278 replies to this topic

[cybertrano]

there goes my beloved city of folsom. time to think of moving.....

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! 

[waterbaby149]

I am so sorry that this has all happened over a freedom of speech - I guess since there was the recall, save the park, and Hwy50 they want to prevent/scare any of us from ever speaking out against occurences in this city.

I swore I would never stand in front of supermarket again but I certainly do not think it would be a problem talking to people while I stand in the street in front of a developers home development say like Mr. Elliott

There is another lesson to be learned here -DON'T VOTE FOR THE ENCUMBANTS!!

And BorderCollie - yes they can do a memorandum to collect attorney's fees - and they could very well win and attack citizens who work hard for this city and force them into bankruptcy and the like

People wake up - it maybe too late - but wake up and make your voice heard - just one introduction to the antics of the cc will prove everything said here as correct...
Think about it
These people are so vindictive over a Petition that they want to financially ruin the people that were involved -

Why isn't Mr. Cox interested in this and the Park issue, and the other issues going on - isn't he our representative????

[valdossjoyce]

bordercolliefan,Sep 17 2004, 01:05 PM]
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?

CCP Sec. 1021.5 allows court to award atty's fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of any important right affecting the public interest if a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of person and the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate.---it's sometimes referred to as the "private attorney general statute."

They may ask for them, but if Judge Connelly awards them, I'd be shocked. But then I didn't expect him to rule in their favor on the merits either.

As to the costs bill, the wrote in "pending".

Since the City was the defendant (this was a writ of mandate ordering City Clerk to remove the measure from the ballot) maybe we can count on the City to the tab, if it comes to that. ha, ha, when Heck freezes over..

[valdossjoyce]

Latest news on the Kemp v. Myers lawsuit:

Attorneys for the plaintiffs agreed to drop their request for "costs" when our attorneys pointed out to them that the judge had already ruled from the bench that each party was to pay its own costs. It seems they were so excited about winning the lawsuit that killed our intiative (probably doing mental high fives as they grinned across the courtroom at "their clients"), they didn't hear the judge say this just before adjourning.

With a sigh of relief, we now wait to see if they dare bring a motion for attorney fees, as Mr. Bell (the Capitol Mall big-bucks elections specialist) had threatened.

On a personal note, I had a chance to speak with City Council incumbent-running-for-re-election Jeff Starsky about this issue last week. I expressed my opinion that the plaintiffs and their attorneys were playing dirty pool---that people shouldn't be punished for exercising their constitutional right to legislate through the initiative. Know what his response was (after noting, of course, that he had nothing to do with it, those were private citizens who brought the lawsuit)??????
" It's a risk you take."

That's one incumbent who believes might makes right. Power to the rich guys!

[old soldier]

vall doss joyce

what you are saying about the rich guy lawyers is kind of scary. they want to make an example out of you folks that started that initiative. It it costs you money you folks that did it will probably get yelled at my your better half and they will tell you to knock off your civic projects. my wife got mad at me for just a parking ticket last month

the other think is that this attorney guy might get the idea of coming after us folks that signed the petition. I figure they can get a list of us somehow. that would fix is once and for all about anybody ever signing a petition outside a store. to bad cause it felt kind of american to hear them talk about the south of 50 concern and then have me sign it. if they come after us, it would be like when we used to shoot birds on the phone wire with our bb guns...just pick them off one by one..

I'm sort of glad this is america where uppety citizens like you petition folks just get sued cause if south of 50 was in iraq you guys would have to worry about the secret police.

if it gets too bay maybee you can get your signature people and make a rebel camp in those oak groves south of 50...good luck and I hope little people are going to join me in sending some money for your defense fund.

[old soldier]

I just looked at my calander and think I missed a debate last night about the measure w that was supposed to have some city council candidates debate why they want folks to vote for the south of 50.

did anybody go and were there any fireworks...

[valdossjoyce]

I just looked at my calander and think I missed a debate last night about the measure w that was supposed to have some city council candidates debate why they want folks to vote for the south of 50.

did anybody go and were there any fireworks...

I was one of the debaters and so feel at a disadvantage to describe the event. I guess there were fireworks, but only if people saw them in my eyes. I found it interesting that the 2 council members who are running for re-election did not debate this issue...I think they choose their forums very carefully so as not to be seen in a bad light. Instead we went up against Kerri Howell and Andy Morin.

Despite the fact that we produced a letter from Sac County stating clearly that there is absolutely no threat of urbanization of the land in the SOI by the County, Ms. Howell continued the tired old saw that if Folsom scares away the developers they'll get the County to develop it.

By the way, I chatted today with candidate for County Supervisor in our district, Bob Walters and asked him what he thought about the scare tactics our city council is using on this. He read the letter we showed at the debate and stands 100% behind it. That is, he would never support an effort to take the land out of Folsom's SOI so that the County could develop it. I'm endorsing Bob and urge fellow-posters (and readers) here to vote for him.

