19 replies to this topic

[Steve Heard]

Here's my take. I'm sure Steve and others will chime in. In no particular order . . .

Jeff has the most experience and it showed. He explained things well and kept everything really positive.

Ernie was cracking me up. He said something to the effect of "We don't get dumb as we get older, we just get older." Not the most polished or sophisticated speaker up there but with Ernie what you see is what you get which I appreciate.

Roger Gaylord has matured and mellowed since he first ran four years ago although I had a tough time following some of his answers.

Chad's focus is on green issues, sustainability, etc. Read a lot of his answers which I thought was interesting. Not sure if he anticipated some questions and had something prepared in advance or if he wrote his answers there.

Rob Ross talked about bringing his technology background to the city. Has a basic understanding of the major issues and was well spoken.

All in all it was a good night. Thanks to all of the candidates for participating and Roger Niello for moderating. He was terrific!

 

I'd say that was a pretty good assessment. 

 

I will add that Jeff Starsky appeared to be the most professional and accomplished up there. I can see how some people might vote for him due to his years of experience, and his statement about being miserly and challenging people who want to spend the city's money. He said he always makes decisions based on what is best for the city. 

 

Ernie spoke of his accomplishments, largely with park and rec facilities. He has been a well-known opponent of events that bring people to the historic district and seemed to complain that the Chamber has events there 52 weeks out of the year, and that they could fix the parking problem if they wanted to. I was puzzled by that last remark. I think he was referring to citizen complaints about people parking in front of their homes to attend events or patronize the historic district businesses (which is legal), but not sure what he meant by saying that the Chamber could fix the parking. They certainly don't make the parking law. I think he may have a certain amount of loyalty among some of the long-time residents, and I could see them voting for him based on his record with the city.         

 

Roger Gaylord did indeed tone it down a bit, and spoke of transparency in the government, and about truly representing the people of Folsom. He acknowledged that the city has enough water for growth, but thinks it was a violation of Measure W to allow the developers of the South of 50 project to secure their supply by fixing the leaks in the supply pipes on the north side. I think those who are angry and really want a change are going to vote for him. 

 

I see Chad as one having vision for the future, and although he appeared to be reading some of his answers, I attributed that to being prepared and wanting to be sure to get his points across. He is about smart growth, water recycling, LED lighting and other 'green' technology to make the city more efficient and sustainable. He also said that he will not be putting up signs nor taking any campaign donations, asking for peoples' time and votes instead. That way, he won't owe anyone anything when elected. Those with similar views will no doubt vote for him.

 

Rob Ross had a fairly large, supportive group in the audience. He talked about our lack of modern technology with city services and information, as well as the fact the we don't have anyone with a technology background on the city council. Much of the audience was older, and I'm not sure that message resonated with them, but I think his sincerity played well with the whole crowd. He's no doubt going to get votes from the tech-savvy and has a following due to his involvement with Park and Rec, and volunteerism.       

 

 

 

In a forum such as that one with 5 candidates, anyone who has to read his answers is NOT ready for PrimeTime.

 

Chad is OFF of my list.

 

As mentioned above, I thought he was just prepared and making sure he got his points across. 

[Rich_T]

I attended as well, and agree with parts of what people have written above, and disagree with other parts.

 

All candidates came off well for the most part, and I have no doubt that the usual will happen:  the 3 challengers will dilute each other's votes, giving Starsky an easy path to win one seat, with Sheldon less certain.  I predict that Starsky and Gaylord will win, with Gaylord thus replacing Sheldon on the council. That's my best guess.

 

Working left to right as the audience viewed them on stage...

 

Roger Gaylord seemed well-informed, and had good, non-cookie-cutter responses to all questions.  He seems to be the candidate most in touch with residents, after years of "walking the town" and talking with people.  He's not beholden to any special interests.  I like his angle of being the first from the generation of former kids who actually grew up in Folsom to now seek office.  And I like his perserverance - he's "all in", and legitimately interested in serving Folsom as a council member.  He's got one of my votes.

 

Rob Ross impressed me as well.  He was well-spoken, has lots of experience serving the city (I had never heard of him, but he's been much involved), and like the others, seemed like a responsible person who would not be amiss as a council member.  I might make him my second vote.

