32 replies to this topic

[BodenMaddox]

QUOTE (john @ May 23 2004, 06:23 PM)

How many of you can reasonably walk to any destination from your house? To a park? Yep, Caitlin Park's got an entrance on my street. School? Folsom High and Gallardo Elementary Restaurant? Baja Fresh, some sushi place, Togos, etc Convenience store? Video rental store? Safeway's close enough.

"Reasonable" is gonna vary for each person. I live at the far end of Empire Ranch. I can reasonably walk to a park or two and can walk to the local elementary school, yes, but I cannot reasonably walk (for me at least) to any store or restaurant at all.

[john]

I guess my point was that you can't just say that it won't be planned correctly and then not offer a solution.

The way I look at it... it's going to be developed. Don't waste your breath by trying to stop development. I don't think the land owners own that land so they can sit around and sip lemonade on it.

If you don't think it will be planned correctly by the city of Folsom or county of Sacramento, then what is your alternative? (I'm not speaking directly to you Boden or tony, it's just a question to everyone)

... but ahhhh! I am off topic. Answer that if you dare on the Hwy 50 development thread!

[BodenMaddox]

I'm all in favor of the development and growth. I think it's been done reasonably well in Folsom. I was just responding to your question about walking distances. :-)

[tony]

Boden: the definition of "reasonable" distance is easily answered with the second part of the question. Do you (or any of your neighbors) walk to these places? And, IMHO, if it were well-planned, it would be a reasonable walk to all of those places, not just one or two of them. In places that it is, you find far less traffic, and end up with healthier people, to boot.

As for the developers owning the land. Just because they own it does not give them a right to develop it. It is all zoned agricultural preserve at this time and is outside teh conty urban services boundry. If they want to run cattle on it, more power to them. If it doesn't get re-zoned to commercial or residential, then they lost the gamble, just like Mr. Meyers did.

[BodenMaddox]

I believe it's a real sad state of affairs we've come to if owning land doesn't mean you can do what you want with it, so long as it doesn't hurt others as a result. If you want to build a shopping mall on your property, then you should be able to.

[bishmasterb]

QUOTE (BodenMaddox @ May 24 2004, 11:23 AM)

I believe it's a real sad state of affairs we've come to if owning land doesn't mean you can do what you want with it, so long as it doesn't hurt others as a result. If you want to build a shopping mall on your property, then you should be able to.

You're absolutely right. Land ownership is one of the fundamental rights we have as Americans. Yet there are so many regulations and agencies inhibiting our rights to use and develop our own land.

No developer in their right mind would build a mall where people wouldn't want to use it. The very fact that people would use a mall, means that it is meeting a need of the community.

Zoning laws may have intended to protect the interests of the average citizen, but in reality, like much of government, they are used to give favors to special interests and those who can influence the politicians. And that will never be you or I.

As far as a tunnel is concerned. If it's a good idea, then let private industry buy the "underground property" and make the idea work on it's own merits. Don't let government get involved. You won't get what you think you will.

[tony]

Sorry, Boden, but your about 150 years too late to be complaining that there should be no restrictions on land development. That's what zoning is all about - not having somebody decide to put up a shopping mall or a steel mill right behind your secluded hunting cabin or suburban house. Try thinking in the long term. That land will be there long after you are dead and gone; you are really only a renter. Government regulation of land use is, among other things, a way of ensuring that the irreplacable qualities of land are not thrown away for a quick buck and that your use of your land does not infringe on somebody else's use of theirs.

[tony]

QUOTE (bishmasterb @ May 24 2004, 12:36 PM)

The very fact that people would use a mall, means that it is meeting a need of the community.

Well, not necessarily. In fact, most new malls and large shopping centers succeed at the expense of existing ones, drawing business away from them and from smaller businesses. Look at Costco (or was it Sam's?). They openend a big new store in Folsom and closed one in Rancho Cordova. How was this good for people living in Rancho?

[bishmasterb]

QUOTE (tony @ May 24 2004, 12:44 PM)

QUOTE (bishmasterb @ May 24 2004, 12:36 PM) The very fact that people would use a mall, means that it is meeting a need of the community. Well, not necessarily. In fact, most new malls and large shopping centers succeed at the expense of existing ones, drawing business away from them and from smaller businesses. Look at Costco (or was it Sam's?). They openend a big new store in Folsom and closed one in Rancho Cordova. How was this good for people living in Rancho?

Exactly! Which means that a greater number of customers would rather shop at a large mall than a small store, if your example is correct. If it is not correct, then the mall goes out of business and the small stores thrive. Either way, the market decides what it wants.

As far as Rancho goes, if Costco has left a vaccuum in the market, trust me, another vendor will take advantage of it.

[Orangetj]

QUOTE (tony @ May 24 2004, 08:54 AM)

And, IMHO, if it were well-planned, it would be a reasonable walk to all of those places, not just one or two of them. In places that it is, you find far less traffic, and end up with healthier people, to boot.

I generally agree with what you're saying, Tony, but it doesn't always work out this way. In the case of Folsom, those neighborhoods that ARE within reasonable walking distances to shopping, eating, recreation, etc. are hit with the traffic from those that are not. For instance, I live in the Royal Oaks neighborhood, which is a location we chose at least partially because of it's walking-distance proximity to stores, old Folsom, restaurants, and parks. Unfortunately, it seems that much of the rest of Folsom's population drives through our neighborhood en route to these same destinations.

Sorry to stray off topic....

[BodenMaddox]

QUOTE (tony @ May 24 2004, 11:38 AM)

Sorry, Boden, but your about 150 years too late to be complaining that there should be no restrictions on land development.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that once a law was passed everyone has to shut up and just accept it.

[bishmasterb]

QUOTE (BodenMaddox @ May 24 2004, 02:40 PM)

QUOTE (tony @ May 24 2004, 11:38 AM) Sorry, Boden, but your about 150 years too late to be complaining that there should be no restrictions on land development. I'm sorry. I didn't know that once a law was passed everyone has to shut up and just accept it.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " - First Amendment

Hmm, it would seem that's what our founding fathers intended.

[tony]

Complain all you want; petition if you feel the need. But the value of reasonable zoning laws is well-established and has been continually upheld by the courts. I would, however, be glad to agree with you that zoning can get out of hand, which was really where I starrted in this thread. Zoning that completely separates commercial from office from entertainment from residential creates lots of traffic by forcing almost every trip to be done by car.

[tony]

Orangetj: Where is Royal Oaks? You're right. Walkable neighborhoods surrounded by sprawl have great potential to get overrun (the Historic District, for example, is an isalnd in a sea of suburbia). But there's also a point of compromise: desirable places to live also tend to be desirable places to visit, and therefore end up with more traffic than your average cul-de-sac. Frequently they have parking issues as well. As I frequently say, show me a town with no traffic or parking problems and I'll show you a town no-one wants live in or visit. In the best towns, the traffic is not a major concern of those who can get about by walking. That's where Folsom falls short.

[Orangetj]

QUOTE (tony @ May 24 2004, 03:18 PM)

Orangetj: Where is Royal Oaks? .

....Well, I think that's what it's called! Basically, I live in the neighborhood bordered by Lembi, Sibley, Glenn and Riley. It's kind of an "infill" neighborhood rather than a "sprawl" neighborhood, although I'm sure it's had its own impact on the traffic in Folsom.