37 replies to this topic

[Steve Heard]

The Folsom City Council recently passed an ordinance allowing the City to establish 'entertainment districts' to regulate live entertainment in town.

 

The Council is set to vote tonight on a resolution establishing much of the Folsom Historic District as the City's first 'entertainment district'. 

 

If passed, the City will have the power to regulate what kind of entertainment is allowed, the hours it can be offered, and what kind of security and other measures that must be taken in order to comply with the new ordinance. 

 

These new measure were prompted by months, if not years of complaints from Historic District residents concerned about noise, crime, litter, parking and other problems they face with the growing popularity of the district as an entertainment destination.

 

Live entertainment would be limited from 8am to 11pm during the week, and until 2am on weekends, with exceptions for holidays and special events. 

 

One of the biggest challenges may be in limiting audible noise to 50 feet beyond the property lines of the premises, which can be tough for venues with amplified music, such as the Folsom Hotel and Hampton's, each of which features live music adjacent to their front doors. 

 

Unarmed security guards will be required, 1 per 50 guests, for those providing entertainment after 1130pm. 

 

Businesses may also be held responsible for litter, vandalism and police calls to their establishments. 

 

Folsom Mayor Steve Miklos says, "We're not trying to put bars out of business, we just want to keep the district safe for everybody." 

 

If you'd like to make your voice heard, City Council meets tonight at 630pm, Folsom City Hall.

 

[WolfMom]

Wow, not sure how to feel about this. Regulating can get out of hand but then you also want to help keep some sort of semblance of order. This could have ramifications (good, bad, other) that we could not even see coming. Ugh, not something I would wish to tackle. Does anyone have any history/opinion on this? 

[Steve Heard]

Here's the short version on the history: Sutter Street is growing in popularity, with thriving bars and restaurants open late on most nights. Despite the construction of the large, free parking garage, most of the visitors seem to prefer to park on the streets and often into the residential areas. 

 

They block driveways, talk in front of people's homes, litter and as many residents report, pee in front of their properties before heading home. 

 

Although it seems many Folsomites oppose any and all changes and fear outsiders (think about the opposition to Light Rail, new construction, the Mosque, the revitalization of Sutter), residents have grown more fearful as a younger rowdier crowd started coming, particularly on Tuesday nights when Powerhouse would hold 'College Night', featuring DJ's and contests (lingerie, best legs, etc.). When Yager's was open, they had 'hip-hop' Tuesdays, and lots of patrons would travel between the two bars.

 

Lots of fights, loitering and property crimes followed, and when police would make stops, they'd find that often these partiers were from everywhere but Folsom, coming in from Placerville, Vallejo, Stockton and the Bay Area. 

 

The issue has gotten more notoriety lately with stories featured in the Telegraph and on KCRA news, with some residents claiming that Sutter is now nothing but bars, driving away other businesses, and families. It's not true, but the complainers are so much louder than the people who see it otherwise. 

 

Either way, something had to be done. 

 

As mayor Steve Miklos put it, " Sutter St is a mixed use district for over 150 years and we need to balance the businesses with the residents.  It takes all the businesses and residents working together to find a balanced compromise for each to live in harmony.

 

It is prudent to have a consistent set of guidelines for everyone to follow, without individual interpretation, that allows all businesses to thrive and the residents their quality of life.

 

That is 100% the intention of this entertainment district."

 

Overall, I think its a good idea if it increases public safety without causing businesses to go under. 

[WolfMom]

Thanks for some background. Those would be my concern too. Balancing bringing in revenue (which is important) and bringing in money from areas outside Folsom while respecting the residents. We had at one point discussed moving near Old Folsom but my husband was concerned about just what you talk about here. I hope it all works out for the best.

[granto]

If it is really all about street parking, would it not be cheaper and easier to post no parking after 9pm signs?

[Steve Heard]

If it is really all about street parking, would it not be cheaper and easier to post no parking after 9pm signs?

It's not JUST about parking, and they are considering having 'permit only' or some other restrictions in the residential area. It's also about noise, fights, pee, and most of all, fear.

[FolsomEJ]

Steve,

 

I don't live down there, so this is just a remote opinion.  With that said, you are inserting a lot of judgement into that list by describing it as "most of all, fear."  The noise, pee and fights could be enough to cause a resident to not be happy with the situation.  You are judging it to also include fear.

 

Would you move into one of those homes and only deal with noise, peer and fights?  I sure wouldn't.  Does that make me "afraid" too?

[Steve Heard]

Steve,

 

I don't live down there, so this is just a remote opinion.  With that said, you are inserting a lot of judgement into that list by describing it as "most of all, fear."  The noise, pee and fights could be enough to cause a resident to not be happy with the situation.  You are judging it to also include fear.

 

Would you move into one of those homes and only deal with noise, peer and fights?  I sure wouldn't.  Does that make me "afraid" too?

 

I don't mean to sound judgmental, but understand how it could be taken that way. 

 

I don't live their either, but I spend a lot of time there, and have been very active in city activities, workshops, chamber of commerce, commission meetings and spent 6 years working in Steve Miklos' mortgage and real estate office.

 

Many residents of the Historic District are afraid, and perhaps legitimately so. 

 

Look at letter to the Telegraph, or even comments made here. 

