http://danvillesanramon.com/square/print/2009/02/06/weekly-recommendations-for-alamo-election


Town Square

Weekly recommendations for Alamo election

Original post made on Feb 6, 2009

The time has come for the Town of Alamo to become a reality. The community has the resources - both financial and in its talented residents - for it to come into its own as an incorporated entity.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, February 6, 2009, 12:04 AM

Comments

Posted by Don Copland, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 1:11 pm

We need to incorporate!The citizens that seem to think that the county is working in our best interest, need to stop and go to some meetings once in a while. I have participated in hundreds of hours with projects planned for Alamo, and no the county is not concerned with our "rural character". A quick example was our Supervisor going to vote for funding a project that would basically turn the 680/Stone Valley Road/Danville Blvd. project into one similar to the Sycamore Valley overpass. All this was done without public input! Is this protecting our "rural character". There are multitudes of other projects that have been handled in the same manor. Please citizens, wake up and see what is happening. ALAMO NEEDS TO BE INCORPORATED AND PROTECT OUR CHARM!


Posted by Steve From Alamo Oaks, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 2:21 pm

Right, Don, that's why Alamo looks the way it does today...because the County isn't concerned with our "rural character". In fact, that's why we look as we do, because we're NOT INCORPORATED. Use your damn minds, we are as we are because we're not incorporated. Is Danville, which incorporated nearly 30 years ago, using the same arguments as the pro side today uses, the same as it was then? Get a grip. Change Alamo and you'll change Alamo.


Posted by Steve From Alamo Oaks, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 2:21 pm

Right, Don, that's why Alamo looks the way it does today...because the County isn't concerned with our "rural character". In fact, that's why we look as we do, because we're NOT INCORPORATED. Use your damn minds, we are as we are because we're not incorporated. Is Danville, which incorporated nearly 30 years ago, using the same arguments as the pro side today uses, the same as it was then? Get a grip. Change Alamo and you'll change Alamo.


Posted by 32 Year Resident, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 2:25 pm

Incorporation brings with it CHANGES in the form of hundreds of laws and ordinances that the proponents of incorporation have absolutely no control over. Incorporation is the way to go from rural to REGULATED in record time.

Alamo can choose to incorporate at any time, but incorporation is IRREVERSIBLE. Often we don't truly appreciate what we have until it is gone.


Posted by Alamo Spotlight, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 2:40 pm

This story has no by-line, and I don't blame the writer. Any good newspaper reporter would be ashamed to identify himself as having written such POPPYCOCK! A "recommendation" is not an "editorial", and may get a pass. Voters' read TDW for something of value to help them decide on a serious issue, not a biased piece of campaign rubbish.

UNDERSTANDING THE FAILURE OF LAFCO'S CFA:

An expert financial analysis of the Contra Costa LAFCO Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA) is now available for your review. The 12-page document provides significant documented sources that recognize the impact of our current fiscal crisis on the validity of the LAFCO CFA and its use of historical revenues and costs from nearly two years ago.

Cecily Talbert Barclay, a recognized legal expert in government law, in cooperation with other fiscally responible Alamo citizens, has sponsored this expert analysis to fairly inform voters on the issues of historical fiscal data versus current fiscal crisis limitation.

Our state controller warns of dire outcomes for cities. Alamo Spotlight respect voters' need for detailed expertise and analysis to decide their choice in our incorporation election. You are invited to contact focus@alamospotlight.com to arrange for your copy of this important analysis.


Posted by Silent Bob, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 4:00 pm

It isn't the Lafco estimate that concerns me about incorporation. With solid council leadership the numbers will sort themselves out in a few years. By far my greater concern is that a majority of candidates are members of the same "club" and I fear a town council co-opted by AIM members.

AIM/AIA are inextricably linked by cross pollenation. Whether true or not, the appearance that this group intends to establish its own feifdom is overwhelming. I can only imagine how objective they might be in decision making or committee appointments if elected.

Even more insidious to our town is the ideology of these members, whose backgrounds are steeped in liberal activism (for fun google some names and see whose campaigns they contributed to). The best way to "keep Alamo the Same" is to prevent that liberal ideology from establishing a legislative foothold here.

