Town Square

Post a New Topic

Voters reject Alamo cityhood

Original post made on Mar 4, 2009

The movement to incorporate Alamo was defeated today by 66 percent of the residents who voted against Measure A and cityhood. Turnout was 6,173 out of 10,508 eligible to vote.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 11:58 PM

Comments (105)

Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 6:03 am

The ironic thing is that the people who voted no
thought they were "saving" Alamo.

But by voting no, they have voted for:

Reduction of law enforcement people for Alamo

Increase lot splits and development

Higher density housing

Increase in traffic volume

Piecemeal widening of Danville Blvd.

Have no representation on agencies that affect Alamo: ABAG,
Tri-Valley Transportation Commission, CCTA

By voting no, they have demonstrated a lack of political
will to resist further county incursions into our lifestyle.

And by the way, they have voted for a tax increase. Wait and see, folks.




Posted by Shannon, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 7:07 am

Ron is right, folks. Alamo citizens are so fearful of change that they failed to make the one change that could have preserved the life style we all love. Our best chance for keeping large lots, visible policing, protect mature trees, preventing urban road planning, and minimizing multi-unit housing was just wasted.

Ron is also correct about taxes. Alamo's ignorance about how taxes are raised led it to vote the one option that will result, not only in increased fees, but to the continued subsidization by wealthy Alamo of County debts and increasing expenses brought on by massive foreclosures elsewhere in the County. The County has no problem raising fees and taxes, and it plans to do so shortly. All of those fees you pay to register your Mercedes and Lexuses now go to the County to cover its deficits and employee obligations instead of staying local to preserve what we've loved so much.

As our parks whither, common areas collect garbage, stop lights pop up, our roads widen, and lots are divided smalller and smaller, remember this lost opportunity. So sad for Alamo. =-(


Posted by Alamo James, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 7:27 am

Whither our parks?

I thank those who pressed the incorporation initiative. They did us all a service by raising the issues, and highlighting the opportunities. I respect their alternative views, and hope they will continue to look out for our interests.

A No Voter


Posted by Shannon, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 7:35 am

Yes James, our parks will suffer. How do lawns get watered, graffiti removed, vandalism repaired, plants and trees pruned, restrooms maintained, parking lots policed, . . . Magic? No, money. It is just this kind of snarky, short-sided thinking that failed our community.


Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 7:55 am

Dear Alamo James,

In case you missed it, for years the people who have worked on and worried about Alamo parks, traffic, overbuilding, beautification, recreation, county incursions, etc., are the people who supported incorporation.

And you want them to continue to look out for your interests? They just may be a little tired of doing thankless work in a thankless place. How about having some of your opposition people step up and "look out for your interests."


Posted by Julia, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 8:15 am

Hey Ron and Shannon...get over it, you and your group lost by a bunch not a little but a real bunch. It's typical of your group...you are right and we are wrong. Well the wrongs have it. The SILENT MAJORITY has spoken and spoken where it counts, at the VOTING BOOTH. And as James put it..."we hope you continue looking out for the majority's interest"

WOW, after reading the results of who the top five where...good luck has been bestowed upon us twice.

Alamo has been saved by 4,000 + caring residents.


Posted by Ray, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 8:17 am

Maybe instead of choking on your bitter kool-aid you should stop being so naive and try to understand the real reasons people voted no. Look in the mirror first.


Posted by Julia, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 8:22 am

Hey Ron...let me say it again...GET OVER IT.

Maybe you should learn how to read between the lines...James comment was a kick in the butt. Learn how to take it like MAN and move on to bigger and better issues.


Posted by Dan, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 8:25 am

The election is over. Now take down your signs!!


Posted by Alamo Tive, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 8:38 am

Hey Julia,

You need to calm down. Why don't you go out and steal a few signs to relax?


Posted by No Voter, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 8:44 am

After having gone through this nightmare in LA with all the promises of how wonderful things would be, I can only say I am relieved. We will not see an influx of illegal aliens, section 8, and draconian rules telling you what color you house has to be and how many cars you can park in front of your house during a get together. In addition, we will still be able to keep horses and livestock and retain our country atmosphere.


Posted by Rotten Robbie, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 8:54 am

NO voters : thank you. Downtown Alamo is beautiful exactly the way it is. Maybe now we can add three or four more gas stations and another mini-mall and turn Yardbirds into a used car lot.


Posted by Alamo Phil, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 8:56 am

The people have soundly rejected a move put forth by a bunch of disgruntled amateur politicians.

This group spent $$$$$$$$ trying to cram through a proposal that most of us saw through as both lacking in benefits and substance.

All they ever could articulate was "local control".......well it is very obvious that most of us did not want you all in CONTROL!


Posted by Walmart Corp., a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 9:01 am

No Voters: Thank you. See you soon.


Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 9:06 am

Just to keep this discussion on track, by voting no, you have voted for

Reduction of law enforcement people for Alamo
Increase in lot splits and development
Higher density housing
Increase in traffic volume
Piecemeal widening of Danville Blvd.
A tax increase.

Watch and see, folks.


Posted by Shannon, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 9:09 am

Julia, you think you're funny, but you're just an idiot doing an embarrassing "in your face" dance for a loss you're too stupid to know you've incurred. This election was about real issues facing our town during a time of increasingly scarce resources divvied out by a County Board that is not accountable to Alamo. This is not about personalities as you've made it to be. You are a sad, sad woman.


Posted by A grateful No voter, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 9:10 am

This just proves that money can't buy votes - I'm just so grateful that I won't be hounded any longer by the aggressive Yes on "A" supporters who banged on windows of parents picking up their children from Rancho Romero! It's time to pack up the signs and get over it. The intelligent majority has spoken.


