158 replies to this topic

[Steve Heard]

I agree with you, Steve, about Chad's campaign potential.

 

But come on:  << whether or not it was intentional, short-sighted or a mistake >>

 

Ever the diplomat.  :-)

 

Oh, it was intentional, all right, although it was also short-sighted and a mistake.  You can't break such a clear promise by accident.  It turned the repeated promise into a deceitful lie, and it's OK to say that out loud, even for a diplomat.

 

I agree with you, Steve, about Chad's campaign potential.

 

But come on:  << whether or not it was intentional, short-sighted or a mistake >>

 

Ever the diplomat.  :-)

 

Oh, it was intentional, all right, although it was also short-sighted and a mistake.  You can't break such a clear promise by accident.  It turned the repeated promise into a deceitful lie, and it's OK to say that out loud, even for a diplomat.

 

My dad taught me to err on the side of honesty rather than accusation, so I try to find a way to give the benefit of the doubt.

 

I can just imagine someone saying 'Hey, we're allotted about 34,000 acre feet, we use about 22,000 and are getting better at conserving, and the new development would use about another 6,000 (guessing there), so the problem is solved without spending any money!'

 

I don't know if or when that statement was ever made, but I could see it happening. It doesn't make it right. 

 

The bigger picture though is in regards to Chad. If Chad takes the approach that he has a smarter way and is looking out for you and me, he's going to have a much easier time getting buy-in, even from other council members, than if he takes the 'these people are a bunch of liars' approach.

[Rich_T]

You can keep on being the diplomat, that's fine with me.  You're trying not to alienate anyone, I get it.  But there was never anything unclear whatsoever about the "new source of water" not being N50. There's no legitimate way to spin that.  It's not an "accusation" at this point, it's an honest observation.  There is no "erring" involved.  (And, for that matter, there IS no such "found" water - we are conserving supposedly because the extra water doesn't exist.)

 

As Phoenix2014 presented the situation in the other thread:

 

<< Initial plan – Buy water from holder of Sacramento River rights.

Current plan – Ignore the Memorandum of Understanding and Measure W and the Environmental Impact Report AND promises to Folsom residents, and simply divert (steal) our current water supply. >>

 

It's kind of hard for that switch to be an "accident".

 

I'm not saying that Chad has to literally use the "L-word" in his campaign.  Just realize that not taking a "these guys are liars" campaign approach doesn't mean that they have not indeed been lying (i.e. being knowing deceitful in several ways over the years w/r/t S50).  It just means Chad would be too classy to say it out loud during a campaign.  Other words can convey the same truth.

 

Finally, Chad doesn't need to "get buy-in" from other council members, if his message is at odds with their message.  The point is to get three new people who DON'T agree with incumbents, to create a new majority who won't end up being folded into the self-perpetuating power structure, as has been the fate of past lone new councilmembers.

[Steve Heard]

You can keep on being the diplomat, that's fine with me.  You're trying not to alienate anyone, I get it.  But there was never anything unclear whatsoever about the "new source of water" not being N50. There's no legitimate way to spin that.  It's not an "accusation" at this point, it's an honest observation.  There is no "erring" involved.  (And, for that matter, there IS no such "found" water - we are conserving supposedly because the extra water doesn't exist.)

 

As Phoenix2014 presented the situation in the other thread:

 

<< Initial plan – Buy water from holder of Sacramento River rights.

Current plan – Ignore the Memorandum of Understanding and Measure W and the Environmental Impact Report AND promises to Folsom residents, and simply divert (steal) our current water supply. >>

 

It's kind of hard for that switch to be an "accident".

 

I'm not saying that Chad has to literally use the "L-word" in his campaign.  Just realize that not taking a "these guys are liars" campaign approach doesn't mean that they have not indeed been lying (i.e. being knowing deceitful in several ways over the years w/r/t S50).  It just means Chad would be too classy to say it out loud during a campaign.  Other words can convey the same truth.

 

Finally, Chad doesn't need to "get buy-in" from other council members, if his message is at odds with their message.  The point is to get three new people who DON'T agree with incumbents, to create a new majority who won't end up being folded into the self-perpetuating power structure, as has been the fate of past lone new council members.

Thanks Rich

 

I appreciate your input.

 

Although you are correct that I don't want to alienate anyone, there are quite a few who are alienated and offended that I don't take a hard-line stance and call the council corrupt or incompetent or both.

