38 replies to this topic

[valdossjoyce]

The majority also realize that Folsom should control South of 50 and establish a well thought out plan on how it is developed.

I'm not so sure a majority of voters want Folsom to "control" it. Their reasoning is that they don't want to get stuck paying for the police, fire protection, schools, etc. which makes sense. I, personally, don't mind Folsom controlling it but would want any development to be done responsibly with a single coherent development plan that would have to approved by voters. I want voter approval because this is too big an issue for city council to decide alone, especially when they so often to developers.

If you're going to say now that Measure W will give Folsom control and ensure a well thought out plan for development--I'll have to disagree. Measure W has more holes in it than a slice of my favorite swiss cheese. It's title implies it will give Folsom control---NOT! (as my kids would say) LAFCO, as state-law entity, decides if, when and how annexation occurs. A landowner can apply to LAFCO for annexation to Folsom and Folsom has input but cannot delay it if landowner and LAFCO want to go forward.

And if you're still hearing the "if we don't develop it the county or Rancho Cordova will", then shame on anybody on city council who say it. They know bettter, and it's a lie. The county has no interest in and no intention whatsoever of developing that land in our SOI. Neither does Rancho. And our city officials know it. For one thing, state law only permits annexation of land which is contiguous to a city. Check out the planning maps at RC's website--neither their current city boundaries, nor their future "planning" boundaries touch the SOI.

If you want to get all the facts, and not just the fiction, on Measure W, come to the "debate" at City Hall on October 7th (I think it's 6:30 but not sure).

[Steve Heard]

Bob

1000 apologies for shooting from the hip. No, I wasn't at the candidate forum. I was reacting to an earlier statement you made here on the Forum.

Ed is correct. I do work for Bentley Mortgage (actually, an independent contractor), and do so proudly. It is a great company with an excellent reputation. I am glad they let me hang my hat there.

I met you at the Business of Reading over at Sprentz.

One of the things I like about the Mayor, is that he does not bring his politics into the office (he has a place for that at City Hall).

I know he is a Republican because I know he went to a conference of Republican Mayors. He's never discussed his views with me.

I did not vote for him last election, but knowing him as I do now, his dedication helping the community, his tireless voluteer efforts, his interest in giving kids a great start, I would vote for him today.

I, on the other hand, am a Moderate (some say Liberal) Democrat.

I don't always vote my party, and my comments have nothing to do with party or my job (winner, Best of Folsom 2004). I just let my fingers to the talking.

Good luck with the election. I don't know enough about how the city spends our money to know where there is waste, but am all for cutting overspending as long as we can maintain and improve services and amenities.

[billsfan]

I'm not so sure a majority of voters want Folsom to "control" it.  Their reasoning is that they don't want to get stuck paying for the police, fire protection, schools, etc. which makes sense.  I, personally, don't mind Folsom controlling it but would want any development to be done responsibly with a single coherent development plan that would have to approved by voters.  I want voter approval because this is too big an issue for city council to decide alone, especially when they so often  to developers.

If you want to get all the facts, and not just the fiction, on Measure W, come to the "debate" at City Hall on October 7th (I think it's 6:30 but not sure).

I'll try attending the debate. I entrust the council on this but if we are going to let the citizens vote then it should have been 2 simple measures - one Yes/No measure on whether to Annex the land, and another future Yes/No measure when the council provides a general plan. Instead I believe you supported measure T which went beyond letting the citizens decide and included unreasonable requirements, rather than letting the citizens decide. You can't have it both ways...

[kanda]

Karnis - I don't think privatization or outsourcing everything is the answer. We lose control, quality, and it will be hard to change back if it fails.

I don't think Karnis is advocating privatizing or outsourcing everything. I think he's advocating allowing our solid waste service to be outsourced.

Everything I've learned about our current trash service versus that which is provided to our neighboring communities tells me we have already lost control. We are getting inferior service at inflated prices, with no recourse available. Opening it up to competitive bidding seems to me to be the only way to ensure that we get the best service at the best price.

[Robert Giacometti]

Steve,

Thanks for the public apology. I know during the political season, we all ( myself inculded) sometimes rush to make statements for or against candidates where we allow our passions to exceed our better judgement.

