Guest opinion: Vote Yes on Measure A | February 27, 2009 | Danville Express | |

Danville Express

Perspective - February 27, 2009

Guest opinion: Vote Yes on Measure A

by David Dolter

When we started the Alamo Incorporation Movement, we did it to preserve Alamo with its large lots, horses, 4-H programs and small town ambiance. We committed ourselves to double- and triple-checking every fact that we published. We assumed Alamo citizens would debate incorporation based upon facts and their love for the community. How wrong we were! We said in the voters' pamphlet rebuttal to the opponents' ballot argument that every statement they made was untrue. They have continued to lie throughout the campaign. Recent opposition fliers, mailers and a so-called "report" all repeat a series of falsehoods about Alamo incorporation that go beyond incompetent research and ignorance to bare-faced lies.

These are not matters of opinion but documented facts. For example, opponents claim that there are no funds for road maintenance in the fiscal study. Nonsense - the funds are clearly documented at $750,000/year for our 56 miles of public roads and clearly sufficient to meet our maintenance needs. They claim the new town could be in deficit at the end of the second year. Also nonsense - there is no set of assumptions that could cause this since the County provides services for the first year, and Alamo will receive about $5 million in fund transfers from the County in the second year. They claim there are no funds for parks and recreation programs - more nonsense. The County will transfer $3 million in accumulated park funds on top of the $800,000 per year that Alamo will receive in R-7A tax revenues.

The opponents misrepresent Vehicle License Fee revenues. Since 2004, newly incorporated cities are paid before all other cities under a per capita formula with a floor. Our Vehicle License Fee revenue is stable and unaffected by low auto sales.

We could go on - but we're sure you get the point. Our opponents will say anything, no matter how false, to defeat Alamo incorporation.

What makes this worse is that Linda Best and Cecily Barclay, who wrote a recent article repeating these lies, are sophisticated community members. Best is a long-time political consultant who has had many developers as clients. Barclay is a land-use attorney married to the president of Centex Homes West. They have to know their arguments are fundamentally untrue. You can read a detailed item by item rebuttal of their false statements on our Web site at

We believe that incorporating Alamo gives us control over our own future. It takes advantage of Alamo's stable property tax base: Alamo's assessed values increased 5 percent in 2008 and mean home prices rose 2 percent in Q4 2008 while the County's fell almost 50 percent. The Town of Alamo will be managed for all Alamo citizens. Objective observers, including the local press, all of whose publications endorse a Yes vote on incorporation, agree that there are sufficient revenues to maintain and even improve Alamo services. The County is broke - let's manage our own future and not succumb to an electoral strategy based upon lies.

David Dolter is a former City Manager, former VP Centex Homes, and director of Alamo Incorporation Movement


Like this comment
Posted by Community courtesy
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 27, 2009 at 8:16 am

Definitions from on-line dictionaries:


1. An act of accusing or the state of being accused.
2. A charge of wrongdoing that is made against a person or other party.


1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.



To support with proof or evidence; verify: substantiate an accusation.

Like this comment
Posted by Ray
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 28, 2009 at 9:19 am

If the incorporation movement were objective and only interested in what's best for Alamo it would not have endorsed any candidates. Instead the incorporation movement wishes to impose it's minions on all of us. If they are elected the town commissions will be filled with their supporters and friends to the exclusion of the rest of Alamo. Consulting fees will be paid by the new town for services provided by incorporation movement associates. The incorporation movement agenda is transparent.

Like this comment
Posted by Sharon Burke
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 28, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Please note the Alamo Incorporation Movement has not and will not endorse any candidates. No information about candidates appears anywhere on our website or in any materials we hand out. We have in fact invited all candidates, both pro-incorporation and anti-incorporation, to every event we have sponsored, including a lunch with the mayor of a recently incorporated city and a large community event at a local school. We have extensively promoted the fact that Alamo has 15 qualified candidates to choose from - it is in our standard presentation and in the materials we hand out to voters.

Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Since AIM hasn't endorsed any candidates, and its hard to get that wrong by mistake, I have to wonder if Ray is just making up "facts" and hoping we don't know the difference.

Like this comment
Posted by Community courtesy
a resident of another community
on Mar 1, 2009 at 9:30 am

Dear Sharon,

AIM e-exchanges are being shared with neighborhoods e-exchanges and specific endorsements of Vicki, Randy and Steve are being circulated by AIM committee members via AIM e-exchanges. Ray is correct in his statements because several AIM e-exchanges discussed supporters being placed in interim committees for public safety, planning and other purposes. In addition, candidate’s websites confirm endorsements by you and other AIM committee members. The fact that AIM committee did not publish their endorsements on their website or via accommodating media is irrelevant.

REF: Web Link, Web Link click on endorsements

Like this comment
Posted by Jerold Kaplan, M.D.
a resident of Alamo
on Mar 1, 2009 at 9:15 pm

"Community Courtesy" and Ray clearly need professional help for treatment of paranoia and delusion of this level. There are no Aim e-exchanges refarding endorsements and the web links that he cites are merely candidates web sites, neither of which indicate or imply AIM endorsements. Some AIM members have supported some candidates, whuch is certainly their prerogative, but there is not even uniformity in their support. Since AIM will cease to exist after the election, no matter the outcome, and appointments would be made by the elected town council, there is no way that AIM could conceivably offer or deny positions to anyone!

I am proud to state my opinions in my real name; Ray and "Community Courtesy" - why do you need aliases?

Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Alamo
on Mar 1, 2009 at 9:18 pm

Along with every other posting by "Community courtesy", who among his many other ailments seems to suffer from multiple personalities, or at least multiple email names and blog aliases, this is of course nonsense. But then that’s what many have come to expect from him.

Like this comment
Posted by Hal Bailey
a resident of Alamo
on Mar 2, 2009 at 7:48 am

Community courtesy is a verb for the polite provision of information and study references to be considered by all neighbors. As on-line name Hal Bailey, I have posted information and study references from the Alamo region community of neighborhoods while maintaining their privacy. As a result, during the past 22 months, I, like many public challengers to the current incorporation proposal, have been vilified rather that joined in reasonable discourse. I support a well-defined, inclusive incorporation for our region that will provide citizens' participation and oversight. I support Karen, Diane, Grace, Roger, Brad, Bob, and Vish among neighbors' choices for Town Council.

In keeping with the tradition of privacy for our neighbors in these public forums, I support:

Dear Hal,

Neighborhood groups have focused tomorrow's election on two choices among all our neighbors.

If, as voters, neighbors believe successful council candidates will include all neighbors in the formation of a town government with appropriate citizens' commissions, boards, committees and taskforces for all neighbors' participation and oversight, then those voters should vote YES.

If, as voters, neighbors believe our District 3 supervisor and the board of supervisors will provide a regional planning commission with functional committees for public safety, environment, Infrastructure and economic development, then those voters should vote NO.

At this point, no other consideration of campaigns, their supporters or their specific interests in our future applies. Voters must decide their future by what form of government delivers compliance with their plans for our region as a community.

Rachel, forum co-chair
Alamo region neighborhoods forum
Alamo region community of neighborhoods

Like this comment
Posted by Arnold or Cindi or Community Conscience
a resident of Alamo
on Mar 2, 2009 at 8:29 am

Thanks Hal, or Community (either a person or a verb) or Ray or Rachel or whatever your name is today for helping me (us) to wake up this morning. The laugh did me some good. Just to be in fashion, I am using three aliases too.