Submitted February 8, 2009:
"The Town of Alamo is no longer financially feasible (if it ever was)
given the economic outlook for the next 5 years. I believe that
assessed valuations and economic activity subject to sales tax can
both be expected to decrease by about 30%.

The claim that we will gain $700,000 from the county will be largely
offset by the costs of the new administration.

In order to balance the budget the proposal postpones road
maintenance for several years. This is an invitation to a law suit
for lack of due diligence if someone is hurt or killed as a result of
poor road maintenance.

Claims that we can get services cheaper than the county are nebulous
at best because most public workers have near or actual parity with
their peers.

There has been no plan put forth to meet the affordable housing
mandate of the State. As it is now we are buffered by the housing in
rural areas of the county.

The web site for The Town of Alamo has a link titled 'Hogwash' where
they criticize statements made by detractors. Based on the arrogance
represented by this terminology I immediately conjured up a picture of
a herd of wannabe politicians seeking petty power and the right to
slop at the public trough." - Mac

Submitted February 6, 2009:
"As a 19-year Alamo resident, I am appalled at the very
thought of incorporating at this time. It is hugely fiscally
irresponsible.

Additionally, politically correct or not, I DO NOT want to see Alamo
required to provide low-income housing. Our property values have
declined more than enough in the current economic climate.

Another layer of (constantly growing - they always do) government is
also unattractive.

Alamo residents interested in seeing Alamo's interests served at the
County level should show up en mass at Suppervisor's Board meetings
to make their concerns heard. Repeatedly."

Submitted February 5, 2009:
"How did we ever get this "become a city" mess crammed down our throats?
I lived in Danville both before and after it was incorporated...Big Differnece.
A recent comment on another blog says,

"The Pro side relies upon the Vehicle Licensing Fees to provide $1.5
million a year for the next ten years to keep their "town" afloat.
Check out the State Controllers website...the Vehicle License fees
were CANCELLED...THAT'S RIGHT...CANCELLED...last October. Tentatively
reinstated in January, but on a limited basis. This!!is what we're to
rely on to keep Alamo fiscally solvent??? "

I checked...This person is correct!!!

I know the members of AIM would love to see "A" passed. Each time I
hear one of them speak it is the same old garbage, CONTOL - CONTROL -
CONTROL!

Let Vicki Koc and her cohorts find something in their own lives to
control. Leave my town alone!

We are wonderful BECAUSE we are unincorporated.

There is a HUGE silent majority out there that opposes incorporation.
All of you AIM folks will discover this on March 3rd. Then, you can
move to whichever incorporated town you like, anywhere in
California.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON INCORPORATION." - Louise

Submitted January 29, 2009:
Comments: I am a CPA and my family has lived in Alamo since 1972. I
AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO MEASURE A. My home is on a very visable corner
of Miranda and Miranda Creek Court. We own the land oustide our fence
to the curb and would love to put Vote NO signs on my property. If
you have any signs availaable please let me know. From Tana

Submitted January 29, 2009:
"In March we will be 47 year Alamo residents. Were initial
calculations for financial ability to incorporate done during 'Boom'
period ? I counted NINE EMPTY store-fronts in Alamo Plaza on
Wednesday, January 28 th. Yardbirds is CLOSING, and Wells Fargo
purchased Wachovia. It is unlikely that WF Bank will maintain BOTH
facilities in Alamo!Two more large empty stores! So how does present
'recession' AND empty stores affect the 'proponents' determination
that Alamo has sufficient income from sales taxes? We also will lose
CHP services IF we incorporate. More than likely they will have to
raise real estate taxes. After all, they propose NOT to increase any
of the present services already in effect from County. Through your
organization, there is still time to inform Alamo residents of these
NEGATIVE factors."

VOTE "NO"

- Roman

Submitted January 28, 2009:
"Save our peaceful Alamo, once a city , always a city...
Many of the people who are for the incorporation have hidden motives
which are seemingly selfish. I encourage all voters to spend some
time with the candidates, there isn't much time and this is seemingly
a rush job by them to sneak this thing by. Now the ballot that just
arrived in the mailbox today tells us that fewer voters favor the
incorporation. Get the word out to vote. Be educated, look in the
dictionary for definitions. City vs town, public vs private, higher
taxation without representation. Did anyone even hear about this
ballot before a few weeks ago??

