278 replies to this topic

[valdossjoyce]

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?

I think Bob Holderness is referring to ALL people opposed to W as "naysayers", not"just" the 4,500 or so who are unhappy about what happened to Measure T.

There are two distinct categories of naysayers: those who don't trust the City Council to be a responsible steward of this land when annexed; and those who do not want it annexed at all. I belong to the former group.

I prefer annexation at the right time and under the right conditions. Measure W just doesn't measure up because it's full of false promises and is being marketed using mythical threats. There's just no hurry! Our sphere of influence isn't set to expire for 7 more years. And that letter from the County quoted above makes clear the County won't be interfering with it in the mean time.

So, what's the hurry? Measure W contains a provision that has it trumping all other laws, to the extent that's legal, whether such laws are passed before or after it. It's a bald attempt to checkmate any future citizens initiative on this subject.

As for false promises, the ballot arguments tell you Measure W won't cost currents anything for development in the SOI. That's just a lie. State law takes precedence over Measure W, so the promise of us not paying for their children's schools is just not viable. Unless a school bond issue is passed and developers VOLUNTEER to put up more money for schools than state law requires, we'll either pay for their schools or they'll be attending our schools. Overcrowding all over again.

Another false promise: it gives the people better environmental protection than already exists. It promises compliance with CEQA and performance all necessary Environmental Impact Reports. Duh...even without Measure W, those laws already exist and must be complied with.

Not paying for "their" roads - sounds good, but there are many more traffic concerns than just the new roads going in on the other side of 50. What about the impact of thousands of more cars using Hwy 50 and current Folsom roads for shopping, going to work, using medical services? It will not be a self-contained hermetically sealed community. There will be HUGE impacts on our traffic and we will all be paying for widening of existing streets or carving out new ones on this side of 50.

Measure W is ill-conceived. The city put in on the ballot to counter Measure T. Now that T is dead, there's no need for it and one can only conclude that the big bucks that are still pushing the measure must have something up their sleeves. One theory is that if it passes, city and developer-friends can say it's a MANDATE of the people to develop fast. Another is that someone will later sue to pluck out the unlawful false promises, and the city council can say, "gee-wiz, we tried the best we could to keep it from costing current residents, but the court made us change it..."

[JPuddybuc]

The real insult is that the county has said in writing that there are far too many issues (read "expenses") in developing the land south of 50. However, the fact that Folsom pushed the annexation process means that the land is of actual value and that there is a posssibility of development. What the insult is... Is that the current city council has sold this to the residents as a no-option future, that must be undertaken with our tax dollars. Simple fact: The cost of development south of 50 is far more than anyone outside of Folsom is willing to assume. And Folsom is going after it whole-heartedly because H.C. Elliott wants to develop it.

[valdossjoyce]

Another reason the city wants it iso badly is to balance future budgets. Our city has become addicted to development fees, which developers pay early on and which are supposed to be used to mitigate the city's burden of providing infrastructure and services to the new development.

The problem is, our city doesn't extract high enough fees (or at least, historically, it has not), spends the money and then bleeds the general fund playing catch-up. Surely before Empire Ranch was approved, anybody with a brain knew that many more people would increase pressure on our sewer system. Yet when the sewers were being upgraded, we were told it was just because they were "old." (My old car can last many years if I only drive it short distances, but if I drive it cross-country twice a year it to will collapse. )

That's why we have so many unfinished parks. That's why we have crowded schools. In order to pay for that which we already have, we need new development dollars---it's a Ponzi scheme. When we run out of land to develop, we'll be in big trouble. But not to worry, then the city will push to develop further south and the Ponzi scheme continues.

Another fact worth knowing is that residential development doesn't pay for itself. In other words, no matter what the development fees are, costs of providing future services will always be higher. If development could be limited to industrial or commercial, then the economics works, but no developer wants pure commercial because it's less profitable than single family homes. Besides, per the Business Journal and others who are up on Sacramento area business & real estate, the demand for that much commercial is simply not there. Too many empty commercial building already in the Sacramento area.

In the local election I'm voting for candidates who are willing to cut bureaucrats' jobs. Fiscal belt tightening should start there. And if we no longer have any land to develop, whe can always lay off 80% of the Planning Department staff. But oh, I forgot, governments just aren't into cutting staff. That's a private industry method of trimming budgets...

[tessieca]

. And Folsom is going after it whole-heartedly because H.C. Elliott wants to develop it.

When did Elliott buy any of that land? I must have missed that article.

[jen]

You have some good answers valdossjoyce, but it seems like some people are bashing Measure W just because Measure T isn't on the ballot and not because it's a bad measure.

Bobfish seems really unhappy that his measure was removed, so he doesn't see even the slightest good in Measure W. Seems like the partisan split thing-if you're not on my team I hate you.

That letter from the county is from a staff guy, not from the supervisors who actually make decisions. Will each of them give us a letter stating that they do not intend to approve any development in the next 100 years?

