32 replies to this topic

[bordercolliefan]

Please forgive me if I'm missing the point here, but what's the big deal about more housing in Folsom? It's obviously a desireable place to live (which is why my wife and I moved here). Why shouldn't more homes be made available to others?

So... you are happy with the level of traffic congestion here?? In fact, you would like MORE congestion?? And you are happy with having 32 kids in your child's kindergarten class -- though a comparable school in Maine [which I am familiar with] has 11 kids in the class?

I think it is naive to think we can add 20,000 or more new residents (which I believe is the plan for build-out) on tiny, cramped lots tucked in areas that are already fully developed (such as the central district) and still have Folsom as an enjoyable place to live.

It is true there are "groups" that want population growth confined to areas that are already highly developed, so that other areas (like Cameron Park, Granite Bay, and beyond) can remain relatively less developed. But these people don't give a hoot about our quality of life as residents -- they are willing to sacrifice Folsom for the good of other parts of the region. I believe the premise that we "must" accept more population growth is simply wrong. Why do we have to? Folsom is developed enough as it is, and we should be striving to keep in basically the way it is. We don't need to bow to the pressure of the SACOG types who really do not have Folsom's best interests in mind.

[nhardy]

So... you are happy with the level of traffic congestion here??  In fact, you would like MORE congestion??  And you are happy with having 32 kids in your child's kindergarten class -- though a comparable school in Maine [which I am familiar with] has 11 kids in the class? 

I think it is naive to think we can add 20,000 or more new residents (which I believe is the plan for build-out) on tiny, cramped lots tucked in areas that are already fully developed (such as the central district) and still have Folsom as an enjoyable place to live.

It is true there are "groups" that want population growth confined to areas that are already highly developed, so that other areas (like Cameron Park, Granite Bay, and beyond) can remain relatively less developed.  But these people don't give a hoot about our quality of life as residents -- they are willing to sacrifice Folsom for the good of other parts of the region.  I believe the premise that we "must" accept more population growth is simply wrong.  Why do we have to?  Folsom is developed enough as it is, and we should be striving to keep in basically the way it is.  We don't need to bow to the pressure of the SACOG types who really do not have Folsom's best interests in mind.

Well, my kindergarten class had roughly 30 kids in it. And I happen to live in the Central District on one of those "tiny, cramped lots tucked in areas that are already fully developed" and I DO find Folsom as a VERY enjoyable place to live. Are you suggesting that neighborhoods like the one that I live in bring down the quality of life here in Folsom?

As far as the traffic goes, although it can be busy at times, it's the least thing on my mind to stew about (especially coming from the Bay Area).

So in your opinion Folsom has reached it's capacity. All others who dare to live here should be turned away?

[bordercolliefan]

My point is not that there should be NO housing on tiny lots. Obviously there are some people for whom such a lot size is ideal -- such as people who do not have pets or elderly people who do not wish to maintain a large yard. I have no problem with having a sprinkling of small houses, townhouses and apartments to accomodate the lifestyles of a diverse population.

But you seem to take the view that we have some obligation to endlessly accomodate additional people who may want to live in Folsom. We have no such obligation. In fact, I think it is an absurd hypothesis: that we must continually tolerate reductions in our standard of living, and increases in congestion, to accomodate people who would "like" to live here. It is our perogative to define when Folsom is at its population limit. Given the crowding on roads and in schools, I believe we are already at or near our limit. Accordingly, the City Council should not be approving these maximum-density developments that will inevitably bring much more congestion and crowding to our little town.

I find it ironic that people in the Central District are pretty quiet about these extremely high-density housing projects -- when all we've heard for the past year is how there is already WAY too much traffic on Sibley St. and Lembi (leading to the part-time closure of Sibley, as you may recall). People, if you think there's already too much traffic on your streets, then don't sit idly by while the City Council invites hundreds more people to move into your neighborhood!

[banana]

How many units will the new mall condo have? It's all about the money.

