81 replies to this topic

[kcrides99]

Of all the various posts I have seen on this forum, I believe the ONLY post that has relatively unified opinion is the overall disdain for the South of 50 project... Unfortunately it appears that there is no stopping the approves South of 50 plan. As a relatively newcomer to Folsom (7 years), I am sad to say I did not get a chance to vote against this project back in the day...
 
What if I told you that it is unlikely that the Folsom City Limits will stay permanently at White Rock Road? There are two MAJOR factors that are in place that will sadly allow Folsom to expand southward.... See the attached map.
 
1. The Capital Corridor Connector - This project is essentially a major artery opening all that ag land near it to development. The Corridor JPA will tell you that it will NOT lead to sprawl.... but Fact #2 will probably tell otherwise.
 
2. The Tsakopoulos Family (one of the largest developers in the region - See http://www.bizjourna...4.html?page=all )  owns hundreds of acres south of White Rock Road.

 

 

Do you think the land will remain undeveloped given these factors? If so, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona..... Anyway, was not sure if anyone cared or knew about this fact....

 

I personally feel that Sacramento has enough urban sprawl, we do not need to continue southward. Curious if others are on the same page?

Attached Files

•  folsom lands.jpg   122K   12 downloads

[ducky]

kcrides99, even if you had moved to Folsom earlier, you still wouldn't have had the ability to vote this down.  The residents tried to get something on the ballot and it was thrown off.  The only thing left to vote for was Measure W.  With all its warts, it did seem to promise the N50 water supply wouldn't be tapped for building S50 because it read that they would have to find a new supply.  Of course, even that turned out to be untrue.

 

I'm with you.  No way it's stopping within the current boundaries.

[kcrides99]

Ducky -

 

Does it make sense to try again for this land? Referendum to annex the land as a greenbelt? That is what I am asking..

 

Not 100% sure on the process, who to talk to or if there is an interest to prevent South of 50 version 2.0?

[supermom]

i got a great idea. Go squat on the land then put a sign up and call it something. Maybe something like Aer city. 

 

Once you build a charter and have a mayor on the books, go ahead and annex all of the area south of the south of 50 land and demand Folsom back off for fear of being sued.

 

It could work....  

[TruthSeeker]

kcrides99, even if you had moved to Folsom earlier, you still wouldn't have had the ability to vote this down.  The residents tried to get something on the ballot and it was thrown off.  The only thing left to vote for was Measure W.  With all its warts, it did seem to promise the N50 water supply wouldn't be tapped for building S50 because it read that they would have to find a new supply.  Of course, even that turned out to be untrue.

 

I'm with you.  No way it's stopping within the current boundaries.

 

Why did they throw it off the ballet? Because it didn't jive with their agenda? This city council doesn't seem to give a damn about anybody in Folsom. They are ruining our future with their lies and deceit. 

[Chad Vander Veen]

 

Why did they throw it off the ballet? Because it didn't jive with their agenda? This city council doesn't seem to give a damn about anybody in Folsom. They are ruining our future with their lies and deceit. 

 

I don't think that's it. I think they're simply too cowardly to disturb the status quo. Suburbs work (roughly) like this:

 

City government, short on cash from stagnant property tax revenue, starts making deal with landowners and developers to subdivide land into tiny plots that yield more houses and, ultimately, more tax revenue. But the expansion requires infrastructure - police and fire stations, schools, and wider roads to accommodate more traffic. Things look good, there's money in the bank, city is happy. Council people pat each other on the back for their ingenuity to do literally the same exact thing every other city in America does. And they get re-elected because people are happy. But then, as it always does, something happens (recession, storm damage, alien invasion, etc.) that ends up draining coffers. So the process repeats itself. Measures are put on local ballots to secure more land for the city. By this point, city leaders owe their seat on the council to the various landowners and developers who funded their campaigns over the years, meaning that they have no incentive to stray from the model of suburban expansion (aka SPRAWL) that has kept them in office and kept their friends wealthy. But each cycle there are diminishing financial returns, forcing sprawl to accelerate just to break even. Money is not invested in important things like water source diversification because what little money does exist is either spent on infrastructure expansion for the sprawl or is lost to sweetheart deals to developers. Meanwhile, traffic in town gets worse and more dangerous, neighborhoods start to decay, and a once great city with rolling hills and green spaces finds itself indistinguishable from any other town - every available inch of land covered in strip malls offering meager jobs and cookie-cutter houses. Ultimately it's a balancing act that has only one possible outcome - complete non-viability.

