47 replies to this topic

[ducky]

P.S. Just found this from today:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/13/3695851/editorial-folsoms-growth-plan.html

It's about the water issue.

For me, the real issue is still how Miklos and Starsky and their developer cronies forced their will on Folsom residents. I wish that the Bee article mentioned exactly HOW the residents' initiative was "tossed".

So now they wish they didn't have Measure W? They want the residents to repeal Measure W?

The city may be in an untenable position, but I don't see why residents on this side of town should have to pay to help land investors.

Residents north of 50 will have to conserve water so the land can be developed so the investors can make more money on what they build south of 50. (I'm wondering where they got the water usage figures in that article since I've been asking why my monthly usage isn't included on my bill yet even though Kerry Miller says it is. Our house has had a meter for quite a while now, but it isn't being read.) How many of you will feel good about not being able to keep your patio clean with anything other than a broom - ever? Get ready for every year to be a drought year in Folsom.

Also, would that mean that the 30 percent open space requirement would be gone?
Would we then have to share in the costs that were incurred to find the water?

[Rich_T]

I found some interviews from 2004. Keeping in mind Bob's post, contrast the following thoughts on Measure T between Robert Giacometti (good), Eric King (neutral), and Jeff Starsky (evil). Also check their answers to question 16 about Measure W - Starsky was already misleadingly calling it the "citizen's measure" back then.


http://files.myfolso...iacometti.shtml

15. What are your thoughts on Measure T? (Note to voters: Measure T will not be on the ballot)

I support the residents having a vote on the final proposed annexation of south of Highway 50! If elected I will work to see that you get this chance to vote!


http://files.myfolso...eric_king.shtml

15. What are your thoughts on Measure T? (Note to voters: Measure T will not be on the ballot)

I am very disappointed that members of the community and their lawyer found a technicality that knocked this Measure off the Ballot. I did not support this measure, but I would have rather had the discussion and let the voters decide for themselves.


http://files.myfolso...f_starsky.shtml

15. What are your thoughts on Measure T? (Note to voters: Measure T will not be on the ballot)

Since the proponents of Measure T failed to comply with the requirements of state law, it will not appear on the ballot in November. I believe that the City’s proposal and the visioning process is a better alternative and urge voters to support Measure W to ensure a strong and vibrant future for Folsom.

16. What are your thoughts on Measure W?

I support the citizen’s measure, Measure W. The reason I call this the citizen’s measure is because through the visioning process that the City of Folsom is conducting right now, the citizens will control what is built in any land annexed by the City. We are listening to what our residents want to see if the land is annexed and demanding that any development that takes place there include what the citizens reach as a consensus. Measure W allows us to approach this land different than this city has ever approached development. For years, city leaders and officials would merely rubber stamp what developers put before them. But with my election and Eric King’s election as well as the selection of a new city manager, Martha Lofgren, when we came aboard, the old boys network has been broken up, or at least only a few remnants of it still exist. There is a new way of doing business in Folsom. We now control what we want in our city. The Sphere of Influence land allows us to implement this new approach to development and help assure this city’s financial security and quality of life for all of its residents for years to come.

[Rich_T]

Finally, though I couldn't find the text of Measure T elsewhere on the internet, I did find it at our own site:

http://www.tomatopag...t=ST&f=3&t=1074

It's illuminating to read the comments in that thread - the early scare tactics that got people thinking "Folsom needs to annex the land South of Folsom as soon as possible or someone else is going to control it." Except that now that Folsom officials control the land, they acknowledge that it was simply part of their long-standing plan to develop it, and they cite Measure W as their mandate to do so.

Check out Bob's letter, which is as true now as it was 7 years ago - it's the post dated 13 April 2004 - 06:25 PM.

Also a salient post by Val Doss dated 19 April 2004 - 10:27 AM. Lots of other good posts, too.

(Digression: I also saw this sentence by Keri Howell, dated 8/26/04: "if I am ever crazy enough to run for re-election, you should assume I have gone competely insane and you should not vote for me.")

