LTTE: Here we go again in Alamo Around Town, posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Mar 27, 2009 at 7:11 am
Let's thank Mr. Bob Myhre for our consideration of an Alamo region MAC.
In Bob's LTTE, he proposes a MAC for Alamo without understanding the majority of voters positions on local planning and political authority. The majority in the Alamo region support local planning and political control, including incorporation, but simply did not support an undefined incorporation proposal presented in the March 3 election.
A strong interest in local planning and political authority is very obvious in our Alamo region because there is a strong disregard for the current District 3 supervisor. That translates into disregard for existing county advisory committees such as R-7A and Z-36 that were reconstituted by the current District 3 supervisor's actions and would continue with any establishment of a MAC.
If a MAC were installed in Alamo by District 3 with approval by CCC-BOS, the five MAC members would be disregarded and avoided by a large majority of residents and their neighborhoods. Neighborhoods would continue actions directly with all governments including the county and increase their regulatory, civil, and class actions in prospering their political and planning voice.
There is a compromise position that would gain consideration by a majority of Alamo region neighbors. An Alamo Region Planning Commission with functional sub-committees for oversight and advisory for each service provided by the county would be supported and would serve as basis for a community-wide effort to incorporate that structure into a local government in the future.
Humor, as a reminder, should guide the consideration of a MAC for Alamo. "A MAC in Alamo would be the Maytag repairmen of Alamo Council, the loneliest people in town!" This would be very true if Bob's proposal for MAC members were only taken from the <150 active proponents and opponents in the March 3 campaigns.
Hal, as a community courtesy
Here we go again in Alamo
This letter is in rebuttal to last week's "AIA Board ponders role in future of Alamo."
Here we go again! Now the AIA (Alamo Improvement Association) and several members of AIM (Alamo Incorporation Movement) are bound and determined that they are the "Chosen Ones" to protect Alamo or to educate some of us to the sort of change that could be coming! Your (AIM) ideas about "change" were voted down by a two-thirds margin! Why don't you (AIM) understand the meaning of NO?
The "change" that I sincerely hope is coming is establishment of a MAC - a Municipal Advisory Committee. Hopefully, the Board of Supervisors will cause it to happen fairly soon.
To be fair, it is imperative that members of the MAC should be selected proportionally from those who successfully fought incorporation and those of AIM that tried so hard to pass it.
So, to the members of the AIA, I must say: "No, thank you!" As a member of the AIA Board in 1976-77, I acknowledge the benefit to Alamo of all of the efforts of the AIA Planning Committee. We will call upon them whenever the occasion arises for their constructive analysis and recommendations in the future.
Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 27, 2009 at 9:36 am
My confusion is exhaustively extensive.
The Alamo Incorporation opposition's main argument was that they didn't want "another layer of bureaucracy." Now they DO want a MAC! What a surprise! (By the way, that's a Municipal Advisory Council - not committee.)
Now how is this not "another layer of bureaucracy?" There are already 6 county advisory bodies in Alamo, and now you want another one!!??
The only way this is appealing would be to get rid of the existing advisory bodies and assign their duties to the MAC. That would be a REAL reduction in bureaucracy.
How about it, opposition? How about it, Supervisor Piepho?
By the way, I'm really not confused - I saw this coming weeks ago...
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 28, 2009 at 8:07 am
Dear Dolores, Let’s encourage Ron to develop his thoughts in more detail,
Taken from Judy’s comments in another forum: “What do you do when you realize five people are not enough for the job?
Five supervisors cannot, with all that staff help, manage the county. Five people in Danville’s Council cannot manage their relationships with neighborhoods. Five people as Alamo town council would have floundered in the fiscal challenges of corporate start-up. (In) neighborly conversations, we concluded that the issue will be five people, on a MAC, will once again not be enough for the job.
What do WE do when five people are not enough for the job?”
Jason, in Hemme neighborhoods wrote: “Five people cannot do the jobs we need done. Alamo must have more residents committed to community efforts such as infrastructure enhancement, transportation and traffic, economic development, and protection of our neighborhoods’ character. Even the AIA with it larger board and committees is being overwhelmed by the requirements of more than 16,000 residents”
Posted by Halamo, a resident of another community, on Mar 29, 2009 at 9:26 am
Let's review Ron's response and focus her attention on detailed commentary:
"I'm not surprised that Hal is having a problem enumerating the number of people needed to do a job. I'll try to help."
Note that there is no acknowledgment of community commentary by Ron's neighbors or the proposal that residents be involved in planning and political development in our region. The question for Ron is how does a community participate?
"It's called "representative government." This is probably an alien concept to those who favor more bureaucracy and an ever-increasing bloat of advisory committees in Alamo."
Note that representative government is most often a bureaucracy. Advisory committees in Alamo were designed to relieve bureaucracy with volunteer liaison between the community of neighborhoods and the county. Since Ron brought up this issue independently, then the question of why some advisory committees have not succeeded is a further question for Ron to answer in detail.
"Give this concept some study - you may like it."
Note that Ron is assuming that her neighbors have not studied government as part of the senior positions in commercial and professional corporations. Thus, Ron is left to explain the detail she thinks we may like in an undefined representative government for our region.
With all that said, Dolores, it remains your opportunity to detail such future options in your capable editorials.
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Mar 30, 2009 at 7:32 am
Dear Dolores, how many Alamo Ron’s are creating alamorons?
