79 replies to this topic

[valdossjoyce]

Hi, Andy.

Just dropping in to say thanks for sharing your views. I respect your point of view. No time to skewer just now, maybe later. Got people lining up to sign these petitions.

Ciao.



Val

[EDF]

Andy...

It looks like you have sold out... and that's typical of politicians....

You are quoted in the Telegraph as saying this could "box us" in....

Andy... Who is "us"... I mean who do you represent..... City Staff, Developers or the "residents" of Folsom...

Is there something wrong with supporting an initiative that gives "us" the voters a say in what happens South of 50...

I mean if the Staf and Developers come up with a good plan, then the voters will pass it... This is just too big a deal for 5 people to make a decision on... don't you think....? hmmmmmm....?

[Love Folsom]

Thanks for your comments Andy. You have access to the whole picture and I value your opinions. You have not sold out - you are acting on what is obvious.

I believe residents of Folsom do have a say in what happens south of 50. We vote for our council members. Our council members are able to assess the information which they are given by all parties and act on what is best for Folsom. If you do not like their decisions then you do not have to vote for them.

If the ballot is passed then we will loose all control over the land that is on our borders. Nobody is going to want to work with a city that is so restrictive and whose hands are so tied. It will be a very sad day for Folsom and I believe will be the start of the decline which Parklady has mentioned elsewhere on this forum.

[EDF]

Dear Love Folsom....

come on.. are you serious... ?

Did you even read Val's comments above that would make it almost impossible for the "County" to develope this area....?

Rancho Cordova, is not even "contiguous" to this land... they aren't a factor that is real... and besides Folsom has a "higher prestige" name for Real Estate...

Folsom City Council's, while they think are well meaning, have "caved in" to developers when they could have gotten much more... and that is what we are saying... you know... "ignore a code there", "we'll mitigate that later", "we'll waive that requirement there"...

So please tell me....Why can't we have all of the infrasture in place... before the houses....?

Is there someting wrong with that... ?

History will tell you that the Folsom City Council has not done that great a job...

Look at our over crowded schools... and the over burdened sewer system problems we've had...

We've had to pass 2 school bonds because of the growth... Why can't the developers build those schools up front and then add them to cost of the houses they build...? That might affect the true costs of the housing...

And guess what.... that's really what this is all about... you and I subsidize the growth...and they get the $$$$$$$$$... of couse in the name of "making Folsom a better place"...

Wake up....

[Love Folsom]

I am awake. It is the rest of you with your heads in the sand. Just wait - you will hate what goes on with that land and Folsom not be able to do a thing about it. I really, really fear for our future.

[EDF]

Love Folsom...

you are the one with your head in the sand...

you are typical of some posters on this forum who will spout off an opinion but not back it up with any facts... because you don't have any....

I love a debate... but its tiresome when people like you just make the off-hand remarks you do with nothing of substance...

go back and turn on the Seinfeld re-runs or check out the latest "Survivor" series... you know more about them then you do local issues...

leave the real debate for the adults....

[Love Folsom]

And that is why more poeple don't post on this forum.

I will go back to my work now. I will leave it to your imagination as to who I am or what I do - or what knowlege I have. However I am insulted and will now leave this 'discussion', and this forum to people who have time to waste spouting their opinions and listening to none.

[camay2327]

Love Folsom, don't let the people on this board get to you. Stay around and give your comments.

I don't see eye to eye with a lot of them either.

[billsfan]

I agree with Lovefolsom's previous post - we need to entrust the city council to make the best decision with the information they are provided. They were elected by the majority of people in our city. If you disagree with their general stances and decision making abilities, don't vote for them or re-elect them. Participate in the process - attend cc meetings, e-mail council members, create citizen advocate groups - and then accept the decision that are made by the cc. This really has nothing to do with facts or history, but how you support our local leaders and process...

I also believe that anyone who serves on the cc in a city of Folsom's size is trying to serve the people and the community. And I also believe the city staff is not any more beaurocratic than any other city. These are professionals who are doing their job, and not being influenced any more by developers than citizen advocate groups.

[waterbaby149]

Billsfan - as I believe you have done on the library forum you have done here - you have your head in the sand if you are truly going to just trust politicans to do the right thing - I am going to assume that you are older than 30 and have more experience than you are letting on - when u go to a doctor do you believe everything they tell you or do you get a second opinion??? This country is not a bunch of sheep - we are intelligent humans who have fought for the right to express and fight for what we believe in - and so far the Folsom cc has done little to earn that respect ... and they obviously need to be guided by the citizens of Folsom or as u have said not reelected which is why there is a recall going on - while I would like to believe that several of the cc members being recalled have more common sense - I do not believe that our mayor or Starsky should continue in any office ....
open your eyes to what is going on around u and investigate those situations

[billsfan]

Waterbaby - yes, I am well beyond 30 and have many different experiences in my still young lifetime. And I generally know when to trust politicians or not. I also have a much different view of politicians who serve at local vs. state/national levels - the local ones are mainly trying to help local communities, and generally not paid enough or given enough respect for the job that they do...

