183 replies to this topic

[DrKoz23]

There is nothing wrong with anyone in business trying to maximize revenue.  The problem arises when they lobby successfully to maximize profits by passing their costs onto existing residents.

Will you be a happy taxpayer when we (existing residents) have to pay for new schools for new residents as Folsom grows south toward Rancho Murieta?  Would you also like to help pay for their streets and sidewalks?  I think not.

But that is what your twisted logic is helping us to have to live with.

P.S.  I am pouring concrete in my backyard soon.  Your share of it is $100.  Please send immediately.

Looks like you are looking for a free handout... just like you think the city of Folsom should get a free handout. That figures.

If you had your way... the population of Folsom would still be 5000. If you want a city that believes in your view... move to Davis... they'd love to have you. I think they are proponents of negative growth. For those of us who like the amenities that come with growth... I guess we'll tolerate what comes with it.

Oh... it does seem like the FCUSD is still able to build schools. How about the new HS... or the new elementary school off Empire Ranch Rd and Iron Pont Rd. I am sure developers once owned this land. Hmmmm... I guess the big bad developers must have given in.

[Robert Giacometti]

Good thing Robert isn't in office.  He would tax every business right out of Folsom.  His kind of thinking is what keeps businesses leaving this state.  Government can't ever be blamed for irresponsible and unaccountable spending... its always the businesses that should pay!

Builders don't build homes for free you know.  Yes they make money... that's why they are in the business.  But land costs money (and the cost is increasing)... materials cost money (and these costs are increasing)... labor costs money (and these costs are increasing).  Do you expect builders to be in the business just to break even? Maybe look at your own argument because I think YOUR flawed argument would have it that way.

Maybe if the city would have realized the land would today cost $1,000,000 per acre where the Parkway school is suppose to be they could have acted quicker... but they didn't.  Should we now penalize the builders beacuse of this action.

Drkoz23,

I'm confused about many things you are saying. On 3-25-05, you criticized me on this forum because I was critical of government services. Now, above your criticizing me for not being critical of government.

Yes, I did run for City Council. I was the candidate who pledged to cut $1,000,000 from the administration through restructuring and eliminating wastes. I believe this was printed on every piece of literature I sent, ad I placed and I made this pledge to every group I talked too. This is was the cornerstone of my platform. Most people know that I have been critical of the wasteful spending at City Hall for the last 10 years. So I am extremely curious on where you are getting your information about me?

Your other 2 paragraphs contain glaring mistakes regarding facts. This unfortunately hurts your credibility when trying to argue your position.

I'm surprised you are Ok with the existing citizens having to raise taxes to pay for 1/3 of new school construction costs, where the need is being created by new home construction. Simply, if there were no new homes being built, there wouldn't be any need for new schools, therfore the existing residents and businesses wouldn't have to raise taxes to pay for new schools.

It is truly fascinating to me, that you are so willing to subsidize growth, by raising your taxes to pay for growths impacts. Are you also willing to raise your taxes even more to pay 1/3 subsidy to ALL businesses in Folsom?

Maybe you could illustrate or enlighten why you believe my thinking is flawed regarding the issue that people will only pay what they think is fair market value for a home.

I am more than willing to treat you for coffee or lunch sometime to have civil private discussion regarding this or any topic you choose.

Let me know if you are interested.

[DrKoz23]

Drkoz23,

I'm confused about many things you are saying. On 3-25-05, you criticized me on this forum because I was critical of government services. Now, above your criticizing me for not being critical of government.

Yes, I did run for City Council. I was the candidate who pledged to cut $1,000,000 from the administration through restructuring and eliminating wastes. I believe this was printed on every piece of literature I sent, ad I placed and I made this pledge to every group I talked too. This is was the cornerstone of my platform. Most people know that I have been critical of the wasteful spending at City Hall for the last 10 years. So I am extremely curious on where you are getting your information about me?

Your other 2 paragraphs contain glaring mistakes regarding facts. This unfortunately hurts your credibility when trying to argue your position.

I'm surprised you are Ok with the existing citizens having to raise taxes to pay for 1/3 of new school construction costs, where the need is being created by new home construction. Simply, if there were no new homes being built, there wouldn't be any need for new schools, therfore the existing residents and businesses wouldn't have to raise taxes to pay for new schools.

