278 replies to this topic

[valdossjoyce]

Checks can be made payable to & mailed to: Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth, 133 Taunton Way, Folsom, CA 95630.

[Terry]

Here's the letter from Tom Aceituno in today's Telegraph:

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

‘Sensible Growth’ plan flawed

By Thomas A. Aceituno, Folsom


During my service on the city council between 1992 and 2000, I worked hard on behalf of the people of Folsom to inject sensible growth planning into Folsom's development. I think I paid my dues as a “slow-growth” advocate.

With that background, I have taken a hard look at the “Sensible Growth” initiative placed on the November ballot by a group of activists whom I consider friends. With regret, I have decided the initiative is fatally flawed and should be rejected by the voters.

The “Sensible Growth” initiative purports to put limits on development on thousands of acres of land south of Highway 50. Many of the provisions make sense. Requiring voter approval of specific development plans, protecting current water supplies, and designating open space requirements are all worthwhile.

But the initiative goes too far. Here are just a few of the reasons I cannot support the initiative.

The initiative only applies to areas that are annexed into Folsom. While I believe Folsom should annex the land out to White Rock Road, the point is the initiative has no impact at all unless annexation occurs.

Passage of the initiative will likely prevent the land from ever being annexed into Folsom. It would encourage developers to fight to keep the land under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County or merge it into Rancho Cordova. With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, developers will not simply tear up their plans and let the horses and cattle continue to graze on the other side of the freeway.

The initiative requires expansion of Highway 50 by the addition of traffic lanes. It fails to require a new interchange at Oak Avenue and fails to encourage alternatives such as expansion of light rail. Sensible growth should include incentives for alternatives to single-vehicle use, not a requirement that we build more lanes for pollution-producing cars.

The initiative allows current water supplies to be used for development of the area south of Highway 50. We have worked hard to secure enough water to finish Empire Ranch and Broadstone. But under the initiative, there is no limit to the amount of water that can be diverted to the new territory. All that is required is voter approval.

The initiative does nothing to coordinate planning with Sacramento County, Rancho Cordova, Rancho Murrieta and El Dorado County – the other immediate neighbors who will be impacted by growth in the region. We have often criticized others for failing to consider Folsom’s interests when they approved plans for expansion around Sunrise Boulevard and in El Dorado County. We should encourage regional planning rather than trying to dictate planning policies that will affect all of eastern Sacramento County.

For those who want to stop growth south of Highway 50, they should say so in clear and unambiguous language. But if we as a community are going to accept the need to accommodate the region’s need to grow, we need to be more careful and deliberate in our approach.

The proponents of the initiative should be commended for their efforts to focus attention on planning for Folsom’s next frontier. Many of us feel that too little attention was paid to Folsom’s growth when the city was carved up developers in the early 1980s. We have a chance to work from a clean slate and learn from past mistakes. Let’s not squander the opportunity with a poorly planned initiative that will do more harm than good.

[EDF]

I read Aceituno's letter and while I was a big supporter of his (we used my office for a volunteer phone bank & I walked neighborhoods for him), this time he is just plain wrong.

Tom's big thing the whole time he was on City Council was the "Aquatic Center"... He thanked Miklos for his support of that and now is just returning the favor again like he did with his endorsement of Miklos in the last election.

Let's start with the "mis-information" in Tom's note.

The Developers can not go to the County because we have the SOI and if they want to go through another 7 or 8 years of "hoops" yea maybe there is a small chance... Trouble is they want to develop it now...!!!

As for the rest of his letter, I will just say, he used the "same play book" as all the other opponents of our initiative... AND THAT IS..."The developers will just go to Sacramento County or Rancho Cordova and Folsom will lose control..."

If that is true, they could just do it now...????? couldn't they....?

And the rest of his letter is just more of the same... oh, and he threw in the "Oak Avenue" interchange.... Well folks, this would be part of the "development" plan submitted to voters under our initiiative... if we aren't satisfied with their plan we "just say no" at the ballot box.

Sorry, as I said earlier, Tom is just wrong on this one....and since Holderness has "ca$hed in" by going to the side of Developers, maybe Tom has too....

Call me cynical... But that's the way I see it.... and don't forget one little thing.