 

I understand what the current plan is vs. the original. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I think opposition to the plan should be based on our water needs and the potential impact of us losing our water supply to the south area, rather than any accusations of impropriety. 

 

As for the 'buy-in' message, what I mean is that in order to get things done in the council, one needs a majority vote. We only know who 2 of the council members will be next year.

 

The voters and the council members want to see someone who can think on their own, but who plays nice with others.

 

Again, I'm no political expert, but I think mature, business friendly candidates who want to preserve and enhance our quality of life,  look toward the future and embrace growth without sacrificing said quality of life, are able to work as part of a team while being able to stand up and keep us citizens and the council all accountable for our roles and responsibilities are the ones with the best shot at getting elected.

 

Of course, he has to be prepared for and expect voters to demand that he single-handedly change everything about Folsom they don't like, and will accuse him of being corrupt and incompetent, and 'just like the rest of 'em' if he doesn't vote their way on issues. 

 

c'est la vie 

[Rich_T]

Can't disagree with your attitude.  All I can say is that it ends up automatically appeasing and enabling those who might very well be acting in a corrupt manner.  That's the problem with professionalism:  it's the great leveler, which dismisses valid criticism because it's too "impolite"; in the end, you end up with the things that unethical and powerful people want - they make some meaningless concessions that are not enforced later on, and that's that.  I've seen it too many times in business and politics.  I've "felt" it at certain City Council meetings in the past.

 

It's a tough trap, because one truly doesn't want to appear to be loutish in front of the public.  But the usual alternative is that you end up with "fresh" candidates who go along with the status quo as a default, even while having lots of "dialogue" that changes nothing in the end.  That's what we call "playing nice with others".

 

So I'm definitely cynical.  I only comment on these threads at all because I'm interested in the human nature aspect of it.  If Folsom starts to suck, I'll be out of here anyway.  Meanwhile, I hope Chad finds a way to tread that fine line between professionalism and overcoming entrenched forces that promote even unethical means of getting want they want accomplished (i.e. their baby, S50 development).

 

People won't accuse Chad of being corrupt if he shows no signs of being corrupt.  People aren't using the term "corrupt" about existing councilmembers just because they don't like their opinions; it's because of their actions.  I don't use the term "corrupt" myself, I use "unethical" and, when it fits, "deceitful".  I never mind stating what I see as the truth.

 

[Steve Heard]

Can't disagree with your attitude.  All I can say is that it ends up automatically appeasing and enabling those who might very well be acting in a corrupt manner.  That's the problem with professionalism:  it's the great leveler, which dismisses valid criticism because it's too "impolite"; in the end, you end up with the things that unethical and powerful people want - they make some meaningless concessions that are not enforced later on, and that's that.  I've seen it too many times in business and politics.  I've "felt" it at certain City Council meetings in the past.

 

It's a tough trap, because one truly doesn't want to appear to be loutish in front of the public.  But the usual alternative is that you end up with "fresh" candidates who go along with the status quo as a default, even while having lots of "dialogue" that changes nothing in the end.  That's what we call "playing nice with others".

 

So I'm definitely cynical.  I only comment on these threads at all because I'm interested in the human nature aspect of it.  If Folsom starts to suck, I'll be out of here anyway.  Meanwhile, I hope Chad finds a way to tread that fine line between professionalism and overcoming entrenched forces that promote even unethical means of getting want they want accomplished (i.e. their baby, S50 development).

 

People won't accuse Chad of being corrupt if he shows no signs of being corrupt.  People aren't using the term "corrupt" about existing councilmembers just because they don't like their opinions; it's because of their actions.  I don't use the term "corrupt" myself, I use "unethical" and, when it fits, "deceitful".  I never mind stating what I see as the truth.

 

 

You do hold some very common views. I would add that things can move slowly in the world of government. Getting along, gaining little by little, slow and steady, vs. a bloody revolution has proven best in the long run.

 

BTW, if Folsom starts to suck, I hope you'll try to influence change it before you flee.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

Can't disagree with your attitude.  All I can say is that it ends up automatically appeasing and enabling those who might very well be acting in a corrupt manner.  That's the problem with professionalism:  it's the great leveler, which dismisses valid criticism because it's too "impolite"; in the end, you end up with the things that unethical and powerful people want - they make some meaningless concessions that are not enforced later on, and that's that.  I've seen it too many times in business and politics.  I've "felt" it at certain City Council meetings in the past.

