Town Square

Post a New Topic

LAFCO to reconsider incorporation

Original post made on Oct 10, 2008

LAFCO Executive Officer Lou Ann Texeira said the commission has received a formal request for reconsideration of its Sept. 18 decision to put the Alamo Incorporation question on the ballot.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, October 10, 2008, 3:26 PM

Comments (16)

Posted by Just me, a resident of another community
on Oct 10, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Dear neighbors,

Let us invite all parties to present their considerations of incorporation in this forum as straight, focused and to-the-point. Then let all of our majority express one reality that we deserve the right to vote on incorporation as a local choice by a majority of voters.

It is not any simpler or more mandatory than that consideration. This very divisive issue has deconstructed our community of neighborhoods that is Alamo. We deserve the right as individual voters to define the resolve of that discord.

We deserve the right to VOTE,

Just me



Just me


Posted by Isabella, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 12, 2008 at 7:45 am

Editor, please post LAFCO information for October 21 meeting:

Web Link

Isabella


Posted by Alamo Resident, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 13, 2008 at 7:10 pm

The one issue never raised is the Federal requirement for low income housing in order to recieve federal funding for city operations. Where will these government mandated slums be located?


Posted by Just me, a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2008 at 7:36 am

Here's a reading reference for Federal Affordable Housing: Web Link

In the renovation and rejuvenation planned for the expanded business district, the current high density housing between Hemme and Ridgewood would be replaced with multiple story resident-above-retail structures.

Just me


Posted by CDSI - alamoinc response, a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2008 at 8:39 am

Posted from www.alamoinc.org, FAQ:

Question submitted via this website:
I just found out that incorporated cities must supply low income housing; how does Alamo intend to pay for this requirement once we become incorporated? Unincorporated areas are not liable to supply this, and the building expense of such housing, should it be desired in Alamo now would be borne by the County. Check with Moraga, Lafayette, Orinda as to how this cost has impacted their budgets.
-LS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response:
Neither cities nor counties are required to build or subsidize affordable housing. Both cities and counties are required by the State to show that they have zoning policies in place that would allow a private developer to build housing that is deemed affordable according to criteria based upon average income levels within the county.

It should be recognized that the unincorporated area of the County has very large affordable housing mandates, and the County uses the second units and other housing developed in Alamo toward satisfying its mandates.

Because of the 5-year Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) cycle for review of General Plan housing elements, and Alamo's 3-year-from-incorporation allowed time frame for developing its own General Plan, state housing mandates for affordable housing would likely not begin applying to Alamo for 4 to 7 years after incorporation. Because of Alamo's relatively low development potential, mandates for housing at all income levels would be low as well.

At that point, allowance of second units, which is already mandated by the State and currently allowed in Alamo by the County, could satisfy the mandates for all but the least expensive types of housing. Over a period of many years, it is possible that zoning for an additional 2 or 3 acres of multi-family housing (either condominiums or apartments) would be necessary in Alamo, most likely in the downtown area.


Posted by CDSI - LAFCO response, a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2008 at 9:36 am

Posted at www.contracostalafco.org:

FYI - There is a brief discussion of the State requirements relating to regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) in the September 18 LAFCO Executive Officer's report.

CDSI notice: Counsel notes that county or city government in our region does not impact regional planning of affordable housing. A local government, if representative of its residents, would have a voice in such regional planning on neighborhoods behalf.


Posted by Alamo Spotlight, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 14, 2008 at 10:15 am

FINALLY the real truth is beginning to emerge behind Alamo Incorporation Movement. Capital management companies and investors want to rejuvenate and renovate the business district of Alamo. All the clever shananigans from misleading Alamo voters into signing a petition for "studies" to Alamo Community Foundation's fundraisers, giving donors a tax-deduction for the $200,000 payment for LAFCO studies, has been to move their agenda forward. Once Alamo is a contract-city, "local control" means redevelopment with State and Federal funding and all the mandates attached. Ho-Hum, "what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."


Posted by Just me, a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Dear Editor,

I fully doubt that AIM, ACF and Alamo Spotlight are included in distribution of plans for the Alamo Business District. This is the confidential interest of the district and their corporate management.

Alamo has no need to know what corporations do with their private property. I would fully expect AIM and ASL (Alamo Spotlight) to object to such confidential planning for the very same reasons.

