81 replies to this topic

[supermom]

It doesn't matter. Folsom Telegraph doesn't reach enough voters. If you really want this published and actually read- it needs to be published on news10 or cbs13

[kcrides99]

Mr. Davex -

I agree, the one advantage we have is the area of discussion is not within the County's urban services boundary. To me, that means if a developer wants services, they will need to look elsewhere. The problem is that the county Board of Supervisors is just as willing to approve more development as Folsom's Council.

I agree with Chad in part, but we also need to acknowledge, as a community, if we do not want to grow out, we must grow up. From what I can tell, any discussion of density is a non-starter in this community.

The reality is California is growing. 50-million people by 2050. That is a huge number. The question is HOW do we accommodate that growth. Each City is apportioned a chunk of assumed growth from the state and then the regional planning agency (SACOG). The City is required to demonstrate they have enough available land to support the assigned number of units. We are not going to stop this from occurring, but as a community, I believe we have the ability to make a choice on how we grow.

So far the Council and from what I can tell, a significant portion of the community is generally opposed to any higher density housing and infill development. As a result the easier battle is sprawl.

What I would propose is this:

- Take the choice away from our council. Annex in this land via initiative with the stipulation that the land will serve as a green belt limited to agricultural uses.

- Be open as a community to increased density, particularly along the City's corridors and light rail.

- Redevelop the CBD to become an extension of the historic district with mixed uses, improved urban design, and overall place where people would like to be. Think mid-town or San Luis Obispo or similar

This is the only way I see that we can balance growth (divvied up by the state) and avoid the ongoing urban sprawl in the region. BTW, interesting read on how much sprawl costs compared to more compact communities: http://usa.streetsbl...ct-development/

This sort of development is more beneficial from a tax perspective as well: http://bettercities....velopment-13144

Just my opinion... any one else out there agree?

[Chad Vander Veen]

Mr. Davex -

I agree, the one advantage we have is the area of discussion is not within the County's urban services boundary. To me, that means if a developer wants services, they will need to look elsewhere. The problem is that the county Board of Supervisors is just as willing to approve more development as Folsom's Council.

I agree with Chad in part, but we also need to acknowledge, as a community, if we do not want to grow out, we must grow up. From what I can tell, any discussion of density is a non-starter in this community.

The reality is California is growing. 50-million people by 2050. That is a huge number. The question is HOW do we accommodate that growth. Each City is apportioned a chunk of assumed growth from the state and then the regional planning agency (SACOG). The City is required to demonstrate they have enough available land to support the assigned number of units. We are not going to stop this from occurring, but as a community, I believe we have the ability to make a choice on how we grow.

So far the Council and from what I can tell, a significant portion of the community is generally opposed to any higher density housing and infill development. As a result the easier battle is sprawl.

What I would propose is this:

- Take the choice away from our council. Annex in this land via initiative with the stipulation that the land will serve as a green belt limited to agricultural uses.

- Be open as a community to increased density, particularly along the City's corridors and light rail.

- Redevelop the CBD to become an extension of the historic district with mixed uses, improved urban design, and overall place where people would like to be. Think mid-town or San Luis Obispo or similar

This is the only way I see that we can balance growth (divvied up by the state) and avoid the ongoing urban sprawl in the region. BTW, interesting read on how much sprawl costs compared to more compact communities: http://usa.streetsbl...ct-development/

This sort of development is more beneficial from a tax perspective as well: http://bettercities....velopment-13144

Just my opinion... any one else out there agree?

 

Agree completely. People equate up with "OMG we're a megalopolis now!" though so it's a very hard sell, even though it makes sense any way you slice it.

[cw68]

Mr. Davex -

I agree, the one advantage we have is the area of discussion is not within the County's urban services boundary. To me, that means if a developer wants services, they will need to look elsewhere. The problem is that the county Board of Supervisors is just as willing to approve more development as Folsom's Council.

I agree with Chad in part, but we also need to acknowledge, as a community, if we do not want to grow out, we must grow up. From what I can tell, any discussion of density is a non-starter in this community.

The reality is California is growing. 50-million people by 2050. That is a huge number. The question is HOW do we accommodate that growth. Each City is apportioned a chunk of assumed growth from the state and then the regional planning agency (SACOG). The City is required to demonstrate they have enough available land to support the assigned number of units. We are not going to stop this from occurring, but as a community, I believe we have the ability to make a choice on how we grow.

So far the Council and from what I can tell, a significant portion of the community is generally opposed to any higher density housing and infill development. As a result the easier battle is sprawl.

What I would propose is this:

- Take the choice away from our council. Annex in this land via initiative with the stipulation that the land will serve as a green belt limited to agricultural uses.

