502 replies to this topic

[supermom]

As usual, Phoenix has great ideas.    Social media outreach is important.    New candidates bonding is important.

 

Today's Bee has an article on page One of Our Region by Brad Branan.    The incumbents are named TEN Times.   Miklos alone  SIX times touting b.s.     Jennifer Lane - Six mentions, but many were to downplay her positions.    The other candidates got ONE mention each.      The Bee coverage praising  HD council actions and the bridge/trail  smell of Holderness because of his positions in the city and employment by a huge landowner.

 

What is not mentioned about these incumbents: 

•  1.   SACOG has  withdrawn  $ 3 million it promised for the trail because of improper actions, such as total failure to engineer and do CEQA compliance for a tunnel and bridge, encroachments on federal & state open lands, and much more.
•  2.  The HD garage and on-street lite rail parking are mostly empty because outsiders are smart enough to avoid the city except when the council permits a public 'street alcohol and noise binge'   -- which is aimed at outsiders and hurts residents.
•  3.  over two dozen alcohol sales licenses in a several block area is dangerous and unprecedented.
•  4.  the sewage system still relies upon 1992 very small pipes in the HD, so the painting and expensive rocks are a drawback not a blessing.    Bee has testimony to prove this council is worthless in complying with safety laws.
•  5.  city sewage system is under investigation by the State Water board which guards water quality -- the highest level except to send it to the CA Attorney General next.
•  6-12.   Construction projects shut down since August 2014:    Woodside Homes, the Commons of Folsom, and sewer "improvement" projects.       Much more.......   like the string of bogus ordinances, and Ernie Sheldon warning you the number of FPA HOMES is NOT the small number the Bee continues to mention on the Tsakopolous lands (ignoring the Easton/Aerojet lands.)

 

GRASS ROOTS is great and I support it.    My contribution is to offer a seminar for the incumbents and their campaign advisors, at which they can view some critical evidence.     Maybe being together would help organize thoughts.   

 

This is an invitation to have a meeting, which could lead to some public meetings which could involve children, families, and an outdoor site.    Let's at least fire back at the newspaper which is hell-bound to help get FPA and all 6,000 acres south of 50 developed -- even if Sacramento residents lose much water to FPA, and what water they get is loaded with Folsom sewage.    

 

CAN WE  MEET & TALK ???

 

As usual, Phoenix has great ideas.    Social media outreach is important.  

   gah---ok, i believe i mentioned this well before out phoenix bit into the conversation

[tony]

 

Just because you were both on the "traffic safety" group......

You are really big on OPINIONs and never seem bothered with facts or public records.

 

It is precisely because a CA Licensed Engineer is sworn to enforce all laws -- as a condition of having a license -- that Tony should behave to a higher standard than a layman.      This is a topic about  getting some NEW BLOOD,  not distracting people from the issues with unrelated minutiae.

 

Get a grip....

 

The "traffic safety" group on which CW and I served (I'm still on it and serve as the committee chair) is the City of Folsom Traffic Safety Committee.  Unfortunately, it only meets quarterly and has very little influence and no authority (it can only make recommendations to staff and City Council, which they often ignore (case in point, our recommendation for a four-way stop at Persifer and Coloma to make it safer for students walking and riding to Sutter Middle from the east, and arguably to improve traffic during drop-off and pick-up by making it easier for parents on Persifer to get across Coloma).  And BTW, CW was on the committee because we shared concerns about bicyclist and pedestrian safety, had worked together on a school program at NSE, and I suggested she might want to try getting on the committee, which was short on members with specific interest in those two groups.

 

Speaking of distracting people with minutia, this business about professional engineers being responsible for law enforcement is pretty far fetched. I even went back and read the business and professional code and the code of ethics for professional engineers just to make sure I haven't been shirking my duties for the past 20 years.  The only thing I can figure is maestro must be referring to the the City Charter, which does give enforcement powers to the City Engineer for local laws. I'm not the City Engineer.

[tony]

 

The CDC also says that bicyclists face a higher risk of crash-related injury & deaths than occupants of motor vehicles do.  While women have other dangers not related to riding a bicycle, I stand corrected.  It says males are much more likely than females to be killed or injured on bicycles.  We can throw statistics around all day, or perhaps we should show them to the woman in the silver minivan in town who thinks the bike lane is some sort of extra lane.