It is truly fascinating to me, that you are so willing to subsidize growth, by raising your taxes to pay for growths impacts.  Are you also willing to raise your taxes even more to pay 1/3 subsidy to ALL businesses in Folsom?

Maybe you could illustrate or enlighten why you believe my thinking is flawed regarding the issue that people will only pay what they think is fair market value for a home.

I am more than willing to treat you for coffee or lunch sometime to have civil private discussion regarding this or any topic you choose.   

Let me know if you are interested.

Robert...

In regards to the March 25, 2005 post... this had to do with garbage collection starting at 600am in some neighborhoods. I was not critical of the city of Folsom because this scheduling was most likely done for cost-efficiency and allowing the maximum amount of refuse to be collected before the trucks had to go to the landfill for disposal. I am for a fiscally responsible run goverment... and if starting garbage collection at 600am saved this city money then I cannot be critical.

Second... I support government providing a favorable environment to businesses in our region. We all heard before Gray Davis' recall that numerous jobs/employers were leaving this state because of the high cost of doing business here (workers' compensation... insurance costs... taxes). I feel that if we put the complete burden on businesses to support programs in this state... the exodus will continue and jobs will go to states that provide a favorable business atmosphere (ie. Nevada). We cannot continue to solve our fiscal problems by taxing businesses... they are the one's that bring jobs to this area. We are in a shift in the Sacramento area from a government town to an increase in private-sector jobs. I don't want to chop this shift off at the knees. This is why I do not support placing 100 percent of the burden on developers to pay for new schools through increased fees/taxes. Once we make it unbearable for the developers to do business in our area we will drive them to other areas that welcome them with open arms. Away goes numerous jobs that these companies brought to the region.

I guess my opinion on the whole Parkway school is that the money the city of Folsom would spend on acquiring the land is too much for the benefit. There are already plans for a new HS and new elementary school in the Empire Ranch area... and the city did not have to pay $1,000,000 an acre for these sites. Somehow the city is going to get these other projects done without spending an outrageous amount of money... and this is the type of spending I support.

As for the fact that people will only pay fair market value for homes. All you have to do is look at what has happened over the past several years. In cases of existing home sales... bidding wars have driven prices well beyond asking prices (which you would think is the fair market value of the home). People are continuing to wait outside new housing developments hoping to "win the lottery" so they have an opportunity to buy a home. People are taking out interest only loans just to try to get into a home. Even if you were to charge developers an extra $5000 per house in fees... this would be passed onto the buyer (to keep their bottom line and successful business model growing)... and the subsequent buyer wouldn't think twice about this increase because they just want to get into this market. Sure if this total was $100,000 extra per house... people might think twice. I am sure there is a limit to any increase.

I guess you can think that my ideas are flawed... and I can think the same thing about yours. Its just the way we each believe the entire system should be run. I am sorry if I offended you in any way with my comments in previous posts. I will try to stick more on topic.

[ducky]

I'm with Mr. Giacometti on this one. I, too, don't like the idea of established residents having to pay for the repercussions of new development. For example, if the city is working on a water line that is eventually going to lead into a new development and they decide to put in a larger pump station than would have normally been required but for the new development, I feel like it is the developer that got the handout. (please feel free to correct if I'm not using the right term of art here.)



On a separate note, way back when this parcel for the elementary school was talked about, wasn't there some uproar that it was in a floodplain because of Dyke 8? Maybe I'm getting mixed up and that was a different parcel. Of course, that didn't stop the houses from being built. Of course, we're building a high school that seems to fall in a flight path from Mather, so maybe those kind of rules don't apply these days. Anybody remember the tragedy at the ice cream parlor in Sacramento? How about the recent crash into the auto salvage yard? I also seem to remember quite a ways back a military plane crashing near Highway 50.

[dave]

Looks like you are looking for a free handout... just like you think the city of Folsom should get a free handout.  That figures.

Do you really not get the satire? A free handout is what new home buyers (and developers indirectly) get when they pass on THEIR school capacity needs to existing Folsom residents.

[DrKoz23]

Do you really not get the satire?  A free handout is what new home buyers (and developers indirectly) get when they pass on THEIR school capacity needs to existing Folsom residents.

