AIM files an Application for Incorporation: it is not what they promised! Around Town, posted by Alamo neighborhoods forum, a resident of another community, on Nov 25, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Alamo Incorporation Movement has filed an Application for Incorporation after promising all of us that the petition was only for a feasibility study.
Notice from LAFCo: "I would only add that while the proponents have submitted an application to LAFCO, the application remains incomplete until all the requisite components are complete, including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis and CEQA analysis."
There has been no public distribution of the Application and its Incorporation Proposal. We can only assume that AIM does not want petition signors to know any of the special interests behind AIM's confidential application filing. We encourage reporters and editors to seek public disclosure and let the signors of the petition know what AIM is doing with the TRUST provided by neighbors' signatures.
Posted by Frank, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Nov 28, 2007 at 8:28 am
Come on, Vince, stop posting the selfish thoughts of cry-babies.
AIM collected signatures on a petition and a feasibility study will result prior to any vote for incorporation. That's what the AIM volunteers promised and that is what these cry-babies are getting.
We are going to get the chance to vote for five council seats from Alamo candidates and we should respect that council's outreach to the community for resident participation in planning our government, land use, infrastructure and services.
It will be Alamo planning its own future and if you don't believe that then vote NO on incorporation. And if you can't be a positive part of the process leading to the incorporation election, shut up and let the capable people of AIM do the job for you.
Posted by O. Kaysion Aly, a resident of another community, on Nov 28, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Dear Earnie and Vince,
"Member" in good humor pretended to take Frank's outrageous humor as AIM dialog. It should be known that Earnie as Frank and Vince as Earnest were simply celebrating humor among the incorporation process. Thus, a chain of humor displays the reality.
#1 - AIM is pursuing the process of incorporation with a minimum of explanation and communication and a maximum of political campaigning.
#2 - AIM has 3117 signatures on a petition and needs no further support from the majority of Alamo neighbors that provided those signatures.
#3 - AIM has filed an application for incorporation and will proceed silently through the study and approval steps.
#4 - AIM can likely raise the needed incorporation funding among supporters and political sponsors.
#5 - AIM will work with Contra Costa County and LAFCo to package an incorporation that has no immediate cost increases to residents so that a majority YES vote is possible in an incorporation election.
#6 - AIM will package a slate of city council candidates so that Alamo can be defined to the special interests of AIM participants, supporters and political sponsors.
#6 - Alamo's majority, in their "ignorance" will vote NO on incorporation.
You have to admit the process is humorous, occasionally.
Posted by Lisa Wright, a resident of another community, on Nov 29, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Certainly good humor is earned by AIM's sad diregard for the majority in the Alamo Region.
Simply, AIM's core committee trained petition volunteers to lie to those that would sign the AIM petition. Knowingly, that core committee wanted only signatures as benefit to their own special interests in an autonomous government that they would lead with the aggregated support of the county, LAFCo, and central county aggregated politics. No one needs to look beyond the core committee to see such political capabilities of key members and their personal political interests.
AIM is not interested in Alamo's majority of residents. The selfish and immediate goal is to continue the blind, self-designated leadership in a community they never lead or had majority support to achieve such leadership.
Posted as a courtesy of the Alamo neighborhoods forum
Posted by Christine Jenkins, a resident of another community, on Dec 10, 2007 at 2:05 pm
An Informational Response to Alamo Ron and all neighbors:
Thank you, Ron, for questioning a claim made often by proponents of incorporation. The answer is critical to all Alamo voters' preparation for considering the resulting city's relationship with neighborhoods and individual residents.
First, a city council without designated citizen oversight, once elected, can act independently of the overall majority of residents and act to the advantages of their supporters interests.
Second, the first city council of a newly incorporated city has the power to design the structure, operations and services of the city without any responsibility to the majority of residents or their neighborhoods.
Third, typically the first city council is made popular by regional political supporters and put in place as a disposable council that will achieve the city's design to the interests of their regional political supporters and take all voters' criticism for the results.
That, Alamo Ron, defines an autonomous council and the exceptional risks if voters' allow such a council to be elected. As we have noted, AIM, through their supporters, will say anything to get the petition/application results they wanted and we should expect council candidates, likely from the AIM committee, to do the very same promises to get elected.