- Be open as a community to increased density, particularly along the City's corridors and light rail.

- Redevelop the CBD to become an extension of the historic district with mixed uses, improved urban design, and overall place where people would like to be. Think mid-town or San Luis Obispo or similar

This is the only way I see that we can balance growth (divvied up by the state) and avoid the ongoing urban sprawl in the region. BTW, interesting read on how much sprawl costs compared to more compact communities: http://usa.streetsbl...ct-development/

This sort of development is more beneficial from a tax perspective as well: http://bettercities....velopment-13144

Just my opinion... any one else out there agree?

This would be more enticing to me than endless sprawl and non-walkable neighborhoods.

[mrdavex]

Mr. Davex -

I agree, the one advantage we have is the area of discussion is not within the County's urban services boundary. To me, that means if a developer wants services, they will need to look elsewhere. The problem is that the county Board of Supervisors is just as willing to approve more development as Folsom's Council.

I agree with Chad in part, but we also need to acknowledge, as a community, if we do not want to grow out, we must grow up. From what I can tell, any discussion of density is a non-starter in this community.

The reality is California is growing. 50-million people by 2050. That is a huge number. The question is HOW do we accommodate that growth. Each City is apportioned a chunk of assumed growth from the state and then the regional planning agency (SACOG). The City is required to demonstrate they have enough available land to support the assigned number of units. We are not going to stop this from occurring, but as a community, I believe we have the ability to make a choice on how we grow.

So far the Council and from what I can tell, a significant portion of the community is generally opposed to any higher density housing and infill development. As a result the easier battle is sprawl.

What I would propose is this:

- Take the choice away from our council. Annex in this land via initiative with the stipulation that the land will serve as a green belt limited to agricultural uses.

- Be open as a community to increased density, particularly along the City's corridors and light rail.

- Redevelop the CBD to become an extension of the historic district with mixed uses, improved urban design, and overall place where people would like to be. Think mid-town or San Luis Obispo or similar

This is the only way I see that we can balance growth (divvied up by the state) and avoid the ongoing urban sprawl in the region. BTW, interesting read on how much sprawl costs compared to more compact communities: http://usa.streetsbl...ct-development/

This sort of development is more beneficial from a tax perspective as well: http://bettercities....velopment-13144

Just my opinion... any one else out there agree?

 

I fully agree! 

And in regards to the Sac County development, we do need to be just as concerned with who we elect for Sac County Supervisor, just as we have been with City Council.  

[tony]

Mr. Davex -

I agree, the one advantage we have is the area of discussion is not within the County's urban services boundary. To me, that means if a developer wants services, they will need to look elsewhere. The problem is that the county Board of Supervisors is just as willing to approve more development as Folsom's Council.

I agree with Chad in part, but we also need to acknowledge, as a community, if we do not want to grow out, we must grow up. From what I can tell, any discussion of density is a non-starter in this community.

The reality is California is growing. 50-million people by 2050. That is a huge number. The question is HOW do we accommodate that growth. Each City is apportioned a chunk of assumed growth from the state and then the regional planning agency (SACOG). The City is required to demonstrate they have enough available land to support the assigned number of units. We are not going to stop this from occurring, but as a community, I believe we have the ability to make a choice on how we grow.

So far the Council and from what I can tell, a significant portion of the community is generally opposed to any higher density housing and infill development. As a result the easier battle is sprawl.

What I would propose is this:

- Take the choice away from our council. Annex in this land via initiative with the stipulation that the land will serve as a green belt limited to agricultural uses.

- Be open as a community to increased density, particularly along the City's corridors and light rail.

- Redevelop the CBD to become an extension of the historic district with mixed uses, improved urban design, and overall place where people would like to be. Think mid-town or San Luis Obispo or similar

This is the only way I see that we can balance growth (divvied up by the state) and avoid the ongoing urban sprawl in the region. BTW, interesting read on how much sprawl costs compared to more compact communities: http://usa.streetsbl...ct-development/

This sort of development is more beneficial from a tax perspective as well: http://bettercities....velopment-13144

Just my opinion... any one else out there agree?

You are right on, although the County has been more willing to hold the line at the urban services boundary than the city.  Back in the Measure W days, they sent a letter saying the county had no plans to develop land outside the urban services boundary, and Mr. Meyers spent a bunch of money on a ballot initiative trying to bypass the county to get his land zoned for development, and failed.