 

Ernie Sheldon provided the most entertainment.  He is Mr. Parks and Rec, really Mr. Folsom, and has a folksy and refreshingly straightforward delivery.  Like SCA, I enjoyed his line "just because we get old doesn't mean we get dumber, it just means we get old".  He sold himself as "not telling you what I'm going to do" as opposed to pointing out what he's already done as his legacy, and therefore is well-positioned to continue to do.  He "gets things done", and is a necessary irritant sometimes to others on the council, to get things done.  I can't say that I'd mind him either, if he is re-elected.  He seems like a good counterbalance to Starsky.  But my personal preference is to go for the "fresh face", as Gaylord is campaigning.  Through no fault of their own, council members who have been here for 20 years just seem off-putting by their sheer refusal to yield the council to others.

 

Jeff Starsky was a mixed bag for me.  I came in predisposed to dislike him very much, based on the whole Measure W duplicity over the years, and how I had seen him talk down, literally and figuratively, to residents in City Council meetings.  But he put his best foot forward at this forum, and I found him to be likable enough.  However, I was wary, and I noticed that he ducked a couple of topics brought up by others:  his huge advantage in developer-assisted campaign spending; the fact that the council really did "steal water" from N50 for use by S50, by claiming that conserved water was  "a new source", in clear violation of Measure W (Ernie Sheldon got this wrong as well); his refusal to state, as others did, that he would not be pro-development for the "Corporate Yard" (which is apparently a big deal that I had never heard of previously); and his (to me surprising) reluctance to ramp up the police as our population grows (I understand the argument:  the city won't be able to afford their pensions later, but he seems prepared to sacrifice one of Folsom's drawing points, which is a responsive police force; "reciprocal agreements" don't cut it).  I still think that Starsky seems slippery at times, despite the professional and "business" sheen that has impressed other commenters here.  I won't vote for him, but I fully expect him to retain his seat, stretching out his council term to 25 years (yuck).  Oh -- I like that he drew attention to the need to prevent the Central Business District from becoming even more of an outdated wasteland.

 

Chad Vanderveen, I'm sorry to say, came off too "weak", in my opinion.  In fact, I won't even vote for him, even though I "get" his points of view, and don't disagree with them.  It's a sign of bad judgment IMO to ask residents to help his campaign with our time:  we're not going to do that, because we don't care enough, and we have lives of our own.  It's admirable that he is spending no money on his campaign (Gaylord "dinged" him on that, saying that he needs to be "all in" and spend his own money; I don't necessarily agree with Gaylord on that), but he'll have to get his messages out via social media, and not expect people to pound the pavement for him.

 

Everyone mentioned what a great place Folsom is, including for attracting business.  The water topic was mentioned, but not properly dealt with IMO.  The Corporate Yard was a chance for candidates to draw distinctions between themselves.  Everyone mentioned S50 development, but nobody mentioned that Folsom residents never had a chance to vote for development; they only voted for Measure W (and would have passed Measure T, had the council/developer cabal not had it tossed out on a technicality).  They discussed traffic, and some were more realistic than others (Ernie was very realistic).  S50 means a traffic mess, and I didn't hear any good solutions.  They mentioned the bypass freeway from EDH to Elk Grove, but that won't help E.Bidwell at Iron Point, or Folsom-Auburn Road at rush hour, etc, etc.

 

The candidates were polite, with no snarky personal attacks, and stuck to their allotted two minutes per answer, for the most part.  The forum ended on time (not that it would have really mattered, had it gone past 8:00 PM).

 

That's my take on the meeting (minus the stuff I've already forgotten).   It served the purpose of focusing my preferences.  I am putting Gaylord first, Ross second, Sheldon third, Vanderveen fourth, and Starsky fifth.   No matter which two get elected, we'll be in good hands, although I'll never get past Starsky's "slippery" side that lies beneath his business veneer, and which sometimes emerges - that is purely my personal opinion, of course.

[Rich_T]

Just a nit:  there should be people handing out parking passes for car dashboards at these events, or better yet, tell the parking police to lay off for three hours whenever these events are held.  I know there were supposedly people handing out passes, but it wasn't working, because everyone had to walk up to the venue, get a pass, go back to the car, and then back up to the venue - not a trivial thing for some of the older residents.  There is room for improvement next time.  Put the helpers out in the parking lot.

[SCA]

Good feedback about the parking. They were handing out passes in the lot when I got there but maybe they ran out. The chamber has asked if they would just not ticket in the area right in front of the theater but so far it's a no go.

[caligirlz]

i think you can watch folsomtv off facebook

 

I watched the first segment. I could not understand Ernie. His voice was muffled like it was too close to the mic (but someone told me he had a tooth pulled), still could not understand much of what he said. I did think it was interesting that he came across as anti (or perhaps smart) growth almost as a rebuttal to Starksy. I thought everyone did a great job. I did not notice anyone reading answers.