Contra Costa County MACs are failing!! Comments on Stories, posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Jun 5, 2009 at 7:11 pm
In a document prepared for submission to the Grand Jury, Alliance of Neighborhoods throughout Contra Costa County have recognized the failed ability of Contra Costa County Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) to represent the will and interests of their communities and regions in decisions by Contra Costa County departments, districts and board of supervisors. In legal analysts' review sanctioned by neighborhoods throughout the county, it was discovered that 1) MACs are not fully staffed with members, 2) communities' neighbors are not willing to serve under the very heavy-handed control of county specifications, and 3) except for minor issues, MAC advisory is ignored by county departments, districts and board of supervisors.
In conclusion, analysts report from county reference documentation since June 2006 that MACs were designed to fail their communities as a rational voice for community will and interests.
It is now your turn to do the investigation very publicly available and interview established MAC members to report the truth of failure as MACs are used as gatekeepers for the heavy and powerful hand of supervisors and the special interests of their supporters.
Posted by Alamo Ron, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Jun 6, 2009 at 8:53 am
Well, gee. It really doesn't matter what sort of document is prepared for "submission to the Grand Jury" does it? After all, a bear in the woods can submit a document to the Grand Jury. The writer is trying mightily, but unconvincingly, to brand his document with the cache of authoritative reality by the mere fact that it was "submitted to the Grand Jury."
What really matters is not what the Grand Jury "gets", but what they "give" in the form of an opinion.
Posted by Halamo, a resident of another community, on Jun 7, 2009 at 8:37 am
Once again, you were the focus of information I provided as a courtesy with a request for your journalism. It does not matter what words of humor Ron and I use or the world of oxymora we explore. Communities and neighborhoods should consider the ability of a county-defined municipal advisory council to serve as their voice in the county government based on the current performance of such results by existing CCC-MACs.
But let us be distracted for the moment by Ron's isolation of information that was not the topic for this specific forum and ask "What makes a jury of any type Grand?" We might wonder if members of such juries are the grandness or are the time requirements provided so large that they can be defined as Grand. And what if we examine the concept of a jury and what is it in terms of descriptions of pianos. Would it be more appropriate to call such a Jury "Upright" than Grand? And with juries being "seated" maybe there are no such things as pianos.
Such discussion of pianos may suit many. In courtesy, let's discuss the success or failure of MAC's and pianos.
AS we all "try to be nice" we can fill your forum with nice tries,
Posted by Halamo, a resident of another community, on Jun 7, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Are two voices shouting objections in the factional minority of 94507 a real measure of a majority's view. We must ask why a majority is not commenting? Simply, establishing an additional agency, as a MAC, in 94507 does not change the disregard that the majority has for the county's intentions and services to our community of neighborhoods.
It remains true that the Maytag repairmen of Alamo Counsel (MAC) will be strangers to the majority and very obviously the loneliest people in (94507) town.
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Jun 8, 2009 at 11:13 am
Neighbors invite Alamo Ron and Informed Resident to provide their content rather than contempt for the subject of this forum. Content should be the goal of individual forums and possibly an outline of such content would allow many authors, under pseudonyms, to illustrate the purpose and advantages of a Municipal Advisory Council for 94507 Alamo California:
#1 - What examples of successful MACs in Contra Costa County can be used as justification of a MAC for >16,000 residents to voice advisory to the county?
#2 - What relationships must MAC members have with the majority of residents in order to be successful as the voice of the community?
#3 - In larger populations such as 94507 Alamo California, what MAC supporting services, committees and structures are needed to achieve the scope of actions to be considered?
#4 - With the wealth in neighborhoods, should the county expect a majority of residents to recognize and support a MAC?
#5 - With little support for other advisory committees and the Alamo Community Council, what changes for MAC members in gaining majority support?
#6 - Finally, why is the majority of residents not commenting on the specifications and formation of a MAC publicly?
Answers to these question, as a June 11th Alamo Community Council agenda, may be key to whether a MAC has potential for success in 94507 Alamo California.
Posted by Infromed Resident, a resident of another community, on Jun 9, 2009 at 12:45 pm
If you are looking for the answers to your questions, then I would respectfully suggest that you begin by inquiring with your County. (Starting with your local Supervisor's office).
Something tells me that you would not really want to hear the answers and would dismiss them under your quasi logic. How far off would I be?
If you are looking for "opinion" I offer the following; but bear in mind it is only opinion. The county could offer factual answers if that is/was what you were really seeking.
1. All of the existing MAC's. There are numerous examples. Pick up the phone and contact one or all of them.
2. A good relationship would be beneficial. However having a particular relationship with the "majority" is not realistic. I think accessible is a more realistic goal.
3. While Alamo does not have a large population, I am not convinced you really understand why MAC's are created. They are an instrument of the Board of Supervisors and not created for independency.
4. Wealth in neighborhoods? See answer #3 ie., "I am not sure you understand why MAC's are created". Specifically it is not up to specific individuals or a particular group to recognize a MAC. Once established by the County it is recognized as the advisory body. Attempting not to recognize it would be self defeating.
5. A MAC would become the primary advisory body with all others reporting to them or directly to the Board of Supervisors. Any non governmental group such as the ACC or AIA would simply be afforded opportunity to comment to the MAC under public comment per the Brown Act. That is what the CA Government Code and the Brown Act specify.
6. You would have to ask the "majority". Usually it is apathy. This is also the rule, not the exception. I am not sure how you have come to the conclusion that a "majority" ever participates. They should but they don't. Unless you can cite an example, I am unaware of one existing.
