Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on Dec 12, 2008 at 7:17 am
It is campaign season and we are seeing repeats of the same AIM-prepared letter to the editors produced by designated authors. In one such edition of the letter featured in your paper today, the CFA is discussed as accurate to the current conditions of the economy and does not discuss what has changed within the CFA pro forma presentation.
There are ample news stories about the State Financial Crisis and the likelihood of the State withholding tax revenue sharing with the cities. License fees revenue could be withheld for 2009/2010 along wih other tax revenue sharing that is part of the CFA justification of incorporation. In September, during the last moments of LAFCO's discussion of approval, LAFCO's CFA author noted that the absence of such License Fee revenues would reduce the feasibility of incorporation.
A majority of voters are very aware that the revenue and costs going forward will not be in accordance with the CFA's historical prospective. Neighbors accept there will be exceptional costs to pay whether Alamo is incorporated, remains with the county, or is annexed to a major neighboring city. What neighbors need to know from your journalistic efforts are those costs and how they compare among the options of incorporation, county operations and annexation.
The Danville Weekly should ask Ms. Lou Ann Texeira, Contra Costa LAFCO Executive Officer to explain the impact of various lower revenues on the CFA and publish that discussion as part of a well-researched story on the costs all cities will face in 2009/2010.
This is the most timely and newsworthy issue your readership faces.
Posted by Alamo Spotlight, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2008 at 9:11 am
Alamo Incorporation Movement (AIM), recruits their friends and neighbors to write letters to the editor who have only superficial knowledge of the full impact on incorporating Alamo. Case in point, Grace Schmidt, running for town council, wrote to the Times that Round Hill would never lose their P5 District, "no ifs, ands, or handcuffs". On the other hand,Steve Mick,also running for town council, said after the first year of transition, council will have the power to reallocate special district funds.
It is not just old 2006-07 financial date, but high density affordable housing, mandated by the State for all incorporated cities, that is reason enough to vote NO ON INCORPORATION. LAFCO is a process, they have followed State guideline; they did not endorse or reject incorporation.
Posted by Rachel Wells, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2008 at 11:20 am
The continuing campaigns by AIM proponents and ASL opponents related to Alamo incorporation do not include the interests and issues of the majority of voters in the proposed town of Alamo. Our regional neighbors are asking for disclosure, definition, and inclusion as basis of trust for the information being circulated by AIM, ASL and the media.
The majority of voters have no basis for an informed decision if AIM and ASL campaigns are the only considered source of incorporation information. As primary media in our region, we are asking The Danville Weekly to disclose information and define a government to result from incorporation consideration. We want to know what government can exist if our majority votes YES or NO on incorporation. Clearly, “WHAT happens next and what does it cost?”
As AIM and ASL repeat their campaign messages on websites, FORUM postings, letters to the editor and Alamo Today guest columns, the information gets tired, overused and more importantly, unbelievable. LAFCO’s CFA is not believable in the current State and county fiscal crisis. The low cost housing issue has been made a myth by information distribution.
Voters in neighborhoods, as the majority of voters, want detailed disclosure of the current fiscal reality, what are going to be the costs of all options, what government will be established, and how citizens will be included.
Posted by A Reader, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2008 at 11:59 pm
In all the Forum it appears to hold true that one source is providing all the commentary when stories are about Alamo. Nearly 90% of the responses come from or through one source and are from the mythical Diablo Vista neighborhoods wherever that is.
When the stories are about any other topic 85% of the comments come from many sources and only 15% from Diablo Vista and its BFFs (best friends).
Thus the comment above that 'we are seeing repeats' is truly laughable when used from the source providing 90% of all the commentary. Further on in the comments they state that 'the "information gets tired, overused and more importantly unbelievable" Exactly the point and please apply it to yourselves.
Posted by Rachel Wells, a resident of another community, on Dec 13, 2008 at 8:38 am
Dear Reader(s), (posted by request)
Let me provide definition how many neighbors participate in commentary among Diablo Vista region neighborhoods' e-exchanges. Neighborhoods from Saranap/Rudgear to Diablo Road communicate within their own neighborhoods and then share such e-exchanges among neighborhood reps from all neighborhoods. The postings to this FORUM are prepared by various neighborhood reps and are posted as a courtesy by CDSI Research using their privacy firewall. Like most posting to this FORUM, neighborhood reps use on-line names and to date more than 100 such neighborhood reps and neighbors have had their positions posted to this FORUM.
