Development South of 50

There is an article in the Bee today regarding the city of Folsom developing land south of 50. There is a local environmental group that wants to use a ballot initiative to stop the city from expanding. I say the city should expand and use the land. I don't see it serving any other purpose at the moment. No one uses it for recreation and it is not particularly attractive. There may be some silly frog or something that lives there and would be threatened, but that's probably it. What do you think, O residents of this faire towne?

no development. that's for sure.

I'm with you C Vanderveen. If Folsom does not annex that land now then Sacramento county will build on it sooner or later and we would have no control over it. If the public had use of the area for walking, dog parks etc. maybe I would think differently. I think most of the area is owned, or optioned, by developers so it will be built on someday. I love open country side, rolling hills and beautiful scenery but I can't see who derives any benefit from this particular piece of land. Yes it will generate more people and the problems that they bring with them but the whole area is growing at a huge rate, we can not control it. Folsom is a fantastic place to live and work, I say give it the opportunity to grow like our neighbors are doing.

Yes, Please let's keep development out of there. Read letter in today's Telegraph. This battle started a few years ago but hopefully, the City Council will heed the majority wish for no development so. of 50.

I don't see why some folks want to keep cramming more and more into the same space! The land between 50 and 80 is only so big, and there is a vast area to the south that should and must be developed. How many more cars can travel on Madison or Greenback in the morning/evening rush hour? The "Sacrametropolis" is busting at the seams, and developing south of 50 is one way to allieviate some of the pressure. Face it folks, Folsom is not going to stay a small town. Our best choice is to demand that when development occurs, it is of the kind and quality we desire. Development is going to proceed and we can either add our input and maintain control or get swamped by the probelms that comes with uncontrolled building.

FYI, the land south of 50 is deemed "permanent open space". However developers have snatched up the land just waiting to see what happens. We are not just talking about the 3500 acres here in Folsom's sphere of influence either. We are talking about most of the land from Rancho Cordova to El Dorado Hills. Did you really think they would just stop with the 3500 acres? If we open up that land for development, we open up all of it for development. If you all want to live in urban sprawl, that's your right. Just as it is my right to get the heck out of dodge when that happens. The air here is bad enough as it is. Not to mention, we still haven't solved the infrastructures problems for Folsom's current population! Adding an additional 20,000 - 30,000 people plus their cars will be a nightmare. This is just my opinion but I will definetly support this groups efforts to get this measure on the ballot. Just for your information, the expected build out population for the City of Folsom's current boundary lines is somewhere around 80,000. Now add an additional 20-30 thousand and we top 100,000. Almost double our current population. We might as well change our name to Citrus Heights or Rancho Cordova. I'd love to hear from Val Doss-Joyce on this matter since her name was on the letter to the editor in todays Telegraph.

What should happen is they take all that land behind Rancho and build a new 10 lane freeway that ends up at Latrobe road in EDH.

South of 50 will get developed someday... it's inevitable. Welcome to California. We're just fortunate that Sacramento is still relatively new. The greater Sacto area will look very different in 20 years than it does now.

Don't count on Folsom city council listening to anyone with respect to the land south of 50. Folsom doesn't control any of it, except for the auto mall. We have a sphere of influence that only extends to Prairie City Road, and that only means that the city has input (as opposed to decision-making control). The nicer part, with all the native oaks, between PC and Folsom Blvd. is still under the county of Sacramento. They can approve development without so much as letting Folsom take a look at what they're doing. The county supervisors are the ones who approved the mess along the highway up through Hazel. I don't know if anyone wants to rely on them to make the right decisions for Folsom. At least if Folsom annexed the land, we would be able to have a say in what happens and to scream bloody murder if our council didn't do it right. I have more faith that our council would listen to us than that the board of supervisors would (we only have one rep. on that board, and he covers an area much larger than Folsom).

I believe our sphere begins at Prairie City and extends to the El Dorado County line. The land on the other side of Prairie City belongs to Aerojet, doesn't it? Anyone out there have the facts?

Please, Bob Fish---give us the TRUE FACTS!! I believe Tessieca and NRB are both right.

Part of the land below PC road belongs to Aerojet, some now belongs to LDS for their new Temple, but I THINK both may be considered Sac. Co.