Posted by Alamo Resident, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 9:42 am

Amazing!

The "Yes" folks are still trying to say they know what's best for Alamo after a landslide of voters rejected it.

This is a perfect example of what you would have had with 5 town council bureaucrats.


Posted by Rancho mom, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 9:43 am

I agree with grateful no voter. Whatever you voted is your business and you should not be intimidated picking up your child from school. I found that very uncomfortable to have people bang on my window and shove signs in my face. Not to mention being hounded at Safeway for the YES campaign. We all love Alamo that is why we live here. Now it is time to clean up the signs and return to being a friendly neighbor and not a fanatic.


Posted by Julia, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 10:03 am

NO...Shannon, Stupid...That reminds me of a comment Forest Gump said., "stupid is as stupid does" Well I think reading what you and a few of your followers have said regarding this matter, leads me to believe Forest Gump hit your nail on the head.

Oh, by the way Shannon, to the contrary, I'm not sad woman, I'm a very happy woman.

And while I'm still on the subject, Alamo Ron seems to believe as you..
The no on measure A voters will get:

Reduction of law enforcement people for Alamo

Increase in lot splits and development

Higher density housing

Increase in traffic volume

Piecemeal widening of Danville Blvd.

A tax increase.

And his closing statement..."Watch and see, folks".

It appears Alamo Ron and possibly you, are reading off the wrong game plan. I believe I read somewhere that if the 2,000 yes voters got their way we the folks of Alamo would be experiencing:

State Mandated Housing
Increased Traffic
Inevitable Raising of FEES and TAXES
Poorly Maintained Roads
Politicization of our Community
Code Enforcers
Pitting Neighbor against Neighbor
Uniformity eroding the unique Charm and Character of Alamo
Threatening the Viability of Alamo Hay and Grain Horse with All that it Represents
"Local Control" meaning MORE control with MORE bureaucracy
Plus another layer of costly government interfering in every aspect of our lives and worst of all, by AMATEUR Politicians.

But guess what, guy's...we the majority of Alamo don't need to worry about these issues...join us and Keep Alamo Unique and Charming.


Posted by Neighbor Jim, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 10:06 am

Alamo incorporation was pushed on a false crisis by people who really just wanted to create political positions for themselves. Look at the names on the ballot and you'll see the people behind Measure A. They're the same busybodies who are always looking over their fences to spy on what their neighbors are doing.


Posted by Aaron, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 10:10 am

Reading all this and the misinformation repeatedly mailed to homeowners, I just have to insert one correction that has bugged me as a lawyer: There is no additional obligation with respect to Section 8 (a federal provision subsidizing housing - no creating it) or "state mandated housing" (which does not exist) that affects towns, cities, or counties differently. Whether a municipality incorporates, or a county does not, the same regulations with respect to new development apply to all similarly.


Posted by Dr. Moon, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 10:29 am

Reading all the sour grapes, I just have to insert that as a proctologist, I am not phased by the 'YES ON A' activists. I see their kind every day.

My practice is in San Francisco.


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 10:40 am

Measure A was all about LOCAL CONTROL over Alamo!
(Or more specifically, certain locals who wanted control over Alamo.)


Posted by Dolores Fox Ciardelli, editor, a resident of Danville
on Mar 4, 2009 at 10:48 am

Interesting comments from everyone as we try to absorb what happened - but let's try to keep it civil.

thanks...


Posted by Ray, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 10:55 am

Neighbor jim is correct and that is why I voted no. I was uncomfortable with the cozy relationship between the incorp. movement and the candidates their officers supported. If they had supported other candidates, or better yet just stayed neutral I may have voted yes, but my fear of inexperienced liberal idologist councilmembers overruled my appreciation for the yes merits.


Posted by Alamo Phil, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 11:03 am

The "yes on A" proponents got the hat handed to them by the majority of Alamo voters. Maybe kicked in the Butt is the better term!

Now having lost a lost cause they continue to spout false premises and dire warnings..................a lot like Chicken Little.

The control freaks lost and Alamo is all the better for it!

Now all you amateur politicians go clean up Alamo by removing your unsightly signs.


Posted by Neighbor Jim, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 11:22 am

Thanks Ray. Glad to see you too did not consent to giving power over our neighborhoods to a bunch of busybodies and ideologues who just want to tell everyone else how to live. There are already too many politicians in this world as it is. First stop Alamo, next stop Washington, DC!




Posted by Voted Yes, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 11:27 am

I have a question for the now-victorious 'No' camp:

Do you think that by voting down incorporation, you've done the best thing in terms of law enforcement protection? With the county in crisis as it is, are we going to see improvement in out police coverage, or deterioration? Since CHP handles our traffic enforcement, with the State budget as it is, do you think it's likely that our traffic enforcement will improve?

My personal opinion is no, I wanted incorporation for the sole purpose of having an accountable, integrated police force in Alamo. So many people I've spoken with have had negative experiences when calling the Sheriff-not because of the personnel, but because of response times. Do you know that there are times of day when there is ONE deputy covering the area from the unincorporated area around Lafayette all the way around to the east side of Mt. Diablo? I worry that Alamo has been blessed with being overlooked by the folks who are committing some of the brazen robberies we've been seeing in Walnut Creek, etc, but that it's a matter of time before it comes here.