Keep in mind the AIA is a self appointed group with no legislative authority and no membership requirements. You might as well say you're a member of Ducks Unlimited. Many of their recommendations to the County are disregarded which is why they are trying to incorporate. By virtue of being community activists or career committee sitters they have a sense of entitlement to make decisions for us? Their candidacy alone compromises the incorporation effort more than anyone else could.

To be sure, some candidates that are associated with these groups still have the experience that may make them good council members, but I met the ones "endorsed" above and wouldn't let them balance my checkbook.

I will be voting NO on incorporation for the reasons above, but everyone voting NO would be foolish not to hedge their bet by voting for at least a few reasonable candidates. If all the opponents organized and supported the same candidates, and incorporation passes, the odds are good the oponents candidates would get elected. Now wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events?

PS my endorsements: Rubay, Waite, Johnson, Smith, Niyati


Posted by Alamo resident, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Wow! Danville Weekly prints an article on a highly charged issue with no author? Too bad it comes out on the same day as a 12 page professionally prepared expert analysis of the 06/07 CFA. This professionally prepared document has ACTUAL UP TO DATE VERIFIABLE NUMBERS as opposed to the outdated 2006 CFA PROJECTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS.


Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 4:21 pm

It's getting a little hot and shrill in here. Would someone please open the door and let in some water?

Alamo Ron


Posted by Rob, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 5:24 pm

It's not a news article, it's an editorial. Editorials rarely have bylines because they're written by the editor. It's an opinion.

That's why they call it the op/ed page.


Posted by Ed chiverton, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 6:33 pm

There is way too much emotion and not enough logic in this blog. Alamo people need to make decisions for Alamo- not remote non-residents. Our internal finances are way stronger and more stable than our County's finances. Five council people, who are required by the Brown Act to conduct meetings in public and cannot make private "back-room" deals, are not going enact a huge numbers of onerous laws. Stop all the scare tactics it is just childish.


Posted by Steve From Alamo Oaks, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 10:53 pm

So Ed thinks the LAW is a scare tactic. Well Ed, why don't you crack your computer open and do yourself a favor and Google "Town of Danville-Documents-Housing Element VI-Housing Plans" and see the pretty little town Danville has become and what you apparently want Alamo to come. Or maybe "State of California Department of Housing-Community Development- Housing Element". See what the law has to say about your little rural community and what's to happen to it when it's incorporated. Oh yes, bring up the truth and all of a sudden those "smart Alamo residents" become liars and users of scare tactics.
Take all of five minutes and simply google "Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)" or "State Mandated Housing" or "Housing Element" and then tell me once again about scare tactics.
Don't ask us to make an irrevocable move and then get stuck with the consequences. I'm not prepared to invest my future in your shaky figures.
Better still, just go to the State Controllers website and see what's become of the $1.5 million dollars per year you depend upon to finance your little "fiscally solvent" town. It's been suspended as of last October.
Dream all you want, Ed, it's not going to happen. Those smart Alamo voters see you and what you want as the total scam that it is. To keep Alamo the way it is, leave it the way it is. NO on A. No on Incorporation.


Posted by Steve From Alamo Oaks, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 6, 2009 at 10:58 pm

So Ed thinks the LAW is a scare tactic. Well Ed, why don't you crack your computer open and do yourself a favor and Google "Town of Danville-Documents-Housing Element VI-Housing Plans" and see the pretty little town Danville has become and what you apparently want Alamo to become. Or maybe "State of California Department of Housing-Community Development- Housing Element". See what the law has to say about your little rural community and what's to happen to it when it's incorporated. Oh yes, bring up the truth and all of a sudden those "smart Alamo residents" become liars and users of scare tactics.
Take all of five minutes and simply google "Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)" or "State Mandated Housing" or "Housing Element" and then tell me once again about scare tactics.
Don't ask us to make an irrevocable move and then get stuck with the consequences. I'm not prepared to invest my future in your shaky figures.
Better still, just go to the State Controllers website and see what's become of the $1.5 million dollars per year from the Vehicle Licensing Fees you are depending on to for the next ten years to finance your little "fiscally solvent" town. They've been suspended as of last October.
Dream all you want, Ed, it's not going to happen. Those smart Alamo voters see you and what you want as the total scam that it is. To keep Alamo the way it is, leave it the way it is. NO on A. No on Incorporation.