Always rememeber, if someone is pushing you to do something with
force versus passion and doesn't allow you to have freedom and rights
to choose your mind, then you have been reduced nothing better than
slavery. The Greeks preached balance, of nature, thinking and
moderation of living. Don't you think we're being pushed into this
election in March with pretty short notice? The Yes group is rather
radical and seems to have been brewing this little takeover. Might I
suggest they pack their bags and move into Danville and sit on that
city board?
There are some who are planning to file lawsuits once the town is
incorporated for their own personal gain, please, please stop this
rush job. Let's pray, think about things, research things. Another
ballot can always be done in the future, but if you make Alamo a
city, you cannot ever get it back.

Who should be against incorporation???
Builders, contractors( you're not going to get your remodel permits
so easily), all small business owners and their customers as revenue
comes from taxes on businesses and real estate taxes (if the city
can't come up with enough, taxes go up), anyone who works, shops and
parks in Alamo, as traffic violations will rise as an income revenue
( talk to your friendly CHP officier now), with urbanization comes
crime increases, ( hmm what happened in Danville last week to that
dear teen).
The only crime in Alamo that we had years ago was the cases of the
stolen golf clubs from garages. If you do not remember that, then
you're a newbie as that was Alamo's biggest crime incident.
Make it a city and not only will it be on the map, but be aware that
once a locale is on the radar, especially exposing it's affluent
residents, doesn't one think that will attract more crime.

I love the fact than when I say Alamo that no one knows where it is.

It's not fair that a handful of wantabe
politicians want to dictate the irreversable fate of our Alamo. If
they truely cared and felt like they were doing the right thing, more
time and care would have been taken and more open public forums would
have been held.

This whole thing has been executed like a used car salesman trying to
dump a lemon. Let's vote no on this lemon!!" - Barbara

Submitted January 28, 2009:
"Even though the Home Depot Yardbirds was not taken into
account of potential revenue for Alamo, the current economy woes
certainly should make folks in our town think twice about voting for
incorporation. The feasibility study, cooked numbers or not, was done
at the height of a good economy. What would a study, base on todays
economy, show us now? The thought of having additional cost, whether
in taxes or by other means, just to support another layer of "want to
be" politicians of Alamo, is mind boggling. The additional cost
mentioned in the statement, "An Unholy Alliance at Creekside Church",
and those yet to be taken into consideration just makes it that much
easier to VOTE NO." - Norma

Submitted January 28, 2009:
"With the closing of Yardbirds, there will be a great loss
of revenue for Alamo. I think the fiscal studies were based on
better economic times than we are now experiencing. Not a great idea
to add an extra layer of government to our area." - Rochelle

Submitted January 14, 2009:
I'm still not sure if I'm in favor or against incorporation. I recently received an e-mail to which I responded(below) The original e-mail suggested that if Alamo incorporates, the new City Council would place new restrictions on pet ownership and Alamo Equestrians should vote against incorporation.
"Dear concerned Equestrians, As you may know, I've been a planning commissioner in Alamo for the last 18 yrs. My wife, Gayle, has kept horses on our property in Alamo for over 22 years. Personally, I've been a supporter of the Double D Junior Horsemen and an activist who's fought every proposal that would convert equestrian use for housing developments in Alamo. I'm very familiar with Contra Costa County zoning ordinances. Alamo is predominantly zoned R-20 and R-40. Today, horses are only allowed on R-40 and larger parcels.
Over the years, virtually every application for a General Plan Amendment that allowed for the conversion of traditional horse property into sub-divisions has been approved by the County. There are virtually no large parcels left since Humphrey and Alamo Estates converted the last 2, 100 acre parcels to P-1 developments with the exception of Summit Ranch. If incorporated, Summit would have to go in front of the Alamo City Council, not the entire CCC Board of Supervisors for a change in use. We know from past experience, the Supervisors don't care about the quality of life we enjoy in Alamo.
So why incorporate? Summit, for example, would have a much better chance of getting a zoning change, general plan amendment and change in use from the County, than they would in an incorporated Alamo. I'd be much more concerned about what the County may do to Alamo in light of it's un-funded obligations for current and future retiree's if we remain un-incorporated. The County made over $4 million on the Humphrey property alone!
No one, that I'm aware of, running for City Council, has put forth a platform suggesting any changes to the current zoning designations in Alamo. In my opinion, Alamo will have a much better chance of retaining it's "semi-rural character" if incorporated. You can ask the candidates themselves , on-on-one, January 22nd, at the Alamo women's club.
So in answer to Heidi's question, yes, I think it's just hot air. This appears to be dis-information put out by Alamo Spotlight, with the intent of scaring us equestrians into voting against incorporation based upon dis-ingenious statements.
Please forward this to all Equestrian on your mailing lists. Thanks and regards," - Greg

