79 replies to this topic

[Bob]

QUOTE (Bob Holderness @ Apr 9 2004, 09:17 AM)

Why have Bob Fish and his supporters made such a huge mistake?  Because they don't know what they're doing.

Mr. Holderness implies that our initiative lacks professional input and review. We offer the following:

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition

pro·fes·sion·al

2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b : having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c : engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>

By this standard, Mr. Holderness is correct; we are “unprofessional.” We are a group of Folsom residents working diligently for free, for the good of all Folsom residents.

By this standard then, Mr. Holderness is definitely a “professional” as he is a paid attorney / advocate by developers.

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged in one of the learned professions c (1) : characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace

By this standard, Mr. Holderness is wrong. Our initiative represents over a year of input from Folsom Residents, Senior City Staff, and even several Council members. It also includes thorough review by attorneys, political consultants and others who are not only “professional” in their field, but are considered experts in the initiative process.

By this standard, one has to question weather someone being paid to represent the views of others is acting professionally by not disclosing such information.



Also, it is clear that Mr. Holderness is either ignorant of the annexation process, or has not bothered to read our initiative by claiming we have made a “big mistake.” The initiative is very clear that it only applies to land that is “proposed for annexation south of Highway 50.” Few Folsom residents are concerned with the current status of that land under the jurisdiction of the County, which is “Permanent Open Space not subject to change…”

Mr. Holderness also appears ignorant of regional growth issues by simply repeating the “party line” that developers will turn to Sacramento County to develop that land if Folsom does not, without offering a shred of evidence. Yet there are many documents and many reasons that refute his unfounded claim. We will provide you with this information so that you can make your own informed decision; while Mr. Holderness and the development community would rather screen you from such information.

The current uncontrolled growth contingent in this City has been and will be using scare tactics, without a shred of evidence to support their claims, to persuade you not to act in your own best interest. Our initiative is so straightforward and simple, we simply ask voters to “just read it for yourself.” Do not let their unsupported claims muddle your common sense. Please visit www.folsomgrowth.org to read the initiative and offer your support. This is YOUR initiative, it is the right given to you by our Constitution to balance the influence of outside lobbyists and other influences when it becomes obvious that the will of the people is not being represented.

Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth
Bob Fish

[EDF]

I'm dying to know....! What great plans do Bob Holderness' developer friends have for south of 50... ?

Are they going to pick up all the costs for building schools south of 50... of course he will tell you that state law pre-empts us from putting all the costs on them... How about the Freeway impacts...?

But you know how City Hall works.... right...? ah... they'll find a "negative delcaration" here... we'll "waive" that requirement there... staff will mitigate that "requirement" later... "forget" a code requirement "where needed" and ignore citizen imput all the time...

You are exempt of course when you bring big $$$$ to the planning department for your next development...

We haven't as a city yet... completed all the parks and recreation they promised us way back... think they'll change now...?

Bob Holderness himself said to me and I'll paraphrase....of course...

"The reason we are in this position now is because of the short memory of Folsom residents"... in other words, "they don't know how we got from there to here" because being a new town, not everyone was here when all of the decisions "back then" that are affecting us now, were nade..."

Today however, we have a few of us that are veterans and Bob's crowd has a history too....

Lets have the debate and see who wins...

[valdossjoyce]

Here's what the Sac Business Journal has to say:

Sacramento Business Journal - April 12, 2004
http://sacramento.bi.../12/story6.html



EXCLUSIVE REPORTS
From the April 9, 2004 print edition
Key parcel south of Folsom for sale
1,000 acres in path for annexation
Mike McCarthy
Staff Writer
The owners of 1,005 acres south of Highway 50 -- almost one-third of the land that Folsom can annex in the area -- have put the tract on the market, seeking a price of around $40 million

The land owned by the Finn family is a gateway to future development of Folsom's 3,584-acre sphere of influence south of the highway, the area it could someday annex for city expansion. The Finn tract takes up 28 percent of the area and sits just across the freeway from the city, making it a likely site for the first projects within the sphere. The Finn land also includes roughly half the freeway frontage in the potential annexation zone -- key land for commercial development.

If the Finns can get anything near their asking price, they might be the first landowners to make a big buck out of the city's expected push southward.

The family could have done better in a previous land deal. In the late 1980s, the Finns sold another tract, in what is now Folsom, of about 1,000 acres to Natomas Real Estate Co. for $7,000 an acre. That company then sold it to Elliott Homes for some $30,000 an acre, said Dave Jarrette, a land expert and partner in the Roseville appraisal firm of Giannelli, Jarrette & Waters. The Elliott land later became the Broadstone development, and includes housing, retail, office parks and the site of a planned regional mall.

