203 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

I understand what you are saying but (and this an honest question) what is the real concern about the placement of this housing development...aside from the legal aspects and such?

Haven't you ever experienced the traffic standstill in this area on a daily basis? Now the council is going to "Subsidize" development of a project that is going add to the traffic nightmare that already exists. In the same process they are going to lessen adopted standards of parking and setbacks under the disguise of saving oak trees. PLEASE

Why not adhere to the standards the community has defined for its overall quality of life? Every time the council approves something by not following the standards, our quality of life is also reduced!

The council could pursue rezoning this to single famly homes and NOT using RDA money. If they did that they may have to rezone some other parcel to multifamily to meet the requirements of the affordable housing element. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why that won't happen.

The RDA is REdevelopment...this project is NEW development. IMHO, RDA funds should be used to renovate and upgrade existing housing, NOT for new development on vacant land!

Didn't the Planning commision vote to deny this project? They know in their heart of hearts this project should NOT go here, yet the elected politicians know if it doesn't go here then they are going to have to force it into a project of one of their big influential supporters.

Didn't the council just rezone some land in Broadstone, for the Super Walmart? Did they require any affordable housing on the part of the applicant as a result of this deal?

Didn't the council approve some changes out at the proposed Mall adding Loft housing? How much of that housing was designated as affordable? If the council is so concerned about housing for those who have mental illness, why didn't they make it a requirement at the mall when they had the chance? Housing, Jobs and public transportation all at one location....who would be opposed to that?

[D's TK]

Didn't the council approve some changes out at the proposed Mall adding Loft housing? How much of that housing was designated as affordable? If the council is so concerned about housing for those who have mental illness, why didn't they make it a requirement at the mall when they had the chance? Housing, Jobs and public transportation all at one location....who would be opposed to that?

I understand what you are saying, I really do! Rules and regulations should be followed. And I agree that REdevelopment funds should be used for that purpose and not new structures. But I don't think that this really comes down to traffic concerns...NOBODY wants this in their neighborhood, or in Folsom at all, because of the stigma attached to psychiatric issues. That is the bottom line here, is it not? I would have approved of this housing being placed in the Palladio Mall, or anywhere, for that matter. I would even be okay if this went up in my neighborhood...but only because I have a completely different outlook on psychiatric and mental health issues. My understanding is that the people who will be eligible for the housing have to pass a background check. So, if they aren't criminals and are functional enough to live on their own, why does everyone consider this such a problem? Because they are afraid that the "psycho's" or "looney's" are going to run amuk and terrorize the community maybe?? Maybe they will gather in a group and storm the daycare?? We have pedophiles and sex offenders and other criminal sorts scattered around our community and we don't even know who/where they are! The homeless and mentally ill are not sub-human...they are people like US. I am much more anxious about the sex offenders running loose in the community. Sounds like they are held to much more lenient standards than the folks eligible for the housing. That's a scary thought...the criminals rank higher than someone suffering from a medical condition. People suffering from bi-polar and schizophrenia rarely, if ever, are a danger to others and are actually about ten times more likely to hurt or kill themselves. It's usually the drug users that are a danger to others (What?? Drugs in Folsom??) I would be much more worried about a resident of our community getting high on some drug and then going nuts and doing God knows what! And honestly, with the number of DUI's being reported (the ones they catch anyway) in our community, everytime any of us gets into our vehicles is a crap shoot.

If this was a cluster of office buildings, or dentist's offices or just about anything else....would there be this much controversy?? I don't think so.

[lisasellshouses]

I think most people are objecting not because this is for mentally ill people but because the Historic District and surrounding areas are unfairly burdened with these low income projects. I'm curious lisa, where do you live, generally?

On the other side of the river....ARC area

[lisasellshouses]

I think most people are objecting not because this is for mentally ill people but because the Historic District and surrounding areas are unfairly burdened with these low income projects. I'm curious lisa, where do you live, generally?

If I could have a small apt complex built on this side of the river, i would support it as well.

I dont think you have to have to live in a certain neighborhood to support or not support something in our city.

I think one of the biggest asset of Historic Folsom is how central it is to a lot of things.

Many of the city facilities( library, city hall, park, zoo, banks, restaurants, easy access to get onto a bus, get down to lightrail, shopping ect.

[D's TK]

If I could have a small apt complex built on this side of the river, i would support it as well.

I dont think you have to have to live in a certain neighborhood to support or not support something in our city.

I think one of the biggest asset of Historic Folsom is how central it is to a lot of things.

Many of the city facilities( library, city hall, park, zoo, banks, restaurants, easy access to get onto a bus, get down to lightrail, shopping ect.

Exactly...these folks are going to need access to services and as you stated, this is a central location with close transportation! In quite a few cities I have lived in over the years, the central or downtown area was where most social service related buildings/resources/housing are typically located. You know if they were putting up an office building on this plot, no one would be saying a word!

[Duke]

The same holds true for any home, not just these homes.

I don't live in psych housing, but my sister has been clinically diagnosed as psychotic. As far as I know, she's only been a threat to herself, but there's nothing stopping her from moving into my house, which "could" be next door to you and your family.

That doesn't answer the question I posed. We're discussing a subsidized complex, not a private home. The project proponents tout rules and restrictions. I'm simply asking for clarity.

[D's TK]

hey D's TK , I wasn't being disreapectful but just pointing out that when the houses go in the folks living there will not be a threat if they are wandering around.