Ask yourself this: when's the last time you saw a deputy making a car stop in Alamo? Now, go talk to a cop you might know, and ask him/her, how many arrests come from car stops? The answer will be enlightening. Unfortunately, with the minimal staffing at Valley Station, the guys on duty don't have time to make stops, and the overtime guys don't want the hassle. CHP? Forget it. We see them when someone gets tagged in the crosswalk in front of the Plaza, and that's about it.

My opinion-take it for what it is :)


Posted by Ted, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 11:33 am

Things are fine as they are. We don't need "Change".
Besides, the government can't protect you from crime, only the 2nd Amendment can. The police are only good for filling out the paperwork afterwards.


Posted by No Voter, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 12:06 pm

Aaron, please dig a little deeper. Federal law requires that any federal money come with the string attached that incorporated areas must accept low income housing. It is a FACT. I went through it in Santa Clarita, after we had been lied to that it would never happen. What keeps the illegals, and Antioch types out is basic economics. They cant afford to live here. By incorporating, you open the door wide open and federal obligations require that you open your arms to them. This was a dual edged sword of a measure. Yes, we should have local control, but not at the expense of turning Alamo into Antioch. Also, note how Danville is trying to shore up their budget with all the lossess piling up. Alamo would have been bankrupt on day one. We will incorporate some day, but right now is not the time.


Posted by David in Alamo, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 12:15 pm

Does anyone have recent statistics on the voter registration (Democrat/Republican) breakdown for Alamo?


Posted by Voted Yes, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 12:37 pm

Ted wrote "Besides, the government can't protect you from crime, only the 2nd Amendment can. The police are only good for filling out the paperwork afterwards."

While there is a hint of truth to that, are you telling me you don't believe visible police patrol presence is a deterrent to crime?

I have a gun, and I'm well trained to use it. However, when someone is parked in front of my house in the middle of the night, and it seems suspicious to me (however legal), I'm reaching for the phone, not the Glock. You can tell me you'd do otherwise with as much bravado as you want, but if things go sideways and you end up using your gun, remember: the first thing you're going to be asked is, "Why didn't you call the police?"


Posted by David in Alamo, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 12:48 pm

I read that:

"The town of Alamo would have been responsible for creating a local police force or negotiating a contract with the sheriff's office to be able to begin providing law enforcement services for the town."

Web Link

If the incorporated town of Alamo *had* contracted with the sheriff's office, would there have been *any* increase in law enforcement services devoted to Alamo?


Posted by Aaron, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 pm

@ No Voter re: "Federal law requires that any federal money come with the string attached that incorporated areas must accept low income housing. What keeps the illegals, and Antioch types out is basic economics." Are you sure you're from Alamo, CA and not Alamo, TX?

You are frightfully misguided on so many levels, and I don't have 30 min to school you on Section 8 statutes. Even if I bothered to explain how Section 8 is not relevant to the issues of incorporation, you wouldn't understand. Your intense xenophobia has revealed your very low level of sophistication.


Posted by welly, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:13 pm

I guess cities like Danville, Walnut Creek, Concord etc. don't have crime problems since they have their own police departments.
Alamo has many highly educated and succesful people, not a bunch of lemmings. They have spoken.

Please both sides........ Really show you care, clean up those unsightly signs!


Posted by Ted, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm

Voted Yes wrote "While there is a hint of truth to that, are you telling me you don't believe visible police patrol presence is a deterrent to crime?"

I don't know. Alamo seems to have pretty low crime already with very little visible police presence. Perhaps you should ask the residents of Oakland if a high police presence deters crime. They may be in a better position to answer that question.



Posted by Voted Yes, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:16 pm

I'm pretty sure we would be able to specify in the contract what staffing levels we required (and wanted to pay for!), as well as things like response time limits, etc. Beyond that, however, is accountability and continuity. It's my understanding that a good portion of the deputies we see on patrol are working on an overtime basis. Good cops? I would say so. Familiar with specific problem areas and people in Alamo? Likely not. If we had a bunch of deputies like Elmer Glasser, who knows the hot spots and knows the kids, that would be wonderful, but a transient deputy on an o/t shift isn't looking to work on long-term projects.


Posted by Officer Krupke, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:17 pm

Let's see if I can clear up this law enforcement issue.

The county sheriff is cutting services - up to 70 deputies will lose their jobs. Alamo is served by the county and will therefore be directly affected by these cuts.

Cities (Walnut Creek, Concord, etc.) are not served the county sheriff and will therefore not be affected by county cuts in the sheriff's dept.

The only way that Alamo would have been able to increase police services would have been to incorporate. In any event, an incorporated Alamo would have received THE SAME level of service.

Officer Krupke


Posted by Officer Krupke, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:22 pm


CrimeReports.com reports the following which spans 2/24/2009 to 3/4/2009 in Alamo

BREAKING & ENTERING (5)
THEFT (1)
OTHER (1)
ASSAULT (1)
THEFT FROM VEHICLE (8)
DISORDER (1)
TRAFFIC (3)
COMMUNITY POLICING (5)
PROPERTY CRIME (5)

30 crimes - do you think that is a low crime rate?

Officer Krupke


Posted by Bud in Alamo, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Who would vote yes to a police state anyways?
The thing I like about Alamo is Big Brother isn't breathing down our necks here.


Posted by Voted Yes, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:32 pm

Welly-you guess that Walnut Creek and Danville don't have crime problems? Hmmm...keep guessing.

Ted-Oakland doesn't have a high police presence. At peak times, there is one officer for every 4,998 citizens. Off hours, it's one for every 19,974.

Maybe you should talk to the fine citizens of Oakland-I already have :)


Posted by Voted Yes, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Officer K-that crime rate only seems low if it isn't your house or car that's been burglarized or you haven't been assaulted!

