95 replies to this topic

[Bob]

First, sorry to all for my delay in jumping into this forum. I have had time to monitor it this week but no time to respond.

Second, I respect every ones opinion weather in support of our initiative or not. That is one of the best uses of this forum, to share differing opinions. So to FolsomFats and Terry, and to others who would hinder this exchange by simply labeling me as a “no-growther,” “malcontent,” etc., please let me set the record straight. I have lived here for 15 years and have accepted that this City would grow rapidly since my first day. I have NEVER worked toward stopping any development within our City limits. I have been “branded” as a no-growther by several Council members and others in favor of un-controlled growth simply because it suits their agenda to try and discredit me.

My record is quite different. I have worked with City staff on three ordinances, the Hillside Development, Opens Space, and Wetlands Preservation Ordinances. Mostly a waste of time, but I and other citizens were there trying. I was on a citizens committee in the early 90’s working with the City to address issues of concern in the proposed Russell (now Empire) Ranch. Those preserves of Oak forests are not there by the good graces of the developers. Neither is the open spaces or the parks, or the trails. I will provide more information on Empire as an example to why YOU the resident want to control what happens south of 50 by a direct vote, not by the illusion of having a “say” at council meetings. I was also one of the original members on the Folsom Rezone (affordable housing) Committee. Not to stop affordable housing next to my house, as so many were trying to do at that time, but to push the City to do the right thing by dispersing the rezones throughout the city and put them in logical places.

In addition, I have worked hundreds of hours on expanding and improving our parks, open space, trails, and creeks throughout the City. No Mr. FolsomFats, I do not intend to leave Dodge, nor do I choose to sit here fat, dumb and happy, although that would be very easy. I have three children that were born here, and we love living in Folsom. So I will stay and fight for what is best. Not just for my family and me, but also for what I know is best for most Folsom residents, and best for the future of this region. As I have said before, I can take the mud slinging personally, I have certainly had my share, but lets do this forum some honor and stay focused on the issue:

Should Folsom residents have a direct vote on what is going to happen or not happen south of 50?

That is pretty much what the initiative is about. It is NOT a no-growth initiative. Yes, from my understanding of our local issues and of regional ones associated with taking and developing county “permanent open space,” I would personally prefer that the initiative say, “That’s it, NO development ever south of 50!” But that would be hypocritical. I have always strived to simply present facts to our City Hall and to residents and hope that the obvious path of doing what is best for Folsom families would be followed. That is, residents would take the facts, those I present and others, and use common sense to work toward and push for what is best for our City.

The initiative will ensure just that.

Without the initiative, the City will “prezone” the current agricultural/open space county zoning prior to annexation. Once that is done, the land owners will have entitlements to profit from that zoning, their land values will skyrocket from the current $5,000+/- per acre to $40,000?, $50,000? Or even $100,000 by some media accounts. A total land value increase of, conservatively, well over $100 million.

Anyone really think they will have much of a “say” in what happens after that?

The initiative requires that, prior to annexation, any “prezoning” by the City simply be to adopt the currently defined zoning by the County. Agricultural in the sphere of influence area (SOIA), Aerojet west of Prairie City is a whole other discussion. Should annexation occur, then the initiative requires that “rezoning,” that is approval of any development plan, be approved by a direct vote by Folsom residents. If a plan is presented that has clear benefits to residents, without further hurting our traffic congestion, already poor air quality, crowded schools, or requiring current residents to help pay for it’s infrastructure and extension of services, and without siphoning from our already limited water supply, then voters will likely approve it, if not, no development.

I will start providing details, including “Arguments Against the Initiative,” and our responses to them, responses to your questions, such as who currently owns or controls what, and anything else asked on this forum, with my next reply.

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Planning

[Candy Apple]

Thank you Bob!

[Candy Apple]

A very good article by Mark Paul in today's Bee----gives a good explanation of what the group is trying to do getting Folsom residents in on the say-so!

[EDF]

Terry,

before you start to trash Bob Fish let me refresh your memory in the development of the area that Bob and I both purchased homes in - Lexington Hills...

I propose you go look at any of the developed neighborhoods in all of Folsom and tell me which neighborhood has more open space, parks and trails that are completed....?

All of the work done in that neighborhood was the direct result of people like Bob Fish and many others who were so P - - d off at you old timers for selling us short.

We didn't even have a completed elementary school, not one blade of grass in a park... but hey you old coots blamed us for that... it was you old guys that approved that development and screwed us the home buyers....

So before you slam Bob Fish get your facts straight... because he's got lots of people in town who agree with him... and we are not tree huggers either....

but you know I don't really have an opinion...except that yours is well - "incorrect" to put it nicely....

[NRB]

Hey Bob, it's nice to have you back on the forum. Thank you for taking the time to keep us informed!

[Terry]

I stand by my comments because I was in attendance at just about every council meeting and workshop that took place pre-Lexington Hills and post-Lexington Hills development. I do not believe that Bob Fish acted appropriately in a lot of situations, nor was constructive in his approaches. He tended to be inflamatory, disrespectful and self-centered in his approaches. He may have mellowed with time, and if so, that would be a drastic improvement.

