Town Square

Post a New Topic

Alamo MAC discussion continues

Original post made on Jun 19, 2009

Talks concerning the establishment of a Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC) were the main focus of the June 11 meeting of the Alamo Community Council. Over 40 residents attended the meeting to find out more about MACs and to learn the overall plan of District 3 Supervisor Mary N. Piepho.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:00 AM

Comments (9)

Posted by One HAL of a TIME, a resident of another community
on Jun 19, 2009 at 7:01 am

Dear Dolores and Geoff,

The meeting, according to the handful that attended, was held on June 11.

Now, we all know that Alamo Time is 11 minutes later than Pacific Time, but is it Seven Days (or DAZE) earlier? This is very important because I keep one of my watches set to Alamo Time so I will not be frustrated by the difference.

Please advise,

Hal, as an Alamo TIMEkeeper


Posted by Timekeeper, a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2009 at 7:00 am

Dear Dolores,

Let me thank the many readers that helped me set my watch to proper Alamo Time by confirming that 5PM, June 4, 2009, happened in Alamo at 5:11PM, June ll, 2009 Pacific time.

So everyone can synchronize their watches to Alamo Time, it is currently 6:56AM, June 22, 2009 Pacific Time and 6:45AM, June 15, 2009 in Alamo.

AS a timekeeping courtesy, but I wonder if there are more important timing issues related to the subject of the district 3's community council meeting?

Hal


Posted by Geoff Gillette, Danville Weekly reporter
on Jun 22, 2009 at 10:21 am

Geoff Gillette is a registered user.

Mr. Bailey,
We are aware of the date discrepancy. We have tried to modify the story to correct the error but it is not showing up online. I have informed our IT department and they will look into it.


Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2009 at 11:35 am

Dear Dolores and Geoff,

Many thanks to you, Geoff, for correcting the time of the meeting. You both know your story had significant content that deserves continued consideration. Among neighborhoods' e-exchanges the primary questions continue concerning county presence in 94507 Alamo CA and the surrounding region. Those questions in continuing discussion are:

#1 - What justifies a MAC in our region and what is its purpose?

#2 - Does current CCC MAC policy provide any advantages from a 94507 MAC to neighborhoods?

#3 - Draft proposal for a 94507 Alamo CA MAC does not define citizens' participation beyond the seven district 3 appointees, so will there be some definition of an Alamo MAC before it is unilaterally created by CCC-BOS?

#4 - What purpose and advantage is district 3 to our region and what potential relationship is possible?

Neighborhoods have researched answers to these questions, but it is likely that your readers without access to e-exchanges have similar questions that require answers from district 3 and the county.

Hal, as a community courtesy


Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community
on Jun 23, 2009 at 12:36 pm

Hal,

At the risk of believing that you don't listen to anyone but yourself, I suggest you attend the very meetings that you are so apt on reporting. Others with questions should do so also- wouldn't you agree?

It would be at the community meetings that you would get answers such specific questions. All you will get on a message board such as this, is assumption and commentary. If you are really looking for no nonsense answers, you will only be able to get them directly from the county. They are responsible for the rules and conditions, therefore would provide the answers.

In closing, "the county presence in 94507 Alamo CA" will always be present because Alamo is the county.

There really is no entity, city or town of Alamo just like there is no Bay Point, Saranap, or Byron. They are all areas (places) within the Contra Costa County without independence.


Posted by Halamo, a resident of another community
on Jun 23, 2009 at 3:36 pm

Dear Dolores,

The majority in Alamo has been invited to a district 3 meeting by a pseudonym. The meeting itself, as the Alamo Community Council, is a pseudonym for CCC district 3. So, as are pal, Ron, would say, "Let's see, a real majority is invited to a pseudonym by a pseudonym to listen to unilateral intentions of strangers!"

Certainly sounds like a plan to me! Shall I bring my piano?

"Oh, golly gee, and what will be, time for another tune? No! I have to leave, but not for long when I'll be back for Mother's and another little song. For it's Mother's, there are no others, they are the cookies in the passionate purple package!"

Blissful and wise,

Hal, as Halamo
The Alamo Towne Fool
@ODDs, a Saloon for Fools
The Hotel Snaysmuth
2625 Crescent Moon Lane
Stepford CA 94507-1078


Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community
on Jun 23, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Hal,

Your derailment speaks volumes way beyond anything I could write.

Thank you.


Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community
on Jun 24, 2009 at 7:00 am

Dear Dolores:

The cause of this forum is part of your original article: "Conversation on the proposed MAC became more animated as residents brought up two main concerns. Readers should once again read the complete article. Here are the majority's concerns gathered by neighborhood reps:

**The first is that while the MAC can create subcommittees, they must be comprised of current members of the MAC, not other residents.

**The second is that the MAC is limited in how it can interact with other agencies. County codes prohibit MAC members from representing Alamo to non-county agencies or groups.

**"California code allows (other agency interaction) for MACs, but it's up to the counties to set up the rules for their MACs. And the county's rules are stricter than the state's" as a resident's comment.

**Chief of Staff Tomi Van de Brooke, "The concern I heard was that by becoming a MAC member you're giving up certain rights as individuals."

Thus, Dolores, district 3 has been increasingly at-odds with our region's majority since June 2000 and nothing in CCC-MAC policy or the district 3 proposal provides definition, agenda, and purpose/advantages to gain majority support within the 94507 boundaries. The commentary by a few pseudonyms in this forum should not be considered the required answers from our district 3 supervisor and staff.

Thus, let us return this forum to the key question, "Draft proposal for a 94507 Alamo CA MAC does not define citizens' participation beyond the seven district 3 appointees, so will there be some definition (agenda, plans and purpose/advantages) of an Alamo MAC before it is unilaterally created by CCC-BOS?" Neighbors expect the answer to be posted on the district 3 website for district residents to review.

Hal, as a community courtesy

Hal, as a community courtesy


Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community
on Jun 25, 2009 at 1:32 am

Hal, you are simply repeating yourself. (In more ways than one).

"Hal, as a community courtesy"
"Hal, as a community courtesy"


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

A Norman Rockwell Town
By Roz Rogoff | 7 comments | 1,414 views

David Brooks at his Best and Worst
By Tom Cushing | 11 comments | 944 views

Anti-fracking folks rail against railroads
By Tim Hunt | 32 comments | 851 views

Be an Exhibitionist!
By John A. Barry | 5 comments | 276 views