380 replies to this topic

[ducky]

candyapple,

I am not entirely sure even if the reporter asked to see the petitions that it would not be against the Elections Code to show them to him or her. If I am not mistaken it says right on the petitions that the information gathered can only be used to qualify the measure for the ballot. I'm not sure allowing anybody who asks or is curious to leaf through petitions is kosher.

[annierose]

What amuses me about this recall, Waterbaby, is that it is just a recall. It has nothing to do with the library. Even if the recall qualifies (and insider information is that your claims of signature numbers are false), then what? First, new candidates have to step forward to run (and they can't be El Dorado Hills residents). Then the current city councilmen have to lose - not likely. If the current councilmen do lose (and it could be one or all), who will replace them? You have no control over who takes over any emptied council seats. The winners could be even stronger supporters of the park site. A recall in no way means the library will be moved. You have no business implying it does.

Furthermore, two of the people who win a recall election (if one is actually held) - whether they're current councilmen or new replacements - will have to turn around and run again in less than two months for the general November election. The recall doesn't replace the normal election schedule.

As for illegality, Ducky. What's more illegal than having people who are not Folsom residents collecting signatures? As for leafing through the petitions, insiders who have seen them say there's nothing to leaf through. But Candy Apple is right - the reporter was very irresponsible to report as fact a number he had not verified.

As for the 500 signatures at the park on Saturday - the reports are that a few people showed up. You were there for 180 minutes. Subtract a few minutes for setup and teardown, and you're claiming three people a minute signed petitions nonstop.

The greatest tragedy in all this is that the reputation of the once-revered Lions Club has been irrevocably besmirched.

[Candy Apple]

WELL SAID ANNIEROSE!!!!!

It IS too bad the residents and reputation of Folsom as well as the Lions Club organization has to suffer because of a few selfish MISGUIDED people.

They know the truth of this stupid situation. Soon that reporter and everyone else will know the truth also.

[waterbaby149]

Big words Annirose and Candy apple

180 minutes - that is interesting

did it ever cross your mind(s) that just maybe the Petition to put the library on the ballot will be our choice - oh yes more than one attack!!!!

although after having meetings with 2 of our council members I am more than disgusted with their attitude towards the citizens of Folsom and personally will work to make sure that they are not reelected - but according to you both - my voice does not count - although I do remember paying taxes and being permitted to vote in the past - did that change?

have you read the notice for the enviormental impact - did you read where it says 49 acres for rezoning

when are you going to wake up and realize that the city council is taking us for a ride...

and as to your insider information - that's cute - trying to shake our ranks now
does that go along with intimitating business owners, stealing signed petitions, harrassing persons who are involved in the recall, i.e., veterans and lions???
really - are we still in the United States and does the constitution still exist???
Again - have the library - but if u want to stop all of the recall and the other petitions realize you represent the people and take the bigger step and put it on the November ballot

the scare tactics are getting disgusting and have been reported to the appropriate governing bodies -

[longgone]

It sounds like the two petition groups are the ones doing the "scare" tactics.

If you want different council members why don't you vote that way in November?

Why are you using the "threat" of a special recall election at a cost of over $200,000.00 to ALL Folsom residents!

Hopefully, THEY are smarter than that!

[waterbaby149]

so now longone we don't have any constitution rights
we didn't ask for the special election - we asked and have asked all along for the cc members to put the location of the library in Folsom City Lions Park on the ballot
if they would simply do this - we would back off and let the people decide what they want
but they refuse to listen ......
there are so many different citizen groups in Folsom that are so very angry at the cc over issues it is saddening
1-we have the park issue
2-a Vietnam Viet's Memorial
3-we have the firefighter's contract (15 months w/o a contract)
4-we have the Hwy 50 situation
5-we have the low income housing on Bidwell
6-and the merchants on Sutter Street are suffering

I was just on Sutter Street today and a merchant of 34 years and long time resident of Folsom is closing his doors....

