224 replies to this topic

[Redone]

His face on news next to events, etc.

Good one.

He opened WalMart today with the news that Unemployment and Crime are down year to year in Folsom.
Those numbers have nothing to do with WalMart and can only be seen as campaigning.

Typical.

[Robert Giacometti]

Good one.

He opened WalMart today with the news that Unemployment and Crime are down year to year in Folsom.
Those numbers have nothing to do with WalMart and can only be seen as campaigning.

Typical.

Here are some thoughts for all of us to consider.

Ask yourself this what Agency does a year to year numbers for crime in Mid October? We've had more bank robberies recently than at any other time I can remember, yet last night he was claiming the only areas that crime increased were fights on Sutter Street and thefts of catalytic converters.

How many fatal DUI's have we had in the last year or is that NOT crime?

How about the increase in stolen campaign signs, is that NOT crime?

What agency does the unemployment numbers for Folsom....I'd sure like to verify what he is claiming!

I don't trust him or anything that comes out of his mouth!

[Carl G]

I don't have any problem with your statements about developers and funding caps.

The sign issue isn't related to developers. I looked at it as a lawyer to see why Jeff would think that he could do what he's doing, and back it up by referring to subsection c. Whatever the original intent of that section was, I was just letting people know that legally his interpretation is probably valid based on what it actually says (FMC doesn't include an intent section like state legislation would, so you can't look to intent without finding the taped discussion at the meeting when it passed). If Robert interpreted it the way Jeff apparently has, he could do the same thing and then sue if the city took his signs down. Probably too little, too late. If the plain language of a statute is ambiguous you have to look at other ways to interpret it. Like I said, the legislature (council) knew how to do size limitations because they did them in other subsections. Since they did not do so in subsection c., it leads to a possible conclusion that the size limitations do not apply. I'm not being a Starsky advocate, and I'm not commenting on developers, contributions, 2% increase in crime rates, etc. This OP was about "illegal" campaign signs.

If people want subsection c. to reflect a size limitation, propose that the city council add something like "..., subject to the size limitations in this section."

Thanks for the input on this and I tend to agree with you. I guess my disappointment with this whole issue is that code enforcement just didn't say, "Your interpretation of the sign ordinance is incorrect. Political signage doesn't have the size limitation per 17.59.030(D) subsection C." (or whatever the correct way to reference it is)

[ducky]

I'm not a Starsky advocate. What I tried to explain is that he can probably legally and objectively claim that he is not violating any ordinances. Why would he try to change something that he doesn't think requires a change? The fact that it is written the way it is and enforced in the manner it is only lends credence to the interpretation that it wasn't intended to limit size. Yes, cw, go ahead and put up your 100 foot campaign signs, just get a permit first.

It is problematic that like Folsom500 said, code enforcement agreed with his interpretation and then after talking to someone at city hall suddenly changed their tune. It's not Pete's fault, but the code says what is says and more importantly doesn't say what it doesn't say.

Tess, I do get how there is confusion, but I still can't agree with the interpretation. The document that is on the city site is titled, "City of Folsom Campaign and Election Sign Regulations, November 6, 2012 General Municipal Election." It clearly states that for the purpose of sign regulation within the City of Folsom campaign and election signs fall into the category of non-commercial signs. The only thing such signs are exempt from are sign permit requirements. I didn't see anything about being exempt from size requirements. The sections (a) and (b) clearly say "one or more campaign signs," and go on to list the sizes permitted on 17.59.030 C (13). There is no "c" listed but it does say the FMC "is summarized below:"

If you go to the FMC 17.59.030 C (13), it appears the wording somehow got changed for (a) and (b) for that November election regulation document they posted, but I would contend it doesn't make a difference. You can't just cherrypick 17.59.030 C(13) c to comply with because it's the only one that says "campaign signs." The 17.59.030 C(13) section clearly states it is referring to non-commercial signs, which, according to the city's own definition, campaign signs fall under as referenced at the beginning of the document.

To sum up, a candidate can't leapfrog subsections a and b and say c only applies under this 13. The reason only subsection c specifically has the word "campaign" is because, as opposed to other noncommercial signs that fall under this section, they have put a "take down" date if you will so our city isn't littered with election signs long after the fact. For example, if a business wanted to put a sign up that they are a Rotary member there would be no time limit, nor permit required, but it would have to meet the size requirements. If a resident wanted to put 10 of those signs on their lawn that shows a drawing of a dog pooping with a red circle and cross through it because they are tired of people letting pets use their yard, there would be no time limit but the 10 signs couldn't add up to more than the square footage under this section.
At least that's how I read it.