I notice that too many people were saying in 2004, and still say, that "you must resign yourself to the fact that the land will be developed, and the only thing we can do is make sure it's a sensible plan". (Of course, in 2004, people were clueless about the coming real estate crisis.) Whereas I say what I have always said, which is first, annex the land (done), and then, do what Part 1 of Measure T said: "Let residents vote on whether to rezone the agricultural land", yes or no. If residents vote "yes", then the city's plan would have some legitimacy. To sum it up:

(1) Folsom gets control of land
(2) Folsom residents decide whether to develop the land
(3) If yes, Folsom residents approve development plan

I really see no flaw in the logic of this process - and yet our "leaders" did not follow it. The 2004 ballot should have had one measure ONLY for (1), and then (2) could have followed as its own question. Instead, (1) got comingled with (3) in both Measures T and W - and then Measure T was killed by the developers and friends. (The city created its own measure to "compete" with Measure T, to "give voters a choice", then proceeded to eliminate the choice of Measure T. Nice little scheme on their part.)

The last seven years have seen (1), but not (2), and not really (3), because there has been no direct vote on (3), even though some residents backed (3) during the public sessions. Without (2), however, the process is flawed. Apparently the city's own poll showed that 70% were opposed to any development, 10% in favor, and 20% in between or unsure.

The city council has always maintained that development is "inevitable", and that the only question is how to do it. I have always maintained that a resident vote on whether to rezone means that development is not inevitable. I still haven't encountered a reason why I would be mistaken in that belief.

I know I'm repeating myself ad nauseum here, but the reason is that I want to shed a light on the shady conduct of some elected officials who are supposed to be representing our wishes.


Oh, and check out the posts about the lawsuit against Measure T, starting at http://www.tomatopag...ic=1452&st=120.

Val Doss made a good point after Measure T was killed:

"There is a small victory in all of this. ...While we didn't get what we wanted, we will get something far better than we otherwise would have gotten had we done nothing at all. The city's initiative, with all its flaws, does make some promises that are now on the record. Any future bait-and-switch will be highly visible to the electorate."


[added this on 6/20/11:]

I was also shocked to learn that the Measure T authors were sued to recover legal fees from the malicious lawsuit. Thankfully the judge said no. But it shows you something of the character of Holderness et al.

[Bob]

Rich_T,

Thank you for your follow-up and research. Over the next few days I will add additional posts regarding individual topic, including:

Likely hood of Sacramento County developing the land south of 50 (starting with this one, see below)
• Water
• Schools
• Smog
• Traffic
• Open space
• Measure T, Measure W, the “Visioning” process, and the development plan now proposed by the City.


Likely hood of Sacramento County developing the land south of 50
Following is a copy of an old post from Au. 2007:

Please read the following excerpt from a letter to the City from County Executive Terry Schutten. The letter is two pages long and goes into detail as to not only why the County will not develop south of 50 but why they CANT. This final paragraph is an excellent summary:

****************************************************************************
Martha Clark Lofgren
City Manager
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom CA 95630
RE: Folsom Visioning - South of Highway 50

In summary, the 1993 County of Sacramento General Plan does not support urbanization of the Vision area by the City of Folsom because this area is outside the County's Urban Services Boundary. A Resource Conservation Area designation has been applied to a portion of the Vision area, recognizing the need for natural resource protection and enhancement. Therefore, this land is not under any threat of urbanization by Sacramento County.
Yours sincerely,


Terry Schutten
*******************************************************************
If requested, I will post entire letter.

Now, for those of you how do not feel lied to, read it again until it sinks in.

For those of you who get it, ask a Council member, any of them, why they lied to you about the County's intent.

Ask them why they spent YOUR tax money to do a poll asking if residents supported development south of 50, then lied to residents and at least 3 major media sources that the poll did not exist. Why? The results showed that over 70% of residents opposed such expansion of the City, with only 10% in support.

The fact is, that land is only in danger of being developed by our own Council and the land speculators they support at the expense of Folsom families.

Kerri, take your best shot.
Readers, when she responds, push her for proof of what she says. I will provide you with proof for what I say; you will find that she will not.
No, I am not picking on Kerri. To her credit, at least she will respond. The other four read this forum, but would rather just ignore the residents who put them in office.

For those of you who have said they want to vote on the future of this City (this applies to even those who support development, but want to make sure the City does not sell us short), are you willing to do more than just vent on this forum? Would you take the opportunity to work for that right if the opportunity was available?