 

Tony, I notice all those cities you list rarely, if ever, get over a hundred degrees.  Okay. New York gets humid, but it also has more public transit.  As supermom noted above, there is no way I can arrive at work smelling like or looking like what would happen after riding for miles in the heat.  I don't work at a fixed location nor ones that have shower facilities.

 

I'll add to those reasons for not riding a bike that some people just don't enjoy it.  I like riding the trails in a recreational way, but I don't like the bike lanes and would rather walk to run errands. The older I get the less I've been riding and it has nothing to do with obesity.  Cycling is not a one-size-fits-all solution.  Public transit is something that fits for young or old.  I'm not saying I think a parking lot is the best solution, but I do think something needs to be done to make the crossings safer and there needs to be a better way for the school buses and parents to pick up and drop off students.

So now I'll try and tie this back into the regularly scheduled politics and say that's why I like Chad's ideas.

 

Yes, ducky, statistics can be used many ways, and, I too stand corrected. You found a recent study that looks at risk based on trips rather than population or mileage, which does indeed show bicycling to be riskier than driving, and more so for men than women. I would note, though, that the study did not differentiate between overall risk and controlled risk, i.e. one reason men are at higher risk is because they are more likely to ride at night and to do so without proper lights and or under the influence. Roughly half of bike injuries are the bicyclists fault, a controllable risk.

 

I would like to clarify that my mission is not to get everyone out of their cars and on bikes all the time (the one-size-fits-all-solution), but merely to get more out more often.  And specifically, my question was about why Folsom compares so unfavorably to so many other cities with respect to bicycle transportation, having a commute mode share of just about 1%. And I am not convinced that weather is a factor. Having lived and bicycled in six different states, I can say unequivocally that of those six, Folsom's weather is, if not the most favorable for bicycling, a close second to Denver (Denver is drier and not as hot, but has regular afternoon thunderstorms in the summer, and those occasional snow storms in the winter). Sure, San Diego and LA and San Jose have better cycling weather, but outside of CA, there are very few that compare to ours. And I left Austin off the list, but Austin is nearly as hot but far more humid. What makes the weather so good in Folsom is that it is always cool for the morning commute, no matter how hot it may be in the afternoon, so arriving presentably at work is not that hard.  That said, I would still consider a shower at work a minimum requirements for bike commuting any distance beyond 2 or 3 miles. 

 

Oh, and thanks to you and supermon and CW for the kind words.

 

So returning to the politics at hand, my question about cycling was a lead in to note that one of my frustrations with the current council members is their narrow focus on bicycling as a recreational activity. But given that Folsom has done a better job than other local agencies at providing for recreational cycling, which in many cases supports cycling for transportation (I use the city's bike paths almost every day for transportation), I try to limit my public criticism while working to improve things like signal timing and detection, interfaces between the path system and roads (most bike trips require at least some riding on the road), eliminating gaps in the bike lane system, etc.Unfortunately, with the exception of Chad, I'm doubtful that any of the challengers would be any more receptive to these concerns.

[tony]

Whereas that may be appropriate for some parts of the town, many of the students have to travel from the other side of the bridge. Frankly, they shouldnt have to ride a bike that far. 35 teenagers in a classroom that have had pe at some point in the day is bad enough. The odor would be awful if they all smelled like 10 milers and PE

OK, I can't let this one slide by! The furthest point in Folsom north of the river (the NW corner of American River Canyon North) is 3.5 miles from Sutter middle. Any teenager on a real bike (i.e., not a bmx bike) should be able to do that in 20 minutes without breaking a sweat (it's mostly downhill to Sutter, except for the couple of blocks up from the river). No point if Folsom is 10 miles from Sutter Middle.  But you're making arguments about the extreme. My point is that because we do not encourage students bicycling (in fact, I know some schools in town have actively discouraged it for fear it would somehow increase liability for the school) the percentage who do (I'm sure no-one has counted, but I suspect at the middle schools it is less than 5%) is far less in Folsom than in other cities with active Safe Routes to Schools programs. If there were some political support, perhaps the school district would be more inclined to support such programs, which have been shown to have multiple benefits, from reduction in obesity, to safer traffic around schools, to more independent and confident youth, to better academic performance (yes, studies have shown that kids who walk or bike to school do better than those who are driven).