I am kind to the homeless as well especially since a lot of them are former soldiers with problems that cause them to be homeless and the government doesn't have anything to help them

when I go to san francisco I always see harmless folks singing and talking who look like they need help and the scene is just sort of san francisco.

it may well be the patients in these homes will not be wandering around

Sorry if I judged you harshly. We, too, have always helped the homeless when we were able. I can't tell you how many times I have stopped, on my way to somewhere else, to pick up a bag of sandwiches and run it back to a homeless gentleman....I always made sure that I explained to my kids what I was doing and why. I didn't want them to be scared or think that "these people" were less human than we were. My older son now will do the same thing, when he see's someone who needs help, he stops and gets sandwiches, etc. Makes me proud

When I was growing up I only had one uncle, my mom's brother. He came back from WWII and became an alcoholic He would have been homeless (and was, at times) if it had not been for my grandparents who let him continue to live with them until his death from lung cancer at the age of 59. I was never really around when he was drinking, but when he wasn't, he was the best uncle anyone could have ever had! He was always really good to us kids (my mom had six of us and my uncle did not have any) and we all adored him! I always tell my kids that these people are father, mothers, uncle's, brothers, etc, to someone out there and should always be treated with the same level of dignity as anyone else.

[Robert Giacometti]

Exactly...these folks are going to need access to services and as you stated, this is a central location with close transportation! In quite a few cities I have lived in over the years, the central or downtown area was where most social service related buildings/resources/housing are typically located. You know if they were putting up an office building on this plot, no one would be saying a word!

Sadly some of you have already started down the slippery slope of looking at WHO will be the residents rather than the impacts of development.

This area probaly has the worst traffic in our whole community, so why are we considering anything ( affordable housing, multi family apartments, office complexes or Dr's or Dentists offices) to be approved in an area that already exceeds acceptable levels of traffic? The best scenario would be for the council to rezone the land to permit the LOWEST allowable impacts to be built there, REGARDLESS OF WHO they are! The council is actually considering subsidizing the development increasing the impacts to the already impacted area. Purely from a planning perspective, how stupid is that?

The council is also willing to lower the standards to allow development. When one is trying to maintain a certain standard of quality of life does one lower standards or maintain standards?

Those who feel this type of housing should all be centrally located, should probably go down to Loves and Fishes and ask the residents who live in that neighborhood about the benefits of locating subsized housing and services in one area.

If someone is going to use public transportaion to get to City Hall, Zoo, library or light rail, does it matter if they catch it at Bidwell Street or out in Broadstone?

I suspect years ago in many large cities there were well intentioned citizens like we see here who thought it would be best to centrally locate these types of housing in one are around services. Do you think they would be willing to do it the same way again? Then why are you?

We need to diversify housing throughout the community! Please put your thinking caps on and look at the big picture and don't fall into the trap at looking at WHO, but instead impacts!

[nhardy]

OK, it has now been over a week since the Council meeting on the Transitional Living proposal for 19 units on Bidwell Street (18 for low income tenants, medicated for depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, with the 19th unit for the manager). EDF at least admitted to having fallen asleep while watching the Council meeting - even if you missed it on Channel 14, you can watch it by going to the City's website, and clicking on the correct agenda item for the meeting on March 27 - why not watch on line, and get the correct information, instead of continuing to speculate?

Having said that, the "rezone" was really a change in terms, and to get the zoning in accordance with the General Plan. The General Plan allows for up to 25 units at that site. The funding issue was discussed at length, as were the existing laws that would preclude the City from denying the project simply because the tenants are in the County's mental health program - as it would be discrimination. We also discussed the parking (they have proposed to provide 27 spaces, as opposed to 36 - and it is unlikely that the residents will own cars in the same ratio as the typical tenants in multifamily housing that is NOT designated as "affordable housing") and they have proposed reduced set backs in order to save oak trees at the site. So, the discussion was about putting in more parking than will likely be used, and increasing set backs - in exchange for cutting down oak trees.

With regard to the comments that the City kept this secret, this project has been under discussion for about 2 years. In the last 2 months, I probably answered 50 emails on this subject, some of which were from posters in this thread. There was no "cover up", the city does not profit from this, and this is not about the City being in the pockets of the developers, as was implied in some of the posts. The reality is, this property has the right to up to 25 units, the property is available, and this is what the current owner wants to see built there. Denying it on the basis of the tenants being medically treated for depression related illnesses is discrimation, and therefore illegal, and the City would lose in court on that one - just like all those neighborhoods that have been unable to relocate residential care facilities. Those who posted that proposed tenants go through extensive background checks, so there will be no criminals or child molestors, are correct.

Please review the post from the woman who described the situation with her sister - somebody lives next door to that person already. I think many of you would also be surprised to find out how many of your friends, neighbors and relatives are on the same medications as the proposed tenants of this project - but, they are in different financial situations, so they manage their meds at home - with no supervision.

Please contact me with any additional questions or comments. My email is corrprincess@ardennet.com

Kerri Howell

What area of Folsom do you live in?

[Chad Vander Veen]

On the other side of the river....ARC area

ah ha.

[Robert Giacometti]

Does anyone know if any of the council members live in a gated community?

[tessieca]

I don't think any of them do. There's one ARC, one Willowcreek, one near you Robert, one in Empire Ranch and one in Parkway. Not even the police chief lives in a gated community.

[Redone]

Does anyone know if any of the council members live in a gated community?

Where are you headed with this ?

[Robert Giacometti]

Where are you headed with this ?

If a council member was expressing the benefits of the diversity of different types of housing and how we as a community needed to allow these different types of housing in neighborhoods, all the while themselves living insulated from the different types of housing behind a gated community, IMHO it would seem very hypercritical of what they say and what they do.

They have every right to choose to live anywhere they want.

What would be your thoughts about someone who lives in a gated community then tells the rest of the community they need to accept subsized housing projects in their neighborhood?

[old soldier]

its probably just like in the old days when you had kings and castles. the ruling class always had their castle high on a hill and had a big wall around it.

this is what a modern day gated community is about. don't know of any that have moats and drawbridges