Town council strategizes over declining revenues
Original post made on Feb 25, 2009
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 7:22 PM
on Feb 25, 2009 at 10:09 am
I've read the article regarding "Town (Danville) council strategies over declining revenues"
The issue is simple, the less money we have in your pockets, the less money to spend dinning out and shopping to just shop. The town council should come back to earth and realize just because you live in Danville doesn't mean money flows loosely.
In the 3rd paragraph from the bottom the Mayor says, the residents of Danville should work with local businesses and services to help keep the downtown viable.
Well, first of all I don't think the Mayor meant to use the word "work"...I think he meant to say spend your money in downtown Danville rather then in any other community...another words, don't do business in San Ramon, Dublin, Alamo, and/or Walnut Creek. This is not a good message...isolation is not the answer.
Maybe if the town council would back off the local businesses a little, they would have more incentive to reduce prices and offer more services...thus keeping those dollars in Danville and allowing the town officials those tax dollars they are so concerned about. Give a little and you may get more...but do not push the isolation scenario.
on Feb 25, 2009 at 11:43 am
As a former Danville Area Chamber of Commerce Board Chairwoman and a long-time Danville volunteer, I feel I must take issue with the judgmental reproach by Julia Pardini to comments by Danville's Mayor and Town Manager regarding their management of Danville's revenue shortfall.
Our Town Council remains very well grounded in income versus expenses, thanks in great part to fiscal policies established by their predecessors and administered by an exceptionally capable Town Manager. How very easy to presume that money flows loosely in Danville, a town with no industry, primarily owner/operated small businesses and, therefore, a small tax base.
I read no isolationist words regarding where to shop, rather I read that, as Mayor, he wants to keep Danville viable. That is his job. That is the job of the Town Manager and yes, our town officials are obligated to be concerned about revenue.
Revenue generates the funds to maintain our town's services, our community buildings, our streets, our stellar sports fields, our parks; all enjoyed by residents of the San Ramon Valley, but paid for by Danville's residents and its tax base. If anything, Danville officials, staff, Chamber or Commerce and residents promote area cooperation and support neighboring communities.
I hope, should Alamo incorporate or choose to remain a county unincorporated area, that the residents educate themselves on just such sound fiscal management that Danville enjoys.
on Feb 26, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Well Loucy, it's all in how you interpret it and as you so advised, being in the that loop I wouldn't expect anything else from you.
Of course you didn't see or read the word isolationist, and you obviously do not want to read between the lines. The mayor's comment about his continuing efforts to push for residents to work with businesses and services to keep the downtown viable, I guess in your mind it means...well what do you think it means???
I read as the old good old boy's club...you rub my back and I'll rub yours. In my book there's nothing wrong with that as long as you fess up to it.
You're not saying anything I didn't say...money is what it takes to make Danville go around....and what the Mayor is saying is, spend it here and not over there.
With regard to Alamo...I surely hope the fine people in Alamo vote NO on Measure A...and by the way, the residents of Alamo are very educated on sound fiscal management, that's the reason we plan to stay unincorporated.
Enjoy your downtown Danville, shop, eat and play in Danville.