Bud-how did you get from wanting sufficient police coverage to a police state? It's a matter of Alamo residents deciding what kind of coverage we need...


Posted by Marlene, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:43 pm

If the strongest argument to incorporate is to grow our police presence to try and prevent petty things like car break ins and property damage then I'm even more convinced that the No vote was the way to go. I think that all of the people who voted Yes to increase the police force in Alamo need to just stay home and lock all their doors because they certainly aren't really living if they are afraid of the type of crimes that happen in Alamo. Officer Krupke - can you answer the question of what the penalty is for littering in Alamo - because I'm about to turn all the canidates and Yes supporters in to the Sherriff for dumping their trash all over our beautiful town.


Posted by Voted Yes, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Marlene,

So, auto burglaries, home burglaries, assaults, and property damage are petty? Here's the problem: people used to say things like that didn't happen in Walnut Creek, but now they do. Things like that didn't happen in Danville, but now they do. The areas around us are changing. I hesitate to say we need to 'change', since that's apparently a dirty word 'round here, but shouldn't we consider 'adapting' to what's going on around us? You may have the choice to lock your doors and stay home-I don't. I work for a living, and I have to leave my home every day to do so. Maybe, while you're out there 'really living', you can swing by, pick up 2nd-Amendment Ted, and make sure some opportunist isn't doing something 'petty' to my home.


Posted by Marlene, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 2:06 pm

Hmmm...Danville is incorporated and has it's own police force and "things like that" happen there??? Hmmmm...how did incorporation help them then? I don't stay home and lock my doors - I work for a living as well...I was implying that people like you should do that since you are so afraid.


Posted by Voted Yes, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Marlene-

Not really afraid, Since you don't know me, I don't know how you'd infer that. I'm not frozen by fear. In fact, I can say with some measure of confidence I've seen the absolute worst things humans can do to one another, and I seem to be able to live a pretty full, productive life.

I'm really sorry if wanting things safer, beyond 'safe enough', is somehow offensive to you. Have you ever taken a statement from a girl in her early teens who was raped and beaten in her own home (in a 'safe' and yes, 'incorporated' neighborhood) because she walked in on a burglary in progress? I have. That 'petty' crime suddenly took on a new level of seriousness. Would more cops on the street have prevented that from happening? No one (not even you) can say. Would it hurt? Absolutely not. Really, the odds of catching a burglar in a house are fairly slim, especially in Alamo, where homes are farther apart. More cops on the street DOES mean there's more traffic enforcement happening, and in the case I cited above, had the parolee-at-large who committed the crime been stopped, he would have been in custody. 'Ted', with his trusty sidearm, can probably do a dandy job of protecting himself, as can I. I'm thinking about the people who can't.

Marlene, I understand that Alamo is a relatively safe place to live-that's why I live here. But to attack me for wanting to keep it safe (just safe, not a 'police state' as 'Bud' put it) in the face of a changing sociopolitical landscape is misguided, at best.


Posted by Steve, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 2:43 pm

sad, very sad! 'no' voters, get a grip, crime is up along with speeding on the i-680 alternative route aka danville blvd. keep alamo rural my %$%. cars and homes are being burglarized, not because of unlocked doors, actually smashed windows. most unreported, who's there to take a report today? and tomorrow after further sheriff cuts? i hope you ole' hicks still have grandpa's double barrel in the closet. oh, that's right, you can report a crime and have it logged on the sheriff's website - i sure feel safe now! wake-up, the criminals are coming in from outside areas, the word is out, easy crime and no prosecution in alamo! thanks 'no' voters, you are the real loser thinking your cozy and snug.


Posted by Steve, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 2:52 pm

to marlene - safe? try walking across danville blvd in the crosswalk in the alamo area? don't live near downtown, do you? behind a security gate by chance? also, i just talked with a sheriff that just saw a known criminal from richmond in our when returning from the back-40 territory to close for the day - yes, they don't actively patrol our even with a substation in alamo plaza. yes, a criminal convicted of burglary that was recently paroled, i wonder what he's doing wondering the streets of alamo?


Posted by alamo resident, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Jesus, enough already. Both sides, clean up your crap left all over our streets, take your big trucks out of our parking lots and move on. We don't want additional layers of government. After witnessing the barrage of signs, banners, idiots standing in the rain with signs (as if we couldn't see them on the side of the road) and my wife getting harassed at school and the supermarket I'm pleased not to have to elect city council members every couple of years. One can only imagine what that would have been like.


Posted by Steve M., a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 2:59 pm

If crime in Alamo gets that bad then there is nothing you can do about it but move, because more police crushing your neighborhoods isn't going to prop up your property values.


Posted by Steve M., a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 3:01 pm

If crime in Alamo gets that bad then there is nothing you can do about it but move, because more police cruising your neighborhoods isn't going to prop up your property values.


Posted by David in Alamo, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 3:11 pm

I would like the pro-incorporation proponents to answer the following questions:

(1) How has incorporation improved the quality of life of the residents of Orinda?

(2) How has incorporation had a negative impact on the quality of life of the residents of Orinda?


Posted by Julia, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 3:14 pm

Okay...enough is enough...

This message is for all of us...the Yes on Measure A and the No on Measure A.

Let's get a grip on the situation and move on.

I know in the first few comments and rebuttal's I was kind of rough on the minority yes voters, but that goes with the territory...

It happened, the NO's have it and to be honest, I don't really know if we won or lost...only time will tell. I really think we all should make sure our Contra Costa Rep. realize that the No votes placed a responsibility on her to make sure her focus continues to be with Alamo...Daville can take care themselves.