[New Girl]

If people live closer to the amenities it means their traveling distance is less. There is also the option of walking. Folsom's general plan with the buildout at approx 70,000 was approved way back, I think in the 80's. If you feel this is inappropriate for you by all means move but do not complain because the plan is not changed for your convenience. I have great sympathy for long term residents of Folsom but for those who arrived in the last 10 years - you should have done your homework before coming.

[bordercolliefan]

Sometimes the wisest thing to do is to admit a mistake.

Granted, the build-out plan has been around for some years. I'm sure it was originally approved with the best of intentions.

But the fact is, at the present time -- 20,000 people short of build-out -- we are already seeing our city streets congested beyond tolerable levels (just ask the Sibley St. folks), Highway 50 on the way to becoming a parking lot between EDH and Sunrise, kids assigned to distant elementary schools because there is no room at their neighborhood school, etc. etc. etc.

I think it's time for our City Council to say, "Gee, we thought everything would go smoothly with a population of 70,000+. But now we see that the reality is, we can't comfortably accomodate that many people on our roads, in our shopping centers, and in our schools. Let's enjoy Folsom the way it is instead of pursuing a plan that serves no one but the developers..."

Let's not be lemmings and put up with something just because it's "the plan." This isn't the Soviet Union!

[nhardy]

Sometimes the wisest thing to do is to admit a mistake. 

Granted, the build-out plan has been around for some years.  I'm sure it was originally approved with the best of intentions. 

But the fact is, at the present time -- 20,000 people short of build-out -- we are already seeing our city streets congested beyond tolerable levels (just ask the Sibley St. folks), Highway 50 on the way to becoming a parking lot between EDH and Sunrise, kids assigned to distant elementary schools because there is no room at their neighborhood school, etc. etc. etc. 

I think it's time for our City Council to say, "Gee, we thought everything would go smoothly with a population of 70,000+.  But now we see that the reality is, we can't comfortably accomodate that many people on our roads, in our shopping centers, and in our schools.  Let's enjoy Folsom the way it is instead of pursuing a plan that serves no one but the developers..." 

Let's not be lemmings and put up with something just because it's "the plan."  This isn't the Soviet Union!

I think it's called Russia now

Any way, cities are usually meant to prosper and that's what Folsom is doing. I have no problem with new housing coming to our fine city. I can also assume that you aren't complaining about the equity that has built up with your home.

[bordercolliefan]

I think it's called Russia now 

Any way, cities are usually meant to prosper and that's what Folsom is doing. I have no problem with new housing coming to our fine city. I can also assume that you aren't complaining about the equity that has built up with your home.

My reference was to the former Soviet Union, when everything was according to the "Five Year Plan," the "Ten Year Plan," etc. Russia is much more capitalistic now. Sorry if this reference was too subtle.

And you're right, I'm not complaining about the equity in my home. I do fear it will decline, though, if Folsom's quality of life declines due to over-crowding. Property values are usually highest in nice, spacious suburbs -- not in congested urbanized areas.

[Terry]

 

And you're right, I'm not complaining about the equity in my home.  I do fear it will decline, though, if Folsom's quality of life declines due to over-crowding.  Property values are usually highest in nice, spacious suburbs -- not in congested urbanized areas.

Let me make a prediction here. When Folsom is built out, the only way for people to move to Folsom will be to buy from existing housing stock. Thus, home values in Folsom (and their corresponding equities) will continue to rise.

And "overcrowding" is relative. Even with the small lots of some of the newer developments, Folsom still generally offers spacious homes and properties for which people will be willing to pay a premium.

Folsom has too much to offer on the good side, that's why people tolerate the traffic and such. Once they get through the traffic, they can enjoy their beautiful homes and all the amenities the community has to offer. Seems it's a small price to pay to live here, and we all continue to do it. There are still more people moving into Folsom than moving out.

And I'm predicting that values for Folsom properties will get even higher when Folsom is built out.

