502 replies to this topic

[supermom]

That has got to be an act of felony to stick this on Folsom. I seriously think an oversight committee needs to be attached to Folsom, by the hip, until these deals or the current administration is gone.

[camay2327]

Someone needs to get an investigative reporter from one of the TV stations to investigate into these problems.

 

Any chance of that happening?

[ducky]

Nobody ever reads my posts, do they.

 

Sandra Lunceford, you have experience with this so I'll ask (Techlaw etc).  If Folsom buys or is transferred these lands that are currently designated Superfund sites to use as a corporation yard, parks, open space (be it passive or whatever you want to call it), is the City of Folsom and its residents responsible for any future toxic problems?

[Sandra Lunceford]

I am unfamiliar with this particular site or its history and would need to look into it to come up to speed.  I do know that it is not unusual for portions of Superfund sites with incomplete remediation to be transferred to private parties.  The private parties become responsible for remediation completion, and I believe the range of costs should be made public.  In my experience there is public documentation that accompanies Superfund property transfers and an opportunity for public comment.     

Like I said, I don't know whether this is partially cleaned up or what the site history is.  There are a number of variables that will be found in the documentation.

[ducky]

I am unfamiliar with this particular site or its history and would need to look into it to come up to speed.  I do know that it is not unusual for portions of Superfund sites with incomplete remediation to be transferred to private parties.  The private parties become responsible for remediation completion, and I believe the range of costs should be made public.  In my experience there is public documentation that accompanies Superfund property transfers and an opportunity for public comment.     

Like I said, I don't know whether this is partially cleaned up or what the site history is.  There are a number of variables that will be found in the documentation.

Thanks for the answer, but I have to say not too comforting.

[Sandra Lunceford]

It certainly warrants our attention and study.  

[Chad Vander Veen]

 

Do you realize how the historic area was destroyed by making Folsom Blvd. a freeway (without the safety features)?    The HD is nothing more than a 55mph "city street".      The 111 foot wide bridge over the American River will never have a commuter rail on it.    Look at videos at Youtube 4sewerdogs.    All streets into the old area have 55mph signage, and 16 innocent people have died on this freeway of a "city street".    

 

Why do I bring this up?     Because the folsom HD has the magnificence of the American River all along Folsom Blvd.     Instead of using the wetlands and making the beautiful river a feature --   some dumb mayor turned it into a 55mph freeway of a city street.   

 

Next time you drive Folsom Blvd., think how much natural beauty you are speeding past.        

 

As for the HD having 15,000 people on the 15 to 18 foot wide "streets" ---  that IS DANGEROUS!      In case of emergency no one is safe.    That is why the Code REQUIRE all commercial usages to have full wide pavements for EMERGENCY ACCESS.

 

The same guy who gave you the 111' wide highway-speed bridge wants you to accept having gigantic crowds in alleys where they are not safe.

 

Good post (sorry I haven't been active on this thread lately - been out on the east coast pretty much the last four weeks). Anyway - it's an interesting issue, this case of suburban freeways. I just finished reading a great book in which the author explains why Folsom and many other suburban cities end up with these sorts of dangerous roads. Basically, it stems from suburban sprawl, the sort we're about to embark on again with S50. The more we spread ourselves thin, without regard to walkability (the council will claim S50 is walkable but just look at the plans), without creating vibrant job centers (not just more half-empty strip malls), and without creating viable transportation alternatives, the more we are dependent on speeding through/across town. Sprawl happens because revenue from property tax is not enough to feed the city coffers - so until we get serious about building out more intelligently and thoughtfully, land grabs for developer sprawl will continue. 

 

Here's the book if anyone is interested.

[maestro]

That has got to be an act of felony to stick this on Folsom. I seriously think an oversight committee needs to be attached to Folsom, by the hip, until these deals or the current administration is gone.

 

 

Keep thinking that way.     When they are gone, an administrator must be in charge because so many things are wrong, missing, taken, etc.

Never even dreamed that thinking humans could dare to do such stuff.