It isn't that the developers and buyers are paying NOTHING. They are paying something into the system... just not enough in your eyes. So they are not getting a pass for FREE.

So do you propose that those without kids never pay taxes for the school system. You seem to want to raise fees or taxes on those who are going to use the facilities. Those with families with kids are passing on the cost of their kids education onto those without.

Let's poll every citizen and see who uses the aquatic center. Then we will just tax them for maintenance and other costs of the facility. Let's keep track of who is checking books out of the library or going there to get information... maybe we could just tax them since they use the resource.

You say that those who are already established citizens not pay for growth (ie. new schools). But using your argument... everyone who doesn't have any kids shouldn't have to subsidize the growth either. I guess you can send me a check for the amount of money I have paid in taxes to the schools... because I have no kids.

However... I am happy to support the schools because it betters this community to have a great education system.

[DrKoz23]

On a separate note, way back when this parcel for the elementary school was talked about, wasn't there some uproar that it was in a floodplain because of Dyke 8?  Maybe I'm getting mixed up and that was a different parcel.  Of course, that didn't stop the houses from being built. 

Just about the whole city of Sacramento falls within a floodplain. What if any of the levees break along the American River downstream. Bye bye Sacramento.

Should we not have built there as well. Probably not... but then none of us would be living in this area. I guess its the risk we take.

[ducky]

Just about the whole city of Sacramento falls within a floodplain.  What if any of the levees break along the American River downstream.  Bye bye Sacramento.

Should we not have built there as well.  Probably not... but then none of us would be living in this area.  I guess its the risk we take.

You are right about the calculated risk. If I'm not mistaken there is a difference if your property is designated to have a higher risk of flood and you are required to pay for extra flood insurance if you fall within that designation.

The reason I brought up the floodplain issue was to question if that was why there was a delay in the school district acquiring that parcel. If the parcel fell into that category maybe that was a hitch in the school district being able to buiild there because they have to meet stricter requirements than a developer. I don't know. I'm just asking.

[ducky]

One more thing, I don't believe you can really compare a school district and real estate moguls in the realm of profits.

For example, the school district doesn't have the luxury of sitting on the land where the new high school is to be built and then selling it for a profit. They have to deal with the overcrowding problem right now. They have to deal with the reality of parents screaming at them that Johnnie or Susie can't even get in to see their counselor because the counselors are overwhelmed.

You can argue that they should have purchased land earlier, but with what money? The increasing student population was probably taking up all the available funds for things like all the portables that sprouted like mushrooms on elementary, middle school, and (old) high school campuses and the need for new teachers. I'm speaking of the time before the bonds were passed.

[DrKoz23]

You are right about the calculated risk.  If I'm not mistaken there is a difference if your property is designated to have a higher risk of flood and you are required to pay for extra flood insurance if you fall within that designation.

The reason I brought up the floodplain issue was to question if that was why there was a delay in the school district acquiring that parcel.  If the parcel fell into that category maybe that was a hitch in the school district being able to buiild there because they have to meet stricter requirements than a developer.  I don't know.  I'm just asking.

It is amazing to see the amount of flood innundation that would occur from any type of levee break along the American or Sacramento River... as well as any of the dykes along Folsom Lake. I am sure flood insurance is offerred to these individuals that fall within these areas... but I don't know if it is required.

I am sure the school district wasn't able to purchase the Parkway land due to a lack of money. I don't think being in the flood plain had something to do with the purchase. Now the cost is just too unbearable. I am wondering. How long ago was the land for the new HS and new elementary school in ER purchased. Did the developer give the school district a break in this case... or did they just get the land early enough?

[tessieca]

It isn't that the developers and buyers are paying NOTHING.  They are paying something into the system... just not enough in your eyes.  So they are not getting a pass for FREE.

Not free, maybe, but they ARE getting 100% of their school needs fulfilled by payment of 1/3 of the cost. That's a pretty good subsidy, if you ask me.

How long ago was the land for the new HS and new elementary school in ER purchased.  Did the developer give the school district a break in this case... or did they just get the land early enough?

Negotiations with Elliott Homes began far later than they did with Parker Development. Elliott has a tendency to want schools in their new neighborhoods. They charged the district half of what Parker wants to get. AND, Elliott's purchase was years after Parker's, so their profit margin is less yet they seem to be able to work schools into their development plans and make sure they are built in time to service the homes in their developments. Yet, it seems as if they are still selling homes and have not scared off buyers like the doomsday folks say would happen -- it's not hypothetical.

