Good questions. And the answers are: yes, yes and yes. Which is why this measure deserves a yes vote.
Opponents are afraid that it will mean shuttering Fire Station 6. Proponents promise that it won’t. They should fight that out in the council chambers, not the voting booth.
Measure M: City Park Use Agreements—City of San Jose
Measure M will amend the city charter to allow for the leasing of parkland to community groups for up to 25 years in select parks. Currently any lease of more than three years requires voter approval, severely limiting any possible partnerships on pools, skate parks, community centers and more. We can’t imagine any reasonable person arguing against this long-overdue shredding of city red tape—indeed, no argument against it was submitted.
Measure L deserves a yes vote! The shortage of Fire Stations and Fire Fighters/Paramedics for a City of our size is a City wide problem. Measure L is the first step in the right direction.
Our City is a good City but will never become a “Great City” until we change our policy toward “Core City Services”. From a budget stand point Funding of City core services should come before any City budget expenditures,especially police and fire fighters.
Measure M, needs a yes vote.This is another core City service. Trails are part of the Parks Department also,Park Dept. is another core City service that suffers from not enough City funding.
Richard,
I’d like to play devil’s advocate here. Measure L concerns me for one very basic reason. It authorizes the use of park land for a fire station. While I understand the park land is a parking lot, the mitigation for that lost land in District six – is to provide it for District 8. We work hard to find land for parks – shouldn’t the loss of the land go back to the residents of district 6? Why should we have to pit fire safety against park land? This is the 3rd time voters have had to chose to give up park land for another use. Will the City look at park land again for other uses because its cheaper and easier to obtain?