Regardless of the City's spin, development is NOT a "done deal". Far from it. The initiative process has been successful dozens of times throughout the State. That is why they fought so hard against us (against you!).

If you support another citizens initiative that will give you the vote you deserve, let me know.

We are ready to move forward IF we see enough support for it.


Regards,
Bob

[ducky]

I've got a lot of questions about that Sac Bee article Rich T posted. Here's a little snippet.


As much as Folsom leaders may cringe at the thought, repeal of Measure W is a better alternative. Because of its large lots and lack of water meters, Folsom currently uses about 350 gallons per person daily, far more than other cities, even Sacramento.

By undertaking conservation measures, Folsom could gradually get down to 250 gallons per person daily. That would free up enough water to supply expansion south of Highway 50.



Read more: http://www.sacbee.co...l#ixzz1PmPk7SRs

If we aren't metered, how do they know this figure? Where did the Bee get this figure? Oh, and who wrote the editorial?

It is already expected that once metering starts in 2013 that it will reduce our water usage by 30 percent. Which is fine. I don't have a problem with metering and providing incentive for people not to waste and get those leaking pipes fixed faster. What I do have a problem with is having more water squeezed out of this side of town so development can happen sooner south of 50. We were promised that wouldn't happen. We were promised that the landowners would be responsible for securing water.

I thought the goal of saving the 30 percent would ensure we had enough to go around in dry years and to meet our infill needs north of 50. What happens when there is another dry year and we don't have that cushion?

Then there is this, which sounds like bait and switch to me.


It might be tough to persuade Folsom voters to repeal Measure W, but not if residents were to get something in return. Imagine if Southof-50 developers were to contribute $100 million to the existing city instead of spending $250 million to build pipelines elsewhere. Wouldn't that be a better option for Folsom and its residents, current and future? Why is this city so locked into an unwise decision that dates back to 2004?


Read more: http://www.sacbee.co...l#ixzz1PmTKLBsm

The more I read that last sentence the more it sounds like one of those arcade games where they'll give you an extra try at grabbing the stuffed animal with the crane, but in the end you've paid 5 dollars for a 25-cent stuffed toy.

I can live with Measure W - 30 percent open space, no building for at least 10 years, and water that is meant for the north side of 50 staying on this side of 50. Considering how expensive it will be to live out South of 50, they just might have improved my home's value. Unless someone can point out something I'm missing, you bet repealing Measure W will be a hard sell to this resident, unless someone wants to come up with a measure that has even more bike trails, parks, and open space, but still have the landowners pay for the costs the development incurs along with making sure a public transportation means like light rail is secured before building begins.

[ducky]

Okay. Wait a second. I knew there was another article out there. Here is a quote:
(I was incorrect in my 30 percent. I guess it was only 20 percent reduction. The Bee seems to be putting it at a little over 28 percent.)

"That supply could fall by no more than 2,000 acre-feet in dry years. Even that, Payne said, would be a "reliable" supply because 6,000 acre-feet would meet the area's needs through state-mandated urban water-use reduction of 20 percent by 2020"

Read more: http://www.sacbee.co...l#ixzz1PmxCzbtZ

So if we are already going to meet that requirement why would somebody be telling us to repeal Measure W?

[ducky]

Sorry to keep on and on about this, but the figure of 350 gallons a day per person doesn't seem to add up.

If our population is approx 67,000 (got this from city data - 2009), that would be 23,450,000 gallons a day or 71.96 acre feet (325,851 = 1 acre foot). 71.96 acre feet times 365 days would equal approx 26,265 acre feet a year, which if our total usage were only to be 30,000 AF a year (here's my source for that info http://www.kcra.com/...?subid=10100243), which would only leave 3,735 AF a year for business usage. Does that seem right? All those hotels, restaurants, sake plant, soy sauce plant, etc only use that much?

(I'm embarrassed to say math has never been my strong suit so if I've totally blown these figures, please feel free to say so - not that any of you are shy about that sort of thing:)

[Bob]

Ducky,

Your account of our water is fairly accurate. The Bee has counted on portions of our total water supply that is contracted to large businesses. Following is a letter I sent to the Bee editor. I have not heard back from him and do not expect to. The Bee has done very well written and in depth water articles before, and has made the same error in the past. I do not think that they can reconcile in their own minds that Folsom residents, even without active water meters, do not use much more per person than Davis.