 

There are many innovative solutions - technological, architectural, environmental, etc. - to avoid this fate. But considering them puts the council at risk of losing their seats. So they take the cowardly way out and keep doing what they've always done.

[maestro]

 

Why did they throw it off the ballet? Because it didn't jive with their agenda? This city council doesn't seem to give a damn about anybody in Folsom. They are ruining our future with their lies and deceit. 

 

 

Chad has an alternative answer which does not jive with all the known facts in Folsom.

 

Remember Sandra made an issue of using the 8% hotel tax which the city collects from all hotels?

 

I made a public records request for the Finance Director's statement on the Hotel Tax accounts -- you know,  how much taken in, how many exceptions granted, which city accounts had the money deposited into them, which city accounts showed the disbursements of the money.....     The city Budget shows we are talking over $2.1 MILLION three years ago.     Over the life of the Hotel Tax, we're talking over $40 Million in tax revenues collected by the city.

 

Guess what the city produced in response.    The City Attorney sent a formal email letter stating

the city has no legal obligation to keep the records you request, therefore none exist.

 

 

Anyone wishing the document, just ask the City Clerk for the email sent by CityAttorney Cline to the requestor seeking the Finance Director's Report for the Hotel Tax revenues.

[Rich_T]

"I am sad to say I did not get a chance to vote against this project back in the day."

 

This has already been mentioned, but NO ONE got a chance to vote for or against this project.  Measure W was never such a vote.

[ducky]

Ducky -

 

Does it make sense to try again for this land? Referendum to annex the land as a greenbelt? That is what I am asking..

 

Not 100% sure on the process, who to talk to or if there is an interest to prevent South of 50 version 2.0?

 

I don't think there is any way that development isn't happening.   There were two competing measures - Measure W (the city's) and Measure T (put forward by residents).  Measure T had enough signatures to get on the ballot, which is no small feat, but it was thrown out because of a drafting technicality in the language.  At least that's the way I understood it.  I think Measure T would have been more stringent as far as open space and making sure transportation infrastructure was in place and I think it would have also had residents vote before building occurred, but my memory could be hazy on that.  If EDF were still here, he could probably give a better history of, it.

 

Wish I had more answers, but, short of a statewide moratorium on building because of the drought, I don't see things stopping without a huge legal battle because the city has already entered into agreements with the landowners.

[Steve Heard]

From the archives, we find the discussion from 11 years ago. It may shed some light: http://www.tomatopag...ic=1452&page=10

[cw68]

 
I don't think that's it. I think they're simply too cowardly to disturb the status quo. Suburbs work (roughly) like this:
 
City government, short on cash from stagnant property tax revenue, starts making deal with landowners and developers to subdivide land into tiny plots that yield more houses and, ultimately, more tax revenue. But the expansion requires infrastructure - police and fire stations, schools, and wider roads to accommodate more traffic. Things look good, there's money in the bank, city is happy. Council people pat each other on the back for their ingenuity to do literally the same exact thing every other city in America does. And they get re-elected because people are happy. But then, as it always does, something happens (recession, storm damage, alien invasion, etc.) that ends up draining coffers. So the process repeats itself. Measures are put on local ballots to secure more land for the city. By this point, city leaders owe their seat on the council to the various landowners and developers who funded their campaigns over the years, meaning that they have no incentive to stray from the model of suburban expansion (aka SPRAWL) that has kept them in office and kept their friends wealthy. But each cycle there are diminishing financial returns, forcing sprawl to accelerate just to break even. Money is not invested in important things like water source diversification because what little money does exist is either spent on infrastructure expansion for the sprawl or is lost to sweetheart deals to developers. Meanwhile, traffic in town gets worse and more dangerous, neighborhoods start to decay, and a once great city with rolling hills and green spaces finds itself indistinguishable from any other town - every available inch of land covered in strip malls offering meager jobs and cookie-cutter houses. Ultimately it's a balancing act that has only one possible outcome - complete non-viability.
 
There are many innovative solutions - technological, architectural, environmental, etc. - to avoid this fate. But considering them puts the council at risk of losing their seats. So they take the cowardly way out and keep doing what they've always done.