Submitted January 12, 2009:
I like Alamo just the way it is. I don't feel it needs to grow a city or a city hall with employees that are going to require my taxes and tell me what to do with my property. I can't see how any services that a city might provide are going to give us more than we have now. - John

Submitted January 9, 2009:
For the life of me I don't understand why anyone would want to incorporate! We would be socked with fees to get architects drawings for a town hall. Not to mention police and fire departments. Once those are approved, we'd get to pay the contractors to build the building/buildings. Then there's the cost to buy new furniture to fill the building. Let's not forget the employees who would now be working there. In order to get "good help" we need to pay top dollar salaries, along with paid vacations, insurance and retirement packages/pension plans. Landscaping and gardeners should be included, plus maintenance personel,not to mention liability insurance. The list of costs is endless. Of course the money would run out soon, thus a need to adjust our taxes is a given. Contra Costa County is in dire straits, as is the state of California AND the entire country. One of these days, the fiddler will be coming to us to pay, pay and pay some more. Alamo Incorporation is a BAD ill conceived idea, and a BAD time to incorporate. Please, vote NO March 3rd.

Submitted January 7, 2009:
What genius decided to put a "no turn on red" right in front of the Hay and Grain? I have lived in Alamo for 28 years and never once have seen a accident or any altercation that would cause this type of action to be taken. Danville will be complaining now since we have officialy grid locked Danville Blvd during school hours mixed with rush hour. More than likley it is the same people who want to incorporate this great town we live in. How do people come up with this garbage? If they do incorporate Alamo, Just think of all the other stupid things these officals will come up with because they will need something to do.

Submitted January 7, 2009:
The LAFCO maps indicated we were outside the Inc. area. This was not true! The maps were/are very poorley drawn and misleading. - Wally

Submitted January 5, 2009:
The no turn on red is just the beginning. Ask Lafayette residents who had horses, dogs, little ruminants. One can forget 4-H, local feed stores, having little children ride horses let alone even see a horse once the town becomes incorporated. If you want to live in an incorporated town, move to Danville or Lafayette , but don't move into Alamo and ruin it. The character is going year by year. Alamo has produced the majority of California's young riders in almost every sport, if it becomes a town, the open space will vanish and there will not be money to repair the roads and if you want to build or add onto your house, good luck with that. The beauty of Alamo is to get in and out of downtown within 12 minutes. Can you drive through Danville or Lafayette in that time, no. - Deborah

Submitted January 2, 2009:
One of the first things a new city government does is adopt a uniform city code book about 3 inches thick telling the citizens what they can't do. then they add addendums to it. If you've never seen one, it would behoove you to check it out. After checking I am sure you will vote NO on incarceration (incorporation NO!) - James

Submitted December 29, 2008:
I am firmly opposed to the incorporation of Alamo. It is an unnecessary and costly burden upon the citizens. Taxes will inevitably be raised to support the bureaucratic aspirations of a small number of Alamo residents who will then be able to exert property right control over their neighbors. Please vote no on incorporation in March. Please don't let this ill-advised plan be stuffed down our throats. - Steven

