Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

South Of South Of 50.... Do You Care?

S50 South of 50

  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#31 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 March 2015 - 11:07 AM

Super mom, so you are good if tsakopolous develops another huge specific plan south of the new city limits in either unincorporated sacramento or rancho??

Under that scenario residents of Folsom have even less say. Also, under that scenario the county is not obligated to mitigate traffic impacts that occur north of Folsom...

Does that change your mind?

I would rather take that opportunity off the table all together

i dont care what tsakapoulos developements does outside of folsom as long as greedy folsom concil members fingers stay out of that plum pie. the city council needs to be spending folsom money on folsom. Not a future folsom that folsom doesnt want. frankly, your argument is the exact same argument the cuty council used to annex s 50 land whicxh most people on this thread are against being developed. so your reasoning for even more land makes folsom sound like a ever expanding colony. that is not the future for folsom that i want to see happen



#32 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 07 March 2015 - 03:39 PM

You just don't get it! Whether it's folsom council or sac county or rancho, they are all greedy.

You can demand accountability from out council but unless u donate as much as the developers, your vote doesn't count as much as their donation.

It doesn't matter who develops it, the sprawl will impact us all north of 50.

If you want to protect folsom stopping sprawl is the best way, we can't afford to maintain what we have let alone another couple thousand acres f homes.

#33 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 07 March 2015 - 03:44 PM

Even though it's not a future you want for folsom it is a potential reality while that land is still developable.

As chad pointed out our council is dependent on more growth to provide to support current development, a pyramid scheme.

I say take that option off the table and make our council make the hard choices to fix the problems in existing Folsom creating a sustainable development pattern within the existing city limits.

Don't kid yourself, if the council gets a vote they will continue development southward, rancho northward and elk grove eastward, until we have the sprawl that is foothill farms, north highlands, Carmichael south of 50 too

#34 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 March 2015 - 04:22 PM

That sprawl, if it belongs to someone else, wont be our headache to fund. WE DONT WANT IT AND WE DONT WANT TO FUND IT> LET TSAKAPOULOS GO ELSEWHERE FOR SPRAWL SUPPORT OR GREENBELTS>

 

because one thing we all here know-- is that as long as there is living breath in the council members we have-- they will shoot down the possibility of being replaced. Which means for the next 40 years we are stuck with greedyassed council members who run roughshod over this cities wishes and what they vote for. And that is exactly what you are encouraging here right now.

 

Folsom voters have made it clear. We dont want to expand.



#35 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,752 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 March 2015 - 06:14 PM

i dont care what tsakapoulos developements does outside of folsom as long as greedy folsom concil members fingers stay out of that plum pie.

 

Are you suggesting the council members will profit from development?


Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

EXP Realty

BRE#01368503

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#36 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 March 2015 - 06:16 PM

 

Are you suggesting the council members will profit from development?

yes



#37 FolsomEJ

FolsomEJ

    All Star

  • No Politics!
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 March 2015 - 06:31 PM

The one thing I have not heard here is for people to actually buy the land and donate it for a conservatory.

 

I do hear a lot of ideas on how someone else can be told how to use their land.  It is interesting, especially considering the political views that are normal shared here.

 

Just sayin'



#38 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 March 2015 - 06:42 PM

Conservatory..

smh

we just dont need to be spending that kind of money right now. 

The city is still on a perch from the recession.



#39 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 07 March 2015 - 10:55 PM

Some of you may recall I was a Candidate for City Council back in 2004 when Measure W was on the ballot. I knew then that this was going to have huge negative effects on Folsom and advocated for voting NO on this measure. Sadly many of the very issues I warned about are coming true!

 

Let me share some of the History of how Measure W came to be.

 

The City was going all out to secure their SOI for S50. A small group of informed citizens saw the handwriting on the wall ( based upon the past experiences with development deals), so they authored a ballot measure that included conditions to protect the quality of life for the residents who lived N50. They submitted the measure and started collecting signatures. This small group of Citizens exceeded the number of signatures needed by a significant amount in an amazingly short time. This signaled to the Council and the Landowners that this measure would surely pass overwhelmingly and NOT be Developer friendly. 

 

The petitioners submitted the Measure, it was validated and recommended by the City attorney that the Council approve putting this onto the ballot, which they did. The Council then directed staff to come up with an alternative measure to compete with the Residents Measure. staff came up with Measure W in record time and the Council approved putting it on the Ballot as well, pretending to allow the Citizens the right to choose between the 2 measures. ( if you buy into that, then stop reading and start getting ready for the Easter Bunny).

 

Then another group citizens ( made up of the "IN" crowd) filed suit against the Original Citizens petition claiming they violated the law by not including something like 24 pages of the description of the land the Original petitioners were getting signatures for their ballot measure. This seemed to be the ultimate desperation play. No one had ever heard of requiring pages of the Description of the land to be included in the petition before. Basically the Lawsuit was claiming the people who signed the petition didn't know where the land South of 50 was!  In addition how in the world were citizens ( who filed the lawsuit) being harmed by allowing a vote on competing Ballot measure. The lawsuit should have been dismissed, because those filing had No Standing.

 

Amazingly it was assigned to a Judge who was a former Assemblyman/Senator who had received considerable support from a Landowner S50 during his campaigns. 

 

Even though the City Attorney Validated the measure and The city Council approved putting it on the Ballot, the City didn't defend  its actions in courts. The Measure's Petitioners had some attorneys who were knowledgeable and capable but were kinda doing it Quasi Pro Bono. Once it got to court, they recognized immediately, that there wasn't stopping this political Freight Train and if they ever wanted to get a fair shake going forward now was the time to cut their losses. They did their Job, but the bowed out and wanted no part of any appeal.

