76 replies to this topic

[Chad Vander Veen]

Now, see. here I disagree. I prefer to see sprawl than high density downtown big city life.
I think skyscrapers are an ugly eyesore on the horizon. I also think high density vertical big city life brings more crime, more blight, and way too much liberalism mentality.

There are a number of condo towers in Irvine and Orange County and that area remains one of the most desirable places to live in the country.

[harrmill]

If development there happens I do not want to see more suburban sprawl. I'd much rather development be built up rather than out - skyscrapers instead of landscrapers. Building up instead of out would preserve open spaces and minimize new traffic. Any development south of 50 should be walkable. There's no reason that suburban areas have to include lateral sprawl.

One reason I can think of is that is what most people want. At least most who already live out this way. High density is usually in response to a lack of real estate to spread-out - not much else. If high density is created artificially, it usually does not work very well - like that development on Zinfandel south of 50 (Capitol Center?).

I am surprised no one has mentioned the freight planes landing at Mather, nor Aerojet right next door to this land. They still test rockets out there, yes? Will either of these present conflicts? Are there mitigation plans for these for people who will eventually live out there? What about water? Public services and saftey?

Philosophically, I never understood why we feel the need to annex and develop land that is largely untouched - why is GROWTH alwys needed? As pointed out, there are more than a few empty store fronts throughout town today, and it may take years to get them occupied again, if ever. What will the glut of retail and office space do to existing? I am not against growth, but is this kind really needed? I could see the need if we were burgoning or up to the rafters with people and businesses.

Besides, would limiting growth in Folsom maintain our relatively high standards of living and desireability? Just askin.

[Inwit]

There are a number of condo towers in Irvine and Orange County and that area remains one of the most desirable places to live in the country.

Desireable for you maybe, not desireable for me.

There are folks that think the "Big Apple" is the place to be, I'm glad knowing it's almost 3000 miles away.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Desireable for you maybe, not desireable for me.

There are folks that think the "Big Apple" is the place to be, I'm glad knowing it's almost 3000 miles away.

Is there really no middle ground between suburb and giant metropolis for you?

[Robert Giacometti]

Philosophically, I never understood why we feel the need to annex and develop land that is largely untouched - why is GROWTH alwys needed? As pointed out, there are more than a few empty store fronts throughout town today, and it may take years to get them occupied again, if ever. What will the glut of retail and office space do to existing? I am not against growth, but is this kind really needed? I could see the need if we were burgoning or up to the rafters with people and businesses.

Besides, would limiting growth in Folsom maintain our relatively high standards of living and desireability? Just askin.

There isn't any real need to do this. There is plenty of existing land within the USB of SAC COUNTY to handle the growth for the next 20 plus years.

Its the land investors wanting to cash in who are pushing this, along with Staff and Council Members who are supported by the land investors.

The citizens who are asking any meangful questions don't have a chance of stopping this freigh train!

[old soldier]

I agree with both comments.

I also agree with the city council's viewpoint, that if Folsom doesn't expand there, Rancho or Sac County would instead, so we might as well have the say as to how it goes instead of others.

I might not like it, but I believe it is inevitable.

the logic of your argument can be backed up with an even better reasoned idea.. with the area south of 50 part of folsom in case there is an invasion by illegal alians the boys and girls of the Folsom PD will be better able to defend and if they do a good job the invaders may not pilage what we now call old folsom.

[Redone]

If development there happens I do not want to see more suburban sprawl. I'd much rather development be built up rather than out - skyscrapers instead of landscrapers. Building up instead of out would preserve open spaces and minimize new traffic. Any development south of 50 should be walkable. There's no reason that suburban areas have to include lateral sprawl.

What would be bad about 1/2 acre lot minimum over there ? Many people think that IS open space vs 3 foot setbacks of other Sac communities.

Just throwing out for discussion since the plan is actually pretty dense and includes a Light Rails stop in the second city.

[camay2327]

We were at the open house tonight and ask, and did not see, anything about a light rail station on the map for South of 50. If they have one it will be a long time off.

They are going to have OAK Ave going over to South of 50 and have an off / on ramp there. There will be one or two other over crossing over 50 but not off/on ramps.

[JoAnne Reinking]

Until I started reading this thread....I was all for the So. of 50 plan.. Imagined buying a single story house to retire in. Now , I'm feeling a need to step back, learn more and consider the whole picture. But, is it too late?


The first city that I think of regarding controlled housing/growth is Davis~ are we a Davis? Admittedly , I don't know that much about Davis or for that matter Folsom( prior to 1998) Are we compromising our quality of life? I've often thought as we've traveled to Roseville/Rocklin that I don't want to turn into those cities.

[DustyDog]

I dont want us to turn into a community of strip malls and thats what I think we are heading toward. More people means more coffee shops, quaint little restaurants, chain pharmacies, Big Box stores, we are slowly losing our identity. How many Starbucks, Walmarts, In an Outs,
and Walgreens and other $8/hr jobs.

I vote we annex the area but not develop it. I sorta like it as it is. We certainly dont need the space.

[Chad Vander Veen]

put an arena there. An arena for the Kings.

[camay2327]

One reason I can think of is that is what most people want. At least most who already live out this way. High density is usually in response to a lack of real estate to spread-out - not much else. If high density is created artificially, it usually does not work very well - like that development on Zinfandel south of 50 (Capitol Center?).

I am surprised no one has mentioned the freight planes landing at Mather, nor Aerojet right next door to this land. They still test rockets out there, yes? Will either of these present conflicts? Are there mitigation plans for these for people who will eventually live out there? What about water? Public services and saftey?

Philosophically, I never understood why we feel the need to annex and develop land that is largely untouched - why is GROWTH alwys needed? As pointed out, there are more than a few empty store fronts throughout town today, and it may take years to get them occupied again, if ever. What will the glut of retail and office space do to existing? I am not against growth, but is this kind really needed? I could see the need if we were burgoning or up to the rafters with people and businesses.

Besides, would limiting growth in Folsom maintain our relatively high standards of living and desireability? Just askin.

Harrmil, while at the open house last night I heard one woman ask about the planes that will be flying over South of 50. I jumped in an said that Folsom has been trying to keep planes from flying over Folsom and that they wanted them to use the south of 50 route. The person from the city that we were talking to basically said the same thing. People buying south of 50 will know in advance that planes will be flying overhead. As long as people know in advance to buying, and they still buy, they really have nothing to say about it.

[Redone]

put an arena there. An arena for the Kings.

the A's !!

[camay2327]

Another question that I asked last night was, are they going to build a new cemetery south of 50. As far as I know there are no plans for a new one there. I didn't think about it a few years ago when all the talks were going on but after our daughter passed away last year and we found out that there really isn't to many empty cemetery lots around Folsom.

I was told that if someone wanted to put in a cemetery they could ask to rezone property for it if necessary.

[old soldier]

Harrmil, while at the open house last night I heard one woman ask about the planes that will be flying over South of 50. I jumped in an said that Folsom has been trying to keep planes from flying over Folsom and that they wanted them to use the south of 50 route. The person from the city that we were talking to basically said the same thing. People buying south of 50 will know in advance that planes will be flying overhead. As long as people know in advance to buying, and they still buy, they really have nothing to say about it.

what about if it became a problem selling property because of the planes flying over south of 50 and the developers asked the council to change the route to have the planes fly over old folsom...remember developers rule...