[Phoenix2014]

Sandra,
 
I cannot tell you how disappointed I am with your website regarding the theft of our water. You seem to be OK with the City stealing our water if it was coming from a fictitious source of "stopping leaks".
First, even if they did fix leaks to the tune of 4,600 acre feet (absolutely laughable) it would still be water designated for North of 50. There is only one pipe for our water coming out of Folsom Lake and it is metered at that source. Any "leaking" water is part of that source - the source that is designated by Measure W, Water Forum Agreement, The EIR for South of 50, the MOU with Sac County and the MOU with LAFCO for the sole use of residents and businesses NORTH of 50.
 
But most importantly, the City, specifically Folsom’s Water and Environmental Resources Director, Marcus Yasutake, apparently lied to you. 4,600 acre feet is about 20% of our current use (accounting for the water that the City already GAVE away to Aerojet and designated supplies for Intel, Kikkoman and Gekkeikan). It is a good size stream flowing at over 1,000 gallons a minute 24/7 365 days a year. Water delivery pipes are sealed since they are under pressure; most of the City is relatively new. So very unlikely they could have found this magnitude of losses.

 

Overall, our City has reduced usage by only a little above 20%, mostly through conservation by us residents. And he is claiming another 20% on top of that? That's 40% - is that logical? Of course not.

 

From past information I have seen from the City, they have lumped the tracking of "conserved water" and "stopping leaks". So it seems that Mr. Yasutake is combining the two sources of reduced water intake from the lake to feed you a BS story. Please call him back and ask him for evidence of where and when this river of leaks were stopped. If he cannot backup his statement with hard evidence, tell him that residents will be reporting him to BORPELS (Board of Registration for Professional engineers). Water supply is a serious matter and if a registered engineer lies about water supply/availability, it could cost him his license.

 

Sandra, you know I will vote for you anyway, but please re-read the documents you have. We do not have extra water. The City's own reports prove this. Even with conservation, even with stopping leaks, there is no extra water for development South of 50.

[Phoenix2014]

Time is up. Band together as a slate or lose as individuals. The incumbents are running as a slate, it is ridiculous that the best three challengers are not.

• They have 10's of thousands to spend already,
• Locked up every corner in town to make sure you have no place to put signs (nice try at Oak Ave/ Iron Point Roger - I was coming home late that night and saw the sign being put up - had to laugh and scream at the same time - the City pays staff overtime to patrol the City on weekends to trespass onto private property and remove signs of challengers)
• Will be flooding mail boxes with flyers.

How successful have you three been as individuals? Not very.

 

With out a combined efforts and massive grass roots effort to reach out to a City full of un-informed, apathetic voters none of you stand a chance.

 

As a slate, you reach 3 voters to your one. It will attract media attention, you can effectively use Face Book, Google+, Twitter, Instagram and Vine (reach the younger crowd, even if is to offer advice to their parents)

 

 

Save ouR City

 

The current City Council has recently stolen your water! By ignoring our own City Charter based on Measure W, they are now planning to siphon off at least 20% of your water (that right, the water you have conserved, because with the drought, the water does not exist) to GIVE to the land speculators for new development south of 50. This will place all of use in a perpetual state of drought.

To clarify, the City has compelled you to conserved water because it does not exist, then, they turn around and claim that this water, that does not exist, can be used for new development!

 

A current Council member is already on record that he wants to get rid of the required 30% open space (the Oak Forrest!) so developers can make more money.

A former Council member, now attorney for the land speculators, wants to overturn the $700 Million school bond passed few years back that requires ONLY new South of 50 residents pay for their new schools. They want you to help pay for them!

 

Save ouR City - Vote for Sandra Lunceford,  Roger Gaylord and Chad Vander Veen!

[camay2327]

I was looking up the city code on signs and found this.

 

http://www.folsom.ca...bid=12509#page=

 

What signs are prohibited??

 

Vehicle signs where the primary purpose of the vehicle is its use as a sign.

 

Signs on public right of way.

 

(Would that mean that I could not park just off the road, on Iron Point, at the corner of

Oak and Iron Point, with campaign signs on my vehicle?  The signs would not be my primary

purpose, driving to and from work and home would be my primary. ???

[Sandra Lunceford]

I checked and found a water leak and loss survey in the city's budget.  That confirmed that there was a survey.  I recall the construction that fixed the leaky areas.  I have not viewed any documentation that retested the leaky areas to confirm 4600 AF/year resulted from the effort.  I don't know if any confirmation testing has been done.  I will inquire about a confirmation document. 