Submitted December 26, 2008:
Not sure if the following costs were considered during the preliminary planning stages for a city. Costs which may not have been calculated nor considered in prior debt schedules for a "future" city:
---just to look at installing one traffic light will cost a very large amount of money which no little city can assume. Last time I had contact with some facts on installing a traffic light I understood it to be about 60,000.00 due to multiply layers of convoluted costs.
---the cost to resurface many of the very old roads which date back to forties and fifties will cost a great deal.
---the cost to deal with washouts, cave ins, road closures due to some earth sliding.
---cost of removing downed trees which always happened each winter falling across roads.
---spiraling cost of medical health plans for city employees.
---all cities, and even county governments are knee deep in debt due to many facets, stages,salaries related to the functioning of these governments. So is the state for that matter.
---rising costs of insurance policies for all phases of any life including protecting city employees and politicians.
---daily operating costs of any city government in terms of heat, A/C, gasoline to run vehicles, water bills, supplies, automatic vendor cost increase for material/supplies for any office.
---acquisition of, maintenance of and repair to any city offices/vehicles/equipment.
---paid vacation times and substitute personnel for vacation times just to take calls/messages/receiving parcels at front desk.
---canvassing of future office personnel and replacement.
I think that the above costs were not factored into the numbers used to determine the viability of starting a city as well as the constant rapid rise of costs associated with any aspect of running a city government. Did I leave any off?
At least you get my intent, and my thoughts. - F.O.

Submitted December 22, 2008:
I fear giving our community taxing (fees) authority, eminent domain and re-zoning. This is exactly what the developers are paying for. They will make millions by rezoning Danville Blvd. to commercial between Camille and Livorna Roads. And what about state mandated low income housing? Where do they put it? Next to you or me? No way! You say, OK with eminent domain, they could take your property and put it there. Too many unanswered questions, vote NO! - James

Submitted December 9, 2008:
Even accepting that Alamo will sometime become a city, these are perilous times to become that city when the financial analysis provided only demonstrates that the income estimated is generous, while the expenses estimated are minimal. The number of personnel estimated to "run" Alamo is laughingly small. Comparing the new Alamo to surrounding cities in Contra Costa makes it quite clear that Alamo would have an extremely difficult time.
It does not make sense to pursue incorporation today. - Jacque

Submitted December 8, 2008:
We don't need another level of government.. regardless of what they proponents of inc. claim it will cost the taxpayers more..all this to satify the ego of a few...James

Submitted December 4, 2008:
If the "No Turn on Red" signs bother you, just wait until your tax dollars are supporting a new Public Works department, Traffic Engineering department and City Engineer. What these functions are designed to do is put up more signs, institute more regulations, install more stop lights - its their job and it will be our nightmare.
Then, of course, there will have to be funds to pay the NEW City Council memembers - no one does this job for free- fund a new City Hall, and pay for all the other "services" we'll inevitably need (but don't want). Look around at any other City and decide for yourself how much infrastructure our little hamlet along 680 doesn't need but will have to pay for through increased taxes. (You know the financial projections that were used to justify this crazy idea are completely out of whack now, if they were ever real to begin with). Vote NO NO NO! -Steve

Submitted November 18, 2008:
I hear allot about that Alamo "should" incorporate. Why? I'm very happy to be living here now - and i don't think incorporating will make things better. Besides, if we do incorporate and things DON'T get better and maybe get worse, we're STUCK! Because you can't "UN-incorporate" - it's for KEEPS. Let's keep Alamo SIMPLY beautiful! - Mac

Submitted November 16, 2008:
My husband Kim and I have attended most of the meetings on incorporation and are very opposed to it. We feel that after the first five years our town will be broke. We have lived here 25 years and like it just the way it is. With incorporation we can envision no more Hay and Grain and a whole different "modern" look of our beloved town. Keep Alamo the way it is - Catherine

Submitted November 07, 2008:
Dear Editor: For Alamo to become an incorporated city has great emotional appeal, however there is no substance!

To incorporate and add another layer of costly government there needs to be tangible benefits, that’s “tangible” as in measurable! When I have asked the question of the proponents of incorporation, the response is “local control.” When a follow-up question of “control what”, the responses become quite vague and evasive, when further pinned down they reply with statements like control “in fill” and “over building” which are meant to possibly control the construction of large homes.

