Town Square

Post a New Topic

Tour Alamo parks with the MAC

Original post made on May 19, 2010

Alamo's Municipal Advisory Council is hosting a different kind of meeting Thursday. Starting at 11 a.m., they will meet at Livorna Park to become more familiar with area parks.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 8:44 PM

Comments (6)

Posted by Ralph N. Shirlet, a resident of another community
on May 19, 2010 at 6:59 am

Dear Emily,

In a recent study by Contra Costa LAFCO, Alamo Parks and Recreation (R-7A) serve only a very small minority of Alamo residents. Local polling demonstrates that residents prefer natural open space with trails and quiet rest areas to the formal parks and programs now in place.

Thus, for the MAC to continue focus on creating more formal parks and programs would simply dedicate our R-7A funds to continued service to a small minority. With R-7A funds going to Hap Magee Park and MVHS Pool, it appears that Alamo parcel taxes are supporting Danville's parks and recreation needs.

Possibly Ms. Quallick or a MAC member could outline for you how district 3 and their CCC-MAC Alamo intend to provide R-7A service to the majority of residents in Alamo.

Ralph without ROFL

Posted by Steve Block, a resident of Alamo
on May 19, 2010 at 7:37 am

I find it hard to believe that Alamo's hundreds of families with children, who use our wonderful parks weekly if not daily, are categorized by Ralph as a "small minority". Clearly he doesn't have children.

Posted by Ralph N. Shirlet, a resident of another community
on May 19, 2010 at 8:28 am

Dear Emily,

Here is the CC LAFCO document as a resource for your review of usage of R-7A funded parks and programs in Alamo:

Web Link

The R-7A review starts on page 158.

Ralph without ROFL

Posted by askidoo, a resident of Alamo
on May 20, 2010 at 12:23 pm

Shirlet comments ignore parks and improvements at AH Young, Rancho Romero Elementary School, Alamo Elementary School and Livorna Park - all within the unincorporated area of Alamo. They also ignore that Hap McGee is a shared park with approximately half lying in Danville and half in unincorporated Alamo. Monte Vista High School though in Danville is surrounded on two sides by Alamo and has a large proportion of Alamo students. This was mentioned in the report.

Also mentioned is that the current parks 'don't meet existing and future demand according to California and County park acreage standards and goals." IE: more parks are needed for the many young families and users in Alamo- approximately 20 +acres - not less.

Posted by Ralph N. Shirlet, a resident of another community
on May 21, 2010 at 7:06 am

Ralph N. Shirlet is a registered user.

Dear Emily,

Time to recap.

The value of the MAC review of R-7A funds usage by district 3 and CCC-PW is to create public disclosure to our region of the planned usage of nearly $4 million in local parcel taxes. The reality provided by CC LAFCO service review is current parks and recreation programs serve a minority of Alamo residents. Further polling shows that Livorna Park, Alamo School, Rancho Romero, Hap Magee and MVHS Pool, as supported by R-7A funding, are primarily used by non-Alamo residents. Young Park in the Alamo business district is seldom used.

Polling also establishes that formal parks and recreation programs are not the preference of the majority of residents who would prefer more natural open space with trails and quiet rest areas. Further, natural pathways and walkways along our primary roads and between neighborhoods would be a preferred usage of R-7A parcel taxes.

At issue for a majority of residents is CCC-MAC policies that restrict interactive discussion of planning with MAC members. MAC meetings are structures to only allow 3 minute presentations that are unanswered by MAC members and no Q&A is allowed by CCC-MAC policy.

Ralph without ROFL

Posted by askidoo, a resident of Alamo
on May 30, 2010 at 11:53 am

What polling? E exchanges among your friends and neighbors is anecdotal Non-Alamo users of our parks - heavens to betsy - true - there are no gatekeepers at parks; thank goodness. As to pathways/walkways along major roads - in Alamo these ideas/projects 'natural' or not have been fought rather than embraced so this statement is in opposition to what has happened and again what polling? As to interaction with the MAC it would be wonderful if more than four people attended the meetings to interact. Even if only 3 minutes at the meeting is allowed if there was validity and interest perhaps ideas would come to fruition and be in their planning: guess there is little real community interest.

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

Sentinels of Freedom Newsletter
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 862 views

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 853 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 2 comments | 577 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 10 comments | 535 views