Other observations: Bob Holderness was out there handing out Measure W bumper stickers. He must be the highest paid bumper sticker distributor in California. My 17 year old daughter watched the debate and on the way home expressed anger at the two council members' insensitivity to the issue of overcrowding in the schools. She suggested they be forced to spend a day dashing from class to class or buying a lunch at lunch time at the high school. Finally, it felt much more comfortable speaking from "up there" as opposed to the podium below where residents are allowed their 3 minutes of free speech. Might be a good idea to move the seats to ground level...either that, or take my daughter up on her idea...

Anybody else see the debate? Give us feedback, plz.

[Bob Holderness]

I want to move the Measure "W" discussion forward by addressing the argument of the opponents of Measure "W" to the effect that Folsom doesn't need to control the land south of Hwy 50 because LAFCO and the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will do it for us. The short answer to that argument is: no they won't! Why? Because no one who lives in Folsom serves on the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and no one who lives in Folsom now serves on or will serve on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in the forseeable future. Both LAFCO and the Board are political bodies which make political decisions. Since Folsom controls neither one and in fact is not actually represented by a resident on either, how can we count on them to represent our interests? The short answer is: we can't! How do we know that? Check out their track record. In fact, my colleague Sara Myers knows this all too well. Her efforts in 1996 to stop approval of a development project in the lands south of Hwy 50 fell on deaf ears at the Board hearing. Likewise, Folsom's efforts at trying to stop the flights at Mather Field have fallen on deaf ears. Ditto re: Rancho Cordova SOI issues, ditto re: dam road closure, and so it goes. The best protection of Folsom's interests is to have Folsom's own city council exercising that land use power, not Sacramento County or anyone else. On November 2d, Folsom voters will have the chance to give the city council a clear directive: take charge of development across the freeway from Folsom. Exercise your right to vote by joining Folsom voters who care about their community and vote "yes" on Measure "W". Don't let the naysayers have their way. Bob Holderness

So Andy... even though you support the people's right to vote on it... you just couldn't bring yourself to support it with a council vote...?

and ....

Since, as you point out,  the widening of Hwy 50 is "unacheivable"... constructing more houses along that corridor is going to do what to the already choked traffic there....?

and please tell me how the city hall crowd down there is going to "mitigate" that.... ?

Would you at least be honest and tell the folks on the forum why the freeway widening is "unacheivable"....?

[jen]

I think Bob is right. Maybe that land will never be developed. Maybe there isn't any water and/or there is too much asbestos there. Maybe it'll just be businesses. Whatever happens, it's going to be better for our locally elected people to have a say in it.

Are the "naysayers" just the group that is unhappy about what happened to Measure T?

[FiscalConservative]

vote "yes" on Measure "W".  Don't let the naysayers have their way.  Bob Holderness

That does it for me ... If Holderness supports something .. it's good for him and bad for the rest of us. I'm now against Measure "W".

Hey Bob .. when you were on the City Council why did you allow the City of Folsom to violate State Law that required the zoning of land for affordable housing??? What? I can't hear your answer! Oh! ... it wasn't in your best interest! I see!

So .. there you are folks ... we paid dearly for Bob's refusal to force the City of Folsom to comply with State Law on affordable housing while he was on the Council because it was not in his best interest!

[Bob]

I hope that most of you caught the article in Thursdays (10-14-04) Sacramento Bee Metro section on Measure W (the Holderness / developer initiative).

The Bee reported that the campaign to support Measure W includes the Chamber of Commerce (most members do not even live in Folsom), Holderness, and developers and land speculators). Apparently they have already spent over $50,000 to promote this worthless Charter amendment.

This is the same group that spent about this amount to have the Residents Initiative, Measure T, thrown off the ballot on a technicality.

Now why would this group first spend such a large sum to have an initiative that gives Folsom Residents a direct vote thrown out (which was backed by the Council)?

Why would they then spend even more to support the Councils "competing" initiative that provides only promises to "plan" but absolutely no assurance that such plans would actually be implemented or even supported by Folsom Residents?

By contrast, Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth spent less than $4,000 to write an initiative to give residents a direct vote, collect over 4,500 signatures, and place it on the ballot.

Throw in the money our City spent against us (your own tax dollars), which likely exceeds that spent by Holderness and his group, and the ratio is pretty stunning: It took them about fifty times the money we spent to bury us. That is about the only way to defeat (at least temporarily) something that has such wide based and tremendous support as the concept have giving residents a direct vote.

When you go to the polls, please remember this.

Also, for those of you who are still on the fence, read the following posts.

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth

[Bob]

County Letter to Folsom Heavily Refutes Our Councils Claims

Our City Council continually makes unfounded accusations that if we do not "control" (code word for develop the heck out of it) then the County will.