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on Jun 9, 2009 at 7:22 pm
We shall, without any control, see history repeat itself as a majority in our region simply ignores government and community groups in seeking their own future. There is nothing apathetic about a very savvy population in our region. There is only dissatifaction with being excluded from voice in our regional community and lack of definition of planned results for government in our region.
This incredible majority with their exceptional credentials only asked local politics for an inclusive defintion of results. Reality distracts such delivery amd there will always be opposing response.
Nothing about the status quo is still the status quo!!
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Jun 10, 2009 at 9:16 am
The matter of MAC failures is proposed to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and Grand Jury Secretary as of today as you will note by a copy sent to you. Tomorrow afternoon, district 3 will unilaterally specify a 94507 MAC at their Alamo Community Council meeting.
Thus, all neighborhoods' consideration of a 94507 Alamo CA MAC is now referred to the county and media for investigation.
Thank you for your willingness to provide forum for consideration of a 94507 MAC and the value of the AIA and neighborhoods in management of a MAC's relationship with our community of neighborhoods.
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Jun 12, 2009 at 9:45 am
This Letter to the Editor of the Valley Times is excellent summary of the attitudes of regional neighborhoods:
Who needs MAC ?
It's interesting that the same people who opposed the recent incorporation effort are the same people who endorse Mary Piepho's Municipal Advisory Council. MAC's members are appointed by Piepho. Alamo residents should know that a MAC represents a consolidation of power and control by Piepho and her cronies.
They're developers who know it will be a lot easier to get approvals from Martinez when the AIA and The SRVPC are neutralized or eliminated. A MAC will be a real coup for development interests.
Why fear Piepho? She facilitated the land swap between the SRUSD and the Stone Valley Oaks project that created an unneeded parking lot and 2 fallow acres that were supposed to be soccer fields across form Monte Vista. What did Alamo get in return? More McMansions, the elimination of the Double D Riding Arena and trail access to Mt. Diablo.
Vote no on the MAC. Oops, I forgot, we don't get to vote. It's going to be shoved down Alamo's throat by Piepho and the board of supervisors. Say goodbye to our semirural character. Hello zero lot lines and an arrogant autocracy. Follow the money.
In regional e-exchanges this morning, discussing this LTTE, several points were made in further definition:
#1 - There is a very small number of incorporation proponents and opponents that support a MAC for 94507 Alamo CA (designated area by district 3).
#2 - The majority of NO voters in the incorporation election do not oppose incoporation and only voted no because no definition of government, its plans and budgets, were offered in the AIM incorporation proposal.
#3 - That same majority cannot find any justification for any five member autocratic council in our region whether it be a town council, CCC-BOS, or a district 3 MAC. Any and all will be strangers to our region's neighborhoods and not representative of any will or interests such neighborhoods will pursue.
In such perspective, it is time we all watch this district 3 move play out in our region.
And more importantly followed up with this message from Save Mt. Diablo! PLEASE read...
"Save Mount Diablo received an e-mail from Greg Jones regarding the Humphrey property and Davidon's proposed development, and found it quite misleading--and we don't normally defend developers. In fact the Humphrey project has a higher level of public benefit than almost any project we've ever seen--especially for equestrians. The benefits are detailed below..."
Nice try Hal, but informed residents want all the facts.
Posted by Halamo, a resident of another community, on Jun 17, 2009 at 9:27 am
For your laughing and dancing pleasure, Dolores,
I could find no reference to public positions by Greg Jones on pianos.
Mr. Jones does not speak for neighborhoods, but has certain points of view in common with that majority related to CCC-BOS MAC policies. The potential pursuit of review of CCC-MAC policy by the Grand Jury as discussed previously is now under consideration by neighborhoods' counsel and is client confidential. We will all have to wait for a public response before further discussion.
But getting back to pianos, just how upright are they and why should something so lateral be considered grand? Now, there is a question!!
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Jun 18, 2009 at 11:37 am
I wish to thank you! Your transparency continues to be transparent. A simple Google search is there for anyone to reference---Especially for neighbors with so much "research" ability and the resources you claim. Claiming anything else is a farce and nothing more than denial.
More hollow threats are just wasted keystrokes. I think we would all be more impressed if you actually did something. Now there is a novel thought…
If you are just attempting humor you really should consider getting a new joke writer.
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Jun 22, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Diablo Vista (Alamo) region neighborhoods wish to return this discussion to the purpose and advantages of a 94507 Alamo CA MAC.
Contra Costa County Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) should represent the will and interests of their communities and regions in decisions by Contra Costa County departments, districts and board of supervisors. In legal analysts' review sanctioned by neighborhoods throughout the county, it was discovered that 1) MACs are not fully staffed with members, 2) communities' neighbors are not willing to serve under the very heavy-handed control of county specifications, and 3) except for minor issues, MAC advisory is ignored by county departments, districts and board of supervisors. Counsel's analysts report, using county reference documentation since June 2006, that MACs were designed to fail their communities as a rational voice for community will and interests.
Investigation conducted very publicly using available county documents and interviews with previous and established MAC members report the truth of failure as MACs are used as gatekeepers for the heavy and powerful hand of supervisors and the special interests of their supporters.
That is the subject of this forum, as the issue of purpose and advantages of a 94507 Alamo MAC, and I am not the subject.
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Jun 23, 2009 at 1:30 pm
You are not the subject(don't flatter yourself), your comments are. No one is impressed with your conspiracy theories or constantly suggesting that you post on behalf of counsel, neighborhoods and made up whimsical names.
I will keep it simple. When it comes to the subject matter...