It seems likely the Finns can get bigger bucks this time around. "The land is next to one of the hottest growing cities in Northern California and the city is running out of land," Jarrette said. "It's also a window to the main portion of the sphere of influence and it's got the most usable topography. And the land market is as strong as it's ever been."

Months of talks: Industry sources say that for more than a year the family has dickered with Elliott, Serrano developer Bill Parker and others over the family's land south of the freeway, but no one was willing to pay their asking price. The Finns, sources say, decided to put the project on the open market to gain a larger audience and maybe a higher price.

The family has listed the property with Craig Brinitzer and Bob Feld of Cornish & Carey/Oncor International. Brinitzer said the brokers cannot comment on the property they are marketing.

Finn family representative Terry Finn did not return calls.

The listing came shortly after the city'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.

Before the city secured approval for its expanded sphere of influence in June of 2001, the environmental impact report for the expansion was based on developing the land for offices, retail and other commercial buildings.

But residentially zoned land is in demand and gets the biggest money from developers. Observers believe developers will pressure the city for residential zoning of most of the land away from the freeway. The highway frontage strip, however, would almost surely be zoned for commercial buildings.

There's a catch or two: The Finn land, however, is being watched by environmentalists and Folsom community activists. About 300 acres of the Finn tract is considered valuable wildlife habitat by environmental advocates. "I would hope that whoever is interested in buying the property understands that they will not be able to develop quite a bit of that land," said Alta Tura, president of the Sacramento Urban Creeks Council and a watchdog of eastern Sacramento County.

The environmental impact report for the expanded sphere of influence called for 30 percent of the area to be preserved as open space. Around one-third of the Finn property could become part of a preserve should the city decide to actually set aside such lands.

Folsom community activists, wary of reckless growth, are also watching. "They should be aware that residents of Folsom may put up obstacles to development," said Bob Fish, a leader of Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth.

The group is fielding an initiative for the November ballot that calls for restraints on development south of the freeway. The initiative says the city's voters, not just the City Council, should vote on key development steps in the area.

The main constraints on development are environmental, the effects of added traffic and the need to secure a water supply. Sacramento developers generally have been able to overcome the obstacles.

The development effort is likely to be aided by the presence of one of the region's most astute land developers, Angelo Tsakopoulos, who also owns land in the Folsom sphere of influence. Tsakopoulos, head of AKT Development Corp., controls at least one-third of the area, and he and his family also control thousands of acres south of its southern border, White Rock Road. Observers fully expect that pressure will build to develop land south of the sphere, as far south as Rancho Murieta.

The 30,000 acres between the sphere and Rancho Murieta now is unincorporated ranch land. It also is the last piece of really attractive countryside in the county and would be a prime area for residential development, Jarrette said.

The land is outside the county's urban services boundary, intended to limit development. The county has already acceded to landowners requests to split some of the land beyond the boundary into smaller parcels, setting the stage for development.



© 2004 American City Business Journals Inc.

Web reprint information


All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
[B][U][B]

[valdossjoyce]

Interesting article...

Rather than taking the cynical view that we're about to become the victims of a bait-and-switch, perhaps it is market conditions that will cause developers to push for residential development, as opposed to the commercial development analyzed in the EIR done back in 2001.

Either way, whatever environmental impacts were identified under that scenario will most likely be far greater & worse if the new proposed use is primarily residential.

[camay2327]

I really don't know which way to go on this!!!

I just feel that the City of Folsom has to annex that land as soon as possible, before someone else gets their hands on it. If we don't annex it first we will not have control over it.

Am I wrong???

Lets annex the land and then worry about what goes there.

[EDF]

Cal..

As part of the annexation they will change the use... that's why we need a plan first.

[billsfan]

It seems that this plan is born out of mistrust of the city council making the decisions. Isn't that what we elect a city council to do? To have every usage decision require a vote of citizens sounds like both a waste of time and will cause delays. Is this born from individuals who either weren't elected or who have some serious grievances against the cc?

[john]

I think it has more to do with the question of if the current cc will "do the right thing" and do things in the best interests of residents or developers. Something this big should be a city wide decision, as it will have impact on all of us for the next 100 years.

[EDF]

Billsfan...

Maybe you aren't aware that the city is run by "staff".. you know the "beaurocrats" at "city hall"...

Development is "staff driven".... and all the city council does is just "rubber stamp" whateve staff says...

go to a city council meeting and watch them in action....

Believe me if we had a more responsible city council, we wouldn't have parks under a "tower line"... for example....Cummings park...

Or they wouldn't have sold a piece of ground zoned as park land (now known as "Folsom Kids Play Park", , that was appraised at $25k but sold by developers to the city for $600k back in the early 90's...