Actually, at one point in time, I tended to agree with a lot of his ideas, but when he went on irrational attacks against anyone and everyone who dared to disagree with him, I could no longer support him.

[valdossjoyce]

Terry---you're baiting the likes of EDF and then reeling them in. Let's not turn this debate into people-bashing. No one is being asked to "support" Bob Fish (and, incidentally, I am shocked to hear he was ever "inflammatory, disrespectful, self-centered" or irrationally attacked "anyone & everyone who dared to disagree with him." Perhaps he has mellowed, or are you confusing him with a different Bob Fish???) Annexation and development are issues of great importance to Folsomites and to the greater Sacramento area. Let's stick to the issues. I'll weigh in with my views when I've a bit more time and am comfortable with the tone of the debate.

[EDF]

Terry..

I don't think anything I write here will change your mind but let me tell you about Bob Fish...

The reasons Bob Fish and many others from the Lexington Hills Community Organization became so active were pricely the result of the actions of City Councils at the time.

Those same City Councils who you think were doing such a great job never lifted so much as a shovel to get a park built. There were lots of meetings where we packed the chamber... We didn't always win, but you know what Terry?..... Go look at all the parks and trails over there now and you will find no other neighborhood that has as much as that one... Because of people like Bob Fish and many others....

Folsom Kid's Play Park was a big project he worked on. The trails going through Lexington Hills were completed partly because the city got some of the money through a grant that Bob provided most of the language for. He's a doer....not a "gadfly"...I have never seen him or heard him be disrespectful....

It wasn't just Bob back then and its not just him even now.

For example back then (early 90's) we were able to get Tom Aceituno elected and Sara Myers "re-elected" inspite of lots of $$$$ from your friendly developers...

We not only have our parks today as the result, we even the got developers that got tired of taking so much heat they finally thought it was a cool idea to put some parks in ahead of time.... Broadstone in early 92 comes to mind. Its amazing what a little community activism will do... . The Developers have no one else to blame. They are a pretty greedy group and they have the help of a willing city council that just "gives it up" when a developer walks in when they could bargain for more if they wanted.... but that's just my opinion...

Community involvement by a loud few does make a difference if its an issue that reasonates with voters.... The water meter issue is one that comes to mind...

Finally, we think the taxpayer/voters should have a say in what goes on South of 50. No one will dispute you that South of 50 may some day be developed.

The issues are, that we want it all clearly defined; such as how much open space; and who's paying for the costs of the infrastructure. In the past its been us taxpayers that foot the difference from what the develper has been paying and the "true costs"... ala 2 school bonds in 10 years and a whopping increase in garbage, water and sewer rates....SO... therefore it should be left up to a vote by the taxpayers not the City Council as to what gets approved...

Are you against letting the will of the people be heard throug a nice little referendum....? If its such a hot idea, then your so called "pro growth" side will win....

[Candy Apple]

Thank you Val, EDF, and Bob Fish!!! All Folsom residents should have a say in what is decided "for them", not just a few behind closed doors!

[Bob]

Members of this Forum and all Folsom residents,

This has been an amazing week for support of our efforts to bring direct control of our future to Folsom residents! Momentum has gathered quickly with unbelievable coverage and support by the print media. You may be interested in the following articles:

***********************************************************************

Folsom's growth foes get help
Environmental group will aid drive to win voter support for an urban boundary at Highway 50.
By Mary Lynne Vellinga -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Wednesday, October 15, 2003

http://www.sacbee.co...p-8543995c.html

***********************************************************************

Mark Paul: At last, voters get some choices on growth
By Mark Paul -- Bee Deputy Editorial Page Editor
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Sunday, October 19, 2003
http://www.sacbee.co...p-8570128c.html

***********************************************************************

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Oct. 15
City's gain brings reality step closer
The City of Folsom's recent gain of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) of 3,500 acres south of Highway 50 and east of Aerojet has brought the "reality" a huge step closer.

http://www.thefolsom...&ArticleID=2001

***********************************************************************

Editorial: Folsom's fault line
Growth threat south of Hwy. 50 sparks revolt
Bee Editorial Staff
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Tuesday, October 21, 2003
http://www.sacbee.co...p-8580613c.html

***********************************************************************

And, there is more to come!

Why such enthusiastic regional support?

Because there IS a long-term county growth plan for this region and it does not include developing our Sphere of Influence area south of 50. This adds to the body of truth that that the County does not intend to allow development in that area. The only "tool" that the pro-uncontrolled growth side has been able to muster to counter our initiative effort is to try and scare Folsom residents with the unsupported statement that "If we (Folsom) do not develop that area, the County will."

Our position continues to be that we should work with the County to preserve their plans to only develop within the Urban Services Boundary (west of the SOIA) and to preserve the open space to the east.

Our next meeting, including our regional support members, will be next Wednesday, Oct. 29th at 6:30PM, at the Round Table on Riley (next to Kinkos across the street from the pool).