We had an initiative petition signed by 4500 people that the developers want thrown off of the ballot. We have a City Hall Crowd that is paying high priced election lawyers at taxpayer expense to advise them to sue us, your neighbors... They don't want you to even vote on our initiative... so much for Miklos saying he's for a vote of the people... total BS.....

The same CITY HALL CROWD put a Charter Amendment on the ballot which does not comply with CEQA...and then support the Developer Group suing us... wow....

The folks behind this initiative are all your neighbors... the people against us are the CITY HALL CROWD and their Developer friends... its just that simple...

Who do you think has the "best interest" of Folsom in mind....? Your neighbors or the Developers.....?

[waterbaby149]

Here Here EDF

[Terry]

Oh, I see how it goes - if you're not in favor of the initiative espoused by the slow growthers, they got on this topic and expand their responses so the next person whos posts is on the next page.

Geez, don't you want different opinions?

[melloguy]

QUOTE (Terry @ Aug 11 2004, 07:05 PM)

Oh, I see how it goes - if you're not in favor of the initiative espoused by the slow growthers, they got on this topic and expand their responses so the next person whos posts is on the next page. Geez, don't you want different opinions?

One man's opinion - At our current boundaries, we will have a population of about 70,000. Add the land that is the subject of the two initiatives and if it is developed without either initiative, or in accordance with the City's initiative, you can conservatively add another 40,000 residents (this using 35% or greater open space - City's initiative calls for 30%).

So, that puts us at about 110,000 residents. Is that all we can grow? No, if the land subject to the initiative is annexed, that leaves Aerojet land bordered on three sides by City of Folsom land. This includes land that Aerojet has already proposed for about 10,000 residents. It is my understanding that Aerojet has made no secret that they would not mind developing some of its land within Folsom.

Does anyone other than me envision this city reaching greater than 200,000 if we keep up with the current development policies? Does anyone else who sees it this way really consider those that want to see some control to the growth a "slow growther?" If you think the infrastructure is bursting at the seams now, wait until development begins in earnest across the freeway.

[old soldier]

got some inspiration from been here, old guys can get on the air too. My wife and son thought I spent too much time watching the soaps and got me a computer and someone a couple of months ago said surf this place for some good restaurants...been reading a lot and got something to say...

I signed the petition those folks had in front of the stores, nice people and said they were real citizens and not paid like most doing that kind of work. they said they were concerned about traffic and water and the way things have been done kind of sneaky in the past by the council. Makes sense to me

Went to the council a couple of times and it seems like they are kind up uppety and don't like the citizens talking much. They probably think they can do better without a lot of comments. It would be a long time before I dared to get up there and get yelled at. That lady Kari is a tough one. I'lll bet her husband doesn't leave the toilet seat up more than once. The boss Miklos is a slick one and it looks like he may give King treats like a puppy when he does something good.

this latest thing about kicking the initiative off the ballot is the end for me. If 4000 folks want to vote on something why not let em. Its almost like they are scared of the people. I'm sending a check today and from now on they can call me a malcontent cause I am. Now I gotta find somebody to vote for to change the council. Would be nice if a candidate could come out and sort of talk for folks like me.

[longgone]

Old Soldier----I SALUTE YOU!!!!

All the candidates will be giving you a chance to hear what they offer sometime before election day.

For now, I recommend-------

Jim Karnis because-------
He is working to lower our garbage rates by out sourcing the contract, rather than have Folsom go into the garbage business and charge us more.

Eric King because------
He does not take money from developers and knows we need a library.

[waterbaby149]

Longgone -Of course I disagree w/your choices for city council -especially King - NOT INCUMBANTS- he does take bones from the mayor

as to Old Soldier - I would be more than happy to deliver to u a t shirt saying "malcontent veteran" - u can email me your address

that is your award

and I am very sure I will get static for this

I also wear w/pride my VFW pin and my
save farley field T shirt

but dealing w/city hall, etc. is like banging your head against a brick wall

[dave]

Bob or EDF or Val

Someone posted that the landowners/developers wouldn't want to go through hoops to develop with the county.

