502 replies to this topic

[maestro]

 

I'm sorry, but your views of this city are not shared by the vast majority of people that live here.  That's why our housing prices did much better than surrounding areas during the downturn and quickly recovered in the last couple of years.  It is a clean place with nice facilities, great schools, awesome parks, and a low crime rate.

There are State laws that put a process in place to determine road speeds... so why would the City Council be the problem?  Maybe they are for some reason, but most people won't make that connection.

 

I think the problem is the other way around. You seem to be stuck in some festering cubbyhole that is not indicative of the rest of the city.

 

Much of what you stated is not what most residents would consider a problem with the City Council.  They need to be made aware of the problems that are directly related to the City Council and their actions.  The problems that have or could cause a degradation in services.  The problems that aren't obvious right now but will become more evident in the years to come after it is too late.

 

 

You truly are out of touch with the folsom city council agenda items since the long-sitting four came on board.

 

Why don't you stick to actual facts:    Read Ord. 1181, 1183, 1184, 1190, 1210, Res. 9205 staff report.

 

These laws eliminated the City Engineer as a legal enforcer, eliminated Mellos-Roos as the folsom financing method for new development,  created an unregulated public works purchasing process --  which is how we are now the OWNERs of EPA Superfund site which cannot be developed.

 

This is my last response to you because opinions like yours, and diatribe like yours make it clear you have no interest in the laws passed and the factual tracking data.

 

Bet we all know which three you are aligned with -- if you are not a direct associate of a former elected official..........

[maestro]

 

 

^ If anyone ever wonders why I rally so much against the sitting city council members - it's because of the above and all the other things these shysters are doing to our city's future behind our backs to grease their palms.

 

 

Truth Seeker, 

Phoenix is much welcome by me.     Great stuff, said concisely.     But I have complicated (but true) stuff as well.

 

1.  Please tour Parkshore Drive, to enjoy the STOP WORK on the 350 house private development.

 

2.  At E. Bidwell & Blue Ravine Rd., enjoy the STOP WORK on the sewage diversion project.

 

3.  Watch the Prairie City & Willard site because the Report was just filed (after they filled the pond).     That project was NEVER even rezoned, nor vetted by city council.

 

City council persons are SILENT.     They don't wish to answer questions about the stopped projects.   

 

HOW ABOUT SOME ANSWERS FROM COUNCIL ON THE STOPPED PROJECTS?

 

SOMEONE SUGGEST A CANDIDATEs'   DEBATE   !!!      

 

How about a candidates debate where the public controls the QUESTIONs and TOPICs.

[Sandra Lunceford]

Here is a great website to keep track of our current drought conditions:   http://californiadro...org/reservoirs/    

 

There is no hiding behind the plain truth.

[maestro]

Folsom Reservoir yesterday Sept 26, 2014

 

[camay2327]

At the last city council meeting, they thanked the citizens of Folsom for saving so much water.

 

Then Starsky said that he had been in LA recently and that they had water running all over the place. Everything

is being watered.

 

Why do we still send them water? if they are wasting it.  Why don't we just start using our water again and

let them go DRY for awhile?

[SCA]

I just read through the sample ballot that came in the mail yesterday. I appreciate that Chad included his email address in his ballot statement. I'm surprised that Roger didn't do a ballot statement. It's the most cost effective way to reach all voters.

[maestro]

I spoke to Marcus again.  The plan is a 2010 plan and isn't up for renewal for another year.  Because it is a 2010 plan, it really doesn't hold the information we need.  It is neither something that holds answers, nor confirmation of recovered water.  What is uncertain then is, whether the best use of recovered water would be to sustain the north of 50 users or to reliably build south of 50.  With so much uncertainty, it is pretty much a no brainer.  

I would like to hear concrete ways the other candidates plan to tackle our city's bills. 

 

 

To candidates: 

 

There is no way for me to upload the four page document, but you need to read it.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

CA Superior Court, Sac County,  CASE NO.   34-2013-00138798    

 

regarding Folsom WATER AGREEMENT of Jan. 23, 2013.

 

Plaintiff = city of Folsom   

 

Defendant:    "all person in any way interested in the matter of the validity of that certain agreement "Water supply and facilities plan and agreement between the city of Folsom and several landowners in the Folsom Plan Area."

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Oct. 2013 water director Yasutake told the Utility Commission (which included the mayor's close relative), that this is "basically the city suing itself."      The minutes are online -- great reading.

