Incorporation proponents get a glimpse of what lies ahead Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on Feb 26, 2009 at 6:44 pm
As the Alamo incorporation vote March 3 draws near, proponents attended a luncheon to hear more about forming a new town; and opponents are meeting in Alamo Plaza tomorrow morning before spreading out to canvas Alamo and spread their message.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, February 26, 2009, 6:24 PM
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Definition from on-line resources:
Social exclusion refers to lack of participation in society and emphasizes the multi-dimensional, multi-layered, and dynamic nature of the problem. Definitions of the concept emanate from diverse ideological perspectives, but most share the following features:
(1) Lack of participation. Protagonists differ over which aspects of society are important and where responsibility for non-participation resides. Most agree that exclusion is a matter of degree, since individuals may be participating to a greater or lesser extent, and that it is relative to the society in question.
(2) Multi-dimensional. Social exclusion embraces income-poverty but is broader: other kinds of disadvantage which may or may not be connected to low income, such as unemployment and poor self-esteem, fall within its compass.
(3) Dynamic. The advent of dynamic analysis and a demand from policy makers to investigate cause as well as effect has generated an interest in the processes which lead to exclusion and routes back into mainstream society.
(4) Multi-layered. Although it is individuals who suffer exclusion, the causes are recognized as operating at many levels: individual, household, community, and institutional.
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on Feb 27, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Thank you, Al, for your enjoyment of my pseudonym, hal bailey, and certainly any and all proponents have had their way with hal.
To be an action, an event, a cause, a result, and an object of attention is quite an achievement for a fictitious person. Further, to be an excuse, a change of subject, an avoidance of a subject and the core of an alamoron (uniquely Alamo oxymoron) is even better.
Only you could give such fiction new meaning for everyone's laughing and dancing pleasure, including mine. Now, that likely creates a question, "do you know any real people or do you spend all your time in Alamo?"
Posted by Alamo Spotlight, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 8:04 am
How come proponents of incorporation didn't offer Alamo voters 10 years to decide on whether or not they want incorporation like Windomar? Where the hell is Windomar anyway! Is it in California? And they think Martinez is too far to go for permits!
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Feb 28, 2009 at 8:56 am
Wildomar is north of Temecula on US 15 and 35 miles due east of Laguna Beach. For more information about the town's pitfalls and pratfalls, read the various articles by Mayor Cashman and Riverside county supervisors.
But you are right, Wildomar is not located in any California I know!!
Posted by Rob, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2009 at 5:31 pm
And once again Hal Bailey and the rest of the naysayers choose to reinterpret things to suit their own agenda. The story is just about some of the things that happened to wildomar as it tried to incorporate. Nowhere was it said that the same things would happen in Alamo or that they are the same.
The town manager was suggesting things that a new town council is going to need to do.
But gee Hal and Jean, don't let the facts confuse a good rant. Wouldn't want to have that "civil discourse" you're always claiming you want.
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Mar 1, 2009 at 9:39 am
You will recognize the reality that Rob is a pseudonym for TDW's publisher and the contents is their bias support for the current incorporation proposal. Further, we have different views of incorporation and have enjoy private discussions of our differences.
I support a well-defined, inclusive incorporation led by citizens' participation and oversight. You oppose incorporation and favor special districts and other county options.
Our reality is we can discuss our views, share our resources and insure that we are both well-informed. That does not seem to be the goal of TDW in their blind promotion of the current incorporation proposal.
Posted by Rob, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Talk about your delusions of grandeur.
Someone disagrees with you Hal ( and for those living under a rock Community Discourtesy is a pseudonym for Hal Bailey) and suddenly it's a conspiracy. Are you sure I'm not with the CIA? NSA? PETA? I hate to break it to you, but if the publisher of the danville weekly is even aware of us here in Alamo I doubt if he even gives it more than a passing thought. We are just not that important. So please, get over yourself. All of this is important to us, but please stop blaming all the world's ills on these faceless uncaring 'inkstained wretches'. Your paranoia is showing.
I live in Alamo same as you, except that I actually listened to both sides and made my decision in a rational manner. I know rationality isn't your strong suit so I won't bother.
