224 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

Power corrupts. Even someone with the best intentions can get swept away once they are in office. I don't trust any group to get in there and choose to limit themselves without being forced.

I hear what you are saying however, Ernie, has stated he WILL support term limits and has stated he WON'T seek another term. Roger has indicated he is supportive of term limits, so that means all we would have to do is persuade one of the other 3 to agree to put this to a vote of the people.

[folsom500]

Any updates from last nights council meeting ?

[camay2327]

Any updates from last nights council meeting ?

I did get up and make my presentation about Starsky's illegal signs. I mentioned that
he more than likely had permission to put the signs where they are but that the signs, two together, were over the maximum of 40 square foot. I also read the code. He came back with the signs are legal according to some document but I did not get the code that he mentioned. I have to wait to see the video when it comes on channel 14 so I can check it out. No one else was there to talk about illegal signs so I guess most people just don't care.

For some reason I can not view the streaming video that Folsom has on line. It says that I need to have windows and my new IMAC does not have windows. I am operating Mac OS X version 10.7.5

[ducky]

I did get up and make my presentation about Starsky's illegal signs. I mentioned that
he more than likely had permission to put the signs where they are but that the signs, two together, were over the maximum of 40 square foot. I also read the code. He came back with the signs are legal according to some document but I did not get the code that he mentioned. I have to wait to see the video when it comes on channel 14 so I can check it out. No one else was there to talk about illegal signs so I guess most people just don't care.

For some reason I can not view the streaming video that Folsom has on line. It says that I need to have windows and my new IMAC does not have windows. I am operating Mac OS X version 10.7.5

camay2327, let me first say that I commend you for taking your time to show up and speak your mind. It is not an easy thing to do.

I watched the video and Mr. Starsky quoted Section 2c. There is only a Section 2a and b. He said that it is on private property and it would be infringing upon the private property owners' right of free speech to limit the number of signs and that it doesn't apply to campaign signs. I don't read those sections that way. Section 2a refers to residential properties and Section 2b refers to commercial properties, and they both lay out the combined square footage allowance.

Also, when you and others contacted code enforcement, why wouldn't they have just said that outright? I don't get all that excited about too many signs or too large, but I don't think it was fair to you to dismiss your concern as untrue.

I also saw the president of the Folsom Police Officers Association who spoke before you who wanted to clarify that even though there is a photo in one of Mr. Starky's mailers showing him with a uniformed police officer that the association has not endorsed any candidate.

[cw68]

I did get up and make my presentation about Starsky's illegal signs. I mentioned that
he more than likely had permission to put the signs where they are but that the signs, two together, were over the maximum of 40 square foot. I also read the code. He came back with the signs are legal according to some document but I did not get the code that he mentioned. I have to wait to see the video when it comes on channel 14 so I can check it out. No one else was there to talk about illegal signs so I guess most people just don't care.

For some reason I can not view the streaming video that Folsom has on line. It says that I need to have windows and my new IMAC does not have windows. I am operating Mac OS X version 10.7.5

Thank you Cal. And thank you Ducky for the additional info.

I just emailed this to Mr. Starsky:

"Dear Mr. Starsky:

I am a resident of Folsom, a Mom of two children in Folsom schools, and an active member of the Folsom community. I, along with quite a few other of my less vocal friends, have been concerned with signage violation rules by city council candidates.

I contacted code enforcement regarding this issue and never heard a single word back, they are historically usually very quick to respond on other issues-whether health and safety related or not.

I watched the video of last night's council meeting where a retired Folsomite brought up my same concern. I was bothered that his concerns were dismissed (as citizen's concern are often treated by our city council). You defended the placement of your signs that violate city code by stating they were protected by "section C." I cannot find any "section C." As a resident whom you represent, and as a potential vote of yours, I need you to provide me with said "section C"

You also stated that it is private property and limiting signage would violate free speech AND that signage limitation doesn't apply to campaign signs. None of what you said is true. Below are the city codes in regards to campaign signage as provided on the city's website (http://www.folsom.ca...sp?BlobID=17411). It, very clearly, limits campaign signage on private property.

"2. Campaign/election signs may be located on private property and outside of any clear vision triangle; campaign / elections signs may not be located within or over a public right-of-way unless authorized pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code Section 17.59.030 (D) and FMC 17.59.030©(13) as summarized below,
a. One or more campaign/election signs are permitted on any one residential parcel of land with a maximum combined sign area of ten (10) square feet and a maximum height of six (6) feet.
b. One or more campaign/election signs are permitted on any one commercial parcel of land provided all such signs do not exceed a maximum combined sign area of forty (40) square feet and a maximum height of ten (10) feet."