I agree that it would be better if Folsom could annex it FIRST, before the new city of RC does. However, would Folsom be able to CONTROL the development if they did annex it??? Also remember, there still may be a problem with the ground water at Aerojet.

Developers do own most of it. Development will be a problem WITHOUT water. Folsom has limited water sources now.

EDH is having that problem now with the out of control development there. The big houses being built may have water bills equal or higher than either mortgage or tax payments!!!

Can you give us some up to date info Bob?

Here's what I know about the city limits and ownership of the property south of 50: both the Aerojet property and the LDS property is within the new city boundaries of Rancho Cordova. Only the piece of property containing the Folsom Auto Mall is within Folsom city limits; everything else south of 50 is unincorporated Sacramento County. Aerojet just settled their groundwater contamination lawsuit with the water district, and has sold the 4-building complex on Alabama/Auto Mall Circle directly across from the Buick dealership. Rancho Cordova city planning commission and city council have approved the LDS temple plans.

Either Folsom or Rancho could try to annex the property south of 50 into their respective city limits, but there would have to be viable development plans in order to make the property revenue-generating. Neither city would want to service that area with water/sewer/schools and other public services without a plan as to how it would recover those costs and ultimately create an advantageous tax base. If it truly remains open space, there is no revenue being generated for the city/county. Undeveloped land is rarely a financial benefit to the governing entity.

The big problem is that people like Fish have been against anything and everything the City wants to do. I say to Fish: you purchased your home in Folsom many years ago and if you're not happy, sell your home, double or treble your money and get the heck out of Dodge.

Relative to the sphere of influence, it is my understanding that the City has imput on anything that is proposed in that area.

If you noticed, the Rancho Cordova Community Planning Commission was consulted and approved the tall light at the proposed for the Mormon Temple, and it is just across the street from Auto Row. Why was not the City of Folsom consulted or allowed imput, why Rancho??? Where are all of our Council Members demanding that the City be consulted???

The Rancho Cordova incorporation did not extend to the Folsom City limits, but if the City doesn't act on annexing Aerojet, Katy bar the door, as they will be wanting to surround us and will be successful. Our City will then be an isolated island!!.

VERY INTERESTING!!!! Now, do I understand all the above right, as follows:

1. All the area from the El Dorado county line south of #50 to city limits of RC is DEVELOPMENT controlled by Sac. county, except the 3500 acres under Folsom sphere of influence and the Aerojet/LDS property already claimed within RC city boundries, no matter who owns the undeveloped land.

2. If Folsom annexed any part of that land controlled by Sac. county they would have to provide improvements or plans for improvements such as water, sewers, streets & schools to control any development on the annexed land.

3. Folsom could have NO CONTROL of development of un-annexed land nor could it have additional "sphere of influence" over more than the 3500 acres already so designated.

Corrections and clarification would be appreciated.

I believe you have a good grasp of it.

Folsom does have some input on neighboring Sac County, El Dorado county, and City of Rancho Cordova development as part of its participation in the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). This is the avenue by which there is some coordination and discussion of issues that are of common interest to the participating entities. Folsom has expressed interest in participating in what goes in south of 50 for at least 10 years or more. The problem is that it doesn't belong to Folsom, and Sac County has yet to consider giving it up to either Rancho or Folsom. Right now, Sac County could allow development there by right of ownership, and rake in the revenues as a result. I believe everyone involved is kind of testing the waters to see how much opposition/support there is to any kind of development, what kind of development might be allowed, and what kind of revenue would result. As I see it, Folsom could position itself to annex the property, but it would require an agreement with the county to make the annexation revenue-neutral to the county. In other words, Folsom could be asked to pay a lot of money to Sac County in exchange for annexation. That money compensates Sac County for its future revenue losses based on that property.

As to Folsom Fats' comment regarding Fish - yes, Fish considers himself an old-timer (I say only native-borns can claim that title, but that's just me) and has opposed just about everything that's come down the pipeline. He should remember that had we "old-timers" known what a pain he was going to be, we would have opposed the original development he bought into when he moved here! I'm being facetious of course, and I don't intend this to be evil. But it's ironic that we "invited" Fish and his ilk into our community and he wants to oppose any further invitation to others.