 

One additional thought, and that is that the last SACOG regional plan (can't remember the name of it right now, but it was before the crash) showed that there was plenty of land within the  USB to cover growth through 2035. With the slowdown in growth, that should now be good to about 2050. There is no need to do any green field development in Sac County in the near future; it's just cheaper and easier for the developers and local agencies, partly because they don't have to deal with existing infrastructure, and partly because they don't have to deal with NIMBYism. But as your article points out, sprawling development is much more expensive in the long run because it requires more infrastructure to build and more to maintain, with less people paying to maintain it.  Which brings me back to Chad's excellent post, which pointed out the "pyramid scheme" that is new development for cities like Folsom.

[kcrides99]

OK, so again I ask...

 

Do you feel (you and people you know) that if we were to work to get an initiative on the ballot to annex the land as a greenbelt/agricultural buffer you would be supportive of it?

 

What if it meant an additional tax to cover any maintenance or related costs?

 

Does anyone know who/how the Measure W was created, and/or have contacts to get something going?

[Steve Heard]

The reality is California is growing. 50-million people by 2050. That is a huge number. The question is HOW do we accommodate that growth. Each City is apportioned a chunk of assumed growth from the state and then the regional planning agency (SACOG). The City is required to demonstrate they have enough available land to support the assigned number of units. We are not going to stop this from occurring, but as a community, I believe we have the ability to make a choice on how we grow.
 

 

Are you saying that cities cannot stop growth? They can't say, 'we're as big as we wanna be'  and put a moratorium on further development?

 

I'm not sure everyone understands why housing gets built. It's more than just a greedy developer with a dream of paving over paradise, and stopping growth takes more than replacing city council with anti-growth advocates.

[supermom]

I really dont agree. I dont think we should want THAT piece of land for a green belt. Or for any reason. Keep folsom size where it is and concetrate on the empty buildings. concentrate on getting businesses to folsom, concentrate on getting global seminars to folsom. Concentrate on turning folsom inot the perfect bedroom town for international travelers not wanting the hassle of staying in Sacramento and its endless downtown pavement. Turn Folsom into a desirous place to visit and spend money- and then leave.

[kcrides99]

Yes Steve that is exactly what I am saying. Every 8 years the state assigns sacog an allocation of units, and sacog divvies that up to all of the cities.

Cities are required to demonstrate they have the land available to accommodate those levels of housing. If they don't have enough land at the appropriate density, they are required to rezone land until they do. They are not required to build housing only demonstrate they have land.

Again, in general, this is easier in greenfield development than infill.

Super mom- I agree we shouldn't have the need to annex the land, but clearly sacramento county cannot be trusted to stop sprawling out. We cannot count on that land being undeveloped forever without protections.

I don't trust our council either which is why I propose that the voters decide.

Steve, while I agree all developers are not evil, look at what bernau has achieved here, but clearly it is easier to keep building out in the hills than to redevelop.

Business owners in the CBd believe their land is much more valuable than it is- couple that with nimbys, redevelopment is not likely in the near future.

People want more housing because the options suck in sacramento...

As someone pointed out we have several decades worth of housing approved in sacramento, why not stop sprawling now?

I am far from an environmentalist but I see how this game ends.... It ends up with the sprawl seen north of 80 continuing all the way to Elk Grove gobbling up Folsom along the way. Soon there will be no open land between rancho Folsom and Elk Grove.

We need more housing options where we can live close to amenities like restaurants and shopping. As we continue to sprawl out our retail jumps ship in older areas and leaves vacancies (I.e red robin moving to palladio)

If this continues older (pre 2000) Folsom will end up looking like the rest of sac, huge vacancies in retail and deferred maintenance residential that was built to poor quality and will never be desire able. We need to invest in our existing community, protect our open space and stop the sprawl that has been this regions ONLY choice for the last 40 years.

[ducky]

Yes Steve that is exactly what I am saying. Every 8 years the state assigns sacog an allocation of units, and sacog divvies that up to all of the cities.

Cities are required to demonstrate they have the land available to accommodate those levels of housing. If they don't have enough land at the appropriate density, they are required to rezone land until they do. They are not required to build housing only demonstrate they have land.

Again, in general, this is easier in greenfield development than infill.

Super mom- I agree we shouldn't have the need to annex the land, but clearly sacramento county cannot be trusted to stop sprawling out. We cannot count on that land being undeveloped forever without protections.

I don't trust our council either which is why I propose that the voters decide.

Steve, while I agree all developers are not evil, look at what bernau has achieved here, but clearly it is easier to keep building out in the hills than to redevelop.

Business owners in the CBd believe their land is much more valuable than it is- couple that with nimbys, redevelopment is not likely in the near future.

People want more housing because the options suck in sacramento...

As someone pointed out we have several decades worth of housing approved in sacramento, why not stop sprawling now?