[tony]

Ducky, Supermom,

 

Tony is a prime beneficiary of city contracts given to his firm.     Please bring the discussion back to the reelection of new candidates.    His interest lies solely in de-railing topics to miniscule details which he can obscure --   detracting from the real issues.

 

 

Here's a real issue:  the Bee endorsement of Howell and Morin --  the Bee seems to be peddling the notion that developing

SIX THOUSAND ACRES   south of 50   is going to happen.    They even made light of Jennifer Lane's suggestion that

WATER MUST COME FIRST --   DEVELOPERS CAN  TAKE A HIKE.

 

Good for you, Jennifer Lane.     You concept is simple:   WATER before  PRIVATE GREED/GAIN.

 

The city DOES NOT have 34,000 acre feet of "pre 1914 water rights."    That is BS because we are in a drought and there may be FURTHER REDUCTIONS from the city's   "multi-year drought allotment of  17,000 acre feet".     The existing city will have to cut water usage by at least 50%   (from our wet-years allotment) if this drought continues this winter.     So where does this 6,000 new acreage of city get water?   From a rock?

 

What exactly is a "prime beneficiary of city contracts"? Is that an accusation? Is that a problem?  I work for a transportation engineering firm. We currently have six projects in Folsom, varying from very small -- inspecting the Historic Truss --  to medium sized -- design for widening Green Valley Road.  We also are currently working on projects for about 50 other cities and counties in California (I have four projects in the City of Indio alone), from San Diego to Dinuba to Santa Cruz to Kings Beach. But when an opportunity comes up to work in our home town, we usually jump a the chance and do our best to win it (we won the Johnny Cash design because we had a creative idea, and the city liked it. BTW, most local agencies prefer to work with local engineering firms because they know the city, are available at a moments notice and it saves on travel costs.  

 

Do I go out of my way not to publicly criticize the city? You bet! That does not go over well any client. This is why it may seem that I pick on certain issues.  If I agree with the criticism others make, I will probably stay silent rather than chime in. But if I feel like the city is being unfairly criticized, then I will step up and defend the city, or at least challenge unsupported claims  (if is something I either specifically care about or have some knowledge about).

 

Since maestro makes the most, and the most grand accusations about city actions, I do my best to refute the ones I find unfounded. For example, the claim that the city had $3M in funds taken away by SACOG as a result of the Johnny Cash Bridge (and the related accusation that it was not properly engineered, which I know is based, at best, on misunderstanding of the process), to my knowledge (which is pretty good on this one), has no basis. The city did transfer some grant funds from the next phase (with permission from SACOG) to help pay for it the bridge and trail just opened. I suspect that is what maestro is railing about, but since she provides no evidence to back up the claim, I can only speculate on what she is referring to.  She says she has lots of evidence, but never seems to produce it, saying that if we want it we can do a FOI request just like she did.  But if your goal is to expose wrongdoing, isn't it most effective to get the evidence out as publicly as possible, so others have no choice but to believe your claims and support your cause?

 

So, as for the Bee endorsements, with the exception of the support for Chad, I found the whole article rather weak. Basically, they said that they agreed it was a time for some change because...well, because the three incumbents have been on the council for a very long time. So, since Miklos has been on the longest, and since Howell is the only woman on the council, Miklos should go.  They kind of ignored the fact that two of the challengers are women, so if one or more of them were elected, there would still be at least one woman on the council.

 

Actually, I also thought the Bee was on point on one other item, the comment about Jennifer Lane's ideas on water and development being "simplistic".  She has said that she opposes development south of 50 as long as the lake is so low. The implication is that it would be OK if the lake were full. But that ignores the bigger issue of whether the water supply for south of 50 is adequate or even appropriate. The need for water is a permanent condition; the drought and low lake levels are cyclical conditions that will certainly recur after the houses are built.

[Sandra Lunceford]

"Unfortunately, with the exception of Chad, I'm doubtful that any of the challengers would be any more receptive to these concerns."

