Mary's MAC and its future in the new District 2??
Original post made by Hal, CDSI Research on Sep 2, 2011
What will be the role of the "Alamo MAC" in the new district 2?
This question repeats among Alamo region neighbors that fail to see any role for Mary's seven volunteer staff members beyond their support of Supervisor Piepho and her current/past staff. With declared allegiance to Ms. Piepho's former chief of staff as a candidate for district 2 supervisor, neighbors are convinced that the Alamo MAC will end its purpose in Alamo at next Tuesday's meeting. Ms. Piepho, present/past staff and MAC members have little recognition or approval among the majority of Alamo residents and as a result MAC members will have little purpose in the new district 2.
What is expected Tuesday evening is a "love-fest" as MAC members celebrate their last meeting as part of District 3. Reportedly, Mary's current and past staff will be present to celebrate what they consider to be the successes of a MAC that has never gathered support, recognition or participation by a majority of Alamo residents or any significant results for the community. It appears a location and agenda for Tuesday's meeting has not been published and rumor has it the event will be more like a farewell party.
As a journalist, there is a story to be told about the next stage for Alamo's participation in the new District 2.
on Sep 3, 2011 at 7:42 am
It seems we have an answer without answers: Web Link
In the BANG article, CCC-MAC Alamo's role is correctly explained as "The group advises the county on issues in the unincorporated area" but failed to recognize that the seven volunteer staff members have no relationship with the majority of Alamo residents. In a quote, Supervisor Gayle "Uilkema said she has no intention on changing the members, whom she believes would be knowledgeable of the area. She also has no plan to end the group and said she finds municipal advisory councils helpful." It leaves a curious question, if the CCC-MAC Alamo members are strangers in their community, out of touch with the will and interests of Alamo residents, and unable to offer interactive discussion, consideration and mitigation in community issues with the county, how can that be helpful?
Alamo residents have the answer as they continue to ignore mostly meaningless MAC agendas and unwanted parks and recreation, tree lighting and highway 680 landscaping programs that are the primary focus of these strangers in Alamo. Will such lack of recognition, support and communication carry over to Supervisor Uilkema when she comes to Alamo?
It seems there is still a story to tell.
on Sep 3, 2011 at 10:34 am
SORRY MY FRIEND YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH, WHEN YOU SAY ALAMO RESIDENTS DO NOT WANT PARKS AND THE TREE LIGHTING. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD ATTEND ONE, AND INTERACT WITH THE REAL PEOPLE OF ALAMO. I CHALLENGE YOU TO BE MY GUEST AT THIS YEARS TREE LIGHTING AND THEN TELL ME AND THE REST OF THE READERS TO THIS SITE THAT IT IS NOT WORTHWHILE, AND BY THE WAY THE COUNTY IS A SMALL BUT VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE FUNDS NEEDED FOR THIS VERY WORTHWHILE EVENT
on Sep 3, 2011 at 4:11 pm
JIM is correct that Alamo neighborhoods support our annual Holiday tree lighting in the Andrew Young Park in the business district. What Alamo neighborhoods do not support is the MAC's plan to put street lighting permanently in the trees lining the business district. A more desired solution is street lighting for Alamo's business district and major roads including underground utilities, covered drainage and walking paths along the roadside.
As for PARKS, please refer to the CC LAFCO study that clearly illustrates less than 7% of Alamo residents use Alamo parks and recreation programs. This was confirmed by <600 individuals out of >13,000 residents in <5000 residences responding to the MAC R-7A survey earlier this year.