Town Square

Will a CCC-MAC remain unwelcome in Alamo?

Original post made by [removed], Alamo, on Oct 4, 2011

Dear Editor,

This story contains 268 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.


Like this comment
Posted by [update]
a resident of Alamo
on Oct 5, 2011 at 7:40 am

Dear Editor,

I sat through the meaningless drivel of the October 4 CCC-MAC Alamo meeting at the request of Alamo neighborhoods. CDSI courtesy to neighborhoods was to determine if Gayle and staff were going to make a difference in MAC members’ ability to serve the majority of Alamo residents. I have already reported that there is no interactive discussion, consideration and mitigation of major issues impacting the will and interests of Alamo neighborhood, business district and community groups. Quite obviously there is no consideration of any issue important to the >8200 voters that are participants in Alamo neighborhoods or the overall neighborhood participants in the region from Saranap to Blackhawk.

Supervisor Uilkema has engaged Ms. Jill Ray,, to be her liaison at CCC-MAC Alamo meetings and would be the appropriate contact for Alamo neighbors to express their expectations for operations and agendas. Alamo residents might wish to comment on the issues that previously divided the MAC from community support and participation:

1. MAC members Bowlby, MacDonald, Best, and Evans violated CCC-MAC policy in endorsing Tomi van de Brooke for District 2 Supervisor using their MAC titles.
2. Parks and recreation programs are not used by the majority of Alamo residents or aligned to interests in natural open space and self-directed recreation.
3. Inclusion of lighting and landscaping, as Z-36 parcel tax purpose, in R-7A funds usage for unwanted tree lighting in the business district.
4. Traffic management including removing Alamo from the consideration of Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
5. Plans to attract more commute traffic to Alamo by landscaping and identifying the Alamo off-ramp using R-7A funding.
6. Failure to review the impact of diversion of traffic from Diablo Road to Green Valley/Stone Valley corridor due to Danville’s illegitimate development approvals.
7. Another reconstitution of the P-2B committee and the designation of a new chair without community consideration or notice.
8. Continued use of “fill out a card, wait to be recognized, do your 3 minutes and then shut up and go away!”

Your journalism is needed in determining what community organization or agency can represent the will and interests of Alamo region residents.