I have never lived in a place were the cc was disliked so much - and the history is the dishonesty, well - try disgusting
so ck your facts before you complain about the cost of an election
and really - who said the election can't be in November - or that the library issue has to be on the "fast track" did you ever ask yourself why these cc members are beating this drum so hard????
I could go on and on - but this is on deaf ears
we have the numbers - you don't like it call you cc members

[Candy Apple]

It sounds like YOU are attacking the wrong people------a few members of the Folsom Lions are the ones who filed the Recall petition-----not the rest of the taxpayers of Folsom. YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ALL OF THEM!

THEY also know that the chosen library site does not in ANY way infirnge on the park.

I believe THEY would rather vote in November, rather than pay over $270,000.00 for a Special Election.

[waterbaby149]

and your response to my comments relates to them how????

[flyboy51]

According to the Folsom Telegraph, the recall effort has reached its goal. Although I do not support the recall, I have always supported the Lions and Veterans right to ask for one. Reaching this goal is a major milestone. It’s a shame that they had to do it with mis-truths.

Too many of the signature takers made an issue about the park’s loss of the gazebo and the train. We all know that is not in the plan for the new library. In fact, great lengths were taken to preserve these icons of our park. The ball field and Marshall Farley’s memorial were made issues. We all know they were not the real issues. There are other, nearby, ball fields that will better serve our citizens. The proposed, new memorial will honor Mr. Farley, and all of our veterans, far better than the current plaque. There was the cry about the loss of park space, but with the fences coming down around the softball field, more park space will become available for families to enjoy. And there was the complaint that City Council wasn’t listening to the groups opposed to the library in the park. City Council listened, they just didn’t agree with you. Your voices were heard; the design of the new library has been driven to minimized its physical and visual impact on the park.

When it looked like they couldn’t get enough signatures, they added the firefighter's contract, the Hwy 50 situation, the low income housing on Bidwell, and the suffering of Sutter Street merchants to the issues. However, these too were not real issues to this group. If they were, why wasn’t Kerry Howell’s name added to the recall?

The real issue has to do with use of the park. Over the years the park has seen the rodeo, the zoo, city hall, a fire station, and a police station, all dropped into it. The question is, where do you draw the line between use and overuse? As the current issue of National Geographic points out, this same theme has always been argued during development of the National Mall in our capital. Groups opposed to the Washington Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial would have denied us all these jewels. Similarly, the Veterans and Lions wish to deny us the beautiful new library that will enhance our city park.

The Veterans Association and the Lions Club have a reputation of proactive community support. Unfortunately, during this campaign, all they could do is come up with negativism. Not once have these groups presented their concerns to the library commission. Not once have they presented a viable alternate site for the new library. All they’ve done is complain.

The issue, however, that really disappoints me with these groups, is that now that the recall signatures have been collected, the Vets and Lions are trying to use those signatures to extort City Council. If the council agrees to kill the library in the park, the Vets and Lions will drop the recall. Essentially, they’re willing to cut a deal to get their way and tell all those people that gave their signatures to go to heck.

They should be ashamed.

[Prairie Oaks Agitator]

Waterbaby149, I have a question, actually a return to the sub-heading of this topic:
"An Appropriate Location For The Library".

Can you please tell us where your group would like to see the Library built?
I have followed this discussion from the beginning, and some several pages back a mention was made that between the Veterans Groups and the Lions Club, a better location could be located and financed for the City within 30 days. So, where is it? What more appropriate site can be located?

Please remember that the site selection was a process over some 1-2 years, with many alternatives reviewed, in a situation beset with funding challenges. The Farley Ballfield was not the first choice, but I believe it is an appropriate compromise for site and funding. The City does not have the few million dollars handy that would be needed to purchase privately held land, and the State of California is surely not going to be a viable source of funding in this budget crisis climate.