I do remember meeting you at Blanche Sprentz that day and I was pleased to see your article on Cory Fondersmith. I do enjoy reading your posts here and although I don't agree with some of your perspectives, I think you do contribute well to the forum!

It is admirable that you are proud of where you work and speak highly of Mr Miklos's contribuitions back to the community. Although I don't always agree with the Mayor's policies, I do appreaciate his willingness to do this thankless job. You see first hand the amount of time required that he donates in performing this role.

It was interesting to hear you say that you work at Bentley Mortgage as a private contractor. Are you aware that Mr Miklos hosted a "kickoff" event for Mr King and Mr Gordon? The reason why I asked is that in your previous post you only cast negative aspirsions on 3 candidates, Mr Udell. Mr Karnis and myself. It seemed to me to be very calculated and focused.

How do you explain your criticism of Mr Karnis's plan to explore contracting out for services when you are participating in this yourself?

You questioned Mr Udell's opposition to the Library site and then indicated that the new Library would be a better memeorial to Mr Farley and the Veterans. Why is it that those who have not served our country are able to tell those who did, what is the best way to honor them? I guess if I was on the council, I would ask the veterans what they want, rather than telling them. I think they earned it!

I do agree with you that we should be judging candidates on their character and substance. We both know words are cheap, but it is our actions( what we have done in our community) that back up our words.

Again, thanks for the apology and feel free to challenge my thoughts!

Robert Giacometti
Candidate for City Council

[Bob]

Billsfan,

Your understanding of the Residents Initiative, Measure 'T' seems to be based on City Hall misinformation. We have repeatedly provided the facts on this Forum and will continue to do so. You may never be convinced that the ONLY way to ensure we (the residents) control the land south of 50 is to have a direct vote, that is fine, but for the hundreds of other readers, I will continue to make sure that some on this Forum do not distort our efforts unopposed.

First, we CANNOT vote on annexation.

This "power" is reserved for the State and only LAFCO (not us residents, not our City Hall, Not the County, not the developers) has the authority to decide on annexations.

This is one of the reasons we have opposed the City Hall Measure "W"iggle room. It implies that certain things will happen before annexation occurs. They CANNOT promise this! If the landowners decide to ignore the measure if it passes, they can request that LAFCO annex their land to Folsom WITHOUT City Hall's concurrence.

Gee, what is the chance of a land speculator ignoring the "will" of the people and acting in his own self-interest? One need look no further than the self-serving, unethical attack by developer lackeys like Holderness, Kemp, Gauchi, Pauly and Grey on the Residents Initiative that was signed by over 4,500 Folsom voters.

Second, we did the next best thing (the best alternative available), we required that the land must be initially prezoned and then annexed as it is currently zoned by the County, "Agriculture". Voters would then have the right to vote on weather the land should be rezoned AFTER LAFCO grants us annexation.

Why? LAFCO requires that the land be pre-zoned before granting annexation. That is, they want to know what the initial intent of the City is. If we allow the City to pre-zone, it will be on THEIR terms not ours, the residents. It will be based on what the developers want. Once annexation is final, the prezoning becomes the new zoning. Therefore, the "local" control the City promises in THEIR Measure "W" is an illusion.

As far as the other two elements of the Residents Initiative that protect us from being forced to accept even traffic congestion on Hwy 50 and protect our water (all of it as opposed to the BS convoluted language in the City Hall initiative that does NOT protect ALL of it), do you really have a problem with these?

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth

[swede]

I don't think Karnis is advocating privatizing or outsourcing everything.  I think he's advocating allowing our solid waste service to be outsourced.

Everything I've learned about our current trash service versus that which is provided to our neighboring communities tells me we have already lost control.  We are getting inferior service at inflated prices, with no recourse available.  Opening it up to competitive bidding seems to me to be the only way to ensure that we get the best service at the best price.

what services are inferior be specific and how? how are prices inflated be specific?

[billsfan]

Bob - your are correct, I do not understand the technical details of annexation and zoning.

From other exchanges on this forum, you know why I oppose Measure T. I believe the other elements that required 50 widening and 50% open space should not have been included in your initiative. I can see scenarious that don't require those elements. But, it's not whether I believe them or not, it is that you should have sticked to the main message of letting the voters decide. It is hypocritical to say that the council shouldn't not be making important choices, but you believed that these were so necessary to be included in the initiative. I believe if you had simplified the Measure T initiative, you may have more widespread support (from even some members of the council), and maybe not had the lawsuit to get it removed from the ballot.