Lets continue to support the AIA and all the other local groups that keep a watchful eye on our well being.

Go Alamo...lets stay united and so the County that we all want Alamo to prosper and this last election did not divide us nor did it put neighbor against neighbor.

And please lets clean up the signs, the rain did a real number on some of them, but lets get out there and do what's what's right.

Thank you...Julia, a Alamo resident for 32 years and hopefully a lot more.


Posted by Steve, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Julia - as a 'yes' voter, I roll with your comments, mary piepho's not a fan favorite of mine, with a 'yes' win, i was looking forward to the opp of making our own decisions. mary's ignored us, except during her election period, and the pressure and attention needs to pressed forward and make her realize we're paying attention.


Posted by Alamo Joe, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Disgraceful that Alamo voted No. Really pathetic! FEAR AND IGNORANCE RULE THE DAY YET AGAIN.

The idea that Alamo isn't broken, or that we are better off sending million$ away to be "supervised" by uncaring, incompetent, unrepresentative bureaucrats and union slugs who are determined to bankrupt the County simply proves the point that money and brains are often mutually exclusive...

This country is going to Hell in a handbasket - voting no because of fear that one of the richest communities in America can't self fund is unbelievably absurd!


Posted by Neighborhood Jim, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm

So that's a Yes vote for even more taxes, Alamo Joe? As if Schwarzenegger and 0bama aren't giving us enough new taxes?

Bet you voted for both of them, too.




Posted by Alamo Joe, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 4:14 pm

Do I want more taxes Neighborhood Jim? Absolutely not! I want less taxes and more accountability! That's why I voted YES ON A. And even if I can't lower my taxes, I sure as heck want a voice in what they are used for - right now, Alamo residents are effectively disenfranchised - our votes are meaningless - we are subsumed in a sea of East/West County voters who have about as much in common with us as a flea does an elephant.

Is what No on A voters REALLY want? I doubt it. But I suspect most cast a "fear" vote - better to sleep with the Devil you know that go the "scary" route and deal with the unknown - forget what the fiscal analysis says. Forget that all major papers said yes - forget the NO campaign saw big contributions from Developers who prefer the rubber stamp approval process. Forget that the NO crowd was thinking only for themselves and not the community.

The facts are the County siphons off millions from us and yet we are "supposedly" better off with incompetents in Martinez running our affairs? Pluheeze!


Say, how about the No crowd getting off their arses and taking down all the obnoxious signs? The Yes crowd at least had the class to remove them promptly...


Posted by Neighbor Jim, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm

"Starting this spring, Danville retailers will get some help in weathering the financial storm rocking the nation. At their March 3 meeting, members of the Town Council unveiled a $400,000 plan to provide economic stimulus to the downtown business district."

This is what Measure A would have brought to Alamo. A tax and spend town council. Why should they even do business when the government can instead just take our money and gives it directly to them without giving us anything in return?

"Hope and Change" has come to Danville. Thank God we're still safe from it here in Alamo.




Posted by alamo resident, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 5:23 pm

Couldn't agree more Neighbor Jim


Posted by Frank, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 5:24 pm

Its over, take your signs down. Winners - you won - be happy. Lossers - better luck next time. By all the exchanges, this is turning into a smack down. Lets sell tickets, cotton candy and show our kids what adults do when they dont get their way. Its done already - go get dinner ready.


Posted by great job alamo joe, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 5:25 pm

alamo joe - excellent points. neighbor jim should fold...


Posted by Neighbor Jim, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Fold? Hell, I already won!
66% of Alamo residents agree with me, not Joe.


Posted by Mary Piepho, a resident of another community
on Mar 4, 2009 at 5:34 pm

Post removed: Supervisor Mary N. Piepho did not post this comment.


Posted by Mike, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 5:36 pm

Nieghbor Jim - It's raining at midnight, turn on your windshield wipers and headlights!


Posted by Anthony, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 7:31 pm

This whole clash between the Yes group and the No group seems to have turned our once friendly neighborhoods into a battleground.

That is sad - very sad.

I hope the members of AIM that started this mess are satisfied.

Looking at the top 5:
Grace Schmidt
Steve Mick
Vicki Koc
Randy Nahas
Bob Connelly

I am sure happy PROP A did not pass!

It will be nice to run a few errands without the pushy candidates getting in my face.

Now please take down your signs, and pursue something more productive with your time.


Posted by Navin, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Well said Anthony!

It is what it is - NO INCORPORATION.

Thanks be to God.


Posted by Alamo Gayle, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 7:53 pm

Glad this is over.

This has been like the Civil War of Alamo.


Posted by ddd, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 9:33 pm

battle over? we now know there's more than just a few low-life's in alamo - anthony! how many signs are stacked in your barn?


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 9:57 pm

No amount of YES signs could have gotten this stinker passed, so what's it matter?


Posted by Tim, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 10:09 pm

I supported Measure A, but I have to admit, the incorporation movement did a lousy job of getting the real issues to be discussed. The fact that the NO group was able to commandeer the discussion with their fear, uncertainty, and doubt is why the election was lost.

Now, for the real issue....this baloney about Section 8 housing. What you're really saying, but don't vocalize it, is that you don't want poor black people to be able to move into really cheap apartments in Alamo, because that would decrease property values. So, I ask you, since Danville is a town, and has had to follow the low-income housing mandates for many years, can you tell me where the "bad" section of Danville is? You know, where all the poor black people live? Where all that crime is? I've lived here almost 20 years, and I don't know where in Danville it is. C'mon, there's got to be a bad part of Danville, right?