I am far from an environmentalist but I see how this game ends.... It ends up with the sprawl seen north of 80 continuing all the way to Elk Grove gobbling up Folsom along the way. Soon there will be no open land between rancho Folsom and Elk Grove.

We need more housing options where we can live close to amenities like restaurants and shopping. As we continue to sprawl out our retail jumps ship in older areas and leaves vacancies (I.e red robin moving to palladio)

If this continues older (pre 2000) Folsom will end up looking like the rest of sac, huge vacancies in retail and deferred maintenance residential that was built to poor quality and will never be desire able. We need to invest in our existing community, protect our open space and stop the sprawl that has been this regions ONLY choice for the last 40 years.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you on the pre-2000 homes.  We have maintained and updated our 1950s home very well.  We are seeing more and more young couples come in and do the same.   It's because that's what they can afford as a starter home and our neighborhood is already walkable to schools, to stores, to restaurants, to shopping, and to Sutter St.   Proof that redevelopment can happen without government intervention. 

 

Yes, Red Robin left, but that space already has a new tenant.  Yes, people look down on Denny's, but not everyone can afford to eat at the places in Palladio.

I really don't like the NIMBY word.  I think it is misused.  If there was open space behind me that was slated for development maybe that word would apply, but when things are rezoned that cause parking, noise, and traffic problems or a large building towering over residential, things that were never in the general plan, then people do have a right to speak up without being called NIMBYs.

 

If you mean by investing in our existing community taking away land from CBD owners for pennies on the dollar to turn it over to someone else to make a profit, then I can't agree to that.  

I'm a homebody that likes to putter in my garden in my spare time, and I can't afford to eat out all that often, so living in a mixed-use luxury loft surrounded by expensive shops and eateries doesn't really appeal to me.  If it did, I wouldn't have chosen to live in a small neighborhood in Folsom.

 

It makes more sense to do that sort of thing in new development where they can do it along coordinated public transportation lines to handle the denser housing.  Of course, even then, I'm wondering how affordable would it be to live in high-rise kind of places?  Wouldn't they have high HOA fees?  Where do the people live that work in those fancy eateries?

 

Personally, I'd like to see S50 be more about bringing in companies with jobs that pay more than minimum wage and let Sacramento continue to "grow up" and commute here while N50 Folsom stays as is, but with improved parks where there is infill space.  But that's just me being silly.  They've got their plan and it looks like they are moving forward no matter what. 

[kcrides99]

Ducky, I appologize for characterizing all pre-2000s homes.

Sure there are exceptions, especially in historic Folsom; however when you look at areas in the region that were built out in the 1970s (rancho/ north highlands) you will see large swaths I homes that have not been updated and probably never will.

Never meant to imply the CBd should be paid pennies on the dollar, but that area can use some reinvestment and I don't see that happening currently or in the near future. Those properties are dated and need work but owners appear to be happy getting rent and not making an significant improvements.

Also, not talking high rises, just modest mixed use and development patterns and quality construction that was the norm prior to the 50's.

I guess the point is I would much rather support redevelopment of the CBD, focused development along light rail, and improving out corridors than continuing the status quo- and the best method I see is to eliminate the sprawl option tsakopolous has made their millions on.

[supermom]

I say we dont worry about what sacramento does because it isnt in our power to fuss about it. But it is in our power to refuse to grow our... and just concentrate on what we have. That is a worthwhile goal that is reachable.

[kcrides99]

Super mom, so you are good if tsakopolous develops another huge specific plan south of the new city limits in either unincorporated sacramento or rancho??

Under that scenario residents of Folsom have even less say. Also, under that scenario the county is not obligated to mitigate traffic impacts that occur north of Folsom...

Does that change your mind?

I would rather take that opportunity off the table all together

[ducky]

Super mom, so you are good if tsakopolous develops another huge specific plan south of the new city limits in either unincorporated sacramento or rancho??

Under that scenario residents of Folsom have even less say. Also, under that scenario the county is not obligated to mitigate traffic impacts that occur north of Folsom...

Does that change your mind?

I would rather take that opportunity off the table all together

 

This all sounds so familiar, annexing land so residents can have control over the impact of development.

 

I don't like the idea of more taxes so I'd have to say no to the question in your previous post. 

 

You asked who drafted Measure W.  The city council placed Measure W on the ballot "so Folsom residents could set the parameters for any development that occurs South of 50," at least that's according to a Visioning document.  Only 200 people attended, a very small percentage of Folsom's population.  So, while there may be a vocal majority here on myfolsom against what's happening S50 or even south S50, it doesn't seem to translate into community involvement.