203 replies to this topic

[FolsomRider]

It appears that people are finally opening their eyes and looking over that pearly fence in their backyard and realizing that the foxes and bobcats aren't the only thing that can be in the fancy open space out there... Even if the 1 in 4 ratios is slightly skewed due to the "level" of illness, the chances you are living near a mentally ill person is still very good. How about we bump it to 1 in 10... That's still 6,000 in Folsom...

The references to the mentally ill as "loonies" and "psychos" merely shows a lack of understanding and a fear of them. This is generally based on lack of education. What is the difference between what is being said about the mentally ill on this board and the references to Latinos, Mexicans, African-Americans, etc as .... ..... ..... (enter your favorite derogatory word here) Wait, how many on here have a Latino, Mexican, African-American background... And the comments about "holier than now"... Where does that place those who judge certain religions as cults...

People may feel that they are not biased towards those who are different from themselves but the thread here has shown otherwise. Several have finally come forward and stated that mental illness is an indirect or direct part of their lives and I highly respect them for that. And for those who think that mental illness isn't a part of their lives, the next time you walk into the grocery story, start counting people. Whatever statistic you accept, you WILL walk by a mentally ill person, in that store who is on medication. If you say that mental illness and its effects aren't a part of your life, then you are in denial. And no, I'm not talking about the neighbor's wife who is on prozac or Xanax just because she's so stressed out by the neighbor having a nicer car!!!

We are so stressed out about "keeping up with the Jones" that we cannot accept the fact that there are people in our communities that have a hard time keeping up with life itself. Get a clue and get real.

[mylo]

Getting back on topic, since this thread is not about whether people need assistance, it is about the location of this facility.. what's the latest status on council approval? assistance? I've been a little out of touch lately.

[FolsomRider]

But many in this thread felt that the allowable location for this facility had to do with the fact that it offered transitional housing. There was no mention, from the opposition, as to what their feelings would be if this was a 19 unit business building.... Just the fact that there would be "loonies wandering around looking up at the sky." Therefore the intended inhabitants and intended location of the facility are directly related... Otherwise it wouldn't be such a hotly debated topic on here.

If the privacy of the people living in transition was respected in the first place, I doubt there would be any problem with the facility at all... It would be seen as a 19 unit housing development and no one would know they had any illness what so ever. But no, as society we are so afraid of being sued by our neighbor for non-disclosure, even our public officials are violating the privacy of these inhabitants. Not, I didn't say "illegal" anything...

So by announcing that anyone living there would be in transition with any form of mental illness, we tag them with a huge Scarlett letter "A". "A" for Abandoned by Society.

I'll be monitoring this thread and will, if at all possible, be attending the next meeting to voice my support and to go on record that debate based on illness is not the issue and should be addressed in other legal forums.

Getting back on topic, since this thread is not about whether people need assistance, it is about the location of this facility.. what's the latest status on council approval? assistance? I've been a little out of touch lately.

[Duke]

..." Therefore the intended inhabitants and intended location of the facility are directly related... Otherwise it wouldn't be such a hotly debated topic on here.

If the privacy of the people living in transition was respected in the first place, I doubt there would be any problem with the facility at all... It would be seen as a 19 unit housing development and no one would know they had any illness what so ever." ...

Respectfully disagree. The facility is a subsidized project. Accordingly, local government and its supporting taxpayers certainly have a right to inquire about--and regulate-- the facility. There's no disclosure of a tenant's individual medical history.

[Suzyque565]

Respectfully disagree. The facility is a subsidized project. Accordingly, local government and its supporting taxpayers certainly have a right to inquire about--and regulate-- the facility. There's no disclosure of a tenant's individual medical history.

Duke: I totally agree with you. And as I do work in the medical world where I do know the laws of Protected Health Information (PHI), there has not been any illegal disclosure here. The medical health of the tenents nor their personal informaton such has name, SSN, etc. has not been disclosed. The taxpayers that fund such a project have every right to know the purpose, and intentions of such projects. We as taxpayers want to know and have the right to disagree on many projects, such as how our dollars are spent with schools. We question this project for many reasons, just as we should question school dollars spent.

FolsomRider: Just curious... would your support for such a project be any different if a 19 unit complex just as this was being built next door to you? Would you worry, even a little bit, about your property value declining, safety of the neighborhood? What if one of your family members worked at a good daycare located within close proximaty to this location and the facility went out of business due to parents not wanting their children near such a development? Your family member would then have to deal with unemployment, is that fair?

