“San Jose residents oppose public safety cuts as budget worsens, may accept sales tax hike or reduced library hours” By John Woolfolk

San Jose over the past decade has been constantly at work, producing jobs for the unemployed and more efficient forms of energy and transportation use. However, with the recent budget cuts in the area, the men and women in charge have been forced to figure out a new system for the growing city. Discussed in the article was a recent citywide survey proving residents interests in making cuts to the public park and library funds. These specific cutbacks would result in the closing of many public park restrooms and reduced library hours. This data is very significant to me, I believe that this type of feedback premeditates future alterations to the city and the general direction its resident’s are interested in heading. But what is this article’s purpose? I think that Woolfolk wrote this article not to scare his readers with more economy talk, but to show the population what it’s citizens are really feeling. He explained the amount of people who could possibly loose their jobs due to the cuts, while simultaneously encouraging the population to be aware of the situations at hand. Woolfolk describes the council and city management’s discussions as “frustrations” and “prodding”. This word choice shows (not tells) the digressions that have been occurring over this issue. Woolfolk ended his piece with a quote from Councilwoman Nora Campos, “"Every decision we have to make is going to be difficult." By ending the article this way, leaves the reader open to make their own decisions on the budget cuts. It also leaves a hint of hope, for the citizens to trust the officials and the decisions they make.