Posted by Andrea Saunders, a resident of another community, on Nov 16, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Posted as a courtesy

Dear Editor,

I wonder if these three letters were published together with some purpose. Clearly, they are linked by discussions of abusers and those they abuse.

SRV YMCA, Danville and the County dumped a commercial facility into Alamo and Danville publicly celebrates the abuse.

Phil Erickson appropriately objected to being labeled ignorant by the usual abusers in Alamo community groups that gather as AIM.

Sharon Burke inappropriately avoided the issues by changing the subject and generalizing information that is incomplete in facts too many to list. Such comments disquise the AIM proposal as an autonomous city government that can abuse Alamo directly without residents' participation.

These subjects are all clearly linked in their abuse of Alamo,

Andrea Saunders

Diablo Vista CA 94507 (Alamo Ridge)

Posted as a courtesy by Alamo neighborhoods forum

Posted by Lisa Wright, a resident of another community, on Nov 16, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Correction of omissions by Sharon Burke, Posted as a courtesy:

Keep Alamo tax revenues in Alamo to be spent on Alamo priorities as determined by Alamo citizens: A larger share of property and other taxes will stay in Alamo and uses of such funds will be determined by AIM proposed autonomous five member city council with no required participation or oversight by Alamo residents.

Preserve Alamo's unique semi-rural character through planning decisions made with only input from Alamo citizens: Semi-rural protection is not a preference by a majority in Alamo and would be the perspective and imposition of AIM's proposed autonomous city council with no required planning review by Alamo residents. Our desire for completed sewer systems, underground utilities and street lighting, parkways and interconnects, wifi, and expanded retail, commercial and high density residential would be opposed by AIM's city council.

Provide a legally recognized voice and entity for Alamo on traffic and other regional issues: An autonomous city council, as five people, would have all authority to speak for Alamo residents without residents' oversight or participation. AIM traditional point of view does not match the majority interests in Alamo.

Form a full-time Alamo Police Department with responsibility for both crime suppression and traffic control: Actual plans are to contract for county sheriff services under the direction of a city police chief and would represent little change in current safety services.

Protect Alamo taxpayers from service cuts from the county due to its financial crisis: As a contracted-services municipality, the city of Alamo would be more likely to pay higher, additional service fees for county-contracted services or FACE paying for staff and organizations to provide city-based replacement of services at much higher fees.

Lisa Wright

Posted as a courtesy of Alamo neighborhoods forum

Posted by Linda Simpson, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Lisa, Thank you,

When I heard what were obvious lies by the Alamo Incorporation Movement, I wondered if I was just IGNORANT or something. Thank goodness, I found out they were really lying.

It makes it all more entertaining,

Linda