Posted by Agusto, a resident of Danville
on Feb 7, 2009 at 11:34 am

I lived in Murietta California in the 1980's. For most of its history, Murrieta was not heavily populated. Its gently rolling hills dotted with native trees such as Engelmann Oak provided the perfect setting for a small rural community.

In 1990, area residents began a campaign for cityhood that resulted in the establishment of the City of Murrieta on July 1, 1991. At that point the population had ballooned from just 2,200 in 1980 to 24,000.

By the late 1990s, suburban neighborhoods were being constructed and people started to migrate to the Murrieta area from San Diego, Riverside, and Orange Counties. The population grew rapidly.

Between 1991 and 2007, the city's population skyrocketed to an estimated 97,257.

It didn't take long for others to discover the natural beauty of the valley once Murietta became incorporated.

Closer to home, Orinda was incorporatyed in 1985. Read Kay Norman's book, Orinda Historical Society A Brief history of Orinda to trace the negative changes occuring to that town after incorporation.

I am not a resident of you fair Alamo, but my brother lives in Alamo. I urge all of the residents of alamo to read the histories of small quaint communities in california before anf after incorporation.

Do your homework, before you vote. Study bthe effects of other cities before you vote.


Posted by Anthony, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 7, 2009 at 12:55 pm

I agree with Augusto.

Look at Malibu. Malibu became a city in 1991.

More than one-half (64%)
of all residents moved
into their current home
since being incorporated.


The population exploded after becoming incorporated.
Check the internet.

Vote No on A.


Posted by History Professor, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 7, 2009 at 1:15 pm

As a former history professor, I believe you always learn the most valuble lessons from history.

There are 480 incorporated cities and towns in California, of which 458 are cities and 22 are towns.

Look at the growth of cities in California once they incorporate in to a city or a town.

Although, most cities and towns in California incorporated at the turn of the century. Resarch the areas that have incorporated in the last 30 to 40 years. You will note huge growth patterns 100% of the time.

Just one close example - Oakley, California. Oakley incorporated in 1999.

Population growth in Oakley since becoming a city (since 1999), 94.58%.

These satistics and facts are readility available at the local library or on the internet.

This vote is not about taxes or local control. This vote is about "staying under the radar" (taken from another comment on this blog).

Please learn from the history of cities and towns all over California - actually even the Nation.

Please Vote No.


Posted by Louise, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 7, 2009 at 7:01 pm

I wish to say "no thank you" to the following candidates:

* Vicki Koc, community volunteer
Joseph "Joe" A. Rubay, businessman
* Steve Mick, retired university administrator
Randy Nahas, engineer/property manager
Bob Connelly, retired commercial banker


Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 7, 2009 at 7:47 pm

Now it's becoming stuffy in here (as in shirts). Would someone open the door and let the air out?



BTW, since Alamo is pretty much built out and is bounded on all sides (by Walnut Creek, Danville, Mt. Diabo SP, and Las Trampas RW) where is all this growth going to occur?


Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 8, 2009 at 8:35 am

I just looked at both websites, pro and con. The pro site has over two hundred supporters listed by name.

The con site lists not one person by name.

Kind of curious...


Posted by Louise Buriss, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 8, 2009 at 10:40 am

Ron, Don't let anyone hear you say that. They are going to think you are stupid.

Get your lips off of that thing, we don't know what that thing is!


Posted by Lester Smith, a resident of Danville
on Feb 8, 2009 at 11:55 am

A society based on corruption and secrets will/is fail/failing.

Alamoians Vote No.

From what I read, the few that put this together pulled somewhat of a bait and switch on you fine Alamonians.


Posted by Mike, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 8, 2009 at 2:22 pm

Data available from the Association of Bay Area Governments (Web Link) shows that all South County and Lamorinda cites grew at faster rates in the decade prior to their incorporation than afterward. All of these cities have State housing allocations, as Alamo does now through the County.

Most of Danville's and San Ramon's apparent growth in the last 20 years was actually approved by the County outside their boundaries, often over their objections, and later annexed by them as a fait accompli for self-protection. It was certainly not caused by their incorporation.


Posted by Phil Erickson, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 9, 2009 at 8:54 am

Incorporation would be a huge mistake! Alamo is today what we all sought when we moved here, a rural setting, unencumbered by amateur politicians wishing to provide their "enlightened leadership" upon us.

