278 replies to this topic

[EDF]

The point is unless growth keeps up at the pace we are at now, according to the city hall crowd we won't be able to pay for the services we enjoy today... so I ain't talking about any surplus...

What we're talking about today is just keeping what we got now with developer fees and charges that won't be around forever...

I think this is called a "ponzi" scheme... isn't that "illegal"...?

just curious....

[dave]

QUOTE (EDF @ Aug 31 2004, 01:52 PM)

The point is unless growth keeps up at the pace we are at now, according to the city hall crowd we won't be able to pay for the services we enjoy today... so I ain't talking about any surplus... What we're talking about today is just keeping what we got now with developer fees and charges that won't be around forever... I think this is called a "ponzi" scheme... isn't that "illegal"...? just curious....

That's why the city is looking at options that would reverse that trend. That is, more office, less residential. Commercial and office space pay the bills for residential, which is relatively more costly.

[BeenHere]

Tessica

You are badly misinformed if you think COPS are for short term needs.

For your information COPS were used to finance the water treatment project, the City Hall complex, and will be used to fund the library project.

Using COPS allows the city council to do whatever they please without a vote of the people.

[valdossjoyce]

You got my curiosity going, so I looked up "certificate of participation" on the web. It seems BeenThere is correct; and Tessica may be right inasmuch as she says they are "typically" used for cash flow. I'd like to know how they are used IN FACT by our City.

Definition from an investment website:

Instead of issuing bonds for a new municipal facility, the municipality commisions an entity to build the building and lease it back to the town. The entity lays off its right to the rental payment on third parties, namely investors in certificates of participation. The rent flows through to them as C.O.P. interest. C.O.P. interest is tax free, just like ordinary Municipal Bond interest. Except for one thing. The revenue source for that interest, the municipality's lease obligation, must be re-appropriated every year in the municipality' annual budget.

There you have it. It's like a municipal bond except that taxpayers/voters don't have to approve it. We are to trust our City Council to manage the debt responsibly.

[old soldier]

check the Folsom paper today, there is a letter from a guy in Roseville that says the same trick got played on the iniititive there as to what happened to the one I signed (smart lawyers can beat anythingi guess, if you have the money to pay them.)

was interesting that they spent a lot money defeating another matter by sending out fancy mailers. The same game must be played in every city where the citizens want a little say and the money guys want to shut them down. Looks like in Folsom they won't have to spend that money going after the peoples plan, but that means it is jingling around in their pockets....hope they don't spend it on signs for council candidates they like.

was thinking again about whether the initiative tricked me the way the judge thought. You know those folks who filed the law suite gotta be four of the smartest in town to pick that little detail up and then get together to take it to court. would be fun to get smart folks like them joining this here exchange of ideas.

one of the things thats fun reading on my folsom is a lot of smart people with different ways of looking at things, and sometimes you can learn the way you were looking was wrong.

[dave]

QUOTE (valdossjoyce @ Sep 1 2004, 11:53 AM)

There you have it. It's like a municipal bond except that taxpayers/voters  don't have to approve it.  We are to trust our City Council to manage the debt responsibly.

Been There,

Certificates of Participation sound like a reasonable vehicle to fund needed civic improvements with normal general fund cash flow payback. What's the complaint? Do you want the citizens to vote on every item that comes up in city business? Shall we become a true democracy and have town meetings where 1% of the people show up and vote based on heresay? What if just the people with incorrect information show up?

This is why we elect these citizen council members. They take the time to listen and, hopefully, do what is best for all Folsom residents.

And, yes, often staff has the best ideas of how to proceed. After all, they're the professionals and they have previously been given direction from our representatives on how they would like things to be done. We may not all agree on what is best, but I think it works out pretty well.

SAVE ALL THE OAK TREES SOUTH OF 50, KERRY, STEVE, ANDY, JEFF, AND ERIC!

[camay2327]

From the city web site..

City Council Places Charter Amendment for Local Control of Land South of Highway 50 on November Ballot 

On July 27, the Folsom City Council adopted an ordinance that adds the following amendment to the ballot for the November 2 general election.  The amendment to the City Charter would set policies for any development in the City’s Sphere of Influence area South of Highway 50 between Prairie City Road, White Rock Road and the El Dorado County line.


http://www.folsom.ca...ex.asp?page=450

[Ahnold]

QUOTE (old soldier @ Sep 1 2004, 12:16 PM)

check the Folsom paper today, there is a letter from a guy in Roseville that says the same trick got played on the iniititive there as to what happened to the one I signed (smart lawyers can beat anythingi guess, if you have the money to pay them.) was interesting that they spent a lot money defeating another matter by sending out fancy mailers. The same game must be played in every city where the citizens want a little say and the money guys want to shut them down. Looks like in Folsom they won't have to spend that money going after the peoples plan, but that means it is jingling around in their pockets....hope they don't spend it on signs for council candidates they like. was thinking again about whether the initiative tricked me the way the judge thought. You know those folks who filed the law suite gotta be four of the smartest in town to pick that little detail up and then get together to take it to court. would be fun to get smart folks like them joining this here exchange of ideas. one of the things thats fun reading on my folsom is a lot of smart people with different ways of looking at things, and sometimes you can learn the way you were looking was wrong.