Also, one has to wonder who got to them to suggest that we let the land speculators off the hook. Even though their summary of the problems with securing the contract for the water from the Sacramento River is correct, the headed in the wrong direction by suggesting we Eliminate Measure W, even if it was a developer written scam.

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

This is not a letter ready for print. It is intended only to correct an error and provide information.
Please call if you have questions or if I can help you further with this issue.

Editorial board: First, Thank You! The intent and majority of the editorial is right on target. However, it contains a major error. Folsom residents do not use much more water than residents in Davis.

Your 350 gallons per person is based on our total water supply. However, your calculations should have first subtracted the large separate contracts with major users:
8,960 acre feet contracted to *Aerojet and other large amounts reserved for Intel (2,800), Kikkoman (516), Gekkeikan Sake (150).

If you would not agree that Intel, Kikkoman and Gekkeikan should be removed since they are located within the City, you should at least remove the Aerojet water, which is well outside of the City.

As a side note, in December of 2007, the City permanently transferred some of the 8,960 acre feet to Aerojet. (Contract would have expired about 2032).
By removing some or all of this water from the equation, you will find that Folsom residents use between 240 and 275 gallons per person.

In addition, about 1/3 of our water is not based on historical water rights. This 1/3 of our water is composed of two additional State water contracts, which are subject to severe cutbacks in time of draught.

Per the City’s most recent report to the Department of Water Resources, we simply do not have water to spare, even with meters and conservation. We must account for future periods of draught.

Even though the City Hall’s Measure W was a smoke and mirrors attempt at distracting Folsom voters from the residents Measure T, the water requirement within it, similar to Measure T’s, is important.

In summary: Again, you are right in regards to the main issue, Folsom’s current plan to provide water for new development is both ridiculously expensive and quite possibly will not even be approved. However, overturning Measure W’s water component and relying on our current water supply is not the answer.
**********************************************************************

Regards,
Bob

[Rich_T]

Starsky told the lie again, and I am going to respond. Here is the text of a letter to the editor that I plan on sending this evening.

==NOTE: I ended up sending a shorter letter (see next post) that leaves out a lot of the "meat" but still gets the message across. But I'll leave this post here to document how I really feel.

-----------------------


In the June 22 article "Land annex moves ahead", city councilman Jeff Starsky was quoted as saying that "residents overwhelmingly said they want us to develop this project". We hear that a lot, but just because a falsehood is repeated over and over does not make it true. Newer residents of Folsom may not be aware of the truth, which is as follows. I hope this will help people understand better.

In 2004, over 4,400 Folsom residents put a measure on the ballot that landowners, developers and council members feared would effectively prevent any development south of Highway 50. A powerful clique representing their interests was able to get the measure tossed at the eleventh hour, by arguing before a judge that residents were confused when they signed the half-page petition, because the words "agricultural land" were not backed by an official 24-page document. (This vindictive lot apparently also wanted to sue the petition organizers to recover legal fees, but was not allowed to do so.) In place of the resident-backed Measure T, the City Council installed developer-supported Measure W, with no resident signatures required. It was a convenient mechanism for expediting development plans already in the works. With Measure T removed, Measure W passed, riding on the goodwill, but it conflated two separate questions: whether Folsom should have control over the land, and how the land might be developed. There was no direct vote on whether to actually develop the land. Rather, Folsom voters passed the measure, which was marketed as "protecting open space" - I still remember the mailers with a big hole in them to represent open space -, to prevent Rancho Cordova or Sacramento County from developing the land instead (not that there ever was an imminent threat of that actually happening).

In the minds of (or at least on the tongues of) certain council members, Measure W became a resident mandate to develop 70% of the land, and the subsequent "visioning process" became a mere formality. The promised option of "no development" was removed from the table from the very start. The assumption remained, even in a new economic era, that "the land must inevitably be developed, and the only question is how". To which I say "nonsense".

