MUD-SLINGIING AIM PROPONENT REOPENS COUNTY FILE #VR031032 FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY

REF:http://www.danvilleweekly.com/square/index.php?i=3&d=&t=711

Posted on The Danville Weekly FORUM by Concerned Citizen, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Feb 10, 2009 at 5:31 pm

"But I wonder who is funding the No crowd? Could it be just one disgruntled person with more money than sense and who never found a neighbor she didn't like? Sure didn't work when her neighbors built that objectionable house out her back window "spoiling" her view did it? The County rubber stamped the development despite her numerous objections, complaints and threats - honestly, it's curious she's such a big advocate of the County now - a few years ago she was threatening to sue everyone at the County and alleging all sorts of malfeasance. Frankly, some people have way too much money and FAR too little common sense..."

Consistent with the ongoing deception practiced by proponents of Alamo Incorporation Movement (AIM), this proponent now resorts to mud-slinging. Click on Archives at the top of the home page. The above quote will be revealed as the false allegation it is toward one of several Round Hill Country Club neighbors who requested a public hearing on variances affecting their neighborhood .
CCCo. File #VRO31032 documents a Public Hearing in which the only supporter favoring draconian variances, requested by Hal Reiland of the law firm Reiland & Reiland, for his property, 76 St. Andrews Lane, a virgin hillside adjacent to the 7th Fairway in Round Hill CC, was Roger Smith of Alamo Improvement Assn (AIA), now running for town council. It took a 40-year veteran of CEQUA Law from Sacramento, to testify against Hal Reiland and stop the development of this virgin hillside.

This incident led to the dismissal of Jack Mahoney, club manager, by Round Hill Enterprises.

What more proof do the citizens of Alamo need?

WE R ALAMO/NO ON MEASURE A