 

I read the documents about south of 50 water supply and could make no logical nexus between one water source and another, so I had to call Marcus Yasutake to get to the bottom of the mystery.  I reported what he told me, and he is the lead on the effort.  I am not advocating, just reporting.  

 

The heart of the problem is we have depended on revenue from property tax and development too long.  My plan delivers alternative revenue sources so we don't need to depend so heavily on property tax.  We can actually SLOW development if we increase hotel and sales tax, until we can figure out just how much water we really have.  This plan does not involve construction, infrastructure, or even large investment.  We just need to put our heads together to see how to begin. 

[Phoenix2014]

Sandra,

 

You are still way off in your grasp of our water concerns, there is a very logical connection between the two sources of what the City is stealing from us ("conserved" water and fixing "water leaks") they are both part of OUR water supply, a supply that already leaves us very short in a drought. Please, read the 2010 water supply report to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). You really do not have to go any further than that document - there is NO EXTRA water.

 

Thank you for offering to ask Mr. Yasutake for confirmation documents. Make sure they provide real content and evidence that they have stopped a rivers worth of leaks. Remind him that he is a registered engineer, and unlike our City politicians who are known liars, lying will not cut it.

 

Regarding development for tax dollars, development is not for tax dollars - according to the Sacramento Business Journal, that land is worth about a billion dollars as developed property.

 

Aerojet, who ones about 800 of the acres reported that the property is worth more than all their other assets combined. This is about greed and has absolutely no benefit to Folsom residents as currently planned.

Why do you think they would not allow a vote on it?

Why do you think they took the residents Measure T to court and had it thrown out by a judge with connections to the major land speculator?

Why do you think they are now stealing our water by flouting their own Measure W, with an attack on open space and school funding next?

 

If south of 50 is to be developed, residents who will bear the brunt of the traffic, smog, costs, possibly water supply loss and school bonds, should have a direct vote.

 

First step - save our water!

I am right there with you regarding reducing our overall water use (I have had drip irrigation for over 20 years, low flow toilets and showers and now have a brown lawn and usually dirty cars to prove it).

But not so the City can plunder our conservation efforts and just give it away to a few extremely rich individuals, putting us at perpetual risk.

 

But the big question remains - will you band together with Chad and Roger?

Chad? Roger? Your thoughts.

[maestro]

Great comments Phoenix!

Have you read my PRA request for Resolution 9431, making us owners of a worthless Aerojet Superfund site which is in Williamson Act protection?    They claim this is to be the new corp yard, even though it is restricted.

 

Back to water, there is no point in asking Marcus for information because the city does NOT give engineers the information.     The city hires a million outside engineers to do tiny pieces of stuff -- and the city does NOT give contracts for the critical details.

 

If Sandra thinks there is any point in believing what this city council produces, I'm afraid she needs to wake up and do more hard research.     I do not question her integrity, but I think most of Folsom cannot believe how despicable city actions have become.    Engineers have been driven out of the city, or coerced into doing tiny little pieces of worthless work.  The city NEVER requires any Licensed Engineer to put his license on the line -- they just passed laws to omit that bit of legal enforcement and oversight.   

 

CLUE:   without advertising it, the city REMOVED the City Engineer POSITION from reviewing and certifying ALL new DEVELOPMENT and infrastructure.      Our nominal City Engineer signed off on NOTHING for S50.    NO CITY ENGINEER SIGNED OFF on the packages.   Look at Res. 9431.

 

Marcus did NOT even sign nor seal his last city report -- it was signed with a bunch of illegible squiggles, and marked  "for M. Yasutake."

 

I have no doubt the city will require a court-appointed master to address all the OMITTED infrastructure.

[maestro]

Time is up. Band together as a slate or lose as individuals. The incumbents are running as a slate, it is ridiculous that the best three challengers are not.

How successful have you three been as individuals? Not very.

 

As a slate, you reach 3 voters to your one. It will attract media attention, you can effectively use Face Book, Google+, Twitter, Instagram and Vine (reach the younger crowd, even if is to offer advice to their parents)!

 

Save ouR City - Vote for Sandra Lunceford,  Roger Gaylord and Chad Vander Veen!

 

SRC,

 

You need to listen to this advice.     The Phoenix  is a brilliant strategist, and has the experience.

 

BECOME A SLATE !