Posted by Tom, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 4, 2009 at 10:11 pm

stinker? that's about all you have control of, the skunks. with this economy, let's see what we get for our tax $'s, want to see where your $'s are going? visit pittsburg and richmond.


Posted by Leroy, a resident of Danville
on Mar 5, 2009 at 7:24 am

APPLY NOW to the following website:

Section8housing.com

Applications are being accepted online until March 8, 2009.

The Section 8 Consolidation Program is a privately funded grant program for low income families or individuals.

We need diversity in Alamo! The NAACP needs to hear more about Alamo.


Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 8:32 am

Oh, by the way, I forgot one item that you voted FOR when you voted NO.

You voted FOR a dramatic increase in government bureaucracy in Alamo. You ask, "How can this be?" Well, it can be because there is now a vacuum in Alamo and the only thing that abhors a vacuum more than nature are money-hungry bureaucrats.

You think you saved Alamo? You lost it by voting no. Wait and see.


Posted by Voter, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 8:48 am

One point:
There are volunteer fire departments all over rural America. Why not a volunteer town council and mayor? We have a unique opportunity to implement innovative governing in an economic environment that begs for heroic action to preserve the Republic. Next time we consider incorporation let's not choose sides and polarize our neighborhoods. Let's create a task force the WORKS TOGETHER. Remember the long, hot, summer in Philadelphia when our founders were virtually locked up in a room to hammer out our governing documents? Alamo deserves better than strident, narrow, and often questionable views and motives of a few political wannabees that have plagued the run up to the election. We have proven that we have a robust commitment to our special community. ALL sides want the very best for Alamo. Let's harness our activism and make our voices heard LOUD & CLEAR at each and every Board of Supervisors meeting. Apathy breeds contempt for government when government turns a deaf ear to it's citizens. I expect to see all those who worked so hard on both sides of this debate to channel that very energy towards ensuring a bright future for Alamo, incorporated or not.


Posted by Chuck, a resident of Danville
on Mar 5, 2009 at 9:00 am

Neighbor Jim from Alamo: thanks for bashing Danville. Here's an idea for you, Neighbor Jim. Build a 10 foot fence around your house, lock the gate, turn on Limbaugh, and keep smoking the same old crap that has turned you into a nasty little man with small ideas.


Posted by By the way Ron, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 9:02 am

Neighbor Ron: You were probably around when FDR addressed the nation and warned that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. I hope you keep that in mind when you wring your hands and tell us we should just wait for the other shoe to fall. So far as I know, terrorizing people isn't community activism. It's just a political strategy to scare people into knee jerk reactions in response to hyperbolic and misleading perceptions of reality. Our occupation of Iraq is a perfect example. So Ron, fret all you want. I'm taking my dogs on a nice long walk on our beautiful Iron Horse Trail. I won't be taking pepper spray or a glock. I will simply enjoy the best things Alamo has to offer: Friendly people and scenic landscapes. If the other shoe happens to fall, I'm confident that our community is strong enough to pull together and solve it's problems. Am I the only one who has faith in Alamo? A yes vote for incorporation seems so cynical. We are so much better than that.


Posted by Leonard Vinci, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 9:09 am

The person that identified them self as the Supervisor Mary Piepho should be ashamed of yourself. I was kind when I used the word "ashamed".

I'm Supervisor Piepho could please everyone we would call her perfect, but we all know pleasing everyone is an impossible task...just read all the comments above.

I've lived in Alamo over 30 years and only requested help on two issues and both were handle ASAP.

The most recent issue is when I contacted Supervisor Piepho regarding a safety matter at the corner of Stone Valley Rd and Valley Oaks Drive. The weeds were so over grown that it was very difficult to cross the street safely. One call, that's all it took and Supervisor Piepho and her staff had a crew out here the following day and within 8 hours the area was cleared and safe.

Supervisor Piepho and staff...I thank you as well as all the residents on Valley Oaks Dr. thanks you.

And to the spineless soul that didn't have the courage to identify him/her self, have a good day. That was also more polite then I could have been.

Thank you, Leonard vinci

PS. I'm sure Supervisor Piepho doesn't need me to cover for her, but she may not have seen the fools comment.


Posted by Alamo Resident, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 11:17 am

I have the answer.

There are a lot of incorporated areas nearby. Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek are just a stones throw away. How about the disgruntled, Alamo Bashing "Yes" people move there and let the MAJORITY of Alamo residents live in peace.


Posted by Alamo James, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 1:42 pm

I've just returned to read the blog with some surprise. Just to clarify:

whither parks? - I was making a pun out of what must surely have been a mis-spelling - wither (which parks do without water) vs whither, which is the future form of 'where'. Sorry for my subtle joke.

As a No voter, I was thanking the Yes campaign for their efforts, for drawing all our attention to the pros and cons of incorporation, and I was hoping they would stay engaged.

I hadn't appreciated the level of personal vitriol involved. Might I suggest the same magnaminity in defeat that I have attempted to show in victory?


Posted by David in Alamo, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 1:47 pm

From an October 2007 edition of the Danville Weekly:
Web Link

"Posted by Vince Kreigher, a resident of the Walnut Creek neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2007 at 4:58 pm

...

In a recent polling of Alamo residents and focus study of proponents and opponents of incorporation, if the election were held today 65% of Alamo residents would vote NO.


..."

The incorporation proponents didn't do a good enough job of making the case for why incorporation would significantly improve the lives of Alamo residents.