Do we really want a city government that will include a mayor, city council, city manager, city attorney, clerical staff and office space to prohibit someone from building what may be their dream home? Sounds like pretty miniscule benefits for the cost!

And on the subject of costs, we need to be very careful of banking on the proponents financial projections, data mining is a very old process used to support an already determined position. ~ Phil

Submitted October 24, 2008:
Comments: someone should be pointing out that is illegal for an unelected group to bind a future council to financial decisions which this group has done in negotiating the three mill payment to the county...they have no right to do this and the county has no right to negotiate with these individuals these individuals and the county should be sued....Jim Peterson

Submitted October 21, 2008:
Having taken the time to review the Winzler & Kelly report concerning feasibility of incorporation of the Town of Alamo, which is dated July 23, 2008, which apparently was bought and paid for by the pro incorporation forces in Alamo, there are a number of inconsistencies that I would like to point out.

First of all, there have been a number of comments made by the incorporation advocates to the effect that there will be no new taxes if the incorporation is successful, absent a vote of 2/3 majority.

In the Winzler & Kelly report, (hereinafter "report"), on page 5, it is pointed out that a 2/3 majority is not required in all cases. The report states "A tax to be levied for "general purposes," such as utility tax for use for any and all services, requires a simple majority of the electorate."

There has also been much to do made about Alamo needing to control development within its own community. On page 13 of the report, it is pointed out that "The Alamo community is essentially a build out community with limited ongoing residential development, and little to no new retail or commercial development." The report goes on to discuss second residential units, remodels and the like.

Since Alamo is a built out community, as per the report, what benefit is derived by the community having another level of bureaucracy overseeing development which will not occur?

On page 47 of the report, there is an indication that six cities were selected for comparison purposes including Moraga, Orinda and Lafayette. Those three cities along with Clayton were "selected due to their general comparison to population". On page 48 of the report it states "when comparing per capita costs of law enforcement service, Alamo exceeds Clayton, Moraga and Lafayette and lags behind Orinda (boundary alternative one only), American Canyon and San Anselmo. Although the pro incorporation group as a whole is suggesting that law enforcement will be increased as a result of incorporation. September 19, 2008, the San Ramon Valley Times ran a lengthy article dealing with funding problems for law enforcement in Moraga, Lafayette and Orinda. It reported that a burglar alarm went off at a flooring business in Lafayette and the response time was one-half hour. In Moraga, the chief of police is on the street doing patrol duties. In Lafayette, the City counsel has now made fixing city streets a top priority and has diverted money from law enforcement services. The article concludes that the three police departments will need to keep depending on each other and chiefs of police will need to "keep hitting the pavement along with their officers."

Another cost for law enforcement that appears to be overlooked is what happens if one or more officers get injured in the line of duty. These officers will have to be replaced. With an estimated cost of $150,000 per year, per officer, which includes salaries, fringe benefits and the like, this would have a substantial impact on the reserves on an incorporated Alamo.

As a 37 year resident of Alamo, I am opposed to incorporation because it appears that the overall plan is not well thought out. The funding available is inadequate regardless of the optimism expressed in the "bought and paid for" report. In the end we will receive another level of bureaucrats, more petty politics and no meaningful benefits - Jim Wickersham

Submitted October 21, 2008:
I must have been under a rock for the past few weeks…I literally just found out about the meeting (all the way down in Martinez, unlike the LAFCO meeting in Alamo) at lunch today…too late certainly to make it all the way up there. I will come back to your website within the next few days to read how it went. Thanks for a great website…Lou Plummer

Submitted October 11, 2008:
We have lived very comfortably in Alamo for 37 years and do
not understand why Alamo needs to be incorporated.

Submitted October 10, 2008:
As a 37 year resident of Alamo, I am opposed to watching a
new level of bureaucrats take over our community.
After actually reading the Winzler & Kelly report prepared at the
request of the pro-incorporation forces, there appear to be a number
of issues contained in that report that should be addresssed so that
the citizens of Alamo can be fully informed when it comes time to
vote.