I think there has been some confusion about the Library Building. First, it will NOT replace the RR Train or the Gazebo. Those will be undisturbed. But I must disagree with CandyApple's comments that the building will no way infringe on the park--I mean, it's not like it's a magic invisible building! But I think folks who actually review the site plans (on display at the Library and I believe on the City Web Site) will see that the current design attempts to minimize the impact on the park.

But if there is a more appropriate location, I would really like to know. Besides, without that, what are you going to put on the ballot for another location for Folsom residents to vote on??? "We vote to put the Library (a) at the park site (b) someplace else, but nobody knows where, or how to pay for it" ??? I think that's going to be a pretty tough sell.

Many Thanks

[Steve Heard]

The city council is now responsible for the failed businesses of Sutter Street?

I've got a few ideas about why some of them are suffering and/or have closed:

They don't meet the needs of the marketplace.

Selling 'antiques', or anything, in a dank, unattractive environment where the shop owners rarely acknowledge a customer walking through the door is a recipe for failure.

Powerhouse does well, as does the Hacienda, Snooks, Yagers, a couple of the galleries, the pottery place, and many others.

The market determines who goes and who stays, the shop owners need to address the needs of the market, or they go out of business.

When I've talked to city officials and others who claim to know, I was told that many of the merchants are old timers, who like it the way it is, and resist change, efforts to attract more people, even the Thursday Night Market. Furthermore, many of the residents of the Historic District seem to be opposed to the success of Sutter Street because it would bring more traffic to the area.

It's not the CC's fault.

[Steve Heard]

It seems to me that there is exaggeration and personal issues coming into play on this matter. The whole idea of a recall was because of the insult to the memory or Mr. Farley and desecration of the ballfield.

Recently, Waterbaby brought up other items:
"1-we have the park issue
2-a Vietnam Viet's Memorial
3-we have the firefighter's contract (15 months w/o a contract)
4-we have the Hwy 50 situation
5-we have the low income housing on Bidwell
6-and the merchants on Sutter Street are suffering"

Today's Telegraph has articles addressing items 1,2, and 3:

"Farley family not opposed to library plan
Brother to donate items for new library display

Mike Farley, brother of fallen Vietnam veteran Marshall C. Farley, is not opposed to building a library on the softball field dedicated to his brother.

“I don’t have a problem building the library as long as it’s done to honor all vets, and not just my brother,” said Mike Farley during a telephone interview last Thursday. “As for the baseball field itself, things like that get old, and they have to be replaced. As long as they build it in a decent way, then it’s fine with me.”

Current plans are to place a granite memorial to honor all military veterans from Folsom, including Marshall Farley, the only Folsom resident killed in Vietnam, at the entrance to the new library in Folsom City Lions Park. The entrance will also have flagpoles for the American, state and each of the Armed Services as well as the POW/MIA flag.

Mike Farley, 58, said he will plans to donate his brother’s Purple Heart, Bronze Star (issued for outstanding bravery), honorable citations, and the plaque at the baseball field for use in a display inside the library.

Farley is puzzled over the veterans’ efforts to recall the four city council members, who voted to build the library on Marshall Field.

Local veterans leading the campaign to oust the council members did not return calls.

“I think we (the Farley family) ought to have a say,” said Mike Farley, who now lives in Nebraska. "

So, what's the problem?

Another article announced the new firefighter's contract.

I don't know what is meant by "We have the Highway 50 issue". What's the issue? What has the council done or failed to do?

As for low income housing, was that the result of a lawsuit? Fill me in, because I am not sure.

I already commented on Sutter Street, and there was thread on it in the past.

So, the Farley family supports the library sight.

Does that mean the Lions and Veterans will now drop their pursuit of the recall?

[waterbaby149]

my goodness
read tomorrow's news and find out

[Candy Apple]

-----and just what "news" would that be??? Michael Farley said it all in today's Telegraph!

[Prairie Oaks Agitator]

Waterbaby, will tomorrow's news give us the information about where your groups want to have the library built? Will the "appropriate location" question finally be answered? Thanks~~