47 replies to this topic

[MikeinFolsom]

You don't have to be big & strong to be a bully. Your daughter obviously saw what they were and nailed it on the head. I think you do your dauther's intelligence a disservice by sarcastically implying they aren't bullies.

Where do you get that I am doing my daughter's intelligence a disservice? It's not like I made that comment to her.??? That's the nature of sarcasm.

[sierrajmk]

I could be wrong, but I doubt he is acting as city attorney. Maybe council members have input, though, into defending the case?

Last I remember, Mr. Starsky was in-house counsel for Beutler. I don't know if that is still the case.

It is disappointing to hear the hostility towards residents who choose to speak. I guess the council are tired of hearing the same accusations. Still, it probably would have been better to just answer questions instead of becoming defensive.

The well-orchestrated proponents speaking one after another was to be expected.

Sierrajmk, were there any residents there to support the plan or was it just commercial interests that spoke in favor of? I'm just curious because, if it's truly what residents wanted, you'd think there would be a handful that would show to speak in support.

Ducky,

To respond to your question, most of the residents that were there in support of the plan were business people. I can remember a few of them being the president of Folsom Lake Bank, one of the auto dealer owners, and someone representing the chamber of commerce. They mostly seemed to represent some sort of business interest rather than someone liking the project just because they thought it is a great thing to do.

It would have been nice to have more people there to speak against the plan. There seemed to be a fair amount of people there opposed to it but not speaking in front of the council. For me personally, I didn't feel compelled to speak since it was my first time at a city council meeting and I had no idea what to expect. It would have been intimidating enough without knowing about the public humiliation that those opposed to the plan would receive. Some other reasons people may not have come out to speak (my theory) are:

- many feel it is already a done deal
- apathy towards getting involved
- no grassroots effort organized to oppose it (I feel this would have brought a lot of people out)
- Intimidation towards public speaking

I don't think the city council is getting an accurate representation of what the public really wants as a result of these barriers. Those with business or development interest are able to capitalize on this.

[Rich_T]

When it was Jeff Starsky's turn to comment, he proceeded to go on a 15 minute (maybe longer) tirade against everyone who opposed the plan.  ...Both Starsky and Miklos were emphatic that this plan is what the people wanted.  They claimed that they were merely carrying out the will of the people...that the people asked them to do it so they did it (a.k.a. Measure W).  ...There was also a consistent emphasis on Measure W as a representative of what the people want.

Thanks for the recap. I now wish I had attended, because I would not have stood for that BS. I would have given those scheming liars Starsky and Miklos a real tongue-lashing.

I can just imagine all the "suits" congratulating one another.

I really, really hope that there will be a referendum or recall that truly shows "what the people want".

And I'll be curious to see how this gets reported in next week's Folsom Telegraph, which IMO has been too accommodating of the City Council's sanitized propaganda. Depending on the coverage, I may just write a letter in response.

[ducky]

Ducky,

To respond to your question, most of the residents that were there in support of the plan were business people. I can remember a few of them being the president of Folsom Lake Bank, one of the auto dealer owners, and someone representing the chamber of commerce. They mostly seemed to represent some sort of business interest rather than someone liking the project just because they thought it is a great thing to do.

It would have been nice to have more people there to speak against the plan. There seemed to be a fair amount of people there opposed to it but not speaking in front of the council. For me personally, I didn't feel compelled to speak since it was my first time at a city council meeting and I had no idea what to expect. It would have been intimidating enough without knowing about the public humiliation that those opposed to the plan would receive. Some other reasons people may not have come out to speak (my theory) are:

- many feel it is already a done deal
- apathy towards getting involved
- no grassroots effort organized to oppose it (I feel this would have brought a lot of people out)
- Intimidation towards public speaking

I don't think the city council is getting an accurate representation of what the public really wants as a result of these barriers. Those with business or development interest are able to capitalize on this.

Thanks for the recap of the meeting. I think you are spot on about the reason more people don't speak or even bother contacting the council - not only on this issue but any other issues as well that come before the council. I have had the unpleasant experience of speaking before the council and don't appreciate watching certain council members shuffle papers with contempt on their faces while residents speak. It is a shame residents' opinions aren't more welcome.

[Harold]

Where do you get that I am doing my daughter's intelligence a disservice? It's not like I made that comment to her.??? That's the nature of sarcasm.

