Organizers Roheet Kakaday, at the rostrum, and his sister Reema, at his left, at last Tuesday night’s Great Castro Valley Debate on Incorporation. Panelists Sal Tedesco and Michael Kusiak spoke in favor of cityhood, David Duncan and Mitch Green argued against it.

By Robert Souza

CASTRO VALLEY FORUM

Many of Castro Valley’s movers and shakers were among the 100 or so who gathered to hear the pros and cons of incorporation last week at the library.

While some of the faces were new, the arguments were mostly those that have been around since the Boulevard got its first layer of asphalt.

Proponents Michael Kusiak and Sal Tedesco claimed Castro Valley has a “democratic deficit” and that incorporation would bring more local control, allowing the new city to make its own decisions for its future.

But Mitch Green and David Duncan said cityhood would mean taxes would go up, public services would go down, and that small businesses would suffer. Green contended that a number of ramifications, which he called the “politics of unintended consequences,” would result from incorporation.

“I was very impressed with the turnout and that everyone was very civil, mature and educated,” said Castro Valley resident Jennifer Kline who took detailed notes from each of the speakers statements on her iPad during the debate.

The Tuesday night “Great Castro Valley Debate” was organized by residents Roheet and Reema Kakaday. Among those attending were members of the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council, School District officials and Supervisor Nate Miley.

Two attempts at incorporation over the past half-century – the most recent in 2002 – have failed at the ballot box.