I do understand the time and effort that the group put into this initiative, and am by no means trying to disparage that effort. I just think this could have been written in a simpler way that would have accomplished the main goal of given the citizens a vote on the general plan of the South of 50 development.

[kanda]

what services are inferior be specific and how? how are prices inflated be specific?

Swede, we've been through this discussion before:
http://www.tomatopag...owtopic=278&hl=

I don't think you learned anything back then, so I see no reason to continue further discussion with you on this subject now.

However, if anyone else is interested, here's a bit of the history of the situation, beginning with the earliest post (Jan 2003) when our garbage rates were initially raised:
http://www.tomatopag...howtopic=115&b=
http://www.tomatopag...howtopic=209&b=
(and the thread referenced above)

Note that due to the efforts of Jim Karnis and others, the initial rate schedule introduced in January 2003 was reduced somewhat. As these threads show, we are still paying considerably more than neighboring communities, and getting less. About one year from now, some in Folsom will finally have recycling options, though the exact details (including pricing, and rollout) are still not known. As far as I'm concerned, the city has proven over the last 2 years that it cannot provide us with a comparably priced, comparably optioned solid waste service. It will only get worse, believe me.

[Steve Heard]

Bob

Thanks for your reply and for your comments on the article I wrote. In fact, I couldn't have done it without you. I didn't catch Sue's last name at the time, and you were the one who gave it to me, enabling me to find her. You're not likely to confuse me with a pro, but for anyone who hasn't seen the article:

http://www.myfolsom....4-marines.shtml

As for the political stuff, No, I was not aware that the mayor hosted a kickoff event for Mr King and Mr Gordon. I wasn't invited.

You stated, "... you only cast negative aspirsions on 3 candidates, Mr Udell. Mr Karnis and myself. It seemed to me to be very calculated and focused", well, I beg to differ.

Let me clarify each comment, starting with my comment about you. I simply remarked that without details, a promise to cut $1million from the budget is a hollow one. You corrected me that since making that stateement here on the forum, that you did provide details at the candidate forum, which I missed due to work obligations.

On Mr. Karnis, I stated that I don't think privatization or outsourcing everything is the answer, because of the loss of control, quality, and the difficulty in bringing services back under government control if it fails.

I stand by that comment. I believe that a government agency's goal is to provide the services it was created for, while a private company's goal is to make a profit. If we outsource or privatize government services, I am afraid they may suffer. Take for example, the postal service. Many criticize it as being inefficient, and want it outsourced. If I want to send a letter via the postal service , it's what, 40 cents? If I want to send it via Fedex, UPS, or DHL, all private companies, I it costs $10 or more.

People want to outsource or privatize our school system, our prisons, even our roads. I just don't see it as an advantage.

If we outsource waste collection, somebody is going to make a lot of money, somebody, or a lot of somebody's will lose jobs and/or benefits, and we may lose the quality of service. Then, what do we do? Do we constantly find ourselves spending time and money writing RFP's, collecting bids, analyzing them, putting them to vote, and doing it allover again when the new company fails to provide the services promised at the contracted price? Or, do we go out and buy new trucks and create the department again? I don't want to go down that road.

On Mr. Udell, read again. My comments were not negative in any way. In fact, they were in SUPPORT of him! He is NOT opposed to the library site. Waterbaby, an opponent of the library location, said that Mr. Udell was impressive, but "he is for the library going in the park - hard to believe for someone who is a veteran"

I defended that veteran by saying, "There are many vets who are in favor of the library in the park, particularly because there will be a much more fitting tribute to Mr. Farley than the current, obscure one"

I don't know if Waterbaby is a veteran or not, but Mr. Udell is, and he is in favor of the selected location. I don't care where they put it, but agree with the veterans, including the Farley family, who have no issues with it, and who would welcome a more fitting, visible and acknowledged tribute.

You asked, "How do you explain your criticism of Mr Karnis's plan to explore contracting out for services when you are participating in this yourself?"