[melloguy]

That letter from the county is from a staff guy, not from the supervisors who actually make decisions.  Will each of them give us a letter stating that they do not intend to approve any development in the next 100 years?

You know that is not possible because the only way the land can change zoning is if it annexed by Folsom (forget Rancho - over two miles from their existing cty limits and we have SOI) or the General Plan is changed by the Board of Supervisors by a 4-1 or 5-0 vote.

The Board's policy, which has not yet been broken, is not to rezone land outside its Urban Services Boundary (USB). They accomplish expansion outside their USB by allowing annexation.

Tessie - you did not miss anything. Top 3 landowners in the south of 50 area are the Finns, Angelo (represented by me-first, you-last Bob H.), and Aerojet.

One side note - My wife received a phone call from the Pro W folks last week. They asked if I had worked on the citizen's initiative and explained to her that the initiative for controlling growth south of 50 was going to be on the Nov. ballot and could we put a sign in our yard? They dropped off a "Yes on W" sign late last week.

I wonder how many people with the Pro W signs in their yard understand this is not the Citizen's initiative and how many other phone calls have been made by the Pro W folks that misrepresent the initiative?

[melloguy]

Another reason the city wants it iso badly is to balance future budgets.  Our city has become addicted to development fees, which developers pay early on and which are supposed to be used to mitigate the city's burden of providing infrastructure and services to the new development.

In order to pay for that which we already have, we need new development dollars---it's a Ponzi scheme.  When we run out of land to develop, we'll be in big trouble.  But not to worry, then the city will push to develop further south and the Ponzi scheme continues.

My wife and I have had ths discussion many times over the years, even using your terminology of the City being addicted to the developer money. When you are addicted, you lose sight of the big picture and only focus on the immediate "fix."

Those who remember Eric's last election remember he barely beat a planning commissioner (Telegraph even announced the wrong winner I believe) who ran on same rapid pace of development. Eric was supposed to be a change. My only guess with Eric and Andy is that they have now seen how dependent we are on developer's $$$$$$ and are either unwilling or unable to make tough decision's regarding future development.

I have been waffling the last few weeks on whether I would support Eric or Doug Udell along with Robert Giacometti for City Council. Eric supports Measue W, which I see as the next step in "Los Angelezation" of this area and could ultimately lead to Folsom expanding to over 200,000 people (this step alone could take us over 120,000). While I like his approach on other issues, his failure in this area leads me to support Doug Udell and Robert Giacometti for City Council.

One veteran's opinion.

[Cloud9]

No on W. Another veteran's opinion.

[valdossjoyce]

When did Elliott buy any of that land?  I must have missed that article.

Tessieca, no you didn't miss it. However, JPuddybuc's statement that "Folsom is going after it wholeheartedly because HC Elliott wants to develop it" is grounded in reality.

Sure, Elliott hasn't bought any of it yet, but check out the April 12th Business Journal article "Key parecel south of Folsom for sale" describing the Finn family's "dickering" with Elliott and Bill (Serrano) Parker for a year before listing their land for sale with a broker, Cornish & Carey/Oncor International.

"The listing came shortly after the citiy's Planning Department began a 'visioning process' to plan for the land south of the freeway, a clear sign that city is planning for annexation. That puts the Finns in an even better position to sell. Prospective buyers will weigh the likelihood of new-home development on the land."

[valdossjoyce]

This story is taken from Opinion at sacbee.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial: No on Measure W
Folsom proposal bad for schools, planning

Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, October 21, 2004

There is no pressing need for Measure W.
Placed on the Folsom ballot by its City Council, the measure threatens any effort to successfully expand the city south of Highway 50 and blend the annexed area into the city at large. Measure W is about the process for making future growth decisions and would set in motion a horribly flawed process.

Its backers claim it follows the existing agreement between Folsom and Sacramento County that sets some reasonable rules on how to proceed with expansion proposals. The land in question is roughly 3,500 acres from Highway 50 bordering Folsom south to White Rock Road.

In the agreement, Folsom pledged that a "minimum" of 30 percent of this land would be set aside as permanent open space (golf courses don't count). Measure W repeats this 30 percent pledge, but leaves out a key word - "minimum." Why was that word left out? While 30 percent is a good chunk of open space, rewriting the deal with a careful omission of key words is unnecessary.

Most destructive to Folsom long-term, however, is Measure W's promise concerning financing any necessary schools south of the highway. Via Measure W, the City Council noses into the local school district's business of school financing. Measure W offers the illusion that existing Folsom residents will be insulated from financing these new schools and that "developers" will pick up the tab. A good education system has always been a citywide goal and responsibility. Trying to slice up that responsibility based on where people live in Folsom sets a dangerous precedent for the city. Even before Folsom expands, Measure W would essentially create two classes of citizens, those north of the highway and those south. That's hardly what Folsom needs.

