79 replies to this topic

[waterbaby149]

Billsfan - you repeat the same retoric every time you make a response as you did on the library forum
I have spent over 30 years working in the political system i.e, the legal system and find your comments interesting at best. Yes I feel strongly about the issues presently before this cc, and I appreciate the fact that I can have these feelings and voice them. One might be well to remember that the Veterans gave their lives so that we may voice these opinions. Certainly the various concerns in Iraq and other middile eastern countries do not have this opportunity.
As to the history of the cc, it is my understanding that in the past certain cc (not those presently) have served "time" or come very close to it. It is like going to the doctor and getting a diagnoses - you should always get another opinion - neither the doctor or the cc are always right.....

[Who]

Why haven't you done something about alledged wrongful acts for so long a time?

[billsfan]

Waterbaby - your doctor's example doesn't hold water to this situation. I've been lucky enough to not have a serious enough medical problem that needed a second opinion, but several of my family members have. In those cases we seeked opinions of another doctor or team of specialists, not a vote from the nurses or all the patients in the hospital. That's not to say that some members of our community members are not expertised enough to understand the developmental details, but a majority are going to vote based on very limited understanding of developmental/zoning issues. Also, if this initiative passes, the same members who are sponsored this initiative, will attempt to proactively influence voters when the south of 50 plan is brought up to vote.

Understand that I do want the South of 50 areas to be developed smartly, much like most of Folsom already has been in the past. Citizens should get involved and find ways to contribute. I believe that the initiative is not the right way to do it. There are unrealistic provisions such as requiring 50 to be expanded before any building permits can be issued - that is both unrealistic and unfair to developers. Leave this decision the cc, express your opinions to them, and make sure you understand their position about South of 50 development before they are elected or re-elected...

[EDF]

Billsfan...

You are "naive" in the extreme....

Its people like you that have given us the situation we have now....

overburdened streets... sewers... and schools....

all of which impact our lives...

but so what.... its "unfair" to ask the developers to pay for that...

so don't complain when the school board comes around again with their hands out wanting more of our $$$$ for the schools we need...

and you can make the sacrafice and take mass transit because we won't have enough traffic lanes on 50...

Your position is an "idiotic" and "clueless" one....

I hope I'm not being too "insensitive" here... but folks like you who don't even want to have a vote on this issue are well... as Mike Savage would say..."sheeple".....

[Bob Holderness]

Two basic points needs be made:

[Bob Holderness]

Two basic points needs be made:

1. Will the Bob Fish initiative stop Ranch Cordova from approving housing development projects across Hwy 50 from Folsom? Will this initiative stop the County of Sacramento from approving housing development projects across Hwy 50 from Folsom? The answer to these quetions is: "no." And that of course is why this initiative is ill conceived, and frankly, just so much hooey!
2. I see that Bob Fish and friends like to indulge in ad hominem attacks on my character as a way of distracting readers from considering what I have to say. Well, people in glass houses ought not throw stones. It is true that some of my clients are developers and most are business owners. I make no apologies for that. I am proud of my involvement in the effort to develop and build new private residential colleges and universities in the Sacramento area. Before I started the effort to build a new private residential college in this area back in 1995, there were none in our region and there were no prospects for any. In just the last few years we have stimulated three new private colleges: one in Rocklyn (which will open for business this fall), one in the area of West Roseville (which expects to break ground in about two years), and one in the Mather Field area of Sacramento County. How many private colleges are the Fis---es bringing to this area? And what do the proponents of the Bob Fish initiative offer? Well Bob Fish works for developers 100% of the time, every day. How credible is it for him to be sponsoring a "No Growth" initiative? Are we just expiating guilt here? And did you know that the chief financial backer of this initiative is a full time developer named David Mogavero? Perhaps I'll let Bob Fish et al. give you their version of who their sugar daddy is before I pass on the facts. That should be great reading. Bob Holderness

[EDF]

Yo Bob H...

Before you lay it on Bob Fish... maybe you ought to explain to the folks on the forum why you represented Mr. Meyers in his quest to eliminate the "arches" on the new Folsom bridge....for example...