My understanding is that the SOI only gives the city notification or "a seat at the table" in the event of a development proposal. If Measure T passes, then all they have to do is get three votes on the county to push the UGB south. True or false?

[valdossjoyce]

Folsom group sues over initiative
By Jamie Francisco -- Bee Staff Writer - (Published August 13, 2004)

A group of high-profile Folsom residents is trying to block a grass-roots initiative that would limit growth south of Highway 50 in the city's sphere of influence.

The group, which includes merchants and former city leaders, on Tuesday filed a lawsuit that challenges an initiative sponsored by Folsom Citizens for Sensible Growth. Today, a judge is scheduled to review the lawsuit and determine whether the initiative will remain on the November ballot.

Backers of the suit contend that the grass-roots initiative lacks necessary information about Sacramento County's agricultural policies and would interfere with the powers of the county Local Agency Formation Commission.

The lawsuit was filed to block the initiative from the November ballot to save taxpayers money, said Christina Polley, one of four plaintiffs listed. Other plaintiffs are John Kemp, Richard Gray and Daniel McNeil.

Polley said the grass-roots supporters turned in an illegal initiative.

"What they've done is wrong," she said. "They need to take responsibility for the fact that they didn't do their homework. They put together misleading information, and they let people sign it without information required by law."

Initiative supporters contend the lawsuit lacks merit and that it was filed to block voters from shaping the fate of the 3,600-acre pastureland within the city's sphere of influence, said Val Doss, a spokeswoman for the group. In 2001, the land became part of the city's sphere of influence, which is considered the first step toward annexation.

Nearly 4,400 residents signed petitions to place the initiative on the ballot, 50 percent more than was required. The lawsuit represents an attempt to protect the interests of developers and businesses in Folsom, not the residents, Doss said.

"This is Goliath taking on David," she said. "We wrote an initiative that is ironclad. We were careful to do that. If they're going to try to knock us off the ballot, that raises the stakes."

In Folsom, growth south of Highway 50 is already a high-stakes issue. In July, a month after the citizens' initiative was placed on the November ballot, the city approved a competing measure that codified its development standards for the sphere of influence.

Supporters of the city initiative maintain that the requirements of the grass-roots initiative, including adding two lanes to Highway 50, would lead developers to turn to Sacramento County or Rancho Cordova. If that occurred, Folsom could not determine how growth occurs in its sphere of influence.

The activists contend that their grass-roots initiative provides insurance that Folsom citizens will be heard concerning growth and that the City Council has a history of voting in favor of developers' interests.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit have ties to the business community. Polley is a past president of the Folsom Chamber of Commerce. Kemp is the former owner of an aggregate business and the namesake of a Folsom park. Gray, a former Folsom planning commissioner, owns a business in the city's Historic District. McNeil is president of the Sutter Street Merchants Association.

The group is represented by Bob Holderness, a former Folsom mayor and a lawyer who counts many real estate developers among his clients.

Both Kemp and Holderness have ties to developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, who controls about half the land being eyed by Folsom for expansion.

Holderness has worked as a consultant for Tsakopoulos, and Kemp was once his partner in American River Aggregates.

The city wants residents to trust the City Council with development decisions, but it's too easy for a majority to be swayed to vote in favor of development, said Pat Finnegan, a 15-year Folsom resident who signed the grass-roots initiative.

"Pro or against development south of Highway 50, I just want the community to decide and vote," Finnegan said. "It's too important an issue for three people who can be influenced by developer money during election season to make that decision."

The lawsuit demonstrates that many want to prevent residents from voting on whether or not development takes place south of Highway 50, Doss said.

"It's kind of scary (that) they are so afraid of our initiative, they would spend big bucks to file a lawsuit," Doss said.

Polley, one of the plaintiffs, disagreed.

"We're not afraid," Polley said. "We think it's an illegal initiative."

"It's easy for them to throw brickbats, but it's up for the judge to decide," Holderness said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[valdossjoyce]

I just posted the Bee article and would like to update all as to the status of the lawsuit.

The judge postponed ruling on it until Tuesday, asking that the parties provide testimony (in the form of written statements called "declarations") from a county official stating what impact it would have on the county if he were to rule in favor of pulling the initiative off the ballot. He discussed cases like this he's ruled on in the past where the impact to the County (or state, in case of state election) is enormous because ballot pamphlets may already being printed.