[benning]

I guess you aren't a believer in a capitalist society.   So you are saying we should penalize the developer who owns the Parkway land because they are forward-thinking and saw a tremendous opportunity by purchasing the land.  If they are laughing all the way to the bank... its because they've increased their profits several-fold... and I don't see anything wrong in investing and making money.

Maybe the city should have realized this a while ago... and jumped on the land before it reached $1M per acre.

Ah, I see you've got the 'quickimart' mentality when it comes to pricing. Instead of a formula that includes costs and a fair profit, you seem to think that anyone who doesn't do their best to screw the consumer is a loser. Believe it or not, price isn't the ONLY motivator in good business practice. Re: paying it forward -- See post # 97 on this same topic. Also, please do a little homework about the roles and responsibilities of the city vs the school district when it comes to school construction.

[DrKoz23]

Ah, I see you've got the 'quickimart' mentality when it comes to pricing. Instead of a formula that includes costs and a fair profit, you seem to think that anyone who doesn't do their best to screw the consumer is a loser. Believe it or not, price isn't the ONLY motivator in good business practice.  Re: paying it forward  -- See post # 97 on this same topic.

What is wrong with a business pricing goods for what they can get for them. Its called simple supply and demand theory. Discounts in prices are already valued in to goods due to competition... and you are asking for even more. Just amazing... you again are looking for the free handout. Almost sounds a lot like socialism.

If you were running a business... and it cost you $5 to make. Would you turn around and sell it for $6 (for a small profit) or $7 (what people are willing to pay and bigger profit). If you chose $6... you should really take some economics classes.

I don't see the Parkway developer struggling to sell homes. Looks like their business model does work! Whoops... I guess you don't know their motivators for their good business model. Do you know if they donate any of their profits to charities.

Also, please do a little homework about the roles and responsibilities of the city vs the school district when it comes to school construction.

Sorry I misspoke. I am not perfect like you... I'll try to do better next time. Where I grew up... the city was the same as the school district. Again... sorry.

[Bob]

Drkoz23 not only missed the boat on this, he still seems to be in Kansas, a thousand miles to the closest dock.

I do not challenge any of his opinions regarding capitalism and the right for a company to maximize their profit, but regarding the school situation in the east area (Empire Ranch and the Parkway) his ignorance of history and how development agreements are developed is very apparent.

The east area was rezoned in the late 80's from agriculture to developable land after the City annexed it. At the time, the developers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the City promised residents that new development of that area "would not cost existing residents a dime." (I have copies of the many flyers they mailed out stating this.) They also promised:
A teen center
A senior center
A library
A 50-acre regional park

None of these promises have been honored (the new library is not being funded by the east area developers, although, of course, new residents there will contribute via taxes)

In addition, the water treatment plant expansion, required only to serve that area, is being 50% paid for by existing residents and our sewer fees have already started their already Council approved quadrupling to pay for the additional sewer work required (yes, some of this increase is required for maintenance of existing lines, but most is simply for the additional 10,000+ toilets.)

Regarding schools, agreements were made long ago as to which sites the developer would make available. The City then, has allowed development to occur all around these sites. Not only was our bond money not available to actually purchase these sites when these agreements were reached, but the developer’s 1/3 was also not available as it trickles in via fees as homes are built.

In essence, the developer now holds all the cards as the City has locked the School District in to these sites. So Drkoz23 is ill informed when he equates this issue to a free-market model. It is not.

Now why the City and School Board did not also lock in an agreed price at the time, I do not know. Perhaps Tessieca can tell us.

Regards,
Bob Fish

[bordercolliefan]

The east area was rezoned in the late 80's from agriculture to developable land after the City annexed it. At the time, the developers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the City promised residents that new development of that area "would not cost existing residents a dime." (I have copies of the many flyers they mailed out stating this.) They also promised:
A teen center
A senior center
A library
A 50-acre regional park

None of these promises have been honored

Grr!!! This makes me so mad. Why aren't these kinds of promises enforceable? Shouldn't the City be bringing a lawsuit to force the developers to honor these promises??