With this history in mind, we return to the present question of whether Folsom residents really do prefer development to no development. The City's own poll has demonstrated quite the opposite, and it would be interesting for the Telegraph, as an investigative paper, to conduct its own poll. Annexation is not synonymous with rezoning and development, and landowners have no automatic right to have the zoning changed. I wonder how residents would answer the straightforward question: "Should the newly annexed land remain as currently zoned, yes or no?" (Or even simpler: "Should the land be developed anytime soon?") I'd love to find out, and would happily live with either answer, if only we would be granted the opportunity to supply it. But apparently that opportunity will not be given us by the very representatives who are elected to implement our desires.

Anyone who attends a council meeting is immediately struck by the cronyism on display between landowners, developers, city staffers, attorneys, and the council itself. The whole environment seems somehow rigged, with residents feeling like outsiders who are grudgingly admitted to a private meeting of the powerful. The Telegraph noted that fewer dissenters spoke at the most recent meeting, and the reason seems clear to me: it is not only an exercise in futility, but an open invitation to debasement by some condescending elected officials who are not letting resident wishes interfere with their development celebration. This is not my idea of how a city government should work. (Some might say "then vote them out". It's been my observation that developer-friendly incumbents are helped by two things: (1) name recognition from all the big signs placed on developer-owned land, and (2) the vote dilution of having too many challengers at once. This enables an incumbent with 20% of the vote to beat out several challengers that spread the vote.)

In summary, it has been my displeasure to witness a pattern of deceit, scheming, and condescension, and I write this letter on behalf of those who might share my sentiments. At the very least, I challenge certain council members to step up and treat residents with the respect we deserve (and maybe even listen and act on our behalf, rather than making an elitist decision "for our own good" about such an important topic).

[Rich_T]

[Edited post:]

I needed to get this out today, so I submitted the following short version to the Telegraph. I was afraid they wouldn't print a letter that was too long.

(I hope the submission worked, because there is no confirmation, just a blank form, once you submit a letter online.)

--

In the June 22 article "Land annex moves ahead", councilman Jeff Starsky was quoted that "residents overwhelmingly said they want us to develop this project". We hear that a lot, but just because a falsehood is repeated over and over does not make it true. When Folsom residents passed Measure W, we collectively spoke in favor of local control and protecting open space. To hear certain council members tell it, the measure was also a mandate to develop land south of Highway 50. And yet, while it may appear that the development project is "all systems go", we still don't know what residents actually want.

Do Folsom residents really favor development? The City's own poll once demonstrated just the opposite, and it would be interesting for the Telegraph to conduct a fresh poll. Annexation is not synonymous with rezoning, and I wonder how residents would answer the question: "Should the annexed land now be rezoned and developed?"

The Telegraph also noted that fewer dissenters spoke at the recent council meeting, and the reason seems clear: it is not only an exercise in futility, but an open invitation to debasement by condescending elected representatives who refuse to let resident objections interfere with their development celebration. At the very least, I challenge our public servants to step up and henceforth treat residents with the respect we deserve.

[old soldier]

when I was growing up I had a friend named spud. old spud was growing like a weed and was going through larger clothes pretty fast. his feet were growing as well and he was asking his folks for some new shoes. they didn't have hand me down shoes. he kept growing and the shoes got tighter and tighter and he started to complain more and more. when he started limping cause the shoes were so tight he finally got his parents attention.

when I look at this here south of 50 development and now the water problem I think of old spud. the folks of folsom, like spuds parents were not listening but the problem got worse and it finally came to their attention. the north of 50 folks were told that south of 50 development was not going to take a dime our of their pockets, but it could be the council folks are working on changing that idea (behind closed doors) the starsky guy is like a barometer cause he can't keep his mouth shut. he would be lusting some about making north of 50 folks pay lots more for water or let their lawns die, but he would also like to get another crack at developing that land set aside for open space

it just may come to pass more folks are going to wake up to the fact its going to cost them more, they will start to get mad and start to pay attention to the city council games. sure hope so.

dwhen old BOB posts it reminds me of those old EF Hutton adds on TV...when EF Hutten speaks everybody listens

[Bob]

Rich_T

Great letter! I wouldn’t change a word and suggest that you call the editor of the Telegraph directly and push to have your longer version letter published as an opinion piece, not just a letter to the editor.