It has only been a hand full of us so far, getting us to this point. It has been a long road, but we are thrilled with the progress. It is now time to gather the support and involvement of our neighbors. Our committee must grow to continue into the next phase (educating Folsom voters, collecting signatures to place the initiative on the ballot and running a successful campaign). We are not alone. We have the support and guidance of many who have been involved in similar efforts elsewhere, but we need strong local involvement. If you can make it, let me know or just drop in.

In my next post, I will begin addressing the many issues involved regarding the land south of 50.

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth

[Bob]

Folsom Residents For Sensible Growth

Major points for public (residential, business, and environmental) opposition to development south of 50

1. Traffic:


· According to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 3,600-acre Sphere of Influence Area (SOIA), highway 50 will require at least 10-lanes and possibly 12 lanes. Per El Dorado Transportation official, they paid for the HOV lanes, therefore, Folsom cannot account for them to accommodate growth south of 50.

· Local traffic. We will already be at level of service D to F (the worst possible) at many intersections without development south of 50. How bad will it be with it?

· Will regional shoppers still want to shop at Folsom businesses if traffic is miserable?


2. Air Quality:

· Folsom currently has the worst air pollution in the region and some of the worst in the state.

· Per the EIR, the SOI area will add 1.5 to 3 tons new air pollution per day if it is developed.

· The Air Quality Control Board may have to force existing businesses in the region (they have no control over residential) to reduce their emissions to make up for this unanticipated increase. It is likely, therefore, that Folsom’s local air quality will only get worse.

· If this region does not come into federal compliance by 2005, and maintain it in subsequent years, we stand to lose millions in federal money.


3. Water:

· A representative of the Water Forum stated that the City of Folsom has no source of “new” water with which to supply development south of 50. All water from the American River and Folsom Lake has been allocated (in fact, over allocated in dry years).

· A 1997 document spells out how Folsom intends to supply water to that area:
· Install water meters on all homes in Folsom to force a 20% reduction.
· Use reclaimed wastewater for irrigation of parks, landscaping, etc.

· Likely results:
· Much higher water bills
· Forced extreme conservation during draught years.
· The above measures to squeeze the existing residents and businesses to supply water south of 50 will leave us stretched to the maximum during normal years with no reserve of typical conservation measures for a draught.


4. School Bonds:

· Do the math. The EIR estimates that development of the SOI area will result in about 8,200 new students. Based on the limited school fees paid by developers, which account for only one-third of the actual cost of new schools, and current school district cost estimates for new schools, current residents will have to pay over $100 million to cover the remaining two-thirds.

· The City proposes that all 3,500 acres of this area will be developed as business / commercial. According to the Sacramento Business Journal, this would be more business / commercial than currently exists on the entire Highway 50 corridor. Common sense alone dictates that this just is not feasible. However, even the land speculators have balked at developing that area without considerable residential as recorded during a “Stake holders meeting” last summer (a meeting to which residents were not openly invited).


5. Will the County develop this area?

· Unlikely. This area is outside of the County’s Urban Services Boundary (USB). All land outside the USB is described in the County General Plan as “Permanent open space not subject to change…”

· County Board of Supervisor and LAFCo Commissioner Illa Collins stated several times at the Dec. 6th meeting that the County told Folsom during their 2x2 meetings while developing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), that “the County has no intent of ever developing that land.” She also stated that “the only way that land will be developed is by Folsom.”

· Also, Ms. Collins stated in a Sacramento Bee article that the only reason she is going along with Folsom’s demands is that Folsom has threatened to sue LAFCo if they do not give Folsom the Sphere of Influence (SOI).


6. Solution:

· "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative." Teddy Roosevelt

· Some at our City Hall seem convinced that development south of 50 will be good for Folsom and that this view is supported by the majority of residents. However, their own poll, as well as ours, prove that this is not true. We believe, based on these polls, that over 70% of residents oppose development south of 50 with only about 10% supporting it. With such an overwhelming gap between what City Hall believes and what the evidence supports, it is difficult to argue with President Roosevelt’s statement.

· Our initiative will place the future of the land south of 50 in the hands of Folsom voters. Voters who will look at what is best for their families and community with a clear understanding of the alternatives and without the outside pressures and influences that politicians are subject to.

[Candy Apple]

Thank you Bob! Those that argue in oposition to the truth of the above must have their own agenda.

[WhiteSpy]

Thanks Bob!

In future letters you may want to consider mentioning MyFolsom.Com to discuss the issue. I'm sure the webmaster would appreciate the publicity!

[cybertrano]

Thank you Bob!!!!!!

[Love Folsom]

But of course we need the Sphere of Influence. We (Folsom) needs to know what is happening with that land. El Dorado Hills is going way south of 50 and coming right up to the county line with a whole new sub-division south of White Rock Road. Rancho Cordova is building, building, building. "Our" space will be under huge pressure and I would far rather Folsom had some control or say over happens than to leave it to our one representative in Sacramento County.