Good Neighbors Around Town, posted by [removed], a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2011 at 9:44 am
As you review your town square forum you will find attitudes denying the needs of residents, institutions and businesses to be good neighbors within a community. As neighborhoods committees continue mitigation of issues in our Alamo region there are typical responses that excuse various people and organizations from being good neighbors.
Monte Vista High School supporters do not feel that the school needs to be a good neighbor because the school was there first and education is a greater good that any neighbors problems with the school. Supporters of the new Alamo fire house have repeatedly claimed a greater good provided by the fire house and little need to mitigate issues with neighbors and Stone Valley parents. Much has been said about RHCC’s right to impose nighttime operations of lighted tennis courts in proximity to neighborhoods. Supporters of the SRV YMCA continue to lament the loss of the facility planned for that site and continue to defame those neighbors opposing construction and operation as not being part of the greater good for Alamo. Even incorporation continues to be a discussion and AIM supporters continue to defame voters that would not support the undefined incorporation proposal as ignorant of the greater good for Alamo.
A Diablo View on the subject of good neighbor responsibility by organizations, institutions, businesses and individual residents would be newsworthy in our region among selfish viewpoints willing to impose on neighbors for their own purposes. Subscriber news service just provided a national view of this good neighbor issue produced by a major news service and a very local presentation of good neighbor issues would be a logical follow-through.
Posted by [removed], a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2011 at 9:34 am
Within your Express Forum are examples of commentary that claims ignorance was the reasons for a majority of Alamo residents rejecting incorporation. There are volumes of e-mail from former incorporation supporters directed to neighborhoor reps and participants that specifies ignorance as the reasons for the NO vote. Certainly, those authors must be given the opportunity to provide their positions because neighborhood reps will not violate their confidences.
The reality, once again, was a majority of Alamo residents rejected the AIM incorporation proposal because it did not define the structure of government, provide plans for its operations or specify budgets for voters' consideration. Alamo voters did not reject incorporation, but did reject the lack of a realistic business plan for the proposed Alamo government.
Let's return this exchange to its primary purpose of requirements for good neighbor policies by organizations as well as residents in consideration of their role in our communities.
Posted by [removed], a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2011 at 7:21 pm
You were invited to provide journalism in how good neighbor policies supports community relationships. The extend of your participation to date is to invite disconnected and unrelated comment from sponsored pseudonyms as commentators. Such commentary takes a critical subject adrift into isolated review that is best served by public review of known comment on these unrelated subjects including your forum during January to May 2009.
Communities are not built on the lack of good neighbor policies by organizations, businesses and institutions in our communities and neighborhoods. That is the subject for your journalism and it is only addressed to your capabilities.
Posted by jjj, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2011 at 9:27 am
you are a total joke and a shill for the a i a i challenged you to release just 1 e mail you have accused people of sending, and you return with more of your insane diatribes if you are going to publicly accuse someone whomever once again put up or shut up. you will not because your accusation is total b s
Posted by [removed], a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Jul 25, 2011 at 7:58 am
Subscribers among major corporations have provided news service researchers their corporate policies for community engagement as "good neighbor" programs for their facilities and support for the communities in which they are located. In commentary, Cece, a director in one corporation's community engagement organization, noted that governments and districts do not have the same stake in communities as corporations, "communities are not their customers."
News service editors responded, governments and districts are owned by the residents of communities and are obligated to be good neighbors in the communities they serve. Yet, editors were quick to note that governments and districts often feel they are authorities in communities rather than working is service to communities' residents.
Do your readers believe their governments and districts are good neighbors in their communities?