It sounded to me like you were saying they were short little men with nothing to be afraid of. (i.e. not bullies.) When in fact they are bullies, and unfortunately, they seem to be getting their way whether we like it or not. I'm glad you didn't make your comment to her, but you did make the comment on here on I disagree with your assessment. I think your daughter is 100% right in her assessment and that you could learn a lesson from her if you think otherwise.

[cw68]

Thanks for the recap of the meeting. I think you are spot on about the reason more people don't speak or even bother contacting the council - not only on this issue but any other issues as well that come before the council. I have had the unpleasant experience of speaking before the council and don't appreciate watching certain council members shuffle papers with contempt on their faces while residents speak. It is a shame residents' opinions aren't more welcome.

Yep, spot on. I used to voice my opinion to council members but have since realized that it really doesn't make one whit of difference if I do or don't. Folsom heavily favors developers over their residents. The almighty dollar speaks loudest.

[Tulum Lover]

5'2" dudes sitting behind a desk with fake tans. How tough is that? Whoooo......tough guys!!!!!

Love it ~ you made me laugh out loud!!!

[tony]

[snip]
When it was Jeff Starsky's turn to comment, he proceeded to go on a 15 minute (maybe longer) tirade against everyone who opposed the plan.  He particularly singled out a woman who asked him if he had read the documents.  You can see the direct quote in the sacbee article.  He showed a total disrespect for her, including calling her "lady" rather than "ma'am" or "miss".  He then proceeded to unleash his fury on Legal Services (I believe that is the name) - the organization that is suing the city for not providing enough affordable housing in their plan.  He said that he was going to beat them and take their money to cover legal fees (I guess he is representing the city?).  He was very wrapped up in the fact that this is a superior plan and it was almost like how dare anybody challenge it.  I was very disappointed to see a public representative act in this way, especially the way he acted towards one of his constituents.  

I was there, too, but showed up late and never actually got into the chambers, although I listened to the last three council members. I had no illusion about the potential for it not passing, but there are many details (in the thousands of pages of documents; and, no, I did not read more than about a dozen of them) that I would and will work on changing.

What you saw Starsky do was what he does at every council meeting whenever anyone contradicts his viewpoint. As for him representing the city, I think what you heard was his propensity to use the word I when he really means the City of Folsom. If Al Gore hadn't claimed creation of the internet (and he really gets a bad wrap for this), I'm sure one of our council members would have.

A couple of specific complaints about others. I couldn't believe when Miklos scolded people who sent him comments the morning of the meeting for being too late to be considered and inconsiderate of his time! While he is correct that there is limited time for him to read them, it's his job! And there was even less time for the public to read the 70-page staff report that came out on Friday before the meeting, not to mention the 373-page statement of overriding considerations dated May 2011 and the thousands of pages in the EIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. I would venture to guess that no-one has read all of them!

And though he is often the most reasoned of the bunch, I was disappointed to hear Andy Morin tout that the density of bike paths in the SOI would be greater than what we have north of 50. While I have not done any calculations, that seems like a poor comparison because much of the existing city is not well-served with bike paths, at least not nearly to the extent that Empire Ranch and the Parkway are. I wonder what the comparison would look like if you considered only the most recent development s north of 50.

Finally, though I did not speak at this meeting (for most of the reasons you mentioned, particularly the foregone conclusion one), I have spoken at many and am almost always frustrated by certain council members' propensity to contradict what I (and others) said after I have sat down and have no opportunity to respond, often -- how shall I gently say it -- with little to no factual basis.

[sierrajmk]

Finally, though I did not speak at this meeting (for most of the reasons you mentioned, particularly the foregone conclusion one), I have spoken at many and am almost always frustrated by certain council members' propensity to contradict what I (and others) said after I have sat down and have no opportunity to respond, often -- how shall I gently say it -- with little to no factual basis.

Yes the format seemed a little strange to me. The council gets to refute the public's claims, but there is no opportunity for the public to refute the council's claims. As an example, it would have been great for someone to respond to their inaccurate statements about Measure W as "doing what the people wanted" and actually bring up Measure T, which people in the room may not know about. As it stands, no one had the opportunity to do this. Perhaps having the format be more of a dialog would be helpful.

