Town Square

Post a New Topic

Will a CCC-MAC remain unwelcome in Alamo?

Original post made by [removed], Alamo, on Oct 4, 2011

Dear Editor,

This story contains 268 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (1)

Like this comment
Posted by [update]
a resident of Alamo
on Oct 5, 2011 at 7:40 am

Dear Editor,

I sat through the meaningless drivel of the October 4 CCC-MAC Alamo meeting at the request of Alamo neighborhoods. CDSI courtesy to neighborhoods was to determine if Gayle and staff were going to make a difference in MAC members’ ability to serve the majority of Alamo residents. I have already reported that there is no interactive discussion, consideration and mitigation of major issues impacting the will and interests of Alamo neighborhood, business district and community groups. Quite obviously there is no consideration of any issue important to the >8200 voters that are participants in Alamo neighborhoods or the overall neighborhood participants in the region from Saranap to Blackhawk.

Supervisor Uilkema has engaged Ms. Jill Ray, jray@bos.cccounty.us, to be her liaison at CCC-MAC Alamo meetings and would be the appropriate contact for Alamo neighbors to express their expectations for operations and agendas. Alamo residents might wish to comment on the issues that previously divided the MAC from community support and participation:

1. MAC members Bowlby, MacDonald, Best, and Evans violated CCC-MAC policy in endorsing Tomi van de Brooke for District 2 Supervisor using their MAC titles.
2. Parks and recreation programs are not used by the majority of Alamo residents or aligned to interests in natural open space and self-directed recreation.
3. Inclusion of lighting and landscaping, as Z-36 parcel tax purpose, in R-7A funds usage for unwanted tree lighting in the business district.
4. Traffic management including removing Alamo from the consideration of Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
5. Plans to attract more commute traffic to Alamo by landscaping and identifying the Alamo off-ramp using R-7A funding.
6. Failure to review the impact of diversion of traffic from Diablo Road to Green Valley/Stone Valley corridor due to Danville’s illegitimate development approvals.
7. Another reconstitution of the P-2B committee and the designation of a new chair without community consideration or notice.
8. Continued use of “fill out a card, wait to be recognized, do your 3 minutes and then shut up and go away!”

Your journalism is needed in determining what community organization or agency can represent the will and interests of Alamo region residents.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Mark Davis clearly is serious about Sin City Raiders
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 707 views

Next Up, The Election Props -- but first this word: We’re Number One!
By Tom Cushing | 3 comments | 394 views