Unless we select the candidates for such an autonomous city council, manage their planning agenda prior to election, and thoroughly manage those council persons during the first four years of our city, we will all believe we live in another community.
Posted by Vince Kreigher, Alamo neighborhoods forum
Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Alamo voters will elect a town council.
Once this happens, Vince and Christine then want to have a designated citizen's oversight committee of the town council.
Fine. How are they chosen? By another vote of the people? And who will oversee the citizen's oversight committee?
This circular logic is ridiculous. Show me an example of another California city of Alamo's size that has a "citizen's oversight committee" to the town council.
Methinks the person(s) espousing a "citizen's oversight committee" want significant power in Alamo without the formality of being elected to the town council. This committee would be a perfect example of people who REALLY WOULDN'T have any responsibility to Alamo and who WOULD BE totally autonomous. Unelected leaders? No thanks.
Posted by Vince Kreigher, a resident of another community, on Dec 13, 2007 at 10:58 am
A note from HAL posted by Vince Kreigher for Alamo Ron and Alamo region neighbors
Alamo Ron is expressing telltale AIM political campaign PR and is attempting to redefine the incorporation proposal of Alamo neighborhoods. His or her points can be answered simply for neighbors' understanding of the difference between an AIM autonomous city council and goverment and the defined city government neighborhoods' municipal counsel has proposed.
The citizens commissions and sub-committees for planning of land-use, infrastructure, environment and services would be defined in the incorporation proposal as a typical planning commission with sub-committees for each function of city authority and operations. Such citizens' commissions would develop proposals for review and action by the city council as is typical in city governments. This commission and its committees would be nominated by required number of community residents and appointed by the city council.
The obvious difference for neighbors' consideration is, under the AIM incorporation proposal, the city council has no obligation to create commissions and committees of citizens for planning oversight and would have no obligation to consider any resident or neighborhood input in establishing the structure, operations and planning for the community of Alamo. Defining the council's obligation to establish planning commissions and committees insures Alamo residents will have a real voice in the city of Alamo rather than just another layer of autonomous, abusive rule.
I hope that helps,
CDSI Research Fellowship
Posted as a courtesy of the Alamo neighborhoods forum
Posted by Sharon, a resident of another community, on Dec 13, 2007 at 11:27 am
Is Alamo Ron trying to distract us from the real issue in this posting? AIM volunteers promised that the petition was only for a feasibility study. Now the AIM committee is using the petition as basis for application for incorporation and development of regional sponsors to fund their application, review, approval, incorporation election and an election of their slate of city council candidates.
Let's ask Contra Costa County LAFCo to remove our signatures from the AIM petition because we are not getting what we were promised and we are being used as part of AIM's political campaign.
Write to firstname.lastname@example.org, neighbors, as say, REMOVE my name!
Submitted as a courtesy of Alamo neighborhoods forum
Posted by Lisa Wright (esq), a resident of another community, on Dec 14, 2007 at 8:40 am
I enjoy the humor of your on-line name and the generous desire to poke fun at the naive support of AIM by its proponents. Like Frank, your humor captures the blindness of such support.
But let's answer your question, outside of its humor, based on general law for city structures as may be studied in Municipal Law Handbook, www.cacities.org. Most cities, 12,000 residents or larger, have planning commissions and committees as the active interface with the community, its neighborhoods and residents. In this chain of commentary, Hal Bailey described the extent of commissions and committees that prepare such planning for city council consideration and approval.
There is no obligation for city councils to create such commissions and committees unless it is stated in the structure of incorporation. As you review ccc.calafco.org you will see many documents that aid incorporation and formation committees in defining incorporation proposals, in consideration of general law, to include the obligations of the city council. Further, within those documents there are examples of failed incorportations and issues in the initial city councils immediately following incorporation election created by autonomous actions of city councils.
