Prompt. Professional. Prepared.
It Matters Who Leads!
Newsroom
Letter Concerning Anthony Joseph Ramon
Dear District Attorney Rosen,
I am writing to you in my capacity as Mayor of Morgan Hill regarding the recent arrest, now the third, of Anthony Joseph Ramon for sexual assault incidents involving children at a YMCA summer day camp in our community. As you know, Mr. Ramon has been released each time after posting bail.
I’d like to thank you and your team for working closely with the MHPD’s team to complete the proper requests for a higher bail amount to include a no bail amount for each case. This partnership is very much appreciated.
At the same time, I would like to express, in the strongest yet most respectful terms, my deep concern for the young victims and their families, who are now forced to endure repeated trauma each time this individual returns to the community. These families deserve to know that the system designed to protect them is functioning with urgency, seriousness, and unwavering commitment to their safety.
Our community is alarmed. Parents are fearful. And as Mayor, I share their concern and their expectation that every possible safeguard be used to prevent further harm.
My question is, is there any action the City of Morgan Hill, or I personally, can take to formally advocate, within the appropriate legal channels, for an increased bail amount or additional protective measures?
My intent is not to interfere with judicial discretion, but rather to ensure that our community is doing everything within its authority to protect children and prevent further victimization.
Thank you for your continued service to the people of Santa Clara County. I stand ready to support your office in any way that strengthens public safety and restores confidence in the families affected by this deeply troubling situation.
Sincerely,
Mark Turner
Mayor
Speaker Rivas – Housing Legislation Joint Letter
Dear Speaker Rivas,
Thank you for the opportunity to attend your Legislative Day on February 25. We greatly appreciated the invitation and the chance to hear directly about your priorities as well as from other legislators. The dialogue and engagement were both informative and encouraging.
On behalf of our respective cities, we are writing to respectfully request your leadership in considering a temporary pause on the passage of new housing legislation while the Legislature undertakes a comprehensive review of the significant body of housing laws enacted in recent years. Your suggestion to examine what is working and what is not within our existing statutory framework is both timely and prudent.
Over the past several years, nearly 150 housing-related bills have been signed into law, with approximately 50 new housing measures enacted in 2025 alone. Many of the 2025 measures went into effect with the Governor’s approval of the budget. This extraordinary pace reflects the Legislature’s strong commitment to addressing California’s housing challenges. However, the volume and speed of these changes have created substantial implementation pressures for local governments charged with carrying them out.
City governments across the state are increasingly overwhelmed by the continuous stream of new housing legislation introduced and enacted each legislative cycle. Planning departments, housing divisions, and legal teams are working diligently to interpret, integrate, and operationalize new requirements, often while prior mandates are still in early stages of implementation. The result is a growing strain on administrative capacity, limited opportunity to evaluate outcomes, and difficulty ensuring consistent and effective application of state policy. Our state and regional agencies are attempting to provide technical assistance related to implementation but that is also delayed with the quantity of new mandates. Guidance on implementation often comes six months to a year after the
mandate is in effect.
A deliberate pause would not signal retreat from the state’s housing goals. Rather, it would demonstrate a commitment to thoughtful governance and evidence-based policymaking. Taking the next two years to refrain from enacting additional housing statutes would provide the Legislature, in partnership with local governments and stakeholders, with the opportunity to:
• Review housing laws passed within the last four years
• Evaluate measurable outcomes and unintended consequences
• Identify redundancies, conflicts, or areas requiring clarification
• Assess administrative and fiscal impacts on local jurisdictions
• Strengthen and refine existing statutes where necessary
Such a review would help ensure that California’s housing framework is coherent, effective, and sustainable. It would also allow local municipalities to focus on full and faithful implementation of existing mandates rather than continuously adjusting to new ones.
Your leadership in advancing a structured review process could foster collaboration between the State and local governments, strengthen public confidence, and ultimately produce more durable and impactful housing policy.
Thank you for your continued commitment to addressing California’s housing needs and for considering this request. We appreciate your thoughtful attention to this matter and your ongoing service to the people of California.
Letter: California’s housing laws create chaos in our communities
In an effort to address California’s housing crisis, the State Legislature passed laws like Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), which streamline approval for high-density housing developments. While the intent may be noble, reducing costs and increasing affordability, the reality on the ground is far more complicated, and our communities are already feeling the strain.
One of the most disruptive provisions of SB 35 is the removal of minimum on-site parking requirements for new housing projects, especially those near transit corridors. The idea is that fewer parking spaces will encourage public transportation use and reduce construction costs.
But while this may be true, in practice, this policy does not work for communities that are transit poor. Morgan Hill lacks transit services and our residents depend on their vehicles. Housing with lack of parking leads to vehicles spilling into surrounding residential neighborhoods, overwhelming already limited curb space, cars parking illegally, blocking driveways and even obstructing emergency access routes.
What’s worse, this overflow is not just an inconvenience, it’s a safety issue. With cars parked haphazardly, visibility is reduced for pedestrians and drivers alike.
These are not just growing pains, they are signs of a cookie cutter policy that was rushed through without adequate foresight and little concern to communities like Morgan Hill that are doing more than our fair share of housing.
SB35 is just one law that reduces or eliminates parking requirements. Many other laws have been passed in the last six years that do the same. One such law, AB2097, signed into law in 2022, eliminates parking requirements completely for not only housing, but also commercial and industrial uses within one-half mile from a major transit stop.
The definition of major transit stops within the law results in not only a half mile radius from the train station, but also a half mile from Monterey Road.
Local elected officials, who understand the unique needs and limitations of our communities, were largely left out of the conversation when these laws were crafted.
The Legislature’s top-down approach has sidelined city councils and planning commissions, stripping us of the ability to enforce standards that reflect the realities of their neighborhoods. This lack of consultation has led to unintended consequences that could have been avoided with better communication and collaboration.
Adding to the confusion is the contradictory nature of SB 35’s affordability goals. While the law removes parking mandates to cut costs, it simultaneously requires developers to pay prevailing wages to construction workers, a requirement that significantly increases project expenses.
If the goal is truly to make housing more affordable, why impose labor costs that drive prices up? It’s a paradox that undermines the very purpose of the legislation.
The governor and state legislators must recognize that one-size-fits-all solutions rarely work in a state as diverse as California. Urban centers like San Francisco may benefit from reduced parking requirements, but suburban and rural communities face very different challenges. Without meaningful dialogue with local leaders, these policies risk doing more harm than good.
It’s time for Sacramento to listen. Our communities deserve a seat at the table when decisions are made that directly affect our streets, our safety and our quality of life. Housing reform should not come at the expense of local control, nor should it create new problems while trying to solve old ones.
If the state truly wants to build a better future, it must start by rebuilding trust, with transparency, accountability and respect for the voices of those who live with the consequences every day.
Mark Turner
Mayor of Morgan Hill
Mark Turner
If you wish to contribute to my campaign please take a moment and donate.
The maximum donation allowed under city ordinance is $4,900.00.
Thank you for your support!