No one has attacked your character... because full disclosure is not a "character attack"... However... full disclosure can be a little "uncomfortable"....

You work for these guys... Therefore in the interest of a fair debate, isn't it important for folks here to know where your bread and butter comes from...since you then have a "vested interest" in the "outcome"....

Because you work for these guys, isn't it kind of tough for you to come on here pretending to be the "moderating" voice that you want people to believe you are...?

Lets have the debate... an honest one... not one with a bunch of "hooey" and "disingenuous crap-ola", that because these guys are starting private colleges they should be given a "free pass" to develope any area they want and then "stick it" to us to pick up the majority of the tab....

The real issue is you guys are afraid of this initiative, because if we get it on... its going to pass... or if it doesn't... its going to cost your guys $$$$ to stop it...

Being the "progressive" you are Bob... anything wrong with a vote of the people....?

[valdossjoyce]

Well done, counselor.

It's you, Bob Holderness, I'm talking to...feigning injury by exaggerating comments about you as "attacks on character"! (About the worse thing I saw written about you is that Bob Fish suggested you were ignorant and Ed said you'd "gone over to the other side". Didn't realize them's fightin' words) We both know that your many years in politics and many more as a lawyer would not be possible without a very thick skin. You're not insulted at all. You're just using the so-called "attacks" to launch one of your own. Brilliant!

I'm glad you're proud of your clients. Reminds me of how proud I am to be a malcontent. (That's what Steve Miklos calls us folks who don't see eye-to-eye with him...)

But enough banter. I''l take your bait vis-a-vis Bob as employee of developer and David Mogavero as our group's deep-pocket developer.

Bob Fish's credibility is not impugned one iota because of where he works. Indeed, everyone who knows Bob (and you're among them) knows he will speak his mind to his own detriment just be do what's right. He cares deeply about Folsom, has paid his dues with community service and commitment. His engineering expertise enables him to unravel many of the misdeeds others wouldn't otherwise find or understand. Would you have him quit his profession and sit in a tree destined for lumber to prove his credibility? I think not. If anything, Bob's integrity can be a bit of too much of a good thing. I kind of think of him as a boy scout trying to persuade a pack of wolves. But then our group is so diverse, we need the boy scout engineer and everyone else bringing their special talents to our task.

Then there's David. He is not financing the initiative. He is a director of a Sacramento area environmental group (ECOS, Environmental Council of Sacramento) and in that capacity has provided much needed guidance. Every penny (not many--our budget is smaller than the price of a good Brooks Bros. suit) we've spent so far has come from Folsom contributors. We do our own photocopying, our kids draw our signs. We're about as grass-roots as they come. You are correct, though; he is a developer, an architect, in fact, who builds things that represent "smart growth." He believes in "in-fill" development versus sprawl. So is that a conflict of interest? In the name of full disclosure, let the people decide. My take on David is that as a business person, he puts his money where his mouth is. Not unlike investors who only invest in politically-correct corporations.

I will continue to disagree with your first point. My prior posts explain why. Reasonable minds can differ.

PS. I love how you've labeled it the Bob Fish initiative. Lends it a personal touch. What if you'd named it the Ed Favinger initiative? We'd have to apologize after every post!

PS to Ed: Sorry, fella, your head and heart are in the right place, but sometimes we gotta remind you to write your posts BEFORE happy hour...

[camay2327]

Lawyers against lawyers and developers against developers.

Go for it !!!!!

[valdossjoyce]

hey, camay 2327, are you calling that a win-win situation?

I'd be insulted, but then you'd probably point out that I already pretty much said that an insulted lawyer is an oxymoron in my prior post to Bob Holderness.

[tony]

QUOTE (Bob Holderness @ Apr 20 2004, 01:01 PM)

Well Bob Fish works for developers 100% of the time, every day.

Bob H.: Gee, all this time I thought we designed that bridge over Lake Natoma for some government agency called the City of Folsom. Now you tell me it was just a front for a developer! Well, that does explain a few things, now doesn't it.