More importantly, by obligating the city council to formation of commission and committees under specific rules of citizen nomination and council appointment, new cities can avoid issues of city councils appointing their supporters to commissions and committees as "rubber stamps" for special interests. If you wish to study that result, then you only need to look at Danville to see the lack of obligation and definition is the establishment and definition of commissions and committees. Danville's government is clearly disconnected from its neighborhoods and residents because the council and staff have no obligations to the community, its neighborhoods and residents.
Posted by Al, a moron, a resident of another community, on Dec 14, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Congratulations to Alamo Ron for generating a significant exchange of real opportunities for incorporation success for Alamo. If we obligate our city council to citizens interface and planning review, a majority of voters will shift their opposition to support of incorporation.
To that end, we are all Alamo Ron, or Al, a moron, if we let this wonderful opportunity for our future slip away.
Posted by Vince Kreigher, a resident of another community, on Dec 16, 2007 at 8:28 am
Commentary from Sylvia, Alamo Community Business District
Alamo Ron, cleverly contrived definition of oxymoron unique to Alamo as Alamoron, as it were. Clearly, Alamo Ron is a Pro at getting to the point and the point is that Alamo factions are trading oxymoron and not answering obvious questions. Alamo Ron, in her unique way, got the neighborhoods to define a Citizen-Led government and the concepts of citizen oversight in planning structure, operations, land-use, infrastructure and services.
In pointing to Chris Kenber’s often repeated comment, It’s a no-brainer, as an Alamoron, let me illustrate the realities of oxymoron in incorporation commentary. Mr. Kenber’s use of no-brainer is wishful thinking that no Alamo voter will consider incorporation in depth and simply vote for its popularity. Mr. Kenber could be very right as he would know that less than half of Alamo voters vote in off-year and special elections. Do the math, it would only take 2,450 YES votes to win an incorporation election in early 2009 following the national elections, and maybe less.
If each of the AIM participants and supporters, as 920 individuals signing the petition, get 2 others to agree with incorporating an autonomous town government, AIM will win the incorporation election.
Posted as a courtesy of Alamo neighborhoods forum, Vince Kreigher
Posted by Christine Jenkins, a resident of another community, on Dec 16, 2007 at 9:39 am
For those supporters that still claim AIM is only conducting a feasibility study for incorporation, this is from the CCC LAFCo website, www.contracostalafco.org:
PROPOSED INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF ALAMO
On November 5, 2007, LAFCO received a petition and application for the proposed incorporation of the Town of Alamo. The petition was signed by over 25% of the registered voters in the area. On November 14, the petition signatures were found to be sufficient by the Contra Costa County Elections office.
LAFCO is now proceeding with a Request for Proposals to hire a consultant to prepare the State required Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis. This is one of a number of components to the incorporation proposal.
The process is expected to take approximately 12-18 months. If LAFCO ultimately finds the proposed incorporation feasible, the question of incorporation will be placed on the ballot. A simple majority vote is required for final approval of the incorporation.
Please check this site for periodic updates.
POSTED as a courtesy of the Alamo neighborhoods forum
Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 17, 2007 at 9:12 am
In their post of Dec 10, Vince and Christine call for "designated citizen's oversight" of the Alamo Town council. When I challenged this concept and asked for an example of another town in California that has "designated citizen's oversight" of the town council, no example was forthcoming.
The rant magically changed to one of, "Oh no, we didn't mean citizen's oversight. We meant citizens commissions and sub-committees that would have input on the many aspects of town management and government." Well, these are obviously good things.
But the rant then became that the Alamo Town council would have no obligation to create such commissions and sub-committees. These folks would have you believe that the Alamo Town council therefore won't do this and will ignore any input from the community who elected them.
Make no mistake - it takes a lot of work and a lot of participants to make a town successful. The Town of Alamo will indeed have significant citizen input, involvement, and various other vehicles for interaction with the Town council and Town management. To think otherwise is just not realistic.
So here's my second challenge:
Show me an example of another California city of Alamo's size that HAS NOT created a myriad of citizens commissions, committees, sub-committees, advisory panels, etc.
By the way, the comments on my name are "interesting." But remember, names are like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're going to get. But in my case, you know it's going to be sweet…
Posted by Diablo Vista Al, a resident of another community, on Dec 17, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Thank you Ron for continuing the dialoque.