Beacon Hill park is another example of citizens cajoling the city council to use some "excess" funds from Lexington Hills to purchase that land....just a little history here....

Trust me... The developers will make lots of money doing it our way... They will tell you they won't because they want to make more...that's all this is about....$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[valdossjoyce]

The fear that if we don't annex "someone else will get their hands on it" is unfounded. It's the alarming message city council and staff, as well as developers' lobbyists, are sending out. Why it's a phony fear:

The "someone else" they refer to are (1) the County, and (2) Rancho Cordova.

This particular patch of land is outside a growth boundary set by the county (called the Urban Services Boundary) in the early 1990's.

The County has a consistent record of NOT allowing development beyond its growth boundary. When CC Meyers tried with Deer Creek Hills, the supervisors stood firm and did not allow it. When he tried to circumvent county board of supervisors by going directly to voters (Measure O), he failed miserably. (Don't be fooled by stories of North Natomas. That was NOT the county...the City of Sacramento annexed that land. More about annexation below).

The major reason the County doesn't want to punch through this boundary is because of the high cost of bringing county services and infrastructure to remote areas. Other reasons they won't do it:

There is law that the County must follow before they can breach that boundary. They have to make five findings, one of which is that there is no land available for development WITHIN the boundary. A recent County study found that there is sufficient land within the boundary to support growth for the NEXT 70 YEARS. The supervisors cannot simply ignore this criteria just because a developer wants to develop land outside the boundary.

Finally, it takes a vote of 4 out of 5 supervisors to allow development outside the boundary.

Annexation by Rancho Cordova is just as unlikely. Rancho is developing toward the south and, frankly, has its hands full. How can it provide the police, fire, garbage, water and schools that would be required if it were to annex this land?

Keep in mind, this land is not adjacent to RC. Between RC and this land lies Aerojet property that is on the national EPA Superfund list. The cost and logistics of providing services to this patch of property that's not even adjacent to it makes this land very unattractive for annexation to Rancho.

Of the services listed above, the most difficult one for Rancho to provide would be water. Rancho simply does not have a water source for development of this land.

Folsom is the ONLY logical jurisdiction to permit the development of this property. We will get that control when the time is right. At that time, developers will entice Folsom voters with all kinds of amenities (ones that not even the City Council could bargain for, for example, money for schools) to make any such development not only high qualilty, but pay for itself and provide relief to the gridlock on Hwy 50.

Don't allow the unrealistic scenarios push you into a panic. The developers who stand to gain a hundred million dollars can afford to throw a few million extra bucks into the project to make it a good one for Folsomites.

[valdossjoyce]

Here's a letter to the editor; don't know if it will get published, so you guys can read it here:


DEAR OP ED:
Re: The “Vision” is Clear


The “Vision” is clear. Residents overwhelmingly want a direct vote on any proposed Folsom development south of Highway 50. Only our initiative, the South of Highway 50 Sensible Growth Initiative, will fulfill that vision.



While we support the City’s recently announced intent to revise the General Plan, we wonder about their statement that they will “begin” a “Visioning process” for the land south of Highway 50. We would remind the City Council that our residents have already established the basis of that visioning. Several major polls, including one done by the City, show overwhelming support for changing City Hall’s long-standing philosophy of uncontrolled growth that leaves current residents subsidizing new development and degrades our quality of life. Further, over 75% do not support development of any kind south of Highway 50.



In the most recent poll, residents made clear their demand for a direct vote on any proposal to develop south of 50. Although the City’s proposed “visioning process” would give residents (or a small minority who are invited to, or have the time to, fully participate) a “say” in the future of the land south of 50, the process will eliminate any hope for real control by Folsom residents.



Past experience suggests that it will be participants designated by City Hall as “major stakeholders” who will influence the “visioning process.” Business owners, landowners and land speculators, developers, and others who profit from uncontrolled growth, but don’t live here, will all heavily influence the direction of the “vision.” It will end up being their vision, not yours. Leaving the land as currently zoned by the County as “Permanent Open Space not subject to change…” will not be an option. Ensuring that new schools, infrastructure and traffic measure are fully paid for up front will not be an option.



Please help us, your fellow Folsom residents, give ALL Folsom residents real control by getting this initiative on the November ballot. We kicked off our signature gathering effort this past Saturday in a big way with nearly 500 signatures gathered in just one day! Support is overwhelming, but we still have 4,000 signatures to go. We’ll be collecting signatures at Folsom grocery stores, primarily on the weekends from 9 to 6. We need voters registered in Folsom, or if you live in Folsom, we can register you on the spot.



