Town Square

Post a New Topic

Guest opinion: Vote Yes on Measure A

Original post made on Feb 27, 2009

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.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, February 27, 2009, 12:00 AM

Comments (9)

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.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

The valley needs strong leadership on BART board
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 7,148 views

3 Great Ways to Showcase Your Strengths on College Applications!
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 549 views