Those who are promoting incorporation have agendas that go beyond what is spoken or published. When I have repeatedly asked them to provide the benefits of incorporating, I get one reply...."control!" Well I'm not one who wishes to give them the controls, because I happen to like Alamo just the way it is today.

Adding a layer of expensive new government to satisfy the control freaks will eventually cost all of us dearly!


Posted by Ann M, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 11, 2009 at 2:53 pm

It's Broken, So Fix It! That is my reason for supporting Alamo incorporation. We send $700,000 a year to the county that we do not get back in services. We're basically subsidizing other communities in the county. To me, that is broken. The county "lost" $150,000 of Alamo parks & recreation money; they have no idea where it went. The county overrules recommendations by the AIA on new houses and listens to developers instead. The county takes forever to fix the death trap traffic situation on Danville Blvd. by Alamo Plaza. They are interested in moving traffic through Alamo, not in slowing it down. The county is in dire financial straits and has no option but to cut services or raise taxes. We have no control over this because we are only a small percentage of the county population, and we have no real voice or political representation. We are not represented when other agencies meet that affect us like the TriValley Regional Transportation commission. And on and on. If that's not b roken, I don't know what is.
I don't think the county is hostile toward Alamo, they just don't care that much about us, and why should they? A local town government made up of Alamo residents would do a much better job of looking out after Alamo's interests and utilizing all of the tax revenues we generate on behalf of Alamo.


Posted by Ann M, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 11, 2009 at 2:53 pm

It's Broken, So Fix It! That is my reason for supporting Alamo incorporation. We send $700,000 a year to the county that we do not get back in services. We're basically subsidizing other communities in the county. To me, that is broken. The county "lost" $150,000 of Alamo parks & recreation money; they have no idea where it went. The county overrules recommendations by the AIA on new houses and listens to developers instead. The county takes forever to fix the death trap traffic situation on Danville Blvd. by Alamo Plaza. They are interested in moving traffic through Alamo, not in slowing it down. The county is in dire financial straits and has no option but to cut services or raise taxes. We have no control over this because we are only a small percentage of the county population, and we have no real voice or political representation. We are not represented when other agencies meet that affect us like the TriValley Regional Transportation commission. And on and on. If that's not b roken, I don't know what is.
I don't think the county is hostile toward Alamo, they just don't care that much about us, and why should they? A local town government made up of Alamo residents would do a much better job of looking out after Alamo's interests and utilizing all of the tax revenues we generate on behalf of Alamo.


Posted by 25 year resident, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 11, 2009 at 5:19 pm

Ann, as a proponent you really need to get your story straight. Even the most outspoken proponents know that saying Alamo is "broken" is ridiculous and completely undermines your campaign.

Early in their campaign the proponents were going to be the group that would make Alamo a better place. But when they found that the overwhelming majority of residents loved Alamo just the way it was they had a dilemma. How can we get the residents who like Alamo just the way it is to vote for completely changing the entire system of governance? Answer: Tell them that we need to incorporate in order to keep Alamo the same! Yes, that's the answer! Try to convince the residents that although things are great now there is impending doom coming and we need to change to keep it the same.

Fortunately, I don't think the majority of Alamo residents are buying that one either.


Posted by Mike, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 11, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Actually, most people in town seem to think that there actually are things about Alamo that could be better and many see that our ability to keep them as good as they are is slipping badly.

Anyone who has actually seen how it works knows that Alamo isn't the place it is because the county has been benevolent, it's because hundreds of volunteers have spent hundreds of thousands of hours swimming up stream and working for it. Alamo is the place it is in spite of, not because it is incorporated.


Posted by Mike, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 11, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Actually, most people in town seem to think that there actually are things about Alamo that could be better and many see that our ability to keep them as good as they are is slipping badly.

Anyone who has actually seen how it works knows that Alamo isn't the place it is because the county has been benevolent, it's because hundreds of volunteers have spent hundreds of thousands of hours swimming up stream and working for it. Alamo is the place it is in spite of, not because it is unincorporated.


Posted by 25 year resident, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 11, 2009 at 8:30 pm

Yes Mike, it is called community service. And some of us understand the huge difference between selfless community service and paid bureaucracy. Perhaps you should consider moving to Orinda.


Posted by Mike, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 11, 2009 at 11:32 pm

And some of us understand the difference between a government that works with you and one that doesn't.