As neighbors study Alamo Ron, a frequent contributor to the TDW’s Forum, such study is interesting in its idle, or possibly idol, curiosity. Over the years, alamoron, as the unique form of oxymoron produced by the Alamo community culture, has had many authors. During the incorporation process, the original Alamo Ron was clever in the use of oxymoron to avoid content and to raises questions in challenge to TDW Forum commentary. As more authors became Alamo Ron, there was less alamoron and more “defamously speaking” in personal challenge to the commenter and their commentary.
The most recent Alamo Ron authors have simply used approaches that imply content that was not part of the referenced commentary while personally challenging other commenters. I miss the original Alamo Ron and the clever oxymoron used in commentary challenges. But, with some humor, if the new Alamo Ron authors were not commenting, only a few neighbors would be commenting to themselves in TDW’s Forum.
Neighborhood e-exchanges are asking, Dolores, how many Alamo Ron’s are creating alamorons?
Hal, as a courtesy to the Alamo region community of neighborhoods
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on Mar 30, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Well now, "Let's see"
Dear Dolores and Ron,
We have now agreed to present content. Thus far, Bob presented his position in reasonable content. Judy briefed us on the content of her thoughts. Jason provided his content on why five people as a representative council, board or committee is not enough for the needs of our region. Ron suggested representative government without bureaucracy and acknowledged that bureaucracy exists in our current county structures that include the various county advisory committees in the Alamo region.
Thus, continuing content in discussion of Bob's concerns, we need to conclude what form of government serves the Alamo region? What can five people achieve in any form of council, board or committee? What would be the short-comings of such a council, board or committees? What examples of successful councils, boards and committees can we use to specify our definition of local planning and political voice?
AS my content, I will support a Alamo region planning commission with functional committees as a proposal to CCC-BOS and pursuant to the establishment of a well-defined, inclusive city in our region. I believe it will take 5-7 committees (taskforces) of citizens to oversee public safety, public works, economic development, land use & zoning, community services and more. I believe that the chairs, selected annually by the committees, should be the overall planning commission for formal advisory to CCC-BOS and county departments.
I support continuation of community boards and forums, such as the AIA, to act in oversight of such a county planning commission and committees in our region and to be our community voice with all governments and districts in our region.
I look forward to you providing your positions and recommendations as further content for this discussion.
Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 7:38 am
Well, there are a few folks walking around TDW website these days wearing a sandwich board sign saying "Content Wanted - Apply Here."
Well, here's some content. Alamo DOES NOT want a regional government composed of an autocratic MAC, SuperMAC, Ultra-Planning Commission, or anything else. Hint: we just had an election which provided an insight into Alamo's mindset regarding such matters.
Here's further content. Show me another such governmental "entity" in the county that has the structures you propose. Until you can do that, I applaud your dreams - but that's all they are: Pie in the Sky dreams.
The only possible structure would be a MAC composed of an autonomous group of people. Once this is established, Alamo residents will have no defined voice in our government. The MAC can establish the structure and operations of the area, the services provided, and the costs to residents without any vote or other resident input. Alamo does not want this.
Oh, there is one other structure that can do what you want - incorporation. But that's also a sky pie - or is it a meadow muffin?
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on Mar 31, 2009 at 9:26 am
My thanks to Ron for response and content. As the majority in regional neighborhoods determine actions and proposals, we will all see the results that occur. As Ron recognized, that majority wants a new model for the voice with our region's governments. At present, representative governments in our county and region are autocracies and have little defined participation and oversight for residents and their neighborhoods.
Alamo is unique. Our residents have wealth, power, experience and counsel to propose new answers to "Costly Contra Politics."
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Mar 31, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Dear Dolores and Dawn,
Bob Myhre, a very important neighbor, created questions for all in Alamo and very appropriately so. We, as all neighbors, did not offer ourselves a local government defined for our support and we must answer "what's next" in more considerations than RON and myself. Neighborhoods, as a majority of voters, are focused on definition of local planning and political authority going forward in their discussion groups, e-exchanges and forums.
You are quite welcome to consider this subject a challenge for community-building and understand that RON and myself are not important to discussions and actions.
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Apr 2, 2009 at 7:42 am
For Al Jackson, the definitions of LWF is "Last Word Freak" or from Dilbert it is "Lying Weasel Factor" with both commonly used by high schoolers in texting and Facebook presentations.
During the run-up to the March 3 election in Alamo, neighborhoods discussion groups invited various proponents in their neighborhoods. Discussions became discord when the majority requested provision of proposed town planning and budgeting to be offered to a majority of voters as residents in Alamo region community of neighborhoods. As a result, neighbors were labeled opponents and liars, with LWF, rather than concerned supporters of a well-defined, inclusive incorporation proposal.
Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 7:50 am
And what's wrong with a label? It serves to identify, inform, instruct, instill, and sometimes to infuriate. It also can provide calorie count, RDA, serving size, and calcium content (in the form of bonehead density). That seems to be plenty of content...
Posted by Halamo, a resident of another community, on Apr 2, 2009 at 8:49 pm
As the cow said side-stepping reality, content does smell when it is labeled as something more. As the many RONS provide, content is something we might step in.
But all is not what we should discuss. Does a MAC or some other form of local planning/political authority serve our wealth and counsel? If not, we have no reason to abide its structure or consequences. As the RONS so clearly defined, we are a representative government and the representatives work for US, immediately and thoroughly.