51 replies to this topic

[old soldier]

it would be a nice gesture if the developer south of 50 folks would cover the city's legal costs on this here lawsuite since the council probably decided to break the law to help their developer pals make more money from the south of 50 land.

it the council had any horsetrading skills they could push for this, cause when you think about it, some voters could realize that again the tax payers are the ones paying the old legal bill for the council's foolishness.

[ducky]

OK, somebody's got to take the bait. The law suit is about whether the city's policy is in compliance with state law, which requires that a certain percentage of housing be "affordable", to people of several defined income groups. if y'all don't like the law, you're welcome to try and change it. But the question at hand is whether our city council, by repealing the inclusionary housing ordinance they passed in response to the last law suit over compliance with the same law, violated said law. I don't happen to know the answer to that, but one has to question if our city council really thought they could abandon the law passed specifically to settle the last suit without bringing on another one.

Am I the only one that thinks that blaming the inclusionary housing ordinance for the lack of new home development in Folsom is missing a rather large pachyderm in the yet-to-be-constructed living room? Could it possibly be that the 100s of foreclosed houses on the market and the worst housing market in decades might be putting a damper on housing construction in the area? Seems to me that this might just have something to do with the approval of entitlements for some 3500 acres on the other side of Hwy 50 (if you don't have to set aside 15% of land (or whatever the amount is) for affordable housing, all that ranch land will be worth just a little bit more to the current owners when it gets entitled).

If it's a state law, does that mean that El Dorado Hills has to comply with the same percentages? Why is it always Folsom being sued?

You make a good point about the land south of 50. I wonder if this lawsuit, rather than making the land more valuable, will actually gum up the whole approval process through the county.

[Homer]

OK, somebody's got to take the bait. The law suit is about whether the city's policy is in compliance with state law, which requires that a certain percentage of housing be "affordable", to people of several defined income groups. if y'all don't like the law, you're welcome to try and change it. But the question at hand is whether our city council, by repealing the inclusionary housing ordinance they passed in response to the last law suit over compliance with the same law, violated said law. I don't happen to know the answer to that, but one has to question if our city council really thought they could abandon the law passed specifically to settle the last suit without bringing on another one.

Am I the only one that thinks that blaming the inclusionary housing ordinance for the lack of new home development in Folsom is missing a rather large pachyderm in the yet-to-be-constructed living room? Could it possibly be that the 100s of foreclosed houses on the market and the worst housing market in decades might be putting a damper on housing construction in the area? Seems to me that this might just have something to do with the approval of entitlements for some 3500 acres on the other side of Hwy 50 (if you don't have to set aside 15% of land (or whatever the amount is) for affordable housing, all that ranch land will be worth just a little bit more to the current owners when it gets entitled).

I agree with you on the housing market affecting the south of 50 development. The question i have, Would these lawsuits even exsist if Legal Services wasn't receiving tax payer funding to file suits like this in the first place?

[4thgenFolsomite]

I agree with Tony and add this point. If they don't plan for affordable housing requirements south of the freeway, then they will probably be forced to create it with infill north of the freeway. witness the flurry of affordable housing projects proposed and/or constructed in the historic district and north of the river recently. I have no problem with affordable housing if its spread around, but I am concerned that concentrating all of the required said housing in a small, older area is going to create problems and lower housing values in that area.

[caligirlz]

witness the flurry of affordable housing projects proposed and/or constructed in the historic district and north of the river recently. I have no problem with affordable housing if its spread around, but I am concerned that concentrating all of the required said housing in a small, older area is going to create problems and lower housing values in that area.

Is the city no longer following their general plan? I see that my neighborhood, built in 2003, was designated as industrial/business. I was wondering what the old or new plan was for the land between Cavitt & E Bidwell. It's a great view.

Is this being discussed at the city council meetings? & commuicated to the public anywhere else?

[Robert Giacometti]

If it's a state law, does that mean that El Dorado Hills has to comply with the same percentages? Why is it always Folsom being sued?

You make a good point about the land south of 50. I wonder if this lawsuit, rather than making the land more valuable, will actually gum up the whole approval process through the county.

How can EDHs be sued they aren't an incorporated City? They fall under the planning jurisdiction of El Dorado County, who is in compliance with affordable housing mandate. This was one of the biggest reasons why EDHs residents voted down incorporation a few years ago.

It was explained to me that the City of Folsom is one of the largest agencies in N CAL, preparing for rampant growth, that doesn't have the Inclusionary Affordable Housing componet in their Housing element .

This is why we are being sued!

Our Council is SCREWING over the existing residents on this issue to maximize the ROI for the landowners S50! Having a DA without the affordable housing Inclusionary componet would make the land S50 worth millions more to the landowners S50 to spin off the the builders. The Council took this gamble and now are paying for defending the lawsuit with OUR tax dollars.

Everybody knew this was going to happen, including the council! The outrage should be directed at the council who made this decision.

[Robert Giacometti]

I agree with you on the housing market affecting the south of 50 development. The question i have, Would these lawsuits even exsist if Legal Services wasn't receiving tax payer funding to file suits like this in the first place?

As a conservative, I'd much rather have a Non Profit enforcing the laws, with some subsidies from taxpayers, than creating another massive bureacratic department to enforce some laws.

IMO, having a discussion of the merits of the law and changes should be another topic.