 

When light rail was being built, people were saying that it was going to bring gangs and crime to the city. When the lingerie shop was open, there were fears that perverts and rapists would come to town.

 

With the increase in establishments which serve alcohol, there is fear of more drunks, and more outsiders, and more crimes. 

 

It absolutely does have a lot to do with fear.  

[FolsomEJ]

Using the judgement of fear, you are saying that the residents and their mindset are the real problem: If they could just man up, they would no longer have an issue.  I just don't see it that way and I think they have a real reason to complain. 

 

By adding "fear" to your list, and then making it to be the biggest part of the whole thing, you are diminishing the factual concerns of noise, vandalism and fighting.  Let's stick to the facts and then address them equitably.

 

There is a big difference spending time there as a visitor, regardless of how frequent and trying to live there.  Try putting your kids to bed or getting your own rest in an area with noise and sudden, unwelcome disturbances has got to be a hard way to live.  Thankfully, I don't have to tolerate it.  You can be sure that I will push back if the living conditions in my neighborhood change over time, which is the concern they are presenting. 

 

It seems they have some facts on their side.  It seems you are undermining their concerns with the dismissal of these fears.

[Steve Heard]

Using the judgement of fear, you are saying that the residents and their mindset are the real problem: If they could just man up, they would no longer have an issue.  I just don't see it that way and I think they have a real reason to complain. 

 

By adding "fear" to your list, and then making it to be the biggest part of the whole thing, you are diminishing the factual concerns of noise, vandalism and fighting.  Let's stick to the facts and then address them equitably.

 

There is a big difference spending time there as a visitor, regardless of how frequent and trying to live there.  Try putting your kids to bed or getting your own rest in an area with noise and sudden, unwelcome disturbances has got to be a hard way to live.  Thankfully, I don't have to tolerate it.  You can be sure that I will push back if the living conditions in my neighborhood change over time, which is the concern they are presenting. 

 

It seems they have some facts on their side.  It seems you are undermining their concerns with the dismissal of these fears.

 

I think you might be reading something that isn't there. 

 

I am telling you that many residents have been complaining for years, not just about specific incidents, but more importantly, 'what's next?', 'what if?'. I'm not saying the have nothing to fear, I am saying that this has been a recurrent driving theme in the complaints, the fear that it is going to get worse or that someone is going to get robbed or shot. 

 

One wrote 'shame on the City Council for trying to bring in more tourists'. Another wrote, 'anyone who goes to Sutter after dark does so at their own peril'. 

 

Again, I'm not saying that the residents of this Historic District have nothing to fear, I am saying that they are afraid of something happening and they don't mind telling you so. 

[Steve Heard]

It seems they have some facts on their side.  It seems you are undermining their concerns with the dismissal of these fears.

 

One more thing; I am not opposed to the new regulations being enacted, as I believe they will address the issues of people parking and peeing in residential neighborhoods, give the residents a greater sense of security, make things quieter late at night, and hopefully, prevent their fears from coming true. 

[Steve Heard]

Here's an update from this past Tuesday's City Council meeting:

 

The Council passed an amended resolution, establishing the hours that the Historic District bars can offer live entertainment. 

 

Before the Council voted, several business owners, including the owners of the Folsom Hotel, Powerhouse Pub and Snook's Candies, spoke, asking that the resolution be changed, allowing live entertainment to go on until midnight on Wednesdays, rather than 11pm as proposed.

 

One owner said they would actually voluntarily close earlier and even offer a shuttle to the under-used parking structure to keep people from parking in the residential areas. 

 

The owner of the Folsom Hotel said that the Wednesday night blues jam is very popular and the extra hour was important to his business. 

 

Councilmen Miklos and Morin reminded the business owners that Folsom is a business-friendly town, but that the problems (noise, parking and peeing in front of residences, drugs, fights) have been well-known and complained about for over 20 years and the business owners had done nothing to prevent them, and that it was the business owners who put the Council in the position having to come down on them in the first place.

 

Several residents spoke, with one complaining that the entertainment restrictions don't address the parking situation, and another decrying the label 'Entertainment District', when it is a residential neighborhood. 

 

Councilman Miklos said that this was the first part of many addressing neighbor concerns, but that this was the first step. 

 

In the end, the Council voted, and the new live entertainment hours will be limited to 8am to 10pm Sunday through Tuesday, 8am to midnight on Wednesdays, and 8am to 2am, Thursday through Saturday. 

 

The next steps are for the City to create the application packages and have the interested parties apply for Entertainment permits. 

 

The situation will be monitored, and it could come before the Council again. 

 

Full text of resolution here: http://www.folsom.ca...5/DO_127265.pdf

 

What do you think? Too much? Not enough? Don't care?

[4thgenFolsomite]

I also don't like labeling Sutter Street an Entertainment District.  There are many stores down there and we certainly don't want those to go away.  They need to be recognized and supported.

[Steve Heard]

To my understanding, it is called that for legal reasons, so that the entertainment can be regulated, not to designate the type of businesses which can operate there. 

 

The resolution can actually help the other non-entertainment-oriented shops because it will create the perception that regulations are in place to keep it under control. IMO 

[Robert Gary]

For the residence to refer to it as a "residential area" is a bit humorous. No one living today bought a house there not knowing that there were bars there. The bars have been there for around 150 years.