Posted by Neighbor Jim, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 1:48 pm

Chuck, we always knew you Danville types were a bunch of Big City Liberals. Your idea of "big ideas" is a direct transfer of wealth from citizens to business owners with nothing in return? Out here in Alamo, when we give money to a retailer, we get something back in return. We call it shopping. I know, it's "small ideas" like that that keep me stuck in the sticks of Alamo...


Posted by Pappy, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 4:54 pm


Very interesting posts. I do see a trend. According to the losing side, the opponents are all dimwits who can't get out of their on way. When opponents question any part of the proponents arguments they are treated like lesser beings because they are unable to understand the enlightened logic of the proponents. Do I sense a bit of petulance on the part of the losing side? Wake up folks. This is America and the voters have spoken and the issue has been decided. Move on. You are guaranteed the right to vote your mind, not the right to always get your way. Can you think of a better system? Perhaps if you would analyze your own attitudes you would see why your precious Measure A lost.


Posted by Alamo Steve, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Congradulations Alamo. My faith in common sense is restored by this landslide defeat of the doomed, harebrained Measure A. Alamo is a great unincorporated area. Special congradulations to Alamo "old-timer" Virgie V. Jones, who was against this nonsense.


Posted by Another Alamo Steve, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 8:19 pm

Alamo Steve - Are you out of your friggen mind? "great unincorporated area", you are the face of the rural thinking community. Just wait, as more of our tax dollars are used to cover other areas outside of this "great unincorporated area", but of course that's if the county can explain where our tax dollars go - NOT!


Posted by Chuck, a resident of Danville
on Mar 5, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Neighbor Jim: you keep bashing Danville but we laugh out loud at your civil war. Every time we drive through Alamo we ask ourselves why? Our Shell Station is better than your Shell Station, our Chevron Station is better than your Chevron Station... and that's about it for Alamo. You can't even support a friggin' hardware store without letting it go bankrupt. When the Hay and Grain blows over in the next storm your downtown charm will be 100% reliant on a used car lot... in other words: kapoot. God forbid the post office burns down... if that happens you'll be living in Walnut Creek 94596.


Posted by Neighbor Jim, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 5, 2009 at 9:22 pm

Yeah, Chuck, maybe Yardbirds can relocate to Danville, establish a cozy relationship with the Town Council, and get some of that free taxpayer money from Town Hall. Then it doesn't matter if they actually serve the community or not. As long as the politicians serve them.



Posted by Julia Pardini, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 6, 2009 at 9:02 am

Hi Guys...it's Julia, I see you're still at it. And you're not taking the advice of Dolores Giardelli, "to keep it civil".

Ms. Giardelli, keep the fire burning for at least another 30 day's. I'm sure living in an wonderful Italian family, you hate to hear all the SOUR GRAPES. I think this subject matter has had more comments than any other Danville Weekly subject matter.

Keep up the great work Dolores and you other folks, keep those wonderful and colorful comments coming.

Have a great day...Julia Pardini also from a wonderful Italian family.


Posted by cardfark, a resident of Diablo
on Mar 6, 2009 at 9:12 am

With apologies to Sonny and Cher (something I never thought I'd say):

"...and the bile goes on..."


Posted by Resident, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 6, 2009 at 10:09 am

To the proponents of Incorporation who were so soundly crushed....

Get over it!

next........


Posted by PoliticsCorrupts, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 6, 2009 at 10:13 am

"Local control" just means that the decisions of the town council members would be controlled by LOCAL business interests and LOCAL financial supporters of the town council.


Posted by Neighbor Jim, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 6, 2009 at 1:14 pm

That's right, PoliticsCorrupts.
That's what's going on in Danville right now with the Town Council transferring nearly half a million dollars directly to their friends and supporters in the downtown business community at the expense of local taxpayers.
We don't need that kind of cozy political back-scratching here. Glad Alamo just said 'no' to more politicians.


Posted by Dan, a resident of Danville
on Mar 6, 2009 at 1:30 pm

Geez, that's not "transferring," Neighbor Jim. That's outright looting the public treasury like bandits in the night. Score another win for local representative democracy.


Posted by Neighbor Jim, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 6, 2009 at 1:43 pm

Alright, you got me there, Dan from Danville. But it's not just at the local level. They're doing it in Washington, DC, too. Tauscher, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, and 0bama are all in on it.

And guess who's getting stuck with the debt?


Posted by Coomunity courtesy, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 6, 2009 at 5:21 pm

Respectfully keeping this forum focused on the subject of incorporation, would anyone like to comment on the core issues discovered by post election polling:

#1 Was fiscal planning/budgeting possible in the current fiscal crisis for a new corporation start-up? Even if it would be town?

#2 Should all neighbors expect inclusion and oversight in the government formation and oversight? Would there be more than public hearings?

3) Should all neighbors expect a government, and its services, defined to majority requirements?

4) Should candidates trust a county to allow their formation of a government and establishment of planning/budgeting to the majority of neighbors requirements?

Let that further a more focused examination in discussion.

Hal


Posted by Alamo Spotlight, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 8, 2009 at 1:07 pm

Carmel Valley, California, has fought off the LAFCO process since 2002 and watched our incorporation process closely. Here is an excerpt quoting Alicia Corstorphine, editor of Alamo Today, in the Carmel Pine Cone article, "Does Alamo's anti-incorporation vote foretell C.V. results?"

According to Corstorphine.............."There was a large influx of money from developers and land use attorneys," she said. But ultimately, Corstorphine blamed the election loss not on developers, but on residents'inability to educate themselves on the issues facing the community. She said talking to some "was like talking to a brick wall."