 

• DO YOU UNDERSTAND:   the city council sat in secret session and refused to tell us anything about the Jan. 2013 deal to transfer our "Pre 1914 Water rights"   to certain landowners.     They filed the agreement of transfer without saying where, and they then filed this lawsuit asking the Superior Court of CA to validate their secret deal to give water WHICH DOES NOT EXIST and IS NOT THE CITY's to TRANSFER   to certain landowners of the 6,000 acres south of 50.

 

 

Two major landowners are involved:    the one who owns the Conaway Ranch  with its huge Sacramento River water rights (and rice farms), and

a "Limited Liability Company" which is Aerojet -- now known as Rocketdyne.     Easton LLC is Aerojet.

 

 

• DEFENDANTS are the REST OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC  WHO ACTUALLY OWN THE PUBLIC WATERS BEING TRANSFERRED IN SECRET.

 

Read these public documents.       The lawsuit plaintiff --   our city council, not us --   has not been given the judgment.

 

Ask the three running for office to explain their legislative actions?    

[maestro]

I just read through the sample ballot that came in the mail yesterday. I appreciate that Chad included his email address in his ballot statement. I'm surprised that Roger didn't do a ballot statement. It's the most cost effective way to reach all voters.

 

 

Please forward to Chad and any other candidate the information about the CA Superior Court Water Agreement lawsuit.

 

I lack their email addresses.

 

PS   Brown & Caldwell Technical Memo stated the first initial amount of water to go to FPA  south of 50  = 20,000 acre feet.

 

The city's multi-year drought rights = 17,000 acre feet for the existing city.     The council gave up rights to 37,000 acre feet which  does not even exist, and this city has NO RIGHT to claim for the private developers of housing.

 

What a council!     BTW, the landowner of all that Sacramento River water has sold it to So CA buyers.

[Sandra Lunceford]

Thank you for the Minutes of the Utility Commission meeting, dated 10/15/13.   You have validated your concern with concrete evidence.  

[maestro]

Thank you for the Minutes of the Utility Commission meeting, dated 10/15/13.   You have validated your concern with concrete evidence.  

 

Thanks for public acknowledgement from a candidate.   

 

• Actually my research is so accurate that the State Water Board (or some other agency) actually SHUT DOWN a number of city projects.    One is Woodside Homes (Silverbrook Island in Willow Creek)  Parkshore Dr., where all the construction stopped.    Also shut down were a handful of sanitary sewer projects -- which you can see Before & After  at Youtube channel 4sewerdogs.     The Prairie City at Willard huge residential care project --   someone tell me if construction is proceeding today.
•  
• The retaliation has been highly disruptive and harmful.    If you wish proof the council is doing almost rabidly reckless actions,  just make a public records request for the City Engineer Approved Engineered Drawings for all the 2013 and 2014 Zoning and Development Projects on both sides of highway 50. Marcus stated  city has only two staff engineers dealing with a truck-load full of zoning & development improvements.  
•  
• I have a  piece of evidence which speaks for itself after more than a decade of silence on the OMITTED critical public infrastructure, of great but cost to the developer.     All four new candidates, and of course, the Phoenix are welcome to see it.     All of my evidence is public records.

[Sandra Lunceford]

What the minutes state are that the City of Folsom can use the 20% water conservation savings mandated by the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 as long as they find a beneficial use for the water. The Water Conservation Bill of 2009 mandates 20% water conservation by 2020. They decided to proceed with a leak and loss survey which over time yielded a savings of 4600 acre feet/year.  (This was going on before we were in a drought.)  The City then identified a beneficial use for that water - development south of 50.  The City then sued themselves to confirm the legality of the beneficial use process.  The Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County issued a ruling that validated the use of that water South of 50 and that it met all requirements of:  1)  Measure W, 2) Resolution No. 8457 that protected water conserved from Folsom's pre-1914 water supplies, and 3) Water Forum Agreements.  I was not the judge - I am only the messenger.

 

In 2013 because of drought, we were asked to conserve water. This water is not part of  and is not connected to the water discussion of 2009.  We just need water in our reservoir.  None of us want water levels in the reservoir to advance below the water distribution pipes.  

 

Which brings us back to the here and now....we are precariously balancing development needs with the needs of our existing community.  We need to wean ourselves off our dependence on development to pay our city's bills mainly with property taxes.  Because of this, I developed a campaign platform that offers an alternative.  Our current drought mandated water conservation efforts are not related to development south of 50.  We help ourselves and our community by becoming more water conservation minded.  

