Val addressed the specific comments of his letter very well, so my comments will be general.
First of all, to Tom: As a former City leader, you owe the residents of Folsom an explanation for abandoning something that just a few years ago you emphatically supported:
The right of the residents of Folsom to have a direct vote regarding development south of 50. You told me that an initiative was the ONLY way to ensure this. We have delivered such an initiative to the voters of Folsom and NOW you turn against us. When (if) you respond, please spare us the City's "Chicken Little" argument that the County or Rancho Cordova will develop it if we don't UNLESS you have at least a shred of evidence to back it up, something that our City Hall has been unable to do.
Most Forum readers likely do not know that Tom once offered to assist our group in writing the initiative. We wholeheartedly accepted. However, without communication or notice of any kind to us he simply "disappeared." A very short time later, he was in the paper endorsing Miklos for his reelection campaign.
Mayor Miklos is by far the most ardent supporter of the status quo where residents of Folsom have no power and the Council is free to grant developer favors at there own whims. Favors such as exceptions to the required parkland and open space acreage, funding for sewers, water, roadways, building to the requirements of our Hillside Development Ordinance (which thanks primarily to Mayor Miklos, has not and will not be applied to even one square foot of our city), and of course not widening Highway 50 as Elliot was “required” to do by the Broadstone developments EIR, etc.
These "favors" have cost you and me tens of millions in taxes, and Tom knows this first hand.
There now seems to be a very wide gap between Tom’s heart and his current actions. I believe that the following quote from Tom in the Sacramento Bee (which occurred before his "transformation") reflects his heart, while his current actions are based on some other external force. Judge for yourself:
**********************************************************************
(“Group” in the following paragraph refers to the former name of our group, "Alliance of Folsom Residents," which was covered in the preceding paragraphs of the article)
The group's formation reflects increasing unrest among residents of one of Sacramento's fastest-growing suburbs, said Tom Aceituno, a former city councilman who recently stepped down after two terms.
"I would say that since 1992 we've done a fair job of controlling our growth but not as good a job as we could have. That's primarily because of the political orientation of the council over the years, which is rabidly pro-growth," Aceituno said.
"What you're seeing now is a reaction to the pro-growth policies. People are waking up. They're getting themselves organized. They're bringing in lots of new residents."
(Additional quote from Tom further down the article)
Gail Furness dePardo, a senior planner, said she didn't know of any instance in which yards were counted as open space.
But Aceituno, the former councilman, said they were.
"It has been a policy of the city for a long time that open space did include things like yards and driveways," he said. "That's unfortunate, and we have pressed many times to get those policies changed, and the council has been reluctant to do that."
************************************************************************
Source of above quote:
Growth a rising issue in Folsom: A new citizens group reflects the unrest in the fast-growing city.
By Mary Lynne Vellinga
Bee Staff Writer
(Published May 6, 2001)
http://www.folsomgro...ombee050601.htm
So, again Tom, what made you change?
Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth
Vote YES on the Residents Initiative, Measure “T”errific, and NO on City Hall’s Initiative, Measure “W”iggleroom, before it’s too late!