 

Au contraire, Tony, don't be too hasty to judge all challengers.  I have always encouraged my kids and grandkids to ride their bikes to school and agree it is a healthy alternative.  There is always room for improving safety for walkers and riders.  It would certainly be worth the effort to work with parents and schools to help create safe school crosswalks and Safe Routes to schools.  

 

As far as finding an additional source of water right now, I believe it would be nearly impossible to find any water purveyor who would trade their scarce water without a generous ransom.  However, in time it would seem more logical to purchase water from upstream sources, i.e., El Dorado Irrigation District or Nevada Irrigation District, rather than purchase it from a downstream source and pay for infrastructure to pump it upstream. 

[4thgenFolsomite]

"Unfortunately, with the exception of Chad, I'm doubtful that any of the challengers would be any more receptive to these concerns."
 
Au contraire, Tony, don't be too hasty to judge all challengers.  I have always encouraged my kids and grandkids to ride their bikes to school and agree it is a healthy alternative.  There is always room for improving safety for walkers and riders.  It would certainly be worth the effort to work with parents and schools to help create safe school crosswalks and Safe Routes to schools.  
 
As far as finding an additional source of water right now, I believe it would be nearly impossible to find any water purveyor who would trade their scarce water without a generous ransom.  However, in time it would seem more logical to purchase water from upstream sources, i.e., El Dorado Irrigation District or Nevada Irrigation District, rather than purchase it from a downstream source and pay for infrastructure to pump it upstream. 

Having worked for both these districts, I can almost guarantee it will be impossible to buy additional water from either EID or NID. But it is a creative idea and it's always good to be thinking.

[supermom]

OK, I can't let this one slide by! The furthest point in Folsom north of the river (the NW corner of American River Canyon North) is 3.5 miles from Sutter middle. Any teenager on a real bike (i.e., not a bmx bike) should be able to do that in 20 minutes without breaking a sweat (it's mostly downhill to Sutter, except for the couple of blocks up from the river). No point if Folsom is 10 miles from Sutter Middle.  But you're making arguments about the extreme. My point is that because we do not encourage students bicycling (in fact, I know some schools in town have actively discouraged it for fear it would somehow increase liability for the school) the percentage who do (I'm sure no-one has counted, but I suspect at the middle schools it is less than 5%) is far less in Folsom than in other cities with active Safe Routes to Schools programs. If there were some political support, perhaps the school district would be more inclined to support such programs, which have been shown to have multiple benefits, from reduction in obesity, to safer traffic around schools, to more independent and confident youth, to better academic performance (yes, studies have shown that kids who walk or bike to school do better than those who are driven).

Nope. That route to school is not safe. Not at that time in the morning when lots can happen and not enough people out and about. If something did happen, the children would be late school. And that route takes longer than 40 minutes on a bike to get to school when you're a kid. And they do break a sweat and stink. 

 

you give entirely too much credit upon others if you think they would want or be willing to put their kids through that.

 

I let my kids ride their bike to SM from the F/Dam corner many times. It meant they had to leave an hour earlier for school than leaving for the bus. 

You tell me, how many teens you know who would be happy leaving that early for school every day? Kids riding from the back end of crow canyon have even a much longer route and more than likely they would go down greenback which would be dangerous. 

 

It is absolutely not feasible for students to ride their bikes to SM on a daily basis if they live across the river.

[tony]

Nope. That route to school is not safe. Not at that time in the morning when lots can happen and not enough people out and about. If something did happen, the children would be late school. And that route takes longer than 40 minutes on a bike to get to school when you're a kid. And they do break a sweat and stink. 

 

you give entirely too much credit upon others if you think they would want or be willing to put their kids through that.

 

I let my kids ride their bike to SM from the F/Dam corner many times. It meant they had to leave an hour earlier for school than leaving for the bus. 

You tell me, how many teens you know who would be happy leaving that early for school every day? Kids riding from the back end of crow canyon have even a much longer route and more than likely they would go down greenback which would be dangerous. 

 

It is absolutely not feasible for students to ride their bikes to SM on a daily basis if they live across the river.

