AIM answers 'legitimate questions' Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on Jan 3, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Murmurs that the Alamo Incorporation Movement has stopped answering Web site inquiries about cityhood were echoing around town - but operators of the site and representatives for the organization say AIM has responded to "every legitimate question."
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, January 3, 2008, 1:28 PM
Posted by Susan West, a resident of another community, on Jan 3, 2008 at 4:30 pm
If you wish to prove yourself invisible and unimportant, Access www.alamoinc.org, and follow these instructions. "On the front page of the AIM Web site there is section that reads, "Comments or questions? Let us hear from you!" Users can click in the section and be linked directly to an AIM e-mail account. People are encouraged to ask questions about becoming a city to help determine whether or not they support incorporation."
Like many of your neighbors, you will likely receive no response or have your questions or comments interpreted to serve the incorporation campaign purposes. Try it! Prove to yourself the intentions of AIM's Silent Incorporation as only needed your signature on a petition and nothing more.
Posted by Kathy, a resident of another community, on Jan 3, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Published with the author's permission
The article was a sick failure by AIM to excuse their autonomous behavior. I am saddened that a trusted news source would be victim to such drivel.
I remain concerned about Chris Kenber's comments about OUR incorporation and his further role in SRVUSD strategic planning. Chris needs to know we care deeply about his opposition to community voice and opinion.
I am sadly dissappointed and wish to remove my signature from the petition.
Posted by Mark Bauer, a resident of another community, on Jan 3, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Posted with permission of the author
Let us clarify. Our e-chain distributed 63 submissions to AIM's web site that did not receive a response. Those messages asked for expert resources for study of incorporation and its options, or direct presentation by experts at neighborhood sponsored meetings (paid for by neighborhood groups).
The reality is 60 days with lack of public disclosure of AIM Steering Committee activity. An incorporation application when only a feasibility study was promised. And a defense that discredits a volume of questions to the AIM website as not being legitimate.
Sorry, David, that cannot be defended with playback of selections from well-considered messages. The only expert resources have been offered by neighbors for public consideration and neighbors' research. In the end, we remain at odds among those that wish the neighborhoods to ignorantly accept their authority and a majority in Alamo that refuses to concede their future to ignorance.
Posted by David Brower, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Jan 4, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Can someone send me these 63 submissions? I'd like to see them, and I'll post them on my blog at Web Link; send email to mailto:email@example.com
Without seeing these, it's hard to know what was asked.
I don't see where opportunity for expert study has been precluded; I thought that's what LAFCO just contracted out. Nor do I see where "neighborhood" groups are precluded from getting presentations from experts of their choice if they are willing to pay for them.
I'll certainly grant AIM's PR isn't very sophisticated, and that Kenber can seem like a diffident know-it-all, but I'm not sure how that affects the merits.
What exactly is wrong with the process that is in progress? I feel like there are submerged issues that are assumed to be understood, but which have not actually been explained.