[ducky]

What the minutes state are that the City of Folsom can use the 20% water conservation savings mandated by the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 as long as they find a beneficial use for the water. The Water Conservation Bill of 2009 mandates 20% water conservation by 2020. They decided to proceed with a leak and loss survey which over time yielded a savings of 4600 acre feet/year.  (This was going on before we were in a drought.)  The City then identified a beneficial use for that water - development south of 50.  The City then sued themselves to confirm the legality of the beneficial use process.  The Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County issued a ruling that validated the use of that water South of 50 and that it met all requirements of:  1)  Measure W, 2) Resolution No. 8457 that protected water conserved from Folsom's pre-1914 water supplies, and 3) Water Forum Agreements.  I was not the judge - I am only the messenger.

 

In 2013 because of drought, we were asked to conserve water. This water is not part of  and is not connected to the water discussion of 2009.  We just need water in our reservoir.  None of us want water levels in the reservoir to advance below the water distribution pipes.  

 

Which brings us back to the here and now....we are precariously balancing development needs with the needs of our existing community.  We need to wean ourselves off our dependence on development to pay our city's bills mainly with property taxes.  Because of this, I developed a campaign platform that offers an alternative.  Our current drought mandated water conservation efforts are not related to development south of 50.  We help ourselves and our community by becoming more water conservation minded.  

 

Couldn't they just as well have identified in-fill development N50 and still kept the water?  I haven't seen anywhere that says the city would lose the water if they kept it for future use.  If you know of some particular part of the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 that says that, please share.

[Rich_T]

What the minutes state are that the City of Folsom can use the 20% water conservation savings mandated by the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 as long as they find a beneficial use for the water. The Water Conservation Bill of 2009 mandates 20% water conservation by 2020. They decided to proceed with a leak and loss survey which over time yielded a savings of 4600 acre feet/year.  (This was going on before we were in a drought.)  The City then identified a beneficial use for that water - development south of 50.  The City then sued themselves to confirm the legality of the beneficial use process.  The Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County issued a ruling that validated the use of that water South of 50 and that it met all requirements of:  1)  Measure W, 2) Resolution No. 8457 that protected water conserved from Folsom's pre-1914 water supplies, and 3) Water Forum Agreements.  I was not the judge - I am only the messenger.

 

In 2013 because of drought, we were asked to conserve water. This water is not part of  and is not connected to the water discussion of 2009.  We just need water in our reservoir.  None of us want water levels in the reservoir to advance below the water distribution pipes.  

 

Which brings us back to the here and now....we are precariously balancing development needs with the needs of our existing community.  We need to wean ourselves off our dependence on development to pay our city's bills mainly with property taxes.  Because of this, I developed a campaign platform that offers an alternative.  Our current drought mandated water conservation efforts are not related to development south of 50.  We help ourselves and our community by becoming more water conservation minded.  

 

That sounds just like our City Council, all right.  2009 was well after Measure W, and the city's own Measure W was sold to residents as requiring water from sources other than N50.  But they never were planning on holding to that, were they?  Instead, they find a sympathetic judge (hopefully not the same one who tossed out Measure T (the one the residents actually put forward) on a technicality) to pretend (with the force of law) that N50 water can be diverted to S50 development.

 

Someone needs to make a TV series called "Folsom", which would rival "Dallas".

 

Can't these people just go back to private life, and let others have a turn?

 

Meanwhile, I am looking forward to the responses that are sure to come...

[Roger Gaylord]

I just read through the sample ballot that came in the mail yesterday. I appreciate that Chad included his email address in his ballot statement. I'm surprised that Roger didn't do a ballot statement. It's the most cost effective way to reach all voters.

 SCA

 

I opted not to spend the money on a ballot statement this go around. I figured those who voted to me in 2012 (nearly 10,00 Folsom residents) know and understand why I'm running. I elected to spend the $500 elsewhere; from the feed back I'm getting I believe the money being allocated elsewhere will pay off.

[Chad Vander Veen]

 

 

Please forward to Chad and any other candidate the information about the CA Superior Court Water Agreement lawsuit.

 

I lack their email addresses.

 

PS   Brown & Caldwell Technical Memo stated the first initial amount of water to go to FPA  south of 50  = 20,000 acre feet.

 

The city's multi-year drought rights = 17,000 acre feet for the existing city.     The council gave up rights to 37,000 acre feet which  does not even exist, and this city has NO RIGHT to claim for the private developers of housing.

 

What a council!     BTW, the landowner of all that Sacramento River water has sold it to So CA buyers.

 

My email is chadforfolsom at gmail.com