[ducky]

Wow, Mr. Holderness, I'm surprised to see so much mudslinging early in the game. Hope you're not wearing anything that stains. Your clients must be really worried the Folsom all-you-can-eat buffet is going to more sensible fare served by the residents. Don't worry. Maybe they can come up with a phony citizen group name and spend thousands to pass out flyers with a Mailboxes Etc address and suite number like they have done in the past. You're not fooling anyone with the we're-only-trying-to-build-a-university campaign Everyone knows that is just so you can get your foot in the door to build an endless sea of houses, with all the rest of us picking up the bill for the impact on our infrastructure.

As for Mr. Mogavero, I have only met him once at an informational meeting regarding the initiative and he was very forthright about what he does for a living. Mr. Fish has earned my respect through his selfless community involvement and concern for the impact growth has on the people who live here.

Valdossjoyce, you rock!

[tessieca]

Bob H's initial concerns still really haven't been addressed, although Val did a detailed analysis of part.

There is part of the Aerojet land that has been released for development. This is directly adjacent to city land as well as SOI land, and I think it might border RC city and/or RC SOI on other fronts. This, and some of the other land in question, is inside of the urban services boundary, which extends to Prairie City Road. Aerojet, I think, has some means of obtaining water for development of their own property. Why wouldn't any potential developer of that land simply decide to work with the county or city of RC instead of bothering with Folsom?

Even if 4/5 supervisors need to expand the USB, the only Folsom representative on that board favors the idea.

And, for land within the USB and adjacent to Folsom, the supervisors are unlikely to care what the residents of Folsom think or want (going by past history). We have only one vote. Historically, county development has been rather haphazard and ugly, especially along highway corridors. Such ugliness would directly affect the aesthetics of Folsom's entry way.

I fear that the cart is coming before the horse on this issue. If, and when the land is annexed, maybe then an initiative would be useful. Until then, we risk chasing the development decisions to another decision-making body over which Folsom residents have no control.

BTW, any annexation would require a long and public process. The desires of the residents would be considered in that process.

For those of you who are so-inclined, please do not personally attack me for my thoughts and opinions. While I am also a thick-skinned attorney, I think it takes away from the discussion more than it adds.

[EDF]

Tessica...

boy you have turned around big time too...

Ok... lets concede your point... for the sake of argument...

I say let the County or Rancho do it... because they would have to pay for it...

If Rancho or the County were to annex it... that property is going to be in our school district....

Therefore... do you think any of us are going to want to pay for the added costs of schools on that side of the Highway....? I don't think so...

And what about the other "infrastructure"... let them pay for it....

The County is broke and can't handle that development and you know it... Rancho is a long way off...

As part of any annexation they have to "pre-zone" don't they... ? seems to me if we go your way... we lose.... plain and simple...

[Bob]

QUOTE (tessieca @ Apr 23 2004, 12:49 PM)

There is part of the Aerojet land that has been released for development.  This is directly adjacent to city land as well as SOI land, and I think it might border RC city and/or RC SOI on other fronts.  This, and some of the other land in question, is inside of the urban services boundary, which extends to Prairie City Road.  Aerojet, I think, has some means of obtaining water for development of their own property.  Why wouldn't any potential developer of that land simply decide to work with the county or city of RC instead of bothering with Folsom?

Tessieca,

Please take the time to read our initiative before you make such comments. The initiative does not cover the Aerojet land you refer to. Both the Aerojet superfund site, and the smaller portion along Highway 50 that is called the “carveout” (released from the superfund site by the EPA) is INSIDE the County’s growth boundary (Urban Services Boundary, USB). It is NOT included in/covered by our initiative. We left the door open to Aerojet because they already have development entitlements dating back decades.

This carveout land is an entirely separate issue that will have to be addressed in the near future.

Our initiative currently covers only agriculturally zoned land, primarily that land that is outside of the County’s growth boundary. Please read it and the following post, which is also in response to your comments.

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Controlled Growth
http://www.FolsomGrowth. org