In a recent letter to the City, the County makes it very clear that this is not true. This supports the previous evidence provided by Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth that the County not only "will not" develop that land, but it is also that they "cannot" develop that land because of the current language in their General Plan.

Please read and comment: (A cleaner formatted and more readable copy will be posted on www.folsomgrowth.com soon)

By the way, this letter was presented during the debate on Measure W (not televised, ask the City why) to Council Members Howell and Morin. There not to unexpected response was basically, "So what"?


Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth





COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
TERRY SCHUTTEN
County Executive

September 14, 2004
Martha Clark Lofgren
City Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom CA 95630

RE: Folsom Visioning - South of Highway 50

Dear Martha:

Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on the City of Folsom's Sphere of Influence Visioning Process for the undeveloped land south of Highway 50 between Prairie City Road, White Rock Road, and the El Dorado County line (Folsom?s "Vision" area). Staff from the County's Planning and Community Development Department attended the City of Folsom's July 20, 2004 stakeholder interviews, and offered verbal Comments regarding issues associated with planning this area.

In addition to their comments, we would like to clarify the County's intent for this area, and particularly, to address any misunderstanding by City representatives that this area is under the threat of urbanization by Sacramento County. It would not be the policy of Sacramento County to urbanize the land included in your Vision area. In fact, the reason the City of Folsom and the County of Sacramento agreed on this Sphere of Influence was the belief that the City of Folsom was the appropriate jurisdiction if urbanization of land was to occur.

The area identified by the City of Folsom for the Vision study is located outside of the County's Urban Services Boundary (USB). The location of the USB along Highway 50 was based specifically on the need to protect natural resources in the east part of the county. As excerpted from County of Sacramento 1993 General Plan:

The Urban Services Boundary indicates the ultimate boundary of the urban area in the unincorporated County. This boundary, which IS based upon natural and environmental constraints to urban growth, is intended to be a permanent boundary not subject to modification except under extraordinary circumstances.


Martha Clark Lofgren-Folsom Visioning
September 14, 2004
Page 2 of 2


Since adoption of the General Plan in 1993, the County has not modified this Urban Services Boundary. Furthermore, the County is in the process of updating the General Plan to accommodate growth in the unincorporated County to the year 2030, and does not contemplate changes to the Urban Services Boundary as a component of this General Plan.

The County of Sacramento General Plan identifies a resource conservation combining designation for land located south of Highway 50, directly east of Prairie City Road. This designation has been applied to recognize the special resource management needs of the area. The General Plan advocates the development of programs and incentives to assist landowners with resource protection and enhancement. This area contains high quality blue oak woodlands.

In summary, the 1993 County of Sacramento General Plan does not support urbanization of the Vision area by the City of Folsom because this area is outside the County's Urban Services Boundary. A Resource Conservation Area designation has been applied to a portion of the Vision area, recognizing the need for natural resource protection and enhancement. Therefore, this land is not under any threat of urbanization by Sacramento County.

Yours sincerely,


Terry Schutten

TS/rs/cs/cls
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
Cheryl Creson, Municipal Services Agency Administrator
Robert Sherry, Director of Planning

[JPuddybuc]

Just in case anyone hasn't taken the time to read the LAFCO documents outlining the mitigating terms for annexation, the City of Folsom is required to:

Build a new water treatment plant,
Expand the existing water treatment facilities and pump station capacity,
Construct new Freeway overpasses with dedicated on/offramps (so as not to impede local flow),
Widen the existing on/offramps to include dedicated lanes,
Expand Hwy 50 through El Dorado to offset increased traffic.

In addition, native trees are to be kept, wetlands preserved, and the city is to foot the bill for cleaning up Southern Pacific Railroads hazardous contaminants.

The city will bring water and power, and provide drainage that meets the 100 yr flood requirements.

Open Space must be allocated.
These are some of the requirements that Folsom must meet to annex south of 50.

Landowners south of 50 will get RICH.
Developers will get RICH.
Current residents of Folsom will get a BILL FOR IT, TRAFFIC, (and maybe another fabulous WAL-MART).

WHY SHOULD I WANT TO EXPAND SOUTH OF 50?

[Orangetj]

Thanks, Bob, for posting the letter above. Unless somebody can come up with a factual contradiction to this letter, I absolutely know what my vote will be. I simply cannot stomach the scare tactics being used to try to get us to approve the city's measure. For them to sit there and tell us that "if we don't develop it, the county will", despite clear evidence to the contrary just makes me sick.

[old soldier]

the fact that old holderness and the city council are spending so much money to ram the measure W through should make folks read W real close. I see the 30% oprn space as a max. they could have said not less than. got to be some more hidden stuff in theirs as well

Driving around I see they have a bunch of signs out. You got money you got signs but the funny thing is they look like the signs that roofers put up when they do a job. needing a roof myself the first couple of signs I saw I looked up on the roof.

we as parents always look real hard at the trick and treat candy the kids bring home. folsom folks should look the same way at this her measure W bag of candy