What's up with Sphere of Influence?
Original post made by Hal Bailey on Feb 1, 2008
The definition of Spheres of Influence above concentrates on political definitions of areas or regions and neglects the cultural definition created by a majority of residents. In our e-chain discussions, we determined that the Diablo Road corridor is a natural and cultural divider from the tri-valley cultures to the south and the "Alamorinda" cultures to the north. We concluded Piedmont to Walnut Creek is the "Alamorinda" sphere of influence as bordered by Ignacio Valley Road corridor on the north and Diablo Road corridor on the south and extends west to Piedmont and east to the Boundary Oaks area.
By contrast, LAFCo attempts to label small enclaves as spheres of influence related to city governments. LAFCo's focus is on services providers and not the cultural definition of REGIONS. "Alamorinda" has only a small faction of individuals that identify with Danville and the San Ramon Valley and a vast majority of the culture south of the Diablo Road corridor has no cultural link to "Alamorinda."
City boundaries now and projected have little to do with cultural sphere of influence and how people define their region and lifestyle. Political preferences rather than political boundaries further define regions as spheres of influence. Current and prospective cities exist within political boundaries but do not exist as cultural spheres of influence.
What are your thoughts?
Posting from firstname.lastname@example.org
on Feb 1, 2008 at 9:14 am
I don't know the source of the Sphere of Influence (SOI) definition in the posting, but it wasn't Contra Costa LAFCO. Their website has the following information on SOI's:
LAFCO is charged by the State Legislature to determine and update at least every five years the "sphere of influence" of each city and special district.
A sphere of influence is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. Factors that LAFCO must consider in determining spheres of influence are:
▪ The present and planned land uses, including agricultural and open space lands,
▪ The present and probable needs for public facilities and services in the area,
▪ The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide,
▪ The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency.
LAFCO is required to review and update spheres of influence every five years.
The posting wrongly implies that cultural and social definitions are ignored by LAFCO in forming SOI's. This is simply not true.
on Feb 1, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Welcome Back, Ron,
The source of the information is from a reference via www.calafco.org. In general, the calafco reference offers information that is not interpreted by local Contra Costa LAFCo policies and provides the full scope of the available definition under General Law. In research of sphere of influence designations in Contra Costa County, community (resident) counsel could not confirm any consideration of regional cultural definition as stated by the calafco and CCC LAFCo.
Certainly, current definitions and boundaries of Alamo are only a small segment of the overall cultural sphere of influence in the region. There is a very small minority in the region, as less than 1400 residents, that believe a narrowly defined Alamo is a cultural entity. A majority inside and outside those boundaries understand the larger cultural sphere of influence and the lack of defining culture within the contrived boundaries.
Once again, a clever oxymoron to imply that cultural boundaries have been misstated by use of a CCC LAFCo definition when no such regional cultural spheres of influence exist.
Clever and complex, Ron, my applause,
One HAL of a Pal
on Feb 1, 2008 at 4:33 pm
How about a specific reference (URL) on the CALAFCO website? I just did a pretty thorough search there and could find nothing resembling the purported LAFCO definition.
The erudite writer says. "The source of the information is from a reference via www.calafco.org." Does this mean that once the LAFCO website was visited, one could then go anywhere on the Internet to prove one's point? After all, this would be "via calafco" wouldn't it?
The troubling section of the purported "definition" is the mention of an "organization or state (that) exerts some kind of indirect cultural, economic, military or political domination."
I'll hazard a guess that the words, "military or political domination" do not appear anywhere on the CALAFCO website or anywhere else in any legitimate State of California website. This is unless they're being used as an example of pernicious question-begging.