I actually followed the Roseville thing pretty closely back when that happened and growth was a big issue for that City at the time. What actually happened was that the City hired consultants to analyze the impacts of what would happen if that initiative passed. It basically showed that there was plenty of land to be developed in the County and Rocklin and if Roseville shut down, all that development would shift to the other jurisdictions and still have to drive through Roseville to get to I80, so the traffic would get worse but the City wouldnt be able to afford to improve their roads. There were also going to be more demands for police and fire service, but again - no money to expand their services.

My neighbors and I thought it was a very reasonable analysis and it certainly swayed my decision. Mr. Wallace of course felt that it was a conspiracy because it didnt go his way. There may have been lawyers involved too like in this case, but the logical approach to the issue is what I appreciated, not all the gloom and doom prophecies and emotional rhetoric.

A lot of the arguments that were used in the Folsom initiative case sounded very similar, but I don't think it was exactly the same situation.

[bettyemahan]

No matter what, one way or the other, like Roseville or not-------

The end result was-----

By getting it removed from the ballot----it LOOKS like the city does not WANT RESIDENTS TO HAVE ANY SAY in what they do.

The so-called "public in-put" at the CC meetings is a waste of time joke.

Just my opinion.

[valdossjoyce]

For those of you still interested in this topic, let me tell you just what Foslomites get when they try to exercise their right to legislate through the initiative process. The initiative that would have given voters the right to approve/disapprove development south of 50, as you all now know, was thrown off the ballot by a judge. But the story does not end there.

The plaintiffs who filed the challenge to the initiative, Tina Polley, Richard Gray, John Kemp and Daniel McNeill have now filed to recover "costs" they incurred in the lawsuit to the tune of $1,000 or so. (Court filing fees, cost of process servers, etc.)

The law provides that the judge can order the losing party of a lawsuit to pay the prevailing party's costs. Four rich business persons took it upon themselves to sue the three of us who signed the inititatiave and now want us to pay their costs. They might also try to recover their attorneys' fees! The deadline for filing that motion hasn't passed yet, so it is conceivable. If they have the audacity to do so, they would probably be asking for tens of thousands of dollars.

So there you have it. For exercising your rights, not only do you work your butt off, spend your own money, etc. but risk going broke paying for developers' schills' attorney fees. It looks like somebody wants to teach a very stern lesson about the consequences of not going along with "the agenda".

I am so incensed, I could spit. Except I'm a lady, and I don't spit. Any chance the good people who signed the initiative could humiliate the plaintiffs into dropping this????

[EDF]

well.. that's bull s---...maybe this will wake up the stupid people of Folsom as to the kinds of folks we are really dealing with... putrid pieces of excrement...

[pampChefLady]

OMG This gets worse all the time! I started off thinking I probably wouldn't vote for the measure because it was too strict, but wanted to let it have a chance with the voters. The more this goes on, the worse my opinion of our city's leaders gets. I feel more and more taken advantage of by all the realtors/developers etc who are in or are buddies with our city government.

How about this:
To spread the word about this latest attack on folks who speak up, how about hosting a penny drive in front of various establishments to "raise funds" to pay for the suit by wealthy developers? Regular folks will be curious and want to know more...

I sure hope this nonsense stops!

[ducky]

Great idea pampcheflady!!!

This really, really stinks. I am so sorry Bob, Val & gang that you are going through this because you tried to make Folsom a better place.


Let's just hope the developers don't sue everyone who drops in a penny to help. Nothing seems too low for this group and yes is does seem you are being made examples to make sure the people don't dare think they should have a say.

[melloguy]

How about this:
To spread the word about this latest attack on folks who speak up, how about hosting a penny drive in front of various establishments to "raise funds" to pay for the suit by wealthy developers?  Regular folks will be curious and want to know more...

I sure hope this nonsense stops! 

Speak in their language...money! How much would the suspect developer lose on a single day of picketing in front of one of his HOT developments? I spent a few hours collecting signatures from people who don't know what agricultural land is(?!), I sure wouldn't mind spending a few hours with a sign in the Sunrise-Douglas area.

[bordercolliefan]

Our court system usually doesn't allow for recovery of attorney's fees -- unless there is a special statute involved.

Under what statute would they request attorney's fees?

Aren't the attorney's fees usually detailed on the Costs bill? Or was this a federal case?

In any event, what a jerk-y thing to do. You were acting in good faith and they initiated the lawsuit to use a technicality to prevent the measure from going before the voters. If they didn't want to pay their own attorneys fees, then they should have just let the democratic process take its course. (Of course they were afraid to do that...). Let them pay their attorneys out of the profits they will make from destroying south-of-50...