Why neighborhoods protect their confidentiality Around Town, posted by Lisa Wright, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2007 at 9:04 am
Alamo neighborhood groups, in alliance, formed because county agencies, including the AIA, operated independently of neighborhoods' interests, in opposition to neighborhoods' advisories, and ignored neighborhoods' request for participation. Since 2002, the neighborhoods have communicated confidentially among themselves and in various forums because of early efforts to force the neighborhoods' alliance to be a Political Action Committee under county review.
One only needs to review the results of public commentary by neighbors that opposes the actions of Alamo community leadership to realize that community groups and their supporters disrespect and disregard the opinions of anyone outside their minority of 400 participants and supporters. Neighborhoods have had the courtesy of one neighbor as the public voice for majority opinion in Alamo and that individual has now withdrawn due to the misrepresentation of his efforts by community group leadership collected in the AIM committee. In his note of withdrawal, he said, "I can't imagine any neighbor would want to join me in such PUBLIC disregard."
Individually, every neighbor among the neighborhood groups welcomes contact. But as groups, we will remain confidential in our majority actions and achievement of our interests.
Posted by Alamo Neighborhoods Forum, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Posted as a courtesy:
OK, Neighbors, how about keeping your mouths shut and let the people that built this community protect your rights to plan the future of Alamo. All the community volunteers have come together to give you a voice in your future and all you can complain about is our actions.
It all baloney.
If you want to be leaders, it's done in public and not in the shadows. If you want results, you have to join us in the risks of public actions. If you want the shadows of confidentiality, stay in the shadows and shut up!
Frank, a resident of Alamo for 21 years
Note: the Alamo Neighborhoods Forum thanks Frank for his response
Posted by Forest Warn, a resident of another community, on Oct 29, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Our thanks to Frank for illustrating our point.
In fact, our neighborhoods have been very public in our presentation of positions and information. We have provided a majority of Alamo residents the ability to communicate together via e-chains and neighborhood meetings. More importantly, our designated spokespeople have participated equally in published discussion of the issues in Alamo and their resolve through structural and operational planning of our government, if incorporated, and our advisory activities, if a SuperMAC.
The reality is that neighborhoods have offered structure and operations planning to the majority in Alamo. By contrast, Alamo's former leadership, now numbering less than 400 participants and supporters, have offered no plan for our future and only their special interests in the continuing jargon of aggregated politics.
We, individually, as neighbors, are ready to hear a PLAN,
Posted by Eisen Cohn, a resident of another community, on Nov 1, 2007 at 9:48 am
We should all understand the need to protect our privacy as we consider the extent of governments' abilities to invade such privacy. We should all understand that e-mail services encourage us to use a protected identity to stop the kinds of criminal activities that can occur from use of our names in open internet communication. Most surely, we must realize that local politics is not an exception to government invasion of our privacy and intimidation of our actions.
As Frank protected his identity in his message, posted here and circulated among Alamo's e-chains, he vilified such identity protection by others. We have all heard the cry of What-do-you-have-to-hide by those that wish to discredit our opinions and actions. But there are very real reasons within Contra Costa County to protect ourselves from our governments and districts and those that support them. Our county, and especially its supporters, are willing to intimidate and discredit any person, and their opinion, that runs counter to their policies, programs, projects and planning.
We have strong neighborhoods throughout our county because we protect each other's identity and work through public voices to express our interests, advisory and concerns. We should look on our public voices with respect because they collect all the political intimidation and disrespect political interests wish to use to achieve their ambitions against our will. We should not let anyone disclaim our privacy of opinion without a strong response against such commentary.
Let me advise that none among us become the puppets for public ridicule by politics and its supporters in our county or our community. Speak out to the issues with clear points and references, but don't become the victim of political campaigns that would serve their selfish goals by branding those that oppose them.
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on Nov 7, 2007 at 7:19 am
Thank you Alamo for your responses and good humor,
Per your request, Let me post:
There is no such person as Hal Bailey. I made up the name in January 1973 after graduation from California State University at San Jose. Come to think of it, there is no CSUSJ, or at least, not any more.
Actually nobody has a real name. Your parents made up your name when you were born and nobody told them that the name had to be real. Then there is the issue of surnames that likely were changed or misspelled when your ancestors arrived in USAmerica. And who knows? Who can believe that any of those arriving used their real names.
So just imagine for a moment that a COURT directs you to state your NAME. You better give that question serious consideration because repeating what your mother and father made up could be perjury.
Posted by CCC LAFCo, a resident of another community, on Jan 10, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Campaign Disclosure Requirements
Any person or combination of persons who directly or indirectly makes an expenditure or independent expenditure for political purposes of $1,000 or more in support of, or in opposition to, a change of organization or reorganization submitted to LAFCO to which Government Code Section 56700.1 applies, shall comply with reporting and disclosure requirements of the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.), to the same extent and subject to the same requirements as for local initiative measures.
Click on links below for the Commission's policy and explanation of the requirements and related forms. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the LAFCO office at 925-335-1094 or via e-mail at email@example.com.
Campaign Disclosure Requirements Policy
Form 410 (Statement of Organization)
Form 460 (Consolidated Campaign Disclosure Form-quarterly)