I am copying the rest of the city council and The Folsom Telegraph. This constituent, which you represent, expects a response and either legal justification for your apparent signage violations or proof that you have complied with our city's rules and regulations. The same rules and regulations which are in YOUR hands and to which you expect the other citizens of Folsom to comply.

Best regards"

[SacKen]

... You defended the placement of your signs that violate city code by stating they were protected by "section C." I cannot find any "section C." As a resident whom you represent, and as a potential vote of yours, I need you to provide me with said "section C"
...

Wow. Did he really just totally B.S. his way through this so blatantly? If so, this is definitely getting interesting enough that a local news station should investigate. While signs really aren't a big deal, it shows a total contempt for the rules and a citizen that is presenting a case before him. I'm tired of these effing elected officials forgetting that they were elected to freakin serve us and are not royalty.

I'm sure an investigative journalist (do they exist anymore?) could start here, move to the recent salary allegations, then dig through some of the other corruption that has been mentioned in the past.

I'd be willing to walk around some neighborhoods and hand out flyers that listed all of Starsky's skeletons if it would help get the word out to everyone that we need to clean house. Combat the signs and name recognition that win the day with the typical voter.

[ducky]

Starsky is such a turd! He cuts Cal short with some bullsh*t code that doesn't even exist! Starksy is a lying jerk who has manipulated this city far too long!

This enlightening news about the president of the Folsom Police Officer Association coming out to tell that the Folsom Police Officers Association DID NOT ENDORSE STARSKY - even though all of Starskey's ads say they did endorse him are very serious! Starsky is a g-damn liar who needs to be removed from office NOW!

Just to provide clarity so I'm not accused of presenting false information... From my recollection of watching the City Webcast video, the reason the president of the FPOA felt compelled to speak was because he received calls about the BIZPAC mailer because the photo included on the mailer gave the appearance of the FPOA's endorsement and he wanted to make it clear they didn't endorse any candidate, especially in light of the comments about a certain percentage of increase in crime being acceptable.

[Robert Giacometti]

What is that old saying, "Sometimes you simply have to give a person enough rope to hang themselves".

Shouldn't the CM or the City Attorney be making these policy statements regarding clarification of our Ordinances?

Why aren't the other Council members asking the CM for clarification?

[SacKen]

...
Why aren't the other Council members asking the CM for clarification?

I wonder how Ernie feels about all of this? If Starsky can claim to direct votes toward Roger if he played nice (as mentioned in a previous post), does Ernie want Starsky out and could help Roger get votes? Or is Ernie afraid of pissing off Starsky now that he is probably funneling votes toward Ernie?

[giacomo]

Wow. Did he really just totally B.S. his way through this so blatantly? If so, this is definitely getting interesting enough that a local news station should investigate. While signs really aren't a big deal, it shows a total contempt for the rules and a citizen that is presenting a case before him. I'm tired of these effing elected officials forgetting that they were elected to freakin serve us and are not royalty.

I'm sure an investigative journalist (do they exist anymore?) could start here, move to the recent salary allegations, then dig through some of the other corruption that has been mentioned in the past.

I'd be willing to walk around some neighborhoods and hand out flyers that listed all of Starsky's skeletons if it would help get the word out to everyone that we need to clean house. Combat the signs and name recognition that win the day with the typical voter.

Just think, if Starsky can B.S's his way through "Signagegate" imagine what other b.s. has been spewing from him.
Let make sure he doesn't get a fourth term. Just having to type fourth term is crazy and unbelieveable that he's been around the council this long.

[cw68]

OK, I have contacted a friend who may be able to help. If we are to bring in the media there needs to be a comprehensive list of information to which they can be directed. Robert, anyone, can you help? While I'm totally willing to get the ball rolling, I'm going to need some assistance with this.

[cw68]

The first 3 items to be investigated/published:
- Using photos of Folsom Police in his campaign ads when he has NO ENDORSEMENT from the Folsom PD (proof is the mailer he sent)
- Lying to citizens: first example is Cal and how he was told that bs by Starsky about 2c and the land owners rights to display his signs (video proof)
- He was ok with laying off PD and straight up said he's ok with a crime INCREASE in Folsom. (video proof)

Robert will have a ton of info including that sham real estate deal and much more

Can you scan and upload that mailer? According to his website, he only has the endorsement of Former Folsom Police Chief Sam Spiegel.

[cw68]

I've already heard back from my friend. He says he knows a very good investigative reporter but it's got to be really legit and expose something that needs to be corrupted. Hopefully this is the beginning of something positive for Folsom.