The City Council cobbled together Measure W as an alternative to a citizens' growth measure. A judge threw that measure off the ballot. Voting No on Measure W would improve Folsom's prospects of successfully tackling the challenges of growth. Vote No on Measure W.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to: Sacbee / Back to story

The Sacramento Bee, 2100 Q St., P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852
Phone: (916) 321-1000

Old Soldier picked up on our argument that Measure W lacked the word "minimum" and so did the Bee. If you want 70% development south of Hwy 50, Measure W is for you. Also noteworthy: the "illusion" that existing residents will be insulated from financing new schools and developers will pick up the tab.

[Kayak63]

"Folsom is going after it wholeheartedly because HC Elliott wants to develop it" is grounded in reality.

Sure, Elliott hasn't bought any of it yet, but check out the April 12th Business Journal article "Key parecel south of Folsom for sale" describing the Finn family's "dickering" with Elliott and Bill (Serrano) Parker for a year before listing their land for sale with a broker, Cornish & Carey/Oncor International.

It sounds like Elliott is going to have control of the land south of 50. Elloitt does not own Folsom!!!!!!!!!!!

[valdossjoyce]

Anybody who still has not voted, consider the following dirty tricks campaign by the people pushing Measure W:

Measure W makes false promises


By: Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth
Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:18 PM PDT



The false promises in Measure W, the city's initiative for development of land south of Highway 50, have already been identified by critics. Now a sinister campaign is unfolding in which voters are being duped into confusing the city's initiative (placed on the ballot by the city council) with the residents' initiative (signed by 4,500 Folsom voters).

A so-called "Measure W Fact Sheet" is being widely circulated which states in bold letters, "Vote of the People." Yet it was the residents' initiative alone that gave voters a direct voice on any proposed development plan for this land. Measure W gives residents no such vote, but merely suggests development parameters to be applied by the city council. Innocent mistake or ambiguity? We think not, given other dubious acts shrouding the Measure W campaign.

We've heard accounts of phone callers asking residents if they "signed the initiative." Upon receiving a "yes" response, the callers then asked these people to place a pro-Measure W sign on their lawn.

No attempt was made to explain that Measure W was not the same initiative they had signed. Several people actually put up the signs and only after neighbors questioned their support for the measure did they realize Measure W was not the residents' initiative.

The "fact sheet" says developers will pay for "new roads, not just Highway 50," but Highway 50 isn't covered at all in the city's initiative! The fact sheet states "developers pay ALL costs, prohibiting any taxpayer expense" when the measure merely states developers are to pay all "their" costs consistent with current law "as determined by the council." Current law prohibits such shifting of costs entirely to developers.



Also troubling is the absence of the name and address of any person or group on the "fact sheet." Election law requires this information so people know who is paying for the campaign literature.

Another lie being told by the phone callers is that "all the candidates support Measure W." At least three -- Giacometti, Udell, and Carter -- oppose Measure W and supported the residents' initiative.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern the city hall/developers/Chamber of Commerce trio has paid the $100,000-plus to hire consultants to write the city's own initiative to counter the residents' initiative, to hire a team of lawyers to persuade a court the residents' initiative be tossed from the ballot, and to run a telephone bank, lawn sign and mailer campaign. Note that nearly everyone speaking out in favor of the city's initiative is a Chamber of Commerce leader, city staff or council member, or a developer-hired lobbyist.

Apparently this huge expenditure (compared to the $3,000 spent by proponents of the residents' initiative) doesn't give this trio sufficient comfort the city's initiative will pass. They're bamboozling voters into buying Brand W when they think they're buying Brand T.

Voters are urged to read the ballot arguments carefully.



Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth

[New Girl]

Keep the sphere of influence part of Folsom. We have no control over the aerojet land which is just over Highway 50. Let's get control of what we can.

Vote Yes on W!

[melloguy]

Keep the sphere of influence part of Folsom.  We have no control over the aerojet land which is just over Highway 50.  Let's get control of what we can.

Vote Yes on W!

In a news release today regarding a settlement with Aerojet for contaminating its water supply, American States Water Company states:

"The agreement specifies payment terms for a total of $34.2 million in past costs, of which AWR has received $8.7 million from Aerojet. The majority of the remaining balance is dependent on development of land presently owned by Aerojet. By separate agreements, Aerojet agreed to pay for certain upgrades at AWR's Coloma water treatment plant and construction of water transmission pipelines."

Piece one of the puzzle was Measure W. Now that Folsom looks to be developing on three sides of Aerojet, just waiting for the next shoe to fall...

[New Girl]

Aerojet (Gencorp) have got the plans for their development drawn up already. I think it is called the Easton Project. It will be developed way before the land in the sphere of influence. Some part of it has already been sold to auto-dealers for an extension of the automall. I would love to have that part of Folsom. The land through there is gorgous and I would hate to see more of Sac. County or even Rancho (and Rancho is contiguous with that land) south of 50.