It suggests to me that he's doing what many judges do--avoid ruling on a complex or controversial issue if it can be disposed of procedurally on a simpler issue. For example, if the County says it's just too late to stop the presses or re-print voter pamphlets, then he could deny the request to pull our initiative off the ballot on that basis alone, and avoid addressing the validity/invalidity issue altogether.

In any event, he will issue a ruling next Tuesday. Stay tuned.

P.S. to Ms. Polley (assuming she was correctly quoted) how in the heck would pulling our initiative off the ballot "save taxpayers money"???

P.S. to Mr. Holderness - Your vocabulary is impressive but for those who don't know what a brickbat is, I will supplement your remark: 1) a piece of hard material (as a brick) esp. when thrown as a missile 2) an uncomplimentary remark.

I didn't realize I'd made any uncomplimentary remarks, so I'd better check my garage for metal bricks.....

[Bob]

Old Soldier

Excellent observation of our Council and thanks for your support!

Longgone

I campaigned for Eric King last election. Made dozens of signs in my garage and placed them around town near groups of the incumbent signs. The CITY went around after us and within a few hours, only a couple were left! The CITY pays employees overtime on weekends to remove "unauthorized signs."

We supported Eric because he ran on a platform that he "represents the residents of Folsom" and that HE SUPPORTS A DIRECT VOTE OF RESIDENTS to decide what will happen south of 50.

He has now turned 180 degrees and opposes the Residents Initiative, the one placed on the ballot by over 4,500 Folsom voters that he claims to represent. Old Timers analogy of getting treats from Miklos (such as becoming Vice Mayor) like a puppy is appropriate. The first thing I thought when I saw that Miklos was holding a fund raiser for King's current campaign is, "When you lay down with dogs, you get fleas". Hope Eric is enjoying his current company.

Vote for him again? You must be joking.

As far as Jim Karnis, he seems like a decent guy and I have respect for him due to his efforts to save us on our garbage fees. However, saving a few dollars a month on garbage fees is laughably insignificant compared to the cost (monetary and loss of quality of life) that we will all be forced to endure if City Hall and the developers get their way and continue the pattern of uncontrolled, developer directed, development south of 50.

Jim does not support the Residents Initiative, Measure "T"errific for Folsom families. He supports the City Hall / Developer Initiative, Measure "W"iggleroom. I believe he is smarter than this but runs in a crowd that benefits under the status quo and is listening to them rather than reading and fully understanding the real implications of both initiatives for himself.
I am hoping he will take this challenge to do so, and to support the over 4,500 Folsom Voters who placed the Residents Initiative on the ballot and the right of all Folsom voters to decide the future of our City.

If not, voting for him is simply an endorsement of the status quo of uncontrolled growth.


Only Doug Udell and Robert Giacometti endorse the Residents Initiative, Measure "T"errific for Folsom Families. They both are adamant that Folsom voters have a right to a direct vote on what happens south of 50. Both have shown commitment by long-term service to our City and are qualified candidates on every level.


dave

The County has made it very difficult on themselves to allow development outside of their Urban Growth Boundary (USB). It takes a vote of FOUR of the five members of the Board of Supervisors AND they must meet four or five requirements before such a vote can even be considered. The last of which is, the County has no land left on which to develop. They recently revaluated the "holding capacity" (how many people) the remaining undeveloped land INSIDE the USB has.

The study showed that well over 50 years worth of development could be accommodated! That is, they would not need to look at any other land Outside of the USB, such as the land covered by our initiative, for over 50 years!

Don't be fooled and misled by the pro-uncontrolled growth, status quo side. The developers have nowhere to run (Rancho Cordova is also not an option to them for decades, if ever). Remember the proposed development further south of our Sphere of Influence Area, in Deer Creek Hills? The County turned down that developer repeatedly as it was outside the USB. He then tried his luck with his own initiative. He spent over three million to pay for professional signature gatherers and heavy advertising. He still lost at the polls by a 70% to 30% vote! The County does not want development there and county residents, including Folsom's, do not want development there.