Much of the commentary comes from discussion groups held throughout the region from Tice Valley to Blackhawk. The focus of commentary is community, infrastructure, economic development and environmental usage throughout the region. The focus is all governments and not just the proposed and yet defined town of Alamo.
One point "reader" made is clear, proponents of incorporation of the town of Alamo have not been forthcoming with commentary, definition and discussion. AIM and its supporters have used Alamo Today and their website to produce campaign releases that avoid key issues for a majority of voters. The few proponents that do post only ridicule the questions of neighbors and offer little definition of their own positions.
Posted by Alamo Spotlight, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2008 at 11:25 am
The "Harriet Tubman" underground style of e-exchanges used by Diablo Vista Region to communicate with its neighborhood "reps", along with the CDSI privacy "firewall", does, by its very nature, excludes citizen participation in TWO very opposing views on incorporating our community into a contract-city.
"As AIM and ASL repeat their campaign messages on websites, FORUM postings, letters to the editor and Alamo Today guest columns, the information gets tired, overused and more importantly, unbelievable." The previous quotaion posted on this FORUM is erroneous and misleading. ASL is the ONLY website journal committed to opposing incorporation, compared to multiple websites of AIM, ACF, Alamore. FORUM posting from ASL are written by the editor. Our Political Action Commitee, WE R ALAMO, does not recommend writing letters to the editor of print newspapers, but welcomes comments to SPEAK OUT! on the Alamo Spotlight website. ASL has NEVER had an Alamo Today guest column.
In agreement with our Danville neighbor, "Reader",'the "information gets tired, overused and more importantly unbelievable" Exactly the point, and please apply it to yourself.
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on Dec 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm
First, I appreciate Jean Taylor, ASL, and other neighbors in our region providing their positions. The original Letter to the Editor and response was specific to the credibility of the LAFCO CFA for the proposed Town of Alamo under the current conditions of the State and county fiscal crisis. Over the past months, neighbors have been meeting in discussion groups to consider the impact of the global fiscal crisis on our region, its governments and the proposed government for the Town of Alamo (or its options).
The question of this FORUM is "What will it costs residents of various cities and communities to offset the lost revenue and higher costs projected for services?" That should be considered for all governments and proposed governments in our region and ALL regional neighbors should have the opportunity to define the best result from those choices.
We are not facing a simply YES or NO answer because such impacts on revenues and costs apply to any resulting form of government in Alamo and all governments within our region.
It is a major question that is bigger than any campaign.
Posted by Alamo Spotlight, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2008 at 4:56 pm
On March 3, 2009,there will be an election in which our community will be asked YES to incorporate Alamo, or NO on incorporation. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. Your question,"What will it cost residents of various cities and communities to offset the lost revenue and higher costs projected for services?" cannot be answered during the currant financial crisis impacting all governments throughout the State and nation. And, yes,it IS bigger than our campaign. But there can be no credible definition of government as the financial crisis spirals downward throughout the world.
Posted by Karen Sexton, a resident of another community, on Dec 14, 2008 at 11:32 am
Dear Diablo Vista region neighbors (taken from regional e-exchanges)
Please review the revenue and costs impact study being e-chained to participating neighbors today. Our state fiscal crisis is analyzed for detailed impact on our county and cities including the proposed town of Alamo. Much has changed since the CFA was completed in July 2008 and new fiscal considerations for incorporation and its options of continued county operations or annexation to a major neighboring city are presented.
The document, not for publication, should be shared with your immediate neighbors so all neighbors have a better understanding of the fiscal crisis and its impact on governments in our region.
Posted by Lisa Wright, a resident of another community, on Dec 15, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Dear editor, (submitted by request)
(received by Diablo Vista region e-exchanges)
Do you actually believe that there is a more expert authority on incorporation financial analysis other than LAFCO and its authorized analysts?
RESPONSE to neighbor from counsel’s analysts: Winzler & Kelly, LAFCO’s CFA contractor, is an engineering firm that is not necessarily expert in financial planning during fiscal crisis. W&K engineers collected and analyzed revenue and cost data in the first half of 2008 prior to any rapid growth in our current crisis and did so from the prospective of engineers reviewing project costs for stable operations of city services. LAFCO is limited in its financial crisis management analysis among commissioners and staff.