Sad, but true. Wish you were on our council.

[TruthSeeker]

 

I don't think that's it. I think they're simply too cowardly to disturb the status quo. Suburbs work (roughly) like this:

 

City government, short on cash from stagnant property tax revenue, starts making deal with landowners and developers to subdivide land into tiny plots that yield more houses and, ultimately, more tax revenue. But the expansion requires infrastructure - police and fire stations, schools, and wider roads to accommodate more traffic. Things look good, there's money in the bank, city is happy. Council people pat each other on the back for their ingenuity to do literally the same exact thing every other city in America does. And they get re-elected because people are happy. But then, as it always does, something happens (recession, storm damage, alien invasion, etc.) that ends up draining coffers. So the process repeats itself. Measures are put on local ballots to secure more land for the city. By this point, city leaders owe their seat on the council to the various landowners and developers who funded their campaigns over the years, meaning that they have no incentive to stray from the model of suburban expansion (aka SPRAWL) that has kept them in office and kept their friends wealthy. But each cycle there are diminishing financial returns, forcing sprawl to accelerate just to break even. Money is not invested in important things like water source diversification because what little money does exist is either spent on infrastructure expansion for the sprawl or is lost to sweetheart deals to developers. Meanwhile, traffic in town gets worse and more dangerous, neighborhoods start to decay, and a once great city with rolling hills and green spaces finds itself indistinguishable from any other town - every available inch of land covered in strip malls offering meager jobs and cookie-cutter houses. Ultimately it's a balancing act that has only one possible outcome - complete non-viability.

 

There are many innovative solutions - technological, architectural, environmental, etc. - to avoid this fate. But considering them puts the council at risk of losing their seats. So they take the cowardly way out and keep doing what they've always done.

 

You just summed up our city council's entire careers very accurately in one paragraph, this is why we need someone smart like you to take over and keep Folsom nice and not over developed.

 

Now if only the rest of Folsom could read AND comprehend this we could vote out these turds who want to pave over every inch of open space left in our town.

 

The decisions that these fools on the city council are making are really going to screw up the future of Folsom, makes me want to move to some place not run by developer "owned" asshats like Howell and Miklos.

[TruthSeeker]

 

Guess what the city produced in response.    The City Attorney sent a formal email letter stating

the city has no legal obligation to keep the records you request, therefore none exist.

 

 

The city attorney needs to be reminded that he works for us.

He should be fired for not doing his job and for lying and deceiving the public by hiding that public information.

[mrdavex]

Of all the various posts I have seen on this forum, I believe the ONLY post that has relatively unified opinion is the overall disdain for the South of 50 project... Unfortunately it appears that there is no stopping the approves South of 50 plan. As a relatively newcomer to Folsom (7 years), I am sad to say I did not get a chance to vote against this project back in the day...
 
What if I told you that it is unlikely that the Folsom City Limits will stay permanently at White Rock Road? There are two MAJOR factors that are in place that will sadly allow Folsom to expand southward.... See the attached map.
 
1. The Capital Corridor Connector - This project is essentially a major artery opening all that ag land near it to development. The Corridor JPA will tell you that it will NOT lead to sprawl.... but Fact #2 will probably tell otherwise.
 
2. The Tsakopoulos Family (one of the largest developers in the region - See http://www.bizjourna...4.html?page=all )  owns hundreds of acres south of White Rock Road.

 

 

Do you think the land will remain undeveloped given these factors? If so, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona..... Anyway, was not sure if anyone cared or knew about this fact....

 

I personally feel that Sacramento has enough urban sprawl, we do not need to continue southward. Curious if others are on the same page?

 

Sacramento County already has big plans for more sprawl adjacent to South of 50.  It's going to make the Capitol Corridor connector gridlocked even before it's built:

 

http://www.per.sacco...thAreaPlan.aspx

[cw68]

 
You just summed up our city council's entire careers very accurately in one paragraph, this is why we need someone smart like you to take over and keep Folsom nice and not over developed.
 
Now if only the rest of Folsom could read AND comprehend this we could vote out these turds who want to pave over every inch of open space left in our town.
 
The decisions that these fools on the city council are making are really going to screw up the future of Folsom, makes me want to move to some place not run by developer "owned" asshats like Howell and Miklos.

Completely agree. I think Chad's post should be printed in the Telegraph.