Folsom is their only hope and residents MUST have direct control.



Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth
Vote YES for Measure ‘T’errific and NO on Measure ‘W’iggle room before it is too late!

[longgone]

Thanks Bob. That is not good news. I will re-think my choices. Maybe wb is right in that area.

[valdossjoyce]

Mr. Aceituno's remarks demand rebuttal. The most important misinformation that opponenets to the residents' initiative is one cited here. It will "encourage developers to fight to keep the land under the jursidiction of Sacramento County or merge into Rancho Cordova."

LAFFCO has already ruled that this 3,500 patch of land is within Folsom's sphere of influence. Not Rancho Cordova's; not developable by County without Folsom's input. The designation lasts for ten years and is intended for the eventual annexation to the designated City. We're only three years into the ten-year period. Just how are the developers going to get what they want from the County or Rancho?

First, they would have to get LAFCO to take away our sphere of influence. That's never happened before and isn't likely to happen here. It would also take several years to accomplish and could not happen without Folsom's participation. Next, the County would have to move the Urban Services Boundary to allow development in the area. That too has never happened before. Contrary to what some folks have said, the County has never punched through its urban services boundary. When CC Myers wanted them to do it for his Deer Creek Hills development they told him no. Don't be fooled by the argument that North Natomas is an example; it is not. That land was annexed by the City of Sacramento; just like our 3,500 is going to be annexed by Folsom. The only other site I've heard opponents cite where the county supposedly allowed development on urban services boundary land was a reference to land in Folsom which was once designated for a second golf course. The designation of the land was made and changed BEFORE THERE EVER WAS an Urban Services Boundary.

Next, there are many procedural steps that must be taken by the County before it can change the Urban Services Boundary. They cannot simply do it by majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. Certain criteria has to be met (five or six, I believe) and then a super-majority vote is required.

Rancho Cordova as a contender for this area is even less likely. Again, first action would have to be taken to get it out of our Sphere on Influence and of course, Foslom would have a big say in that. Next RC or the landowners would have to get LAFCO to agree to place it within RC' sphere. It took many years for Folsom to get LAFCO to place in our sphere. There's no reason to believe RC could accomplish any quicker. Moreover, Rancho has so much planned development south and west that it's literally got its hands full, what with all the other issues an infant city has to face. They're just not interested. Also, don't forget that even with their planned buildout, they would have no land contiguous to this land; leapfrogging over Aerojet's superfund site is highly unlikely. How would RC be able to provide services to this island?

One statement that's just dead wrong. The Initiative DOES NOT allow current water supplies to be used for areas south of 50; it prevents that from happening unless a majority of Folsom voters is convinced it's a good idea. Under the status quo, the City Council (that's just a vote of three out of five) could allow current water supplies to be used for the area. All the initiative does is place the power to make the decision in voters hands rather than the City Council's. Why would voters give up such water unless it made good sense?

Another misleading criticism: the Initiative has no impact unless annexation occurs. True, but annexatio WILL occur. We as a city cannot impose our will on land that is not a part of Folsom, so of course the initiative only addressed annexed land. We are absolutely in favor of regional planning. That's one of the reasons we're so concerned about gridlock on Hwy 50. The Environmental Impact Report conducted for Broadstone required that 4 (not just the 2 in our Initiative) be added to mitigate the extra traffic generated by Folsom's buildout within existing city limits. But we all know that it never happened! How can we now say with any intellignece at all that another that 3,500 additional acres should be developed without first adding just 2 more lanes? El Dorado County has a group that hopes to curb development until additional lanes are added to their section of 50. This IS a regional issue that must be addressed.

We are not asking developers to "tear up plans and let cattle graze." If they already have plans to tear up, then shame on the for lying to us. For years, the speculators and our own City has told us "there are no plans" to develop this area. If they spent money on "ghost" plans, then too bad for them. That's why they're called "speculators"-- speculation is betting on something happening. It's not a sure thing.

And no, we don't expect to keep cattle grazing there forever. We're just trying to slow down the growth machine long enough for developers to provide a plan good enough for the voters of Folsom to approve, and hopefully, one that's good for the entire region that doesn't pit one jurisdiction against another.