 

I'm very curious of the route they took, and what they were riding. Because it should not take a teenager an hour to go that distance on a bike (unless they are riding bmx bikes, as I said in my first post). There are, in fact, kids riding to Sutter Middle from north of the river. I regularly see them. So, from some north of the river locales it certainly is feasible. It's less than 3 miles from the corner of Folsom Lake Crossing and Auburn-Folsom using the bike path and Scott Street (nasty hill on Scott Street, but the rest of the ride is downhill). I don't know how old your kids are, but you can walk 3 miles in an hour.  I ride 2 miles to school with my 7-year-old, 9-year-old and 12-year-old, mostly uphill to school every morning. The 7-year-old rides a 20" mt. bike.  It takes him less than 15 minutes. I rode to McFarland Park with my 9-year-old on Saturday for a soccer game (mostly uphill and going over the big hills on the Oak Parkway Trail). That ride was slightly more than 5 miles and took exactly 30 minutes. He has a nice bike, which helps a little, but he is 9, and it didn't slow him down for his soccer game, and he had no problem with the 5 miles back home.  My kids are not super athletes, but they are in very good shape, partly because they ride their bikes to school every day and to many of their sporting events around Folsom.

 

From the farthest point in Crow canyon, it's still less than 4 miles (whichever direction you go). I agree there is not a great route from American River Canyon, but no, I would not have them riding down Greenback. I would either have them go down the admittedly steep dirt trail (soon to be improved, I'm told) from the corner of American River Canyon and Greenback to the American River Parkway, or take Oak to Old Oak to Auburn-Folsom (and either ride the sidewalk on Auburn-Folsom or use the parking lots to get the one block to the intersection of Greenback, where they can cross either of the two bridges (Lake Natoma Crossing is easier because it's higher and requires less climbing to get back to SM).  BTW, the other half dozen kids who regularly ride to SJNDS (without parents) all ride from greater distances and over hillier terrain than do ours. They do not appear to be abused, and generally look pretty happy when they arrive.  And if something happens, they walk and may be late. So far, in the seven years my kids have been riding to school (the oldest one is now in HS, but before that, he and the second oldest routinely rode by themselves), I can not think of a time that they were late for school for any reason other than not getting out of the house on time. They have walked home once or twice with flat tires, but it din't kill them. In fact, they were rather proud that they were able to deal with it on their own.

 

But I think I got my answer. 

Glad to hear it!  Thanks for the response.

 

"Unfortunately, with the exception of Chad, I'm doubtful that any of the challengers would be any more receptive to these concerns."

 

Au contraire, Tony, don't be too hasty to judge all challengers.  I have always encouraged my kids and grandkids to ride their bikes to school and agree it is a healthy alternative.  There is always room for improving safety for walkers and riders.  It would certainly be worth the effort to work with parents and schools to help create safe school crosswalks and Safe Routes to schools.  

 

 

[ducky]

Got a giggle out of the letter in The Folsom Telegraph from "an experienced Folsom Realtor" supporting the incumbents listing Andy Morin, Jeff Starsky, and Kerri Howell stating, "so that's why I'm voting for them."

She might have a hard time finding Jeff Starsky on the ballot.  As far as I know only Andy, Kerri, & Steve Miklos are up for election this time around.

[TruthSeeker]

Got a giggle out of the letter in The Folsom Telegraph from "an experienced Folsom Realtor" supporting the incumbents listing Andy Morin, Jeff Starsky, and Kerri Howell stating, "so that's why I'm voting for them."

She might have a hard time finding Jeff Starsky on the ballot.  As far as I know only Andy, Kerri, & Steve Miklos are up for election this time around.

 

Got a giggle out of the letter in The Folsom Telegraph from "an experienced Folsom Realtor" supporting the incumbents listing Andy Morin, Jeff Starsky, and Kerri Howell stating, "so that's why I'm voting for them."

She might have a hard time finding Jeff Starsky on the ballot.  As far as I know only Andy, Kerri, & Steve Miklos are up for election this time around.

 

It's so sad that people like this vote.  We might find the majority of aged voters in Folsom are lemmings like this.

[maestro]

Here's an election issue I posted in the new Chad topic.     Do voters like paying for private peoples' health insurance?

 

Wolf, on 20 Oct 2014 - 7:55 PM, said:

 

Hi Chad,

 

I was wondering what your view was on Resolution NO. 6926: as costs continue to go up and other departmental services are reduced, they still get perks even after leaving the city. 

 

I't a resolution regarding health insurance coverage for retired, former and current city council members for Folsom.  