[New Girl]

[Border quote:

And you're right, I'm not complaining about the equity in my home. I do fear it will decline, though, if Folsom's quality of life declines due to over-crowding. Property values are usually highest in nice, spacious suburbs -- not in congested urbanized areas.

[/quote]


"spacious suburbs" - this is where I think we really disagree. I consider Folsom to be a City in it's own right. I live and work here. I shop here, I go to the movies, restaurants, concerts, play at the lake and visit the zoo in Folsom. People from other areas come to Folsom to use our amenities and for employment. We are not the suburbs - we are a hub, a self contained City.

Any City has higher density housing at it's heart. It is usually highly desirable housing despite it's small lot due to the convenient location. The Enclave has had tremendous sales. The Preserve (which was considered cheap housing when it was built) is highly sort after.

I chose to live in a City - not a sprawling suburb.

[bordercolliefan]

Terry and New Girl raise some interesting issues.

Terry, you are correct that overcrowding is relative. Certainly no one would mistake Folsom for Manhattan -- but no one would mistake it for Granite Bay or Woodside or Cape Cod either. In my mind, the question is, what type of community do most people in Folsom want?? Maybe New Girl is right, that most people moved here to live in a "city" atmosphere. (I doubt it.)

Regarding the city/suburb issue, while there is employment as well as shopping and entertainment in Folsom (as there is in most suburbs), a substantial portion of the population commutes to (or toward) Sacramento. I would be curious to know whether most Folsom residents work in Folsom, or commute elsewhere. I would guess the latter. Anyone know??

[anonymous]

Certainly no one would mistake Folsom for Manhattan -- but no one would mistake it for Granite Bay or Woodside or Cape Cod either.  In my mind, the question is, what type of community do most people in Folsom want??  Maybe New Girl is right, that most people moved here to live in a "city" atmosphere.  (I doubt it.)

When we moved here 12+ years ago, we were expecting (hoping?) Folsom to develop along the lines of a Palo Alto with a buildout between 60,000 and 70,000 people. With the reduced lot sizes of recent developments and the impending South of 50 development, this is no longer possible. Development in the next few years will take us over 100,000 with probable build-out population much higher. Some people may like this, we do not. I will be interviewing for jobs in other parts of the State the next few months where growth patterns are more favorable to our lifestyle.

[bordercolliefan]

When we moved here 12+ years ago, we were expecting (hoping?) Folsom to develop along the lines of a Palo Alto with a buildout between 60,000 and 70,000 people.  With the reduced lot sizes of recent developments and the impending South of 50 development, this is no longer possible.  Development in the next few years will take us over 100,000 with probable build-out population much higher.  Some people may like this, we do not.  I will be interviewing for jobs in other parts of the State the next few months where growth patterns are more favorable to our lifestyle.

I agree with you, and I believe that your view reflects that of most Folsom residents.

I can't even imagine what the traffic in Folsom will be like at 70,000 residents -- let alone 100,000. I fear we are heading down a path we will all live to regret... and by the time we all realize it (while we are stuck in gridlocked traffic, breathing brown air), it will be too late to do anything about it.

[nhardy]

I agree with you, and I believe that your view reflects that of most Folsom residents. 

I can't even imagine what the traffic in Folsom will be like at 70,000 residents -- let alone 100,000.  I fear we are heading down a path we will all live to regret... and by the time we all realize it (while we are stuck in gridlocked traffic, breathing brown air), it will be too late to do anything about it.

And don't forget the sky will fall as well...

[bordercolliefan]

And don't forget the sky will fall as well...

I don't understand that point of view. I'm not claiming that Folsom's over-development is the most horrible thing that could ever happen -- obviously we still won't be living in Mexico City-- but it seems clear to me that it will make Folsom a significantly less pleasant, rather than more pleasant, place to live.

Are you really contending that you'll like Folsom better when it has 20,000+ more residents, and south-of-50 is built out with housing on postage-stamp lots, shopping centers, and industry??

Or do you admit that life in Folsom won't be as nice then as it is now?