Original post made
on Dec 26, 2008
The incorporation advocates do not have an understanding as to the meaning of State Mandated Growth and it's short and long term impact and they do a disservice to those who wrote ballot arguements revealing such a mandate by stating that they're untrue. Housing Element has been a LAW in California since 1969. It mandates that every county and incorporated city have a General Plan which incorporates seven elements, including a Housing Element, which is required to be updated every five years and subject to detailed statutory requirements. The State of California works with the regional Councils of Government (in our case, ABAG) to determine the amount of housing needed within a region based on existing need and estimated population and job growth, and includes all income categories, from very very low to low, moderate and above moderate income. ABAG then allocates the required housing need to every county and incorporated city within that county. This is known as RHNA, or Regional Housing Needs Assessment/Allocation. Local governments are REQUIRED to plan for where and how the allocated housing units (apts,condo's,single family)will be developed. They MUST inventory every single piece of property in the city, catagorizing it by type and zone and sending that information to the state. In order to accomodate their "Fair Share" they can rezone, allow second dwellings, increase density; whatever it takes. "A community may not restrict growth to less than the number of units necessary to meet it's share of the regional need for housing for all income levels during the five-year period covered by the housing element." (ABAG website; Growth Management Systems) Sounds like a housing mandate to grow. If you review the ABAG website, you will see what the yearly requirements for the county as a whole and cities in particular. Out of 35,000 housing units assigned to CCC and it's nineteen cities, the cities had to provide 30,000 of those units; the county the remaining 5,000. If you include Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, which are in Alameda county, you'll have an additional 15,000 housing units, as each city is responsible for 5,000. As this is for a seven year period,(1999-2006) Danville had to provide 150 housing units per year, San Ramon 600 per year, and Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore about 700 each per year. This is why you see massive apartment complexes and oceans of development everywhere, as once a city incorporates, it becomes a single entity that has to accomodate all rules within it's small boundaries. The county on the other hand, is vast and size and contains a number of unincorporated cities, so the disparity of incomes within the county makes it easier to accomodate the highs and lows of "affordable housing". Become aware of the absolute change that will take place in this unincorporated area if it become a city. Your life will not, repeat, not be the same. We will become like the Town of Danville, which, when it was thinking of incorporating, used the same arguements for incorporation as are being used now to favor Alamo's incorporation. Once the growth engine of the Housing Element is placed at the center of the General Plan, all activities revolve around it. To keep Alamo the way it is, Leave Alamo the way it is. There is a good reason why our town doesn't look like the other cities in the area: it's NOT incorporated.
Maybe it's just me, but I look askance at folks who don't know what a paragraph is...
I have lived in Alamo my whole life and never once have I had a problem turning right onto Stone Valley Rd, from Danville Blvd. I have never even seen an accident that would cause the change for a "no turn on red"
Are people just sitting around thinking of stupid things to do to change Alamo? If it's not broken don't fix it.
If you're coming from Danville to Alamo, I suggest you take the freeway to Alamo. Traffic will back up to San Ramon Valley High because of this "NO TURN ON RED IN ALAMO".