 

Passed and adopted on Aug. 27th 2002 signed by Steve Miklos with ayes: by Dow, Miklos, Howell and Starsky.

 

The resolution gave insurance to past members back to January 1st 1981.  Please look it up and reply.

 

Thank you

 

 

 

Wolf,   we got Ord. 6926 yesterday.     Yes, it is retroactive and probably very generous.      There are several questions about it however.

 

1.   Resolutions are TEMPORARY pieces of law.    This should be an Ordinance, not a Resolution.    Even the enabling CA legislation makes it clear it requires an Ordinance adoption.    What gives with this?

 

2.  The city is PUBLIC, and we are entitled to see the RECORDS of all payments made by PAST council who are NOT sitting any longer.    Yes, it pays for the likes of those sitting -- like those who have no substantial employer to cover their insurance payments.    But we need to see the financial records showing all past members PAID their premiums.      If they did not pay, this could be a benefit costing us as much as $13 million  up to now.      

 

3.   How much are current long-seated council costing us for their health insurance --  when our Public Safety employees are being cut to LESS than bare-bone coverage.    Sac County records show the city is unwilling to maintain proper ambulance coverage for the mutual-aid pact -- so you know there are problems with city council's reasoning.

 

4.   Little fact:   I believe J. Starsky is the only person with minor children, so there are no large "family premiums" on our back.    Ernie would probably never take the benefit at all.   Ernie seems to be the only one who cares about children at all.

 

 

.

[supermom]

 

 

It's so sad that people like this vote.  We might find the majority of aged voters in Folsom are lemmings like this.

More likely someone didnt read it and didnt realize it was a resubmittal of a letter from several years ago.

[maestro]

Not that we should return to the election and what 100 years + incumbents have done to us, but here's a little factual material from the Stockton bankruptcy ruling handed down by the judge today.

 

Stockton's pensions & bennies will remain untouched, but the $32 Million owed to Franklin Templeton's Investors (also humans who need their money)   is now at risk.     The F-T investors may end up with pennies on the dollar.

 

Reading this, the Stockton saga sounds very familiar -- like a certain city.     Enjoy:

"

• "Before the recession, leaders spent millions of dollars revitalizing the downtown area with a new City Hall and building a marina, sports arena and ballpark. The city issued about 3,000 permits annually to build new homes, and it paid police premium wages and health benefits.
•  
• With the recession, building dried up, and Stockton became ground zero for home foreclosures. ... City Hall couldn't pay its bills. The city slashed millions of dollars from its budget and laid off 25 percent of its police officers. Crime soared.

 

 

[maestro]

Do you wonder how government agencies think of our incumbents?   How about the south of 50 plan, the FPA, which council gave our water?    There was even a govt agency (EID) telling the city they were not correct in claiming the city has 32,000 acre feet of water rights.  Yes, the south plan has its own topic, but who but me would review 735 pages -- objections and Folsom b.s. replies?

 

Do you want to know federal, state, county, city, and other agencies think of the south of 50 plan?

 

http://www.saclafco..../sac_030873.pdf

 

Reclamation did not even write to Folsom, but to the Army Corps, which let the city avoid all 404 compliance for water features.    The Reclamation letter says it all:   page 248 of 735 (mostly objections from other agencies)

 

"The City may desire to certify the current document. However, for purposes of National Environment Protection Act compliance, a supplemental EIS would need to be developed to adequately address the impacts of water supply and water assignment."

Gotta love it;   Go Reclamation!

 

If you wish to read hundreds of pages of Federal, State, Counties, Cities, and their agencies OBJECTING to the sole documentation for the south of 50, check out this document.   

Reclamation listed 111 solid objections to the city's b.s. for the FPA south of 50 plans.

 

  The city's replies to hundreds of such objections fall into several categories:   dePardo calls them "errata", "no specific objection", "noted", or calls them liars in other words.

 

The entire governmental world expressed opposition to south of 50 documents, but our grand city council said:  "noted."   We do our own thing.     Especially good were the Reclamation letters, Sac County Utilities, and the CA PUC letter on page 380 "..key element of the environment.... is not disclosed .... what does that say for the integrity & transparency of the environment process"  (of Folsom for south of 50).