Your letter represents the majority opinion of Folsom residents and the editor should look at it as providing some long overdue balance against the City/developer side. I was hit with the same thought when I read Starsky’s lie - No matter how many times you tell a lie, and no matter how many people believe the lie, it is still a lie.

Another suggestion is that you gather a list of co-signers to support your letter. This will carry more clout with the editor. Remember that the editor will weigh the importance and impact of your letter against the Chamber of Commerce threats to pull back on members advertising (yes, they have made such threats). Two former editors had confided in me that this form of intimidation has occurred. I have personally been threatened by a “leader” of the Chamber so I have no doubt that the Telegraph has been threatened. If you go with the list of supports, please count me in.

Regards,
Bob

[Rich_T]

Hi Bob, thanks for the encouragement. I will consider contacting the editor about publishing the longer version (which I would clean up a bit, since my first drafts are always too wordy). I'm currently on a trip to Disneyland, so I might not find the time, but I'll think about it today, and possibly make contact on Monday.

Thanks,
Rich

[wildlife protector 2]

Hey Rich,
Go into the Folsom Telegraph and bring your letter, talk to Don.
He is a nice guy and will help you out.

Also to notify every one that tomorrow is another meeting that the public should attend. 6:30 pm
City Council meeting re:SOI business.
I will be there and plan to get some questions answered.

My 2 cents on this subject are 1. we need to get a current concensus on the real # of people NOT in favor of the proposed development, I offer my time and my house for meetings, if we get too big we can move to a business location. How does that sound. We cannot wait long, need to meet ASAP.

2.I have let the council know how I feel about the environmental damage this will cause, you may have seen Starsky and Miklos trying to tear me a new one. All I can say is that made them look bad, not me.
I have a lot of documents and facts, an overview of this and old news showing how many people really attended the public visioning meetings, not over a thousand as they like to state. If there were a thousand "people" involved in this, most of them are connected to the project, not the "ordinary" citizens of Folsom. OOPs I mean, the "Lunatic Fringe" (famous quote from the last meeting.)
All along, every aspect of this project has been wrought with exaggerated claims and numbers;
Number of people the SOI will add to the current population is more like 35,000 residents and thousands of outside transient population that would use the commercial aspect. Ouch!! I live in a nice town, this is why I moved here many years ago, civilized, but not too big, and some open space and the only remaining unobstructed view in our area is the one in question here. The new City motto will have to be Destructive of Nature, instead of the current one.
916-215-3558 Debbie Phone hours 9am-4pm

[Bob]

Hey Rich,
Go into the Folsom Telegraph and bring your letter, talk to Don.
He is a nice guy and will help you out.

Also to notify every one that tomorrow is another meeting that the public should attend. 6:30 pm
City Council meeting re:SOI business.
I will be there and plan to get some questions answered.

My 2 cents on this subject are 1. we need to get a current concensus on the real # of people NOT in favor of the proposed development, I offer my time and my house for meetings, if we get too big we can move to a business location. How does that sound. We cannot wait long, need to meet ASAP.

2.I have let the council know how I feel about the environmental damage this will cause, you may have seen Starsky and Miklos trying to tear me a new one. All I can say is that made them look bad, not me.
I have a lot of documents and facts, an overview of this and old news showing how many people really attended the public visioning meetings, not over a thousand as they like to state. If there were a thousand "people" involved in this, most of them are connected to the project, not the "ordinary" citizens of Folsom. OOPs I mean, the "Lunatic Fringe" (famous quote from the last meeting.)
All along, every aspect of this project has been wrought with exaggerated claims and numbers;
Number of people the SOI will add to the current population is more like 35,000 residents and thousands of outside transient population that would use the commercial aspect. Ouch!! I live in a nice town, this is why I moved here many years ago, civilized, but not too big, and some open space and the only remaining unobstructed view in our area is the one in question here. The new City motto will have to be Destructive of Nature, instead of the current one.
916-215-3558 Debbie Phone hours 9am-4pm

Wildlife Protector 2,

Thanks for the comments and offer. From the excellent responses in this thread and the referendum thread, looks like we will be able to start soon.

Regards,
Bob