It seems that you have taken a hardline stance towards our cc members because you disagree with them on 2 issues (which are closely contested issues for all the voters of our city). So basically anyone that doesn't agree with you on an issue has no common sense or respect? Your talking about cc members who in some cases have served for many years and led development of many important facilities, ordinances, and other initiatives in our city. Some of them have been elected and reelected several times (not by sheep)! I have no problem with citizens fighting for their beliefs, debating, etc...but grow up and learn when enough is enough, instead of resorting to unnecessary/costly recall efforts or scare tactics, I would expect more of you so called senior members of our community...which I think you are a member of....

[Candy Apple]

Right on Billsfan!!!!

[valdossjoyce]

Time to address Andy's points.

First, it's simply not the case City of Folsom would face the same hurdles that Sac County would in having to approve development of annexed land. The County is bound by the Urban Services Boundary law which requires the five findings and a vote of 4/5 of the supervisor.

Folsom IS NOT BOUND BY THIS. Folsom could annex the land, and at the very moment the ink is dry on the annexation document, the Memorandum of Understanding is dead. The City Council could do anything it wants with this land and Urban Services Boundary law no longer applies. It becomes a part of Folsom City jurisdiction subject only to Folsom's laws. That means 3/5 of the City Council would have the power to determine its future.

Here's how Folsom politics works. Staff (all those nice people in the planning department) work with the developers who help them analyze the plans they are submitting. They prepare fancy studies, overhead preseentations, etc. for the Planning Commission to look at. If Folsom no longer has any land to development, the planning department will have nothing to do and there will be layoffs. So why wouldn't they like the developers and development?

Then all these reports and recommendations are reviewed by staff's boss, the City Manager and the City Manager's boss is the City Council.

If you think the Planning Commission is an independent body of credentialed planners, think again. They are political appointees if the council members who appoint their friends, their fellow Rotarians, etc. to do exactly what they want them to do. So Planning Commission rubber stamps staff recommendation which then goes to City Council.

Andy, and fans of Andy, remember this---you have just ONE vote on the City Council. You would have to muster two more votes to pass anything. You may want to do the right thing, but you will probably never get the chance. By the time staff and Planning Commission have done their thing, the controlling group on the City Council will have what they want.

Finally, I want to address the fear being raised that another jurisdiction will develop it and Folsom will have no control. Let's explore that as the "worst case scenario."

My theory is that whether it RC, County OR Folsom City Council ends up approving the development, the development mix will not be all that different. Developers will get what developers want. The Sacramento Business Journal (hardly a tree-hugging liberal publication) once wrote that the "Folsom City Council never saw a developement it didn't like." What owners, speculators and developers want is a mix that yields the most profit. That means maximum houses, minimal commercial development and very little open space. The primary negative impact this kind of development would have on us, regardless of the jurisdiction, is traffic and air pollution. So we'll get that no matter who's in charge, unless it's us, the Folsom voters.

But the other impacts we're concerned about ONLY INFLUENCE US IF IT IS THE CITY OF FOLSOM THAT ALLOWS THE DEVELOPMENT: NAMELY, WE GET STUCK PAYING FOR IT. If Rancho Cordova or Uncity devlelops it, we do not have to pay for the additional services---trash collection, firefighters, police officers, their stations, water, sewer and schools.

Rancho or Uncity residents will pay, not us.

So ultimately, I don't care if some other jurisdiction does it, if the choices are between our City Council and some other jurisdiction. It's on the other side of the freeway, for goodness sake.

And, PS to Andy, your wariness of "outside environmentalists" is unfounded. These folks came to us long after we were fighting this fight alone. They have merely helped us with free consulting and legal advice, which we believe give us some semblance of an even playing field.

We will never have the dollars that that City budget or private landowners/developers have. All he have is sweat equity and these folks are giving us a helping hand in accomplishing our goals. Bob Fish drafted the initiative, Sara Myers and I have edited it and the "outsiders" massaged it for us, did legal research, etc.

Our group consists of liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans, you name it. We are diverse as to our occupactions, age, gender, religion and national origin. What pulls us together is our concern that Folsom voters get the final say on what happens south of 50 and who pays for it. Democracy pure and simple.

[valdossjoyce]

Was just browsing our website, folsomgrowth.org, and came across an old Sac Bee article written by Mary Lynne Vellingas in May 2001. Andy Morin isn't the only City Council member who believed Folsom voters should decide the future of annexed land south of Hwy 50. So did Eric King, who is up for re-election this year:

"King, the newly elected Councilman, also supports taking the matter to the Folsom electorate. But he acknowledged that his chances of convincing the rest of the City Council are slim. 'I don't think it's terribly(much) supported,' he said."

Come on, Eric and Andy, where are the leadership qualities we thought you had when we campaigned for you and voted for you? We wanted change and now you're settling for business as usual.

Your reasons for changing your minds on this issue are weak. Of course Mr. Miklos & Co. have come up with some plausible reasons, but you are smart enough to see through them. Did you think being on City Council would be easy? Anybody can be a bureaucrat, and it's not hard to be a go-along/get-along politician but it takes real-life courage and vision to be a leader.