Ms. Taylor, I apologize for lumping you in with Hal. You have made your position clear wthout the need for fake names or weird stream of consciousness posts. We will simply have to agree to disagree.
Posted by Paul Balle, a resident of another community, on Mar 1, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 7:31 am
Community courtesy remains a VERB for Community courtesy acts of civility or respect; acts of kindness or favor performed with politeness to neighbors within a community. Alamo region community of neighborhoods continue to provide such courtesies as is exampled today:
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.
Posted by Alamo Resident, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 9:09 am
Here's what I love about the incorporation idea:
* We will have representation. Finally, after all these years of not being able to vote, have, our roads repaired, safe schools or neighborhoods, or contact with our Supervisor we will get to have all these things. What have we been waiting for!
* Here's the best news, we will get more Government that will work better than all other governments, and it will not only be FREE, it will give us money we didn't know we had. What a deal! A first in the history of government actually. The amazing people who are putting this thing together are true geniuses!
* The really interesting thing is that some of us actually know how to read a dictionary and make the effort to instruct all the rest of us poor fools what words mean. How gracious of them to do this! It warms my heart to know we have such a literate population.
* We have some wonderful people who for totally altruistic reasons want to donate their free time, and their money to this project. How great! They will be our new local governors! They will arbitrate and rule. It is great that we have a solution....now we just need to create a problem!
* The only downside is what we'll do when we don't have sign pollution to distract us from our beautiful neighborhoods?
* I can't wait for the battle to continue here in Alamo likd it did in San Ramon and Danville when they incorporated. For them it was a 20 year contest of neighbor against neighbor, back biting and political hassle that helped fuel newspaper circulation. Let the games begin people!!!
Posted by Nancy Dommes, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Here's some information to think about on the fiscal analysis comments.
The opponents have done EXACTLY what they've accused the proponents of doing.
That is: THEY hired the McDonald company to analyze the CFA. THEY interacted with the McDonald people. THEY reviewed the results. THEY personally paid for the study by McDonald.
Conversly, Winzler & Kelley was hired NOT by the proponents - they were hired by LAFCO without input. LAFCO interacted with W&K, NOT the proponents. The proponents did NOT pay for the studies.
So - if you balance a "for hire", personally funded company providing a study result, versus a totally independent credited firm, who should you believe. The latter, hands down.
The McDonald company is headed by a former Healdsburg city manager who is so NOT up to date on the issues that he does not even know the new Vehicle License Fees schedules/regulations. How can anyone who claims to be able to produce a valid study do so without knowing all the factors. Don't think they can!
Also, why would all three local newspapers endorse Measure A? They analyzed the information and came to their independent conclusions. Why would THREE newspapers endorse the SAME VIEWPOINT??? More to think about!
Posted by Alamo Spotlight, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 3:42 pm
HELLO-O-O-O-O. Proponents of incorporation who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! They paid every dime of the process out of their own private funds; a LAFCO rule to make sure they don't get stuck with the bill. LAFCO also makes sure they can't be sued, so AIM takes on that liability as well. No wonder AIM proponents are screaming FOUL! And with newspapers on a slippery slope to oblivion because of their bias, they are no longer credible; just like Nancy Dommes!
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 3:55 pm
At this time, we should be quite sure about our reasons to vote and have few questions concerning our choices.
We likely can agree that success for incorporation will be determined by a town council’s relationship with the majority of voters. We can expect formation of a government to be difficult without exceptional participation and support by that majority. And we should fully expect the fiscal crisis to play a significant role in the budget process and services rendered by a new city government.
We likely can agree that success going forward as an unincorporated area will be difficult with the exceptional county budget issues identified by media, grand jury and various supervisors. We should not expect a significant role in determining how we are served. Various neighborhoods in communities with MACs and special districts have shared their frustrations with potential service reductions including Discovery Bay. The cause of such frustration is there is no method for local services funding or methods for unincorporated communities to contract with providers of such services.