 

It's a tough trap, because one truly doesn't want to appear to be loutish in front of the public.  But the usual alternative is that you end up with "fresh" candidates who go along with the status quo as a default, even while having lots of "dialogue" that changes nothing in the end.  That's what we call "playing nice with others".

 

So I'm definitely cynical.  I only comment on these threads at all because I'm interested in the human nature aspect of it.  If Folsom starts to suck, I'll be out of here anyway.  Meanwhile, I hope Chad finds a way to tread that fine line between professionalism and overcoming entrenched forces that promote even unethical means of getting want they want accomplished (i.e. their baby, S50 development).

 

People won't accuse Chad of being corrupt if he shows no signs of being corrupt.  People aren't using the term "corrupt" about existing councilmembers just because they don't like their opinions; it's because of their actions.  I don't use the term "corrupt" myself, I use "unethical" and, when it fits, "deceitful".  I never mind stating what I see as the truth.
 

He has to get elected first. If he comes across bitter and angry and insulting, he could turn off voters. If he attacks and insults existing CC members as part of his campaign and then has to work with some of them, the attacks and insults could make any progress toward change difficult. Professionalism and appropriateness serves a purpose. There is an appropriate way to express a difference of opinion and a desire to chart a new course; I think Chad is doing a good job of this so far.

[ducky]

I agree Chad should keep his campaign positive.    Even if it's not possible to change some things, he at least is willing to try.

[Chad Vander Veen]

I am really excited and encouraged that this thread has already generated the conversation it has. I think it proves there are a lot of Folsom residents out there that share concerns about the direction we're heading. I also really appreciate the input and advice that has thus far been provided. It's very valuable to me.

 

I agree that current council members may point out that I lack experience in some areas, as is their right to do so. I would if I were them. But if and when it gets to that point I'll welcome the criticism because it will mean I'm a candidate that presents a genuine challenge to the status quo. 

 

I also intend to run a positive campaign throughout. I do not wish to portray the council in a negative light. Rather, I am presenting my vision for helping secure a prosperous Folsom. Like I note on my site, Folsom has been generally well run to date. My concerns are with how the city is (or more precisely, is not) being made more resilient and sustainable to meet the challenges of the future. Some may believe that naive but I prefer to run a campaign with honesty and integrity. 

 

I hope to be elected because my message resonates with voters, not because I manufactured enough criticism of current council members. 

[Steve Heard]

I am really excited and encouraged that this thread has already generated the conversation it has. I think it proves there are a lot of Folsom residents out there that share concerns about the direction we're heading. I also really appreciate the input and advice that has thus far been provided. It's very valuable to me.

 

I agree that current council members may point out that I lack experience in some areas, as is their right to do so. I would if I were them. But if and when it gets to that point I'll welcome the criticism because it will mean I'm a candidate that presents a genuine challenge to the status quo. 

 

I also intend to run a positive campaign throughout. I do not wish to portray the council in a negative light. Rather, I am presenting my vision for helping secure a prosperous Folsom. Like I note on my site, Folsom has been generally well run to date. My concerns are with how the city is (or more precisely, is not) being made more resilient and sustainable to meet the challenges of the future. Some may believe that naive but I prefer to run a campaign with honesty and integrity. 

 

I hope to be elected because my message resonates with voters, not because I manufactured enough criticism of current council members. 

 

That's the way to do it!

[nowtherestofthestory]

No one will call an elected official who is honest, who votes logically and explains their vote corrupt! Has anyone called Ernie Corrupt...yea that's what I thought!

 

No one has done more in this Community that Ernie Sheldon and no one has garnered more good will than Ernie. After him trying the go along to get along approach some of you are advocating, it hasn't gotten him or those in the community who share his beliefs, anything, from the other 4 council members. He is finally fed up that he wont support any of the incumbents.

 

Why does almost every campaign use negative advertising? Because it works.,. Hello!

 

Pointing out the errors and mistakes or misdeeds of the incumbents and how it affects our quality life is the only way you'll get elected.

 

Our City council time and time again told us ( one even guaranteed us on this very forum, but since has been deleted and many other discussions) that NO water from north of 50 can be used for south of 50. They flat out lied to us! If they wanted or needed to change the integrity of Measure W, they should have given us the right to vote on it.

 

Originally the Landowners were planning to bring water from the Sac River to south of 50 at a cost of about $350 million. That is what they agreed to do all along. When supposedly there was surplus water available and the council knew the landowners were going to pay $350 million to get it here, what did our city council sell it to them for? $49 million! 