Just me


Posted by Alamo Spotlight, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 15, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Private property rights also extend to owners' of residential property in Alamo, many who already have experienced the dictates of oppressive Home Owner Associations in their neighborhoods. They do not want another layer of city council bureaucrats, who may very well be their next door neighbor. No, Alamo does not need to know what corporations do with their private property, but they do want to know how many hoops they would have to jump through to protect their own property if Alamo becomes a contract city through the shananigans of AIM and ACF.


Posted by Alamo Resident, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 15, 2008 at 9:39 pm

Can't wait for the "Inclusionary Housing" shakedown brought about by Cityhood. Just imagine Alamo as the next Antioch.


Posted by Incorporate Now!, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 18, 2008 at 2:18 am

Nothing but innuendo on this site. Nothing but absurd unsupported claims about some sort of plan by pro-incorporation supporters to "fix" an election for their own financial gain or to stroke their own egos. It's shockingly disturbing to see such base motivations be placed on people who've worked hard to improve Alamo for years in the face of an incompetent and uncaring County bureaucracy. Where were all the naysayers when the County rammed absurd development down our throats for decades over our strong objections?

That incorporation supporters actually have their neighbor's best interests at heart is antithetical to many on this site - it says more about those making those claims than it does about those that they are directed at. That anyone could rise above their own petty self interests for the common good appears beyond some people's comprehension on this site - amazingly sad.

And it's a warped view of reality to think the Lifers in Martinez will do a better job than a directly elected government. There is a reason why virtually every fiscally stable community eventually incorporates - it's to ensure taxation WITH representation, something that is sorely lacking under the current absentee and incompetent governance.

You have 3000+ residents sign the petition to allow the studies for incorporation to advance. That was a stunning number of positive responses for a small community like Alamo in such a short amount of time. And to no surprise, the independent studies clearly indicate Alamo's finances are robust and far exceed state requirements. Yet even with such robust independent analysis, LAFCO tried their best to screw Alamo residents one more time by listening to the absolute rubbish that the minority yammer on about time and time and time again.

If incorporation is so wrong, I'm sure residents of Alamo will figure it out - they are, after all, one of the most prosperous and educated populations in the US - and they are conservative voters for the most part - a group that is highly unlikely to vote for a cockamamie scheme that so many on this board seem to think incorporation is.

Personally, I will bet on the common sense of knowledgeable neighbors to vote affirmatively for incorporation, not a few n'eer do wells trying to throw a wrench into the works based on their distrust of their fellow neighbor's motivations.



Posted by Alamo Spotlight, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE! The red herring clarion call of proponents for the Alamo Incorporation Movement(AIM), intended to detract and mislead voters against the rising voice of opposition to the creation of a contract-city for Alamo.

On Tuesday, October 21, in the Supervisors' Chambers in Martinez, the Commissioners will address the request for reconsideration of their decision made on September 18 at Creekside Church in Alamo. The condition for new and unseen information has been met. Rejection of the request and the addendum that followed, which included new information of Senate Bill No. 301, signed into law after the September 18 meeting, will reveal lack of neutrality law established by CALAFCO and the biased positions of the Commissioners. We R Alamo!



Posted by Bob, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 19, 2008 at 11:11 am

We deserve the privalege of a vote. Period. The more light that get shined on this issue, the better incorporation looks to me. I think the people of Alamo will see through the "noise" in the system.


Posted by John, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 19, 2008 at 5:05 pm

If Alamo incorporates it will definitely cost the citizens of Alamo more to live here and we will not get anything significant for this expense. I've lived in Alamo for 18 years and I can honestly say there has never been a reason to incorporate that would have made it a better place to live.


Posted by John, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 19, 2008 at 5:05 pm

If Alamo incorporates it will definitely cost the citizens of Alamo more to live here and we will not get anything significant for this expense. I've lived in Alamo for 18 years and I can honestly say there has never been a reason to incorporate that would have made it a better place to live.


Posted by John, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 19, 2008 at 5:05 pm

If Alamo incorporates it will definitely cost the citizens of Alamo more to live here and we will not get anything significant for this expense. I've lived in Alamo for 18 years and I can honestly say there has never been a reason to incorporate that would have made it a better place to live.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

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

Moneyball, the Sequel: Billy Beane for President!
By Tom Cushing | 6 comments | 1,012 views

Spedowfski Announces run for Livermore City Council
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 894 views

Planning the "Pleasanton way"
By Tim Hunt | 11 comments | 873 views

Take Full Advantage of Free Standardized Testing Opportunities
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 366 views