Letters to the editor | January 9, 2009 | Danville Express | DanvilleSanRamon.com |


Danville Express

Perspective - January 9, 2009

Letters to the editor

Cheers for MVHS women's water polo

Dear Editor:

I'm disappointed to see that the cross town football rivalry between Monte Vista and San Ramon Valley is listed in your year-end wrap-up (Dec. 26) but not the Monte Vista Women's Varsity Waterpolo team, which not only went undefeated this year with a 28-0 record but also became the first team to have an undefeated EBAL season ever. The Danville Weekly needs to remember that Monte Vista has some spectacular things happening with their students too!

Shelly Blackford, Danville

Risky for Alamo to continue under county

Dear Editor:

I graduated from Monte Vista High School in 1971 and always remembered the rural atmosphere of Alamo. When my family returned in 1994, I was struck by Alamo's still rural feeling, which vastly influenced our decision to locate and raise our family here.

But changes are jeopardizing Alamo's rural nature, and I believe that incorporation is needed to protect it. The studies conducted for incorporation have convinced me that revenue flow will be adequate to support the Town of Alamo.

I believe the county will view Alamo's high property tax base as their "cash cow" to compensate for loss of property taxes in other parts of the county. I prefer our property taxes be spent on Alamo's needs. The Sheriff's department is already stretched over a large area, and with crime increasing, police coverage will be spread thinner in the unincorporated areas. I believe incorporation will give Alamo better, more consistent police protection. The county is trying to pay down a $1.7 billion liability for employee benefits that it has not saved money to pay. Incorporation would end our liability for these benefits.

Alamo needs to incorporate to maintain its rural atmosphere and allay risk in this economy.

Kathy Tate, Alamo

Council seems arrogant

Dear Editor:

In the Jan. 2 issue (Happy New Year!) of the Danville Weekly the article "Town wants abatement on Diablo Road" caught my attention. Why is the Town Council bullying Jean Taylor? Her suggestions seem reasonable (i.e., place benches in the offending area rather than tearing up the asphalt, replacing with landscaping and placing a maintenance responsibility on her) and yet the response from Councilman Mike Doyle was "they're 'toying' with us." This seems to be unduly harsh and frankly, arrogant.

The article didn't mention how Taylor received the town approvals to asphalt and lane mark the area to begin with, but the Town Council suggested alternatives appear arbitrary and without full consideration of all alternatives. I do hope the Town Council works toward a more conciliatory approach to resolve the problem.

Lastly, it's also perplexing why, with real town issues like the shambles called the Danville Hotel and the Lucky/Albertsons/Lucky store replacement in the Green Valley Center (lacking any real progress toward replacement until recently), the Town Council and attorney want to focus their attention on Taylor.

Town Council, give Ms. Taylor a break and start to deal with the real issues in Danville. Or perhaps the stagnant thinking at town hall needs some replacements that are less mired in their own authority and power.

James Larente, Danville

Does Alamo want housing mandate?

Dear Editor:

So supporters believe that incorporation will allow Alamo to "stay the same"? Not likely. If you want the truth about the state's impact on incorporated cities, Google "California State Dept Housing-Community Development"; go to Housing Policy Development, and read the state mandate known as Housing Element and come to the realization that the "local control" you will have is to assist the state in its housing goals and to comply with its demands for "affordable housing."

Incorporated cities must, by law, adopt a state-mandated General Plan, which must include seven elements, of which housing is one. This element is designed to remove overall constraints on housing development, by mandatory rezoning, second dwelling ordinances, infill housing and increased density and then to offer, by mandate, lots and acreage to builders and then to work with them to develop housing. Disbelief? Google "Town of Danville-Documents"; go to Housing Elements-VI Housing Plans, to Housing Goals and then read and weep.

Your dream of a small, rural Alamo is just that - a dream - unless you remain unincorporated. Want more informative reading? Google "SB2-Cedillo," read the law and find out what's in store for incorporated cities.

Alameda County's Measure F was voted on by the entire county because the California Constitution and state law require a county-wide vote, not because they wanted to pick on unincorporated areas. The proceeds are used for unincorporated area services, such as police, fire and library. Can't the proponents argue facts instead of inflammatory falsehoods?

Stephen Heafey, Alamo


There are no comments yet for this post