In my opinion I would guess that 90% of the people in favor of this project are only doing so because it doesn't involve their house value, their neighborhood, their child's preschool, their family member's job... for them it's a out-of-sight-out-of-mind attitude such as the old saying...It's ok to build it they're saying.. as long as it's not in their back yard.

Yes, these people do deserve housing but the location should be more agreeable to all that are involved. Many of us have opposed this and yet it's like the City is not hearing our voices.

[tessieca]

FolsomRider: Just curious... would your support for such a project be any different if a 19 unit complex just as this was being built next door to you?

Yes, these people do deserve housing but the location should be more agreeable to all that are involved. Many of us have opposed this and yet it's like the City is not hearing our voices.

You're proving Folsom Rider's point. The location concern has to do with people's perception of the suitability of housing "that sort of people" near them. If that's the case then there is nowhere in Folsom that will be acceptable.

[Robert Giacometti]

Folsomrider, Are you in favor of the city reducing established standards designed to maintain the quality of life for its citizens?

What do we get when we compromise quality standards?

There are many of us who are committed to protecting our quality of life in Folosm by demanding the City Council abide by the rules for approving development and NOT granting variances to projects for approval. In this particular case the applicant is asking for subsidies to reduce the quality of life for the neighborhood.

Traffic levels are unacceptable in this area, yet some want to add to the traffic gridlock because they feel their cause is more noble than the approved standards of the community. They want to accept reduced levels of parking and grant variances to setbacks, so they can satisy their personal ideals while compromising standards for the existing neighborhood.

Haven't you and others figured out how come traffic is such a nightmare in this community yet?
It has been the culmative effect of reducing standards in approving new development throughout the city and quite frankly enough is enough!

Eventually, this comes down to existing neighbors trying to protect their established quality of life against well intentioned, but misguided, citizens who feel their cause is greater than the adopted standards.

There are other areas that are currently zoned for this type of housing, but the APPLICANT doesn't want to consider them. The reason is simple, there isn't the amount of subsidy available in other areas, so the Applicant can minimize their costs.

Remember the Planning Commison DENIED this project at this location!

[D's TK]

You're proving Folsom Rider's point. The location concern has to do with people's perception of the suitability of housing "that sort of people" near them. If that's the case then there is nowhere in Folsom that will be acceptable.

Exactly!!! Everyone is so ready to assume that this will be something bad for that particular area, that it will be a blight to the neighborhood, that it will bring down the quality of life surrounding that area....and why is that? Because of the stigma attached to having a mental illness! Most people who are suffering from some form of mental illness are well-adjusted, productive members of society. I have personally seen folks with bi-polar and severe depression and anxiety rise above and work around their limitations with the help of good doctors, family, and community support to lead reasonable happy and productive lives! If this was a doctor/dental office or real estate office or just about anything else, this thread would not exist because those kinds of businesses would be "acceptable."


Folsom Rider...thank you for your input!! Glad to know that I live in a community with some compassionate and reasonable people. Some of the posters have been so hateful and insensitive I was starting to feel ashamed to have settled here!


Mr. Giacometti, with all due respect, you keep harping on the "quality of life" aspect, but do these people who are in need of this transitional housing project deserve anything less? Perhaps if these folks were to have the opportunity to live in a nice community like ours and enjoy the same "quality of life" that we do....well, maybe that would make them feel better about themselves and their future and maybe that in turn would inspire them to reach their full potential which would only be an asset to our community, so far as I can see. Just something to think about.

[Sonny]

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?

I agree.

Also how is this location good at all? No shopping for many blocks and no sidewalks to walk on many areas? Seems like they would be stuck inside unless they drive everywhere? How far to buy a gallon of milk? To go anywhere besides other residences and schools? Yeah if they walk 5 blocks with no sidewalks they can go antiquing... excellent location.

[Robert Giacometti]

Mr. Giacometti, with all due respect, you keep harping on the "quality of life" aspect, but do these people who are in need of this transitional housing project deserve anything less? Perhaps if these folks were to have the opportunity to live in a nice community like ours and enjoy the same "quality of life" that we do....well, maybe that would make them feel better about themselves and their future and maybe that in turn would inspire them to reach their full potential which would only be an asset to our community, so far as I can see. Just something to think about.

Unfortunately you keep focusing on "who" is going to be living in this project and I am questioning the variances for approval of entitlements in an area that has experienced the greatest impacts of growth from traffic within our community.