[Rich_T]

Yes the format seemed a little strange to me. The council gets to refute the public's claims, but there is no opportunity for the public to refute the council's claims. As an example, it would have been great for someone to respond to their inaccurate statements about Measure W as "doing what the people wanted" and actually bring up Measure T, which people in the room may not know about. As it stands, no one had the opportunity to do this. Perhaps having the format be more of a dialog would be helpful.

My sentiments exactly. But for whom would a dialog be "helpful"? Not for Starsky and Miklos, who IMO are not remotely interested in representing resident wishes, but rather are only interested in their own political careers and business interests, which is why they fought to gain and keep their City Council positions. The whole "Measure W was a mandate for development" farce is but one more data point to prove that. I, too, have seen them unfailingly scold or pretend to "educate" residents, rather than listen and respond to legitimate complaints or differences of opinion. In short, the city of Folsom is in the hands of some self-interested power brokers who know how to entrench that power. My only consolation is that one day it will (hopefully) be a case of "what goes around comes around". I wouldn't be surprised to read an investigative journalism piece in the Sacramento Bee one day, because there is something downright suspicious about those two guys and how they put their own interests above their job as elected representatives. Their personalities are a red flag. That's my opinion.

[Bob]

Yes the format seemed a little strange to me. The council gets to refute the public's claims, but there is no opportunity for the public to refute the council's claims. As an example, it would have been great for someone to respond to their inaccurate statements about Measure W as "doing what the people wanted" and actually bring up Measure T, which people in the room may not know about. As it stands, no one had the opportunity to do this. Perhaps having the format be more of a dialog would be helpful.

First, to directly respond to “Sierrajmk”, we do have the ability to respond after the Council has the last word: Recall, Referendum, and Initiative. These are the avenues granted by the State to ensure that residents do have a way of taking corrective measures when their elected officials stray from the best interests of the residents. As one of the organizers and authors of Measure “T”, the original and only residents’ grass roots initiative that would have given you a direct vote on development south of 50, it is not as difficult a task as you might think. We collected over 4,500 signatures in just three weekends. Unfortunately, our own Council turned against us and an unscrupulous group of three Folsom “residents” (supported by developer money) filed against us after it was approved to go on the ballot. It was then thrown out by a judge with ties to one of the major land speculators. Why? Because our one half page initiative, to give you a direct vote, mentioned that the land was currently zoned by the County as agricultural without including the 36 pages from the County’s General Plan that defines “Agricultural”.
Such BS has now been stopped by a top State court just a year after ours was tossed. The small town of Moorpark in Ventura County had the tenacity to see their very similar initiative through several legal challenges and prevailed.

As for the developers Measure W the City now flaunts as the “will of the people”, recall that this initiative never gave you the opportunity to express your disapproval of development south of 50. It was put together similar to the old joke, “have you stopped beating your dog yet”. Obviously, this is a question not answerable with a direct yes or no. Like Measure W, that asked if you wanted certain beneficial elements when south of 50 was developed. Answering NO would have been used by the City as a “mandate” that residents want unrestricted development, answering YES would be used as a “validation” that the residents approve of what they are doing. Damned if you vote NO, damned if you vote YES. Nothing for than a scam to perpetuate their goals.

In summary, a grass roots initiative regarding development is more available and promising to us than it has ever been.

Second, it has always been heartening to return to this Forum occasionally and see that there are Folsom residents who care enough to stay informed. Even though over 70% of Folsom residents oppose development south of 50 (with only 10% supporting it) per the City’s own poll. Try asking a friend or neighbor and see if you can find anyone that supports it.

Unfortunately, most are simply clueless about what to do about it. I cannot fault most of them as I know many residents who devote much of their spare time to other valuable interests such as their church, youth sports, boy scouts and girl scouts, charitable organizations, or simply working long hours or multiple jobs to may the mortgage.
The point is, everyone is busy. They rely on our representative form of government to watch out for the best interests of their families. However, as we have seen time after time at the State and Federal level, regarding both personal and corruption scandals, many elected officials fail at this. Our own Council is a prime example.

For me, it is not just that they are pushing forward with development south of 50, it is that they have done so by using lies, manipulation, and attacks on residents who oppose them (in public and worse yet, behind the scenes). It is also that they are forcing current residents to accept the guaranteed negative impacts of this development:

Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
PLEASE open up the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Cities website.