I am taking the time to cross check facts set forth in the report
before making a statement concerning specific issues.
I would be happy to establish a dialogue with anyone else who takes
issue with the report. - Jim

Submitted October 5, 2008:
If this incorporation idea really goes to a vote, I plan to vote NO. I hope, however, that LAFCO uses its period of reconsideration to rethink sending this to a vote. I am so relieved people filed for reconsideration. There are still so many unanswered questions regarding the future of an incorporated Alamo. I think prematurely going forward could really put Alamo in a bad position. I LOVE ALAMO and I hope it stays just the way it is. Thanks.

Submitted October 2, 2008:
I am totally against the incorporation of Alamo and I'm very glad there is a website like this to organize the opposition. Thank you for doing something! - Tina

Submitted September 25, 2008:
3000 signatures to allow a study for incorporation of Alamo does not mean that all 3000 people are supporting incorporation.

When I was approached for my signature, I was told it was for a study. Why did I not sign the petition? When asked at one of their meetings to arrange a town hall meeting on the pros and cons of incorporation, I was flatly told that if I wanted a meeting I should call for one. Wasn't this a reasonable request on such an important issue that affects everyone? The decision should only be made when all sides of the issue have been presented.

The $350,000 more or less surplus is a drop in the bucket when a town faces emergencies. Do people realize they must vote each time to provide funds for emergency or special needs because funds must come from property taxes? Our commercial sector is small. Safeway, the major store, does not collect taxes on food. Towns like Orinda, Lafayette, and Danville are replete with potholes because people do not wish to pay additional fees for potholes on other people's streets.

Their figures regarding special fees should be revisited because Alamo is mostly built up. In addition, their very minimal number of required police services is unrealistic. Using the lowest number of officers required will not secure a safe town.

The County has provided very good services. County street repair has been great. Lets keep it that way.

People of Alamo seem to love Alamo. So very much has gone right. I am sure that dealing with the County is not perfect. But, somehow Alamo continues to remain desirable. Lets keep it that way. I have not seen or heard of a reason to change things.

Then, if all the negative arguments don't convince you to reconsider incorporation, do incorporate. STILL, A PRO-AND-CON TOWN HALL MEETING IS VITAL FOR PEACE OF MIND. - Beulah

Submitted September 24, 2008
We lived in Moraga for 31 years before moving to Alamo. Jack's business was in Orinda, and we still own that property. We have seen first hand that incorporation really has no benefits to local residence and small business was especially hurt. Orinda mismanaged their funds so badly (expensive library and city office bldg.) that they have the worst roads in the county. They can't afford to repair anything. Now we hear that the Lamorinda area has to "share" police services because each town alone cannot afford their own department. We moved here (about 4 years ago) to enjoy the easy country living that unincorporated areas enjoy. There is very little space in Alamo for "big developers" to take over, so why are we trying to place unneeded restrictions on building. We are truly committed to keeping Alamo unincorporated. Please contact us when there will be future meetings. You may also place our names among those of you against incorporation - Jack & Sharon Bernardini

Submitted September 23, 2008:
I have been a resident of Alamo for many years, and I like Alamo just the way it is. I see no reason why we should change the way things are, add another level of government, and threaten the financial stability of our town. I think the County has done an excellent job over the years. Besides, if we do incorporate, it is not as though we will be distancing ourselves from the County, as we will be contracting with the County for many of the same services they currently provide. What is the point then? What do we gain besides an addition level of government? It's unfortunate this is going to a vote, but I plan to vote NO on incorporation and I know many of my neighbors feel the same way. Thank you, Dana

Submitted September 21, 2008:
I lived in Lafayette for 25 years. I moved away to Alamo to avoid city politics. I am completely against incorporation of Alamo and will support such efforts. Please keep me apprised via email. This must be stopped! Thank you, Dennis

Submitted September 19, 2008:
Am interested in participating wholeheartedly in defeating the liars that won the "argument" last evening and achieved their ends: more government meddling in our lives at, now, the local level. Make no mistake, this will have to be won at the grassroots level on the financial and "low-income housing" level. This means door to door warfare. I'll do whatever has to be done to defeat this awful proposal. Let me know when the next meeting is - Steve