Its sad you can't seem to distinguish the difference between these concepts.

I suspect during these past 7 years I have been one of the most outspoken critics of our cities failure to provide the required affordable housing element we are legally required to do. I have stated that I am very supportive of having diversified housing throughout our city, way before this project was introduced. I have also been very clear in stating my beliefs that IMHO, the council should rezone the property to a zoning that would have the least impacts to the neighborhood, as a result of its development.

Council members agree that there are other areas that are already zoned for this type of project that won't need to grant these variances.

Why can't we deny this application, like the Planning Commision did, at this location and then encourage the applicant to reapply at another location that would be in compliance with our communities standards?

Is anyone opposed to making this a win/win?

[mylo]

Is anyone opposed to making this a win/win?

Wow, that would be too smart Robert. I don't think you're gonna get much support for that sort of a scenario.

[D's TK]

Unfortunately you keep focusing on "who" is going to be living in this project and I am questioning the variances for approval of entitlements in an area that has experienced the greatest impacts of growth from traffic within our community.

Its sad you can't seem to distinguish the difference between these concepts.

I suspect during these past 7 years I have been one of the most outspoken critics of our cities failure to provide the required affordable housing element we are legally required to do. I have stated that I am very supportive of having diversified housing throughout our city, way before this project was introduced. I have also been very clear in stating my beliefs that IMHO, the council should rezone the property to a zoning that would have the least impacts to the neighborhood, as a result of its development.

Council members agree that there are other areas that are already zoned for this type of project that won't need to grant these variances.

Why can't we deny this application, like the Planning Commision did, at this location and then encourage the applicant to reapply at another location that would be in compliance with our communities standards?

Is anyone opposed to making this a win/win?

Okay...what would you have this area rezoned for? What, in your opinion, would have the least impact on the neighborhood? I am putting aside my strong feelings on behalf of supporting the mentally ill for a moment and would really like to know what anyone thinks should actually go there.....???

[mylo]

Okay...what would you have this area rezoned for? What, in your opinion, would have the least impact on the neighborhood? I am putting aside my strong feelings on behalf of supporting the mentally ill for a moment and would really like to know what anyone thinks should actually go there.....???

Low density single-story single family homes with historic facades to match the surrounding area. I don't mind if mentally ill people live there!

[Suzyque565]

I do think there would even be as much opposition if this was a business office of lawyers, doctors, or any such building.. because of the traffic. There are two issues being opposed with this proposal.. the type of housing but the traffic problem would be of greatest concern at any time of the day. If you need to go somewhere across the bridge you have to leave town by 3 PM or it will take you forever. I have seen this area of this proposal having cars completly sitting still, in every direction for hours at a time. Now if this unit has special needs people.. people on medications.. people who at any time could require emergency medical help.. think of the hassle it would be getting emergency response through that traffic mess? This city has grown whether we like it or not, so in this now larger city you are telling us there is absolutly no other place in the entire city where the traffic problems would not be the # 1 issue? Who lives there would be the # 2 issue. If the plan doesn't work for that spot and there are absolutly no other areas available then why can't the city just say no to this plan? Is there a law that says the City of Folsom must provide a housing for 19 people? The City needs to consider every angle, every voice (for and against), and conduct a traffic impact study. Like it's been said before in these post.. that area is one of the worse traffic jam areas in folsom... making that also a dangerous corner to turn at. The city's logic just baffles me sometimes.

[Robert Giacometti]

Okay...what would you have this area rezoned for? What, in your opinion, would have the least impact on the neighborhood? I am putting aside my strong feelings on behalf of supporting the mentally ill for a moment and would really like to know what anyone thinks should actually go there.....???

Single family homes and it doesn't matter who lives there. I wouldn't object if the city used RDA money to subsidize the housing in that zoning as long as we weren't granting so many variances.

It was NOT that long ago there was meeting after meeting trying to address the traffic issues on Sibley Street. It just seems so ridiculous to grant variances to a project that is going to increase traffic in an already congested area.

FYI, I don't live in that neighborhood, so if I was a NIMBY, I would be argueing it should go there so it doesn't get built next to me. One of the biggest issues we have in this community is traffic. Its past time we start making smart choices regarding development and its impacts on traffic, instead of this wimpy, "there is nothing we can do" BS. There are NO entitlements on this property so the City has every legal right to rezone the property!

The Planning Commision denied this application!