Main page listing all documents:
City Documents

Main body of the EIR:
EIR - main body

By its volume it looks overwhelming, but do not let this put you off. Do not look at the entire document but search out the critical areas that may concern you the most: smog (under air quality), local traffic, Hwy 50 traffic, schools, water, financing, etc. Maybe just focus on one or two to get an understanding of how the document is formatted. I am a structural engineer and look at such documents often, if nothing else, they are organized and thorough, so you will be able to find what you are looking for. These are PDF files and are searchable. So when you download the files, simple search for the key word you are interested in.

Pay attention to the “mitigations” that are recommended. This is very important. The main problem with relying on these mitigations is simply that most will not be followed through on. A primary example is regarding smog. Folsom already has the worst smog in the County. This development will make it much worse. However, it is claimed that the mitigations will reduce the smog by 42%! Anyone here believe that the new residents and businesses south of 50 will behave any differently than you or I?

The mitigations rely on the maximum use of light rail, buses, kids riding their bikes to school and residents walking and biking to the stores. Mind you, I am not critical of such planning; it is really all that can be done, that is, make such alternatives available. But that will not change people’s behavior by much, certainly not to the tune of 42%. North Natomas new developments between Sacramento and Arco Arena had a similar plan. The results after years of implementation were found to be only a 7 to 10% reduction.

Now throw on top of this that the Council can simply make a “finding” that they will accept the detrimental impacts (for smog, traffic, etc) and even the mitigations suggested need not even be tried!

Next, look at the comments from those, many with intimate knowable of EIR’s, who took the time to review the documents, including State, County and other agencies, organizations such as Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS), and individuals. Following each set of comments are responses – these are often eye opening.

The most interesting groups of commentators are Local and Individual:
Local commentators

Individual comentators

Lastly, look at the “Findings of Facts and Overriding Concerns:
Overriding Concerns - accepting bad impacts

This should pull everything together for you regarding why our Council does not want to, and never have, discussed the impacts of this development. For instance, on page 80 you will find the following in regards to smog:

“Therefore, one would overestimate the reduction achieved by the AQMP by reducing the levels of operational NOX emissions reported in Tables 3A.2-6 through 3A.2-10 of the DEIR/DEIS by 35%. The actual emission reduction benefit of the AQMP would be some amount less than 35%. Nonetheless, even if operational emissions of ROG and NOX were 35% lower than the levels reported in Tables 3A.2-6 through 3A.2-10 of the DEIR/DEIS, they would still exceed SMAQMD’s significance threshold of 65 lb/day. As a result, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.” (Bold by the document writer)

And again, on page 156 you will find the following in regards to GHG (smog):
“As a precaution, this EIR/EIS concludes that the Proposed Project Alternative’s incremental contribution to long-term operational GHG emissions is cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.” (Bold by the document writer)

This is just the tip. Recall that as development proceeds the Council can change things at will, disregard almost any mitigation, and accept almost any detriment. They have in the past and they will south of 50.

Regards,
Bob

[MikeinFolsom]

It sounded to me like you were saying they were short little men with nothing to be afraid of. (i.e. not bullies.) When in fact they are bullies, and unfortunately, they seem to be getting their way whether we like it or not. I'm glad you didn't make your comment to her, but you did make the comment on here on I disagree with your assessment. I think your daughter is 100% right in her assessment and that you could learn a lesson from her if you think otherwise.

I don't think you understand or recognize sarcasm when it's right in front of you.

[Rich_T]

Bob, thanks for the fantastic post that explains things so well. It should be required reading for every Folsom resident. Indeed, I hope you will consider packaging it as a letter to the editor for the Folsom Telegraph.

I have to run now, but here's my reaction to just the first part of your post:

I had never before understood just what the "technicality" was, by which our own city council was able to fight off the resident signatures that produced Measure T. My jaw dropped when I read your explanation - that the word "agricultural" needed a 36-page definition to explain it. That is just pure evil. (And I bet they could have shot down Measure W in a similar way, had it not been their own baby.)

[Rich_T]

P.S. Just found this from today:

http://www.sacbee.co...rowth-plan.html

It's about the water issue.

For me, the real issue is still how Miklos and Starsky and their developer cronies forced their will on Folsom residents. I wish that the Bee article mentioned exactly HOW the residents' initiative was "tossed".