Submitted September 16, 2008:
I have followed the Alamo Incorporation process for some time and still cannot figure out why Alamo Residents would invite another layer of government over that which the county provides. Nor can I discern the benefits of incorporation. It appears to be simply more government that residents don't need, can't afford and didn't ask for! - Bill

Submitted September 10, 2008:
Yes, I am a resident of Alamo and have been for 33 years. In fact Gennie Anderson was the lady that encouraged Karen (my wife) and I to plant roots in Alamo over 30 years ago. Have I seen changes in Alamo...oh yes I sure have, some good and some not so good. But, lately I've been sitting back and watching the actions of some folks that think Alamo's survival is to allow a few ultra-ego's to push their personal political agenda down our throat's, well it's not going to work. I plan to attend all the upcoming meetings.

I also plan to email the LAFCO ltexe@lafco.cccounty.us as suggested by Steve Mick and offer my thoughts with regards to Alamo's Incorporation. Mr. Mick's suggestion was to email the above address if you are in support of Alamo being incorporated...well I'm going down a different road and I believe the LAFCO agency should be aware of those of us that prefer the unincorporated Alamo to stay as is...

I received this email address from Sue Thompson and I thank her for that. I understand Mr. Tony Carnemolla is attempting to get us all together and discuss a strategy to rebut the issues regarding why we must be incorporated, I think Tony is moving in the right direction. Let's forget about the ego's that are trying to move us in that direction and focus more on popping their balloon and getting the word out to a silent majority. That's about it for now. Hope to see you at the next meeting. I believe the next meeting is scheduled for 9/18/08 at 4:30pm...the time schedule reminds me of how the unions scheduled their votes (2:00am) no one was present but the yes votes. Oh well...Thank you, Leonard Vinci

Submitted September 04, 2008:
"Save Alamo"
TWO WAYS TO SAVE ALAMO:
Two groups are vying for your support. "Save Alamo" by incorporating promises much, largely by utilizing the savings the county enjoys by providing their services over what the proposed city can do by itself. It is under suspicion that some of the current surveys started with the answer and worked backwards. The other "Save Alamo" wants to save it as it is, letting the facts speak for themselves. I think it's fair to look at nearby larger cities such as Orinda, Lafayette and Danville. In each case the "big savings" seem to have evaporated. In recent times, the then Orinda board tried to float two roadwork bond issues to repair the worst roads in the county, except for Richmond. Waiting in the wings are requests for "overlooked" and badly needed sewer and water projects. The then board previously found enough money to build a new office building for themselves and staff rather than use the previously announced remodel of an existing structure. The board was removed by the voters, with one exception. The new board will be "aided" by an oversight committee. They almost had a homeless center. This may or may not be what the average Orinda citizen wants, the problem is they were not asked. Lafayette has some cute things downtown such as a cupola or two, benches, etc., but they have also failed in attempts to float a road bond issue. Moraga almost built an elevator in a two-story building. These are examples. WHERE ARE THOSE BIG SAVINGS WHEN WE NEED THEM?
WHY DO WE HEAR SO MUCH MORE FROM THE INCORPORATION PEOPLE?
There is no doubt the incorporation people are motivated and have raised over $200,000. It's a fact that several persons are seeking to be part of the proposed city to advance their careers. Others want a higher personal profile and will spend your money to get it. IF ALAMO IS INCORPORATED BE PREPARED TO ATTEND MEETINGS OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES. These meetings can last a long time. Controversial items are frequently near the end of the agenda. If the other cities are a guide, you will learn more about parcel taxes, bond issues, city sales taxes, etc. You might also have additional lighting, curbs, and cute things like Lafayette, some are nice to have but all cost money. Along with incorporation comes more offices, rules, ordinances, and fees to match.
WHO CAN DO A BETTER JOB AND HAS THE EXPERTISE AT LOWER COST? The police departments of the above cities already depend upon the sheriffs dept. Smaller cities frequently scratch around and try to force fit whoever is available to carry out or supervise, whereby larger cities and the county use professionals.
ONCE YOU INCORPORATE YOU CAN'T GO BACK. The entrenched bureaucracy won't let you.