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 8, 2009 at 6:08 pm

Imagine that, a news editor with an agenda!
According to Alicia Corstophine, the public is too stupid and unsophisticated to vote they way she wanted them to. How typical of someone in the news media.


Posted by Alamo resident, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 8, 2009 at 6:29 pm

Poor Alicia Corstorphine.

She would have sold so many more papers with an Incorporated Alamo. Now she's stuck with a throw away rag. Even the Danville Weekly knows that the grass roots organizers of the opposition to incorporation had nothing to do with "developers."


Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 8, 2009 at 6:58 pm

Alamo should be incorporated now, but the reality of a well-defined, inclusive incorporation was not offered.

Please review page 8-A of the following site, Carmel Pine Cone:

Web Link

Alisa Corstorphine, publisher of the Alamo Today, without any polling or evidence, made blind claims about the outcome of the Alamo incorporation election in the Carmel Pine Cone. To claim that the very savvy majority of voters in Alamo, after in-depth review of data, never supplied by incorporation proponents, reviewed only expert documentation and study references developed by expert counsel and financial analysts, is a failure in "educating" such a majority was a critical insult to her readership.

Alisa is a capable writer that allowed her anger to reflect a lack of reality in the Alamo region. Our community of neighborhoods, as the majority of voters, waited for proponents to present our inclusion, definition of government and usual and customary pro forma planning/budgeting. When that reality was not presented, 64% of voters who supporting a well-defined, inclusive incorporation voted NO.

Hal


Posted by A Friend, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 8, 2009 at 11:57 pm

I am against incorporation, and I know the Corstorphines are in favor of it.

Nevertheless, Alicia Corstorphine is a friend of mine. Friends can have differences of opinion. More importantly, the Corstorphines are well-meaning people and good parents, they care about their business and have donated countless hours to overseeing and coaching youth sports teams, and have contributed to the community in a myriad of other ways.

As a friend of the family, I know I am reacting at a personal level, but it hurts people when you trash them like this, anonymously, in public forums. One person posted that their paper, "Alamo Today," was a "throw away rag." How would you like this said about your business, your livelihood, something you devote countless hours to, your blood, sweat and tears?

Please don't denigrate people and their businesses like this, it is hurtful and uncalled for.


Posted by David Brower, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 10, 2009 at 2:41 pm

I don't see how anyone can, with the benefit of a week's hindsight, claim a good or bad decision was made by the voters. It was an overwhelming, clear decision. Perhaps the voters had their minds made up before it started, perhaps proponents did not make a persuasive enough case, and perhaps the opponents case was compelling for whatever undecideds may have been in play.

We're now left with the AIA and the possibility of an appointed MAC, with services provided by -our- county which is experiencing financial difficulties of its own. Should the voters of -the county- decide to impose a parcel tax, we will pay it.

When the sheriff re-allocates officers following cuts, he will look at our 30 crimes of the year and note this is one every 12 days, and think perhaps some deputies could be usefully deployed elsewhere. Maybe that will be a good choice, and we have been overserved.

Whither Yardbirds, but Danville couldn't keep it's ACE hardware, or Danville Lumber either, thanks to the Despot in San Ramon. Hay and Grain will, sometime, close and be ripe for redevelopment.

In about 5 years time, we'll know which arguments were accurate prophesy, and which weren't. Maybe laissez faire will work fine -- we'll have the same shambles downtown, and not much happening, and the majority of folks perfectly happy with it. Nobody wants Alamo to be Blackhawk or Danville or Walnut Creek, we just have disagreement about how to keep what we like.

Kumbaya,
-dB



Posted by Officer Krupke, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 10, 2009 at 5:18 pm

Uh...

David - that was 30 crimes in 10 days in Alamo. Not 30 in one year.

Big diff...


Posted by Julia Pardini, a resident of Alamo
on Mar 14, 2009 at 9:58 am

WOW...Alicia Corstorphine, I see a friend came to your aid. Calling 66% of the people in Alamo stupid is not the way to get customers to do business with you and your husbands computer repair business.

You don't need a marketing degree to know calling your potential customers stupid and also having the inability to educate themselves on specific issues is a way to build business relationships.

I'm sure you are a fine woman and mother, but it would have been to your advantage if you just sat back and watched the feathers fly and report the issues as they developed, instead of inserting your anger against the thousands on fine men and women of Alamo that expressed there desire not to incorporate Alamo.

Just a little friendly advise...If I were you, I would go public and apologize to the fine folks in Alamo that didn't go along with your personal agenda.

Thank you, Julia


Posted by Well?, a resident of Alamo
on Jun 24, 2009 at 9:25 am

Now that the dust has settled, I'm wondering if anyone has been paying attention to the recent developments regarding Alamo's law enforcement situation. I'm told that due to recent quiet cuts, we now have ZERO coverage at night. RHCC may still have their deputy-I'm not certain how their agreement works. For the rest of us, though, the SO will send someone from Martinez for high priority calls only. Creepy-guy-in-the-van-at-2am-in-front-of-the-house is not a high priority call, by the way. Once he actually starts trying to get into your house, they'll send someone. Remember friends, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away...


Posted by Member, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 18, 2009 at 8:15 pm

At least Danville isn't full of people who place money and prestige above community, tradition, and values.


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 | 1,062 views

More changes coming to ValleyCare
By Tim Hunt | 13 comments | 561 views

Getting rid of an old toilet
By Roz Rogoff | 8 comments | 527 views

Take Full Advantage of Free Standardized Testing Opportunities
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 476 views