[Robert Giacometti]

I agree with Tony and add this point. If they don't plan for affordable housing requirements south of the freeway, then they will probably be forced to create it with infill north of the freeway. witness the flurry of affordable housing projects proposed and/or constructed in the historic district and north of the river recently. I have no problem with affordable housing if its spread around, but I am concerned that concentrating all of the required said housing in a small, older area is going to create problems and lower housing values in that area.

Absolutely!

If people would go back and review the Council Agenda for July, you'll see where they were going to consider LOANING $4.5 MILLION dollars to build 80 affordable housing units in the HD. I suspect they were doing this to argue in court that they don't need to have the Inclusiuonary componet to build affordable housing.

To all our conservative friends out there, the Council was going to use YOUR Tax Dollars to build Affordable Housing instead of allowing it to be built by the private sector as we develop! Is this what you want?

[ducky]

How can EDHs be sued they aren't an incorporated City? They fall under the planning jurisdiction of El Dorado County, who is in compliance with affordable housing mandate. This was one of the biggest reasons why EDHs residents voted down incorporation a few years ago.

It was explained to me that the City of Folsom is one of the largest agencies in N CAL, preparing for rampant growth, that doesn't have the Inclusionary Affordable Housing componet in their Housing element .

This is why we are being sued!

Our Council is SCREWING over the existing residents on this issue to maximize the ROI for the landowners S50! Having a DA without the affordable housing Inclusionary componet would make the land S50 worth millions more to the landowners S50 to spin off the the builders. The Council took this gamble and now are paying for defending the lawsuit with OUR tax dollars.

Everybody knew this was going to happen, including the council! The outrage should be directed at the council who made this decision.

Thank you for the clarification about EDH, Robert.

[camay2327]

I remember this city council meeting, in January 2011.

When the city council voted on this, If I remember right, Jeff Starsky said, Bring it on. In other words sue us, we can
beat you.

Here is the link to the minutes to that meeting. Click on the Minutes for the
1/11/2011 Special/Regular City Council Meeting below

http://www.folsom.ca...sp#2011 agendas

--------


Within months of the City Council's January vote, Legal Services of Northern California and the Public Interest Law Project sued the city on behalf of the Sacramento Housing Alliance to block the action.

[tony]

I agree with Tony and add this point. If they don't plan for affordable housing requirements south of the freeway, then they will probably be forced to create it with infill north of the freeway. witness the flurry of affordable housing projects proposed and/or constructed in the historic district and north of the river recently. I have no problem with affordable housing if its spread around, but I am concerned that concentrating all of the required said housing in a small, older area is going to create problems and lower housing values in that area.

Excellent point. You don't see any new affordable housing developments going into Empire Ranch or the Parkway. Nope, they're all going in in the older parts of town, the parts that already had affordable housing (small houses, trailer parks, older apartments, etc.).

[gbfolsom]

So, when I look up the definition of affordable housing it states that housing costs should not be more than 30-35% of gross income. So, that would technically qualify me as low income if trying to purchase housing in Folsom; however, I own a 1500 sq foot home in Empire Ranch (which far exceeds 35% of my gross income). Hmmm, how could that be? Well, I initially bought a much smaller home in Folsom in 1998 after years of saving for a down payment and then cutting corners and living within my means to afford that home. Sure, I could have purchased in Sacramento where the housing is cheaper, but I work in Folsom and feel safe here. I sold that home in 2007 and made a fairly nice profit. I bought my current, larger home the beginning of 2008 with some of the proceeds. I have no debt other than my mortgage because I still live within my means. Why can’t statistics like mine be included in the category of “a certain percentage of housing should be affordable to people of several defined income groups?” I doubt I’m the only homeowner in Folsom who falls within the ‘lower than average Folsom income’ category!

[Robert Giacometti]

Is the city no longer following their general plan? I see that my neighborhood, built in 2003, was designated as industrial/business. I was wondering what the old or new plan was for the land between Cavitt & E Bidwell. It's a great view.

Is this being discussed at the city council meetings? & commuicated to the public anywhere else?

BINGO!

This is why those of us who have been through this process before know that whatever is being "proposed" for S50, won't be what eventually gets built! The City needs to get approval from LAFCO to gain complete control and once they do who knows what will really happen S50.

The rezones are all done in public at a council meeting, but I can't EVER remember the citizens ever pursuading the Council to see their side on one of these rezones when the applicant is part of the 'IN' crowd.

[folsombound]

I've worked in Dana point, La Jolla, Pacific Palisades, Beverly Hills, etc. best place I have seen...skip Carmel, I want to live in Hope Ranch.
Private beach, minimum 2 acre lots...ocean views...awesome climate.
So how many of you taxpayers are willing to make up my shortfall of around 11 million?

Hope Ranch would be my choice too! It doesn't get any better than Santa Barbara and Hope Ranch is the best there!

[supermom]

I think the response is correct and hopefully effective. Folsom ain't Carmel. or Del Mar.


Ha ha ha ha!!!

There is no reason why affordable housing units are being blocked from being built.

There is no reason why affordable houseing units are being blocked from the new high school location, to allow a balanced demographic society in both schools.

Hoity toity. Kinda funny. They aren't asking to be placed in multi million dollar homes. They are asking for affordable housing to be built. And Built out into equal areas of neighborhoods for school and neighborhood development.