 

They cant possibly be that stupid to do something like that! If they aren't that stupid the only other possibility is they are corrupt? What else could it be?

 

If anyone one of you is sitting on the City council and its your obligation to look out for the best interests of the community, why would you sell water rights for $49 million when you know the buyer is already willing to pay $350 million? 

 

Polling survey after polling survey shows that most voters in Folsom are not happy with the way things are going.  Most people would vote for a change if they had a candidate who understood the issues and could articulate how to bring about change.

 

Why would any of those voters to be motivated enough to help or support someone who is advocating the status quo and isn't willing or doesn't understand whats happening?

 

I know Im not willing to use my resources and time and network to support someone who doesn't understand whats going on.   

[Steve Heard]

No one will call an elected official who is honest, who votes logically and explains their vote corrupt! Has anyone called Ernie Corrupt...yea that's what I thought!

 

No one has done more in this Community that Ernie Sheldon and no one has garnered more good will than Ernie. After him trying the go along to get along approach some of you are advocating, it hasn't gotten him or those in the community who share his beliefs, anything, from the other 4 council members. He is finally fed up that he wont support any of the incumbents.

 

Why does almost every campaign use negative advertising? Because it works.,. Hello!

 

Pointing out the errors and mistakes or misdeeds of the incumbents and how it affects our quality life is the only way you'll get elected.

 

Our City council time and time again told us ( one even guaranteed us on this very forum, but since has been deleted and many other discussions) that NO water from north of 50 can be used for south of 50. They flat out lied to us! If they wanted or needed to change the integrity of Measure W, they should have given us the right to vote on it.

 

Originally the Landowners were planning to bring water from the Sac River to south of 50 at a cost of about $350 million. That is what they agreed to do all along. When supposedly there was surplus water available and the council knew the landowners were going to pay $350 million to get it here, what did our city council sell it to them for? $49 million! 

 

They cant possibly be that stupid to do something like that! If they aren't that stupid the only other possibility is they are corrupt? What else could it be?

 

If anyone one of you is sitting on the City council and its your obligation to look out for the best interests of the community, why would you sell water rights for $49 million when you know the buyer is already willing to pay $350 million? 

 

Polling survey after polling survey shows that most voters in Folsom are not happy with the way things are going.  Most people would vote for a change if they had a candidate who understood the issues and could articulate how to bring about change.

 

Why would any of those voters to be motivated enough to help or support someone who is advocating the status quo and isn't willing or doesn't understand whats happening?

 

I know Im not willing to use my resources and time and network to support someone who doesn't understand whats going on.   

Many folks have generalized and called the entirety of the city council corrupt, incompetent, 'all in the developer's pockets' and more.

 

Most recently, Phoenix2014 said,  "Past attempts to regain control of the Council so we have a Council that acts in the best interest of the residents:

Bob Holderness - supported by grass roots efforts - turned on a dime to do whatever developers wanted (now their attorney, the one I noted above)

Eric King - supported by grass roots efforts - turned against his friends and neighbors in support of the development community

Andy Morin - supported by grass roots efforts - turned "violently" against his friends and neighbors and was one of the Council leaders to get our Measure T kicked off the ballot.

Ernie Sheldon - same"

 

Not even Ernie is exempt from the disdain some have for our elected officials. 

 

I'm not advocating 'go along to get along', I am saying to take the high road and choose words wisely.

 

We know the negative campaigns work (sometimes), but so do positive ones (most often).

 

A smart candidate doesn't take pot-shots but rather offers his/her vision. There are plenty of supporters who can and will take the pot-shots.

Let others take the pot shots

[AMETHYST PRODUCTIVITY]

Someone wants my vote they're going to tell me what's good about themselves and why I should vote for them. I don't care about their opinions positive or negative of their opponents. I can make that decision for myself.

[Rich_T]

He has to get elected first. If he comes across bitter and angry and insulting, he could turn off voters. If he attacks and insults existing CC members as part of his campaign and then has to work with some of them, the attacks and insults could make any progress toward change difficult. Professionalism and appropriateness serves a purpose. There is an appropriate way to express a difference of opinion and a desire to chart a new course; I think Chad is doing a good job of this so far.

 

 

No argument here.  I'm not saying that challengers should be mean or aggressively insult anyone.  But I am saying it's OK to plainly state that Folsom residents are being conned.  If I were running, I wouldn't even directly refer to the council at all.  I would just say that the people of Folsom are being led down a path fraught with problems, and that it's time to deal with that.  I'd keep it all about me, not all about them.