The uncontrolled growth contingent in this City has been and will be using scare tactics, without a shred of evidence to support their claims, to persuade you not to act in your own best interest. Our initiative is so straightforward, we ask voters to “just read it for yourself.” Don’t let their unsupported claims muddle your common sense. Go to www.folsomgrowth.org to read the initiative and offer your support. This is YOUR initiative, it is the right given to you by our Constitution to balance the influence of outside lobbyists and other influences when it becomes obvious that the will of the people is not being represented.





Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth

Bob Fish

Valentina Doss

[dborgen]

I am a bit confused by the initiative and have a few questions...

It seems that if 1) I were a land developer (and I am not) and 2) I owned land south of the 50 and 3) this initiative passes...Wouldn't I seek annexation from Rancho Cordova or develop under the county of Sacramento?

Why would a developer seek to be annexed by Folsom if this initiative passes? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. If the initiative passes it seems like the city and its residents will have no influence, not greater influence on development on South of the 50.

If the area south of the 50 is never annexed, and is developed instead by Rancho Cordova or the county how does this initiative help? It seems to be well intentioned but I think I see the potential for unintended consequences.

Can someone clarify for me why a developer would want to be annexed by Folsom instead of Rancho Cordova if this initiative passes? I know you tried to explain it above, but to be honest it seems like you being overly optimistic in expecting Rancho Cordova or the county to keep their hands off the property. The land is not agricultural and so it has little or no value to the county as is, but imagine the tax revenue to the county if it is developed.

[EDF]

[QUOTE]Can someone clarify for me why a developer would want to be annexed by Folsom instead of Rancho Cordova if this initiative passes? I know you tried to explain it above, but to be honest it seems like you being overly optimistic in expecting Rancho Cordova or the county to keep their hands off the property. The land is not agricultural and so it has little or no value to the county as is, but imagine the tax revenue to the county if it is developed. [QUOTE]



To Dborgen...

come on are you kidding...? did you not read the above....?

The county can not develop it unless they run through some almost impossible "hoops"... they were all laid out by Val Dossjoyce above...did you even read it...?

Our group is not saying they can not develop...

All we want them to do is pay for it all and leave the 30% open space that has been promised... Then ON TOP OF THAT, we want the parks and recreation facilities in.... ahead of the houses.... or at least the same time as the houses get built...

Is there something wrong with that position....?

We the people want a vote on what their plan is. If its a good plan, then the voters will approve it... is something wrong with that...?

Lets have a debate... but please bring the facts with you because what you are talking about is not supported by the facts...

[Andy_Morin]

Since I was quoted in the Telegraph this morning I feel compelled to add a bit more personal commentary on this issue.

As I mentioned in the Telegraph article, approval of this initiative is a calculated risk because of its presumptuousness. As some here have tried to articulate, this property is not in the City of Folsom and other jurisdictions could come into play. What are the chances? I don’t know but I do know the chances are not zero. This is not screaming, fear mongering, pro-development scare tactics but a simple fact. I guess the obnoxious extension would be for us in Folsom to pass an initiative that would stipulate conditions of development on property between Elk Grove and Galt.

This initiative would set a predetermined tolerance level for a land owner to consider Folsom governance against the possibility of a different jurisdictional sponsor. I would be much more comfortable if the county, Rancho Cordova and Rancho Murieta were all putting the same language into their governing codes. They have not.

If the claims that other jurisdictions are not viable alternatives because of the insurmountable hurdles related to development behind the Urban Services Boundary, then no worry, Folsom will face the same obstacles.

Those who know me know that I am not a friend or enemy of developers but I am fiercely protective of Folsom and it’s future. I am simply as leery of outside developers as I am of the outside environmentalists who helped develop this initiative. I received equal amounts of campaign money from both, and that would be zero.

Here is my idea of an initiative proposal.

Any development application on property to be annexed into the city of Folsom must be approved by a vote of the people with the terms and conditions set forth in the Sphere of Influence Memorandum of Understanding between Sacramento County and the City of Folsom as minimum standards.

A link to the existing sphere of influence resolution and MOU…

www.saclafco.org/project-information/docs/lafco-1196-folsom.pdf

I know its simple but it assures a level playing field and throws real trust to voters. A bad plan gets the boot, a good one gets approved. Now other jurisdictions could still be factors but we would be a more flexible participant.

I have only one final point. Bob, Val, Ed, Sara and other proponents of this measure are Folsom residents I consider friends. We simply have a different view on the best and safest way to ensure unfettered self determination for Folsom. OK, Ed, Bob and Val you are now free to skewer me.

Thanks as always to all on this board who love to jabber.

[camay2327]

Andy, thanks for coming on the net and giving your views.

Cal