I know it's not really worth the time, but I like trying to decode the legalese.

[Robert Giacometti]

Thanks for the input on this and I tend to agree with you. I guess my disappointment with this whole issue is that code enforcement just didn't say, "Your interpretation of the sign ordinance is incorrect. Political signage doesn't have the size limitation per 17.59.030(D) subsection C." (or whatever the correct way to reference it is)

Lets NOT forget our Mayor responded to Cal and he posted her response( its since been deleted, but I printed a copy). Here is the wording from what Cal posted..." Multiple big signs are likely to exceed the maximum square footgage in the sign ordinance...."

Clearly there is a disagreement amongst our Council members regarding this issue. Regardless of who thinks what, its NOT the role of the Councilmember to communicate policy! The communication needs to directed by the CM probably through the City Attorney giving their legal opinion about the ordinance!

Since the CM is being silent and Starsky is speaking up, its shouldn't be hard to figure out the City isn't saying anything to avoid any liability in NON enforcement of this issue.

[Robert Giacometti]

Tess, I do get how there is confusion, but I still can't agree with the interpretation. The document that is on the city site is titled, "City of Folsom Campaign and Election Sign Regulations, November 6, 2012 General Municipal Election." It clearly states that for the purpose of sign regulation within the City of Folsom campaign and election signs fall into the category of non-commercial signs. The only thing such signs are exempt from are sign permit requirements. I didn't see anything about being exempt from size requirements. The sections (a) and (b) clearly say "one or more campaign signs," and go on to list the sizes permitted on 17.59.030 C (13). There is no "c" listed but it does say the FMC "is summarized below:"

If you go to the FMC 17.59.030 C (13), it appears the wording somehow got changed for (a) and (b) for that November election regulation document they posted, but I would contend it doesn't make a difference. You can't just cherrypick 17.59.030 C(13) c to comply with because it's the only one that says "campaign signs." The 17.59.030 C(13) section clearly states it is referring to non-commercial signs, which, according to the city's own definition, campaign signs fall under as referenced at the beginning of the document.

I know it's not really worth the time, but I like trying to decode the legalese.

Wow, are things being changed after the fact?

[ducky]

Wow, are things being changed after the fact?

I don't think the FMC was changed. I think it's just that the election regulation link on the city page is a summary of the FMC and so doesn't read exactly word for word, but the intent is still clear.

[camay2327]

I thought I would be voting for Starsky, but!!!!

Starsky is NOT getting my vote this year. With all of his illegal signs posted all over Folsom and the way he treats the citizens of Folsom, he is losing my vote.

Everyone in Folsom take a good look at how he treats people.

It is all STARSKY, no one else counts.

Vote for someone else, or just don't vote STARSKY.

[camay2327]

Jeff Starsky is OKAY with a 2% crime increase

[cw68]

No response to my email. Nada. Starsky seems to have forgotten that he works for me.

[supermom]

Why is it that anything that has to do with the Mayor on a thread gets deleted?<div><br></div><div>That smells</div>

[folsom500]

Why is it that anything that has to do with the Mayor on a thread gets deleted?<div><br></div><div>That smells</div>

I do not think that is always the case. More likely the poster took down his own post since it was actually a personal email from Kerri and it is not often that personal emails should be vetted in a public forum... ( not often but that does not mean it won't happen)

[supermom]

I do not think that is always the case. More likely the poster took down his own post since it was actually a personal email from Kerri and it is not often that personal emails should be vetted in a public forum... ( not often but that does not mean it won't happen)

An entire thread is missing like 6 pages, that all were talking about the mayor. Including many of my posts, which I know were not in any way offensive.

[folsom500]

An entire thread is missing like 6 pages, that all were talking about the mayor. Including many of my posts, which I know were not in any way offensive.

Any idea what page or post number they started on in this topic ? That is indeed very ODD

[supermom]

Any idea what page or post number they started on in this topic ? That is indeed very ODD

It wasnt in this thread. It was in the one about Folsom corrupt politicians