As much as I'd like to think myself important to the world, it is not in my capacity as a mortgage consultant or real estate agent. It is the nature of our business that we work for commission only. It's an 'eat what you kill' business. When business is slow, I'd much rather a salary, but that's not the reality of the biz. Real estate and mortgage services are not essential on a daily or weekly basis to the average person, but garbage collection is.

As for Mr. Gordon, I only know him from his efforts to teach my daughter proper english. I did not comment on whether, as accused by other forum members, he was a 'puppy' or 'lap dog' for others. I just thought it wrong to judge him based on his wearing of a nice suit.

I hope that sets the record straight.

[kanda]

Wow, someone who really, truly believes that government does things more efficiently than private enterprise. I'd heard that folks such as yourself exist, but until now, I don't think I've ever met one.

The really funny thing (to me, anyway) is that Folsom has absolutely proven you wrong. We are grossly overpaying for trash collection, and at the same time not coming close to meeting the state's 50% diversion requirement.

I suppose there's no price level at which you'd agree we're being ripped off. $30/mo? $35/mo? $40/mo? It won't surprise me to see us paying north of $30 within a year or two. There's a lot more fun to come, just wait and see.

[tessieca]

Watched the forum on Sunday. Mr. Carter's response to why the light rail is good: it'll bring customers to my real estate business?? Sometimes the one-liners just stand out, but that didn't sound like someone looking out for Folsom's best interests.

[Steve Heard]

Wow, someone who really, truly believes that government does things more efficiently than private enterprise.  I'd heard that folks such as yourself exist, but until now, I don't think I've ever met one.

The really funny thing (to me, anyway) is that Folsom has absolutely proven you wrong.  We are grossly overpaying for trash collection, and at the same time not coming close to meeting the state's 50% diversion requirement.

I suppose there's no price level at which you'd agree we're being ripped off.  $30/mo?  $35/mo?  $40/mo?  It won't surprise me to see us paying north of $30  within a year or two.  There's a lot more fun to come, just wait and see.

Kanda

Yes, we are out here!

Private companies are motivated only by profit. Nothing wrong with that, but I do think government services should remain government services.

Maybe next we privatize police? Fire? Maybe our own private army?

[Robert Giacometti]

Steve,

Again, thanks for your comments.

I sense we have fundamentally different philosphies regarding government. I support smaller government that provides basic services to its citizens. This allows the citizens to retain more of their money and pay less in taxes. I believe individuals do a better job of making decisions with their money, rather than government. Therefore I am committed to reducing the cost of government in every way we can, as long as the quality of the services being provided is comparable.

Since there has never been a study of contracting out for garbage services, no one can make an informed decision on whether it is cost effective or not. In January of 2003, I made this suggestion to the council to do this so we could have all the facts to make a more informed decision prior to significantly raising our garbage rates. The council voted 3 to 1 to raise our garbage rates without this study ( Mr King voted against the rate increase without the study and Mr Miklos was out of town).

Many communities have private contractors that pick up garbage and are happy with their services. The competition of other private companies is what keeps the rates lower and service levels up, if not they will loose their jobs to another company!

Like you, I don't know if it would be cost effective to contract out for garbage pick up or not, because it has NEVER been studied.

How can you make an informed decision with out the facts?

Robert Giacometti
Candidate for City Council

[Steve Heard]

Bob

I, too, support smaller government that provides basic services to its citizens. Our difference may be in which services we consider to be basic, and how far we'll go with it.

While outsourcing may allow citizens to pay less in taxes, it is of no benefit if the money we put back into our pockets is then taken out by the outsource company.

I also fear that if we save a couple of bucks a month, it may be at the expense of quality, jobs, service, and the environment.

Government agencies tend to act and perform according to rules and regulations. Private companies do whatever they can to make a profit.

If that means cutting benefits, hiring people who will work for less, using outdated, noisy equipment in ill repair, cutting routes, discontinuing services, improper collection and disposal of waste, and annual rate increases, we don't win at all.

Just doing some rough figuring, if we can save $4 per household per month, and the average household has 3 people, that's a savings of $16 a year, per person. I have no idea if that is accurate or not.

Although I'd like to save $16 a year on anything, I don't want to find myself having to pay that back if I have too much trash in one week, or if I need to throw out a bunch of yard waste.

I don't know if that will happen. I may just be seeing boogey men around every corner. I am just afraid of going down that road, 'cause there'll be no turning back.