 

Not only did the Judge rule in favor of the Plaintiffs, but made the original petitioners sweat out a couple of days if he was going to award legal fees, something like $30K to the plaintiffs. This was the warning shot to NOT try and appeal him.

 

Had they appealed they would have won, but they had enough.

 

When you hear the Old saying Folsom has always been a railroad town, its true!

 

So my advice is to stay away from trying to do any petition regarding land use! There is another way to do this and I'll start that topic soon enough

 

If you ever hear about my demise, like getting run over by a bus while on the Bike trail or out fishing, please know I've told you the truth!



#40 MurphysLaw

MurphysLaw

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 08 March 2015 - 01:45 AM

The problem is that every time the the city council people come on the ballot, they get reelected. So why do they care about a minority opinions? They get money from the developers and they get relected! The only way things are going to change is if new people that have the different values are elected.



#41 MikeinFolsom

MikeinFolsom

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 08 March 2015 - 08:12 AM

Very interesting article in the Bee today about S50 development.  Every person in their right mind knows that water is the biggest issue we have now.  They are expecting with final buildout that Folsom will now use 30k acre/feet water a year.  We are currently alloted 34k, but have been conserving now down to 20k or so.  There are stipulations that our water can be cut to 20k in severe drought years.  I'm no math major but a city that will eventually require 30k of water that gets cut to 20k of water.........am I missing something here?  And let's not forget core city services either.  For years the city has neglected essential public safety services.  Heck, they're so gung-ho to develop S50 and they can't even put a much needed fire station in the Empire Ranch area?  What are they planning to do for the rest of the 'new' city?  Have the guys behind Home Depot drive out there all of the time?  Oh wait.....that ambulance is only a part time ambulance now.  Anything after 8pm on a weeknight and you'll have to wait for the ambulance coming from the Wal-Mart station.  Or better yet, a Sac Metro ambulance.  Seems like our police force is stretched rather thin at times as well.  No plans for that aspect either, I'm sure.  Hopefully the city has set aside 100k acres of parks and crap like that.  We definitely don't have enough of those right now. 



#42 TruthSeeker

TruthSeeker

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts

Posted 08 March 2015 - 08:17 AM

Steve, if you ever want to know why we distrust and don't like the liars on our city council, please read Roberts post a few times. The truth is refreshing and always an eye opener.

The city council members are shysters who don't give a damn about the residents. They only care about helping their developer buddy's who pay for their re-election campaigns.

What do the council members gain? They stay in control thru donated monies and they get their way whether it's good for the city or not. It's been painfully obvious Howell, Miklos and Starsky are power tripping narcissists so staying "in charge" is the "high" they get to stay on for decades. They also get the notoriety of being responsible for growing Folsom into any other town USA with nice plaques all over town with their names engraved on them.

Svzr2FS.jpg


#43 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 08 March 2015 - 09:36 AM

Very interesting article in the Bee today about S50 development.  Every person in their right mind knows that water is the biggest issue we have now.  They are expecting with final buildout that Folsom will now use 30k acre/feet water a year.  We are currently alloted 34k, but have been conserving now down to 20k or so.  There are stipulations that our water can be cut to 20k in severe drought years.  I'm no math major but a city that will eventually require 30k of water that gets cut to 20k of water.........am I missing something here?  And let's not forget core city services either.  For years the city has neglected essential public safety services.  Heck, they're so gung-ho to develop S50 and they can't even put a much needed fire station in the Empire Ranch area?  What are they planning to do for the rest of the 'new' city?  Have the guys behind Home Depot drive out there all of the time?  Oh wait.....that ambulance is only a part time ambulance now.  Anything after 8pm on a weeknight and you'll have to wait for the ambulance coming from the Wal-Mart station.  Or better yet, a Sac Metro ambulance.  Seems like our police force is stretched rather thin at times as well.  No plans for that aspect either, I'm sure.  Hopefully the city has set aside 100k acres of parks and crap like that.  We definitely don't have enough of those right now. 

Here is the link... And the first thing they talk about is water??? Where is the water,  CITY COUNCIL ????

We know you are reading this, answer up. Back when this project was started we were told that no water

from North of 50 would be used South of 50. We see how that worked out. GREAT JOB.

 

http://www.sacbee.co...le12966740.html


A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#44 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 08 March 2015 - 10:47 AM

Here is the link... And the first thing they talk about is water??? Where is the water,  CITY COUNCIL ????

We know you are reading this, answer up. Back when this project was started we were told that no water

from North of 50 would be used South of 50. We see how that worked out. GREAT JOB.

 

http://www.sacbee.co...le12966740.html

 

Thanks for posting the link, camay2327.

 

Steve, is there really a such a large market that is unmet for $800,000 homes on a hillside?  

 

I mean, here we have some posts trying to sell the idea of replacing older homes with mixed-use residential and selling us on complete streets, and yet the first project going in are homes that don't sound very amenable to walking to a light rail station or being close to a bus line.  Sounds kind of hypocritical.

 

I'm with everyone else who said water supply is or at least should be a huge concern with this growth.



#45 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 08 March 2015 - 10:54 AM

The article pretty much validates that the City violated Measure W regarding the water issue.

 

4 of these council members need to be RECALLED! Some of you are giving them far too much credit, in that they simply are making mistakes! They know exactly what they are doing and think because of the rigged election process in Folsom, that keeps them elected,  they are invincible.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: S50, South of 50

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users