In twenty-two months, there have been few answers to these dilemmas made public. Little thorough analysis truly provides definition of a majority’s inclusion in a local government with sufficient funding to maintain and enhance our services and infrastructure. We must depend on county supplied 2006/early 2007 data included a comprehensive fiscal analysis (CFA) prepared by an engineering company. Most importantly, we must rely on the promises of council candidates or the history of District 3 to determine our voting choices.
So at this time, it is truly up to neighbors to choose. Your vote and your commitment to community is all Alamo has to insure that we have a future as bright or brighter than the present.
Posted by Nancy Dommes, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Wow! So you're saying the Danville Weekly, the Alamo Today, and the San Ramon Valley Times all got it wrong and are on WHAT slipperly slope?
I repeat......YOU found the person, YOU paid for your study information, YOU received that information personally. YOU will not release the names of the supposed two city managers who reviewed the study, could it be because they got all major facts wrong, including the Vehicle License Fees for new cities, assessed value of property tax, and that you can't dis-incorporate. That's all simple, verifible information that any credible city manager would know. And you want US to believe THEM?
AND again, the proponent groups did NOT, NOT pay for the studies no matter how you slice it!
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Dear Jean and Nancy,
Please let us focus on the voters and provide reality:
Let’s be sure we understand that AIM and ACF had no choice in the selection of W&K or any management of their CFA preparation or results. AIM and ACF provided no information or any specification for the CFA results. The entire contract relationship was between Contra Costa LAFCO and W&K.
AIM and ACF did not have any role or provide any incentive or information to Alamo Today, The Danville Weekly and The Valley Times to create or define their endorsement of incorporation of the Town of Alamo. Their endorsement, according to comments, was taken from their interviews with Alamo residents and reflects the desired local voice residents have requested from government.
With that said, the Opponent Audit of the CFA contained information from the State Controller and Legislative Analysts related to fiscal crisis impact of distribution of various State tax revenue sharing. That information raises the question of revenue decline similar to what Danville is currently reviewing. It concludes that the CFA was based on county-supplied data that was not validated as certain for the future.
Certainly, we all can agree that Alamo Today, The Danville Weekly and The Valley Times has no expertise in incorporation or fiscal crisis budgeting. Their editorial reflected editors’ personal opinions with little expertise or detail provided to voters for consideration. Ms. Lisa Vorderbrueggen, clearly more expert, did provide some review without detail that basically said all arguments had merit.
Thank you both for your commentary. It is now up to your neighbors to decide.
Posted by Alamo Spotlight, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 7:14 pm
You got that right, Nancy. I would bet that Alamo Today, the freebe advertising throw away, made more money from AIMs endless full page advertorials than they ever dreamed imaginable. I particularly enjoyed your double page red thermometer with bragging rights to private tax free donations rising to $200,000 to support your "studies" and "educate" our community.
And by the way, the YOU in your infinite wisdom, was not ME.
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Dear James and Dolores, Editor,
The process prescribed by LAFCO is your neighbors, with their donations to a foundation, paid for LAFCO's exclusive contracting for a comprehensive fiscal analysis to inform LAFCO commissioners, according to Contra Costa LAFCO policy, of the feasibility of Alamo incorporation. Your argument is with the result which is policy for Contra Costa LAFCO and not proponent specified.
Yes, when questioned, incorporation proponents did supply their boundaries of consideration, the intentions for services, and some additional responses, but nothing defined W&K's response in the CFA. Your issue is the scope of the CFA and the source information used and rightfully so. Contra Costa County, without validation, provided the fiscal data based on 2006/early 2007 revenue and cost data. That is your question. Does that data represent revenues and costs effective in 2009/2010?
Now, on the eve of a vote, neighbors have to confirm their choice in voting. Neighbors do not have enough pro forma information for a valid decision among very savvy, professional voters. As a result, the majority of voters will look at what they can effect in choices of governments at District 3 or a town council.
AIM matters little in the neighbors' plans for an inclusive, well-defined incorporation. Nor does District 3 matter in the intention of neighborhoods to master any chosen destiny as a county district or SuperMAC. Neighbors' reality are they are betting <$40 Billion in real estate value on their ability to direct their future. And James and Dolores, count on neighbors taking near $40 billion seriously.