 

You do hold some very common views. I would add that things can move slowly in the world of government. Getting along, gaining little by little, slow and steady, vs. a bloody revolution has proven best in the long run.

 

BTW, if Folsom starts to suck, I hope you'll try to influence change it before you flee.

 

 

Reasons for leaving Folsom would have more to do with individual aspects (location of family, phase of life, work, etc).  I can shield myself from most of the suckage.  But if it gets to be too noticeable, that would be another reason to leave.  I don't want to spend my time fighting the City on issues.  I have other things I'd rather be doing.

[Rich_T]

I am really excited and encouraged that this thread has already generated the conversation it has. I think it proves there are a lot of Folsom residents out there that share concerns about the direction we're heading. I also really appreciate the input and advice that has thus far been provided. It's very valuable to me.

 

I agree that current council members may point out that I lack experience in some areas, as is their right to do so. I would if I were them. But if and when it gets to that point I'll welcome the criticism because it will mean I'm a candidate that presents a genuine challenge to the status quo. 

 

I also intend to run a positive campaign throughout. I do not wish to portray the council in a negative light. Rather, I am presenting my vision for helping secure a prosperous Folsom. Like I note on my site, Folsom has been generally well run to date. My concerns are with how the city is (or more precisely, is not) being made more resilient and sustainable to meet the challenges of the future. Some may believe that naive but I prefer to run a campaign with honesty and integrity. 

 

I hope to be elected because my message resonates with voters, not because I manufactured enough criticism of current council members. 

 

If your lack of experience is questioned, you can point out that (1) every other council member was new at some point, and didn't have experience; (2) with no fresh blood, we end up with an entrenched council that will be there for literally decades.

 

I for one am not asking you to "manufacture criticism" of council members.  But I hope your politeness will not extend to refraining from criticizing certain actions, like trying to claim N50 water as the new S50 water source, despite Measure W etc.

 

If you end up seeming to share the views of current council members, because you do not contradict their projects and how they go about them, then I don't see why people would vote for you, as opposed to the "name recognition" candidates with the big signs on developer land.

[Rich_T]

Many folks have generalized and called the entirety of the city council corrupt, incompetent, 'all in the developer's pockets' and more.

 

Most recently, Phoenix2014 said,  "Past attempts to regain control of the Council so we have a Council that acts in the best interest of the residents:

Bob Holderness - supported by grass roots efforts - turned on a dime to do whatever developers wanted (now their attorney, the one I noted above)

Eric King - supported by grass roots efforts - turned against his friends and neighbors in support of the development community

Andy Morin - supported by grass roots efforts - turned "violently" against his friends and neighbors and was one of the Council leaders to get our Measure T kicked off the ballot.

Ernie Sheldon - same"

 

Not even Ernie is exempt from the disdain some have for our elected officials. 

 

I'm not advocating 'go along to get along', I am saying to take the high road and choose words wisely.

 

We know the negative campaigns work (sometimes), but so do positive ones (most often).

 

A smart candidate doesn't take pot-shots but rather offers his/her vision. There are plenty of supporters who can and will take the pot-shots.

Let others take the pot shots

 

I thought that was actually extremely perceptive of Phoenix2014, who is the only one telling it like it is (or at least as it seems to be, from where I sit).  I don't know about the "Ernie" part, but in any case his voice hasn't mattered when it comes to S50, has it?

 

Actually, taking the high road usually seems to equate to "going along to get along".  But as I previously stated, the less mention of the council members, the better.  It's their decisions and plans that need calling out, not the individuals.  And unless we have three outsider candidates who run as a coordinated slate, I don't see any different outcomes in future.

 

On the other hand, those of us who aren't running for office are free to call 'em as we see 'em.  It's hardly a "pot shot" to state that certain candidates are essentially in the developers' pockets.  Their words and actions speak for themselves.  They are very competent indeed when it comes to making the developers happy, so I'm not calling them incompetent.

 

I am spending far too much time commenting on this topic.  My bottom line:  I'll vote for practically ANY newcomer, and the platform really doesn't much matter.  I just want to see new people representing Folsom residents.  The best campaign would be to say "I'll do whatever a poll of residents tells me to do" about certain topics.  For instance, if residents don't want S50 development, then don't do it.  I don't need to vote for visionary "leaders" for city council.  I just want someone who wants what I want.