Danville, Ron, does not have a planning commission or sub-committees that were nominated by a significant number of residents and appointed by such citizens' nominations. There is your example and the result is a city government that does not have a relationship and responsibility to neighborhoods and residents.
You cannot guarantee your claim that the city of Alamo, once defined by a autonomous city council, will create commissions and committees for planning structure, operations, land-use, infrastructure and services. No current proponent of incorporation has any input to such a result. In fact, there is no such legal entity as a town and thus one must question if the AIM incorporation proposal for such an autonomous government will have any relationship to our combined interests in citizen-led planning.
Until all is defined and citizen commissions and committees are an obligation within our incorporation proposal, the entire subject remains an alamoron, as our version of an oxymoron. If the only form of city that is available is another layer of autonomous government, then nothing about incorporation is suitable to the Alamo Region.
You can call me Al
Posted by Vince Kreigher, on behalf of the Alamo neighborhoods forum
It states that " There are 478 incorporated cities and towns in California, of which 456 are cities and 22 are towns. Under California law (see, e.g., Government Code Sections 34500-34504) the terms "city" and "town" are explicitly interchangeable; the name of an incorporated municipality in the state can either by "City of (Name)" or "Town of (Name)."
The can be no Villages or Hamlets (although why someone would want to name their burg after a guy in Denmark, I don't know.)
Now, this part of the California code was created by the California Legislature.
Since the Legislature was not "nominated by a significant number of residents and appointed by such citizens' nominations" and "it does not have a relationship and responsibility to neighborhoods and residents", you probably won't give the legislature any credibility either.
I kind of wish you would - it's called representative government, Al.
Posted by Dale Simmons, a resident of another community, on Dec 17, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Dear Neighbors, (referencing this posting)
This has been an interesting exchange quite off the subject of the original posting. Somehow neighbors have engaged in discussions of the Town of Alamo as if we are attempting to recapture our youth or some other silly, lost notion. Quite true, one can call a general law or charter city a town but, in law, it is a city.
Purely discussion of drivel.
Further, neighbors continue to exchange examples, or the lack thereof, of towns with citizen participation and oversight knowing that proponents of citizen-led obligations are not going to disclose details that will at some point be part of regulatory or other legal actions. Contra Costa governments have proven the lack of representative government, certainly the absence of democracy, and a growing need for neighborhood counsel to define our future.
In humor, Hal predicts we will become the town named SUE.
No matter what we discuss, we all know now that AIM petition volunteers misrepresented the purpose of the petition. We further know from discovery that AIM committee members are using the petition as part of their pursuit of regional political support and sponsor funding. Neighbors now know that they cannot trust AIM to be the sole proponent of incorporation or its alternatives. Thus, this riddle of commentary and display of oxymoron are quite meaningless. Nothing discussed describes the intentions or results all factions seek as the future of Alamo.
I shall continue my private humor in exchange with Hal and celebrate his suggestion of a queen's monarchy or native american reservation as his choices. Alamo will continue down its path to urban luxury and conversion into just another community that thinks too much of itself. No current or new layer of government will be anything more than the scheduler of that result in service to regional special interests.
You must certainly call me DALE
Posted from neighborhoods e-chain, December 17, 2007
Posted by Paul, but you can call me AL, a resident of another community, on Dec 18, 2007 at 8:22 am
Ah, Dale, you too celebrate the humor of the Alamo Towne Fool.
In complete foolishness, we have been talking to ourselves in competing challenges so that such humor might keep reality in focus. As Frank, Al a moron, or Alamo Ron, our humorists have portrayed all the reality and SPIN that occurs in campaigns when damage control must be achieved.
AIM is now doing major damage control!
AIM taught their petition volunteers to lie to Alamo residents and then proved that lie by violating the promises made by such volunteers. The AIM petition was specifically an application for incorporation of an autonomous city government and never was intended to be only a request for a feasibility study. AIM's incorporation proposal is not for representative government, is not intended to be any form of democracy, and is meant to continue minority control by AIM leadership and services to special interests.
Thus, when such abusers will not speak for themselves, the Alamo Towne Fool will speak for them. We fools posted our commentary on both sides of the lies.