116 replies to this topic

[camay2327]

Does anyone know if "Asbestosis" will be a problem south of 50????

They found it at the site of the new high school (north of 50).

Anyone done any testing (boreholes) etc???

[supermom]

Thanks Brown!

cw interesting post.

I suppose the reason why I 'm thinking double deck hwy is that A) we won't get sprawl.
B) we are essentially using the "same" land for double purpose and
C) I was thinking that you could probably rather effectively get a commuter bullet train running through the center of the bottom level with under ground loading or between deck stair level skyways. You'd still be using the freeways more effectively to handle traffic.

I see the traffic in SF and often wonder how soon...?

As much as I love the idea of getting rid of local commute by car this city and the county have never really thought out any kind of decent commute plans. They built a light rail running down folsom and put the stops at the most stupid of places. They aren't making it commuter friendly-unless you have a car at both ends of your commute (and that is an assanine solution).

There are a great deal of public servants that live and work in the sacramento county. They work at various locations but it is guaranteed that there is a minimum of 50 in each building.

The county wants to cut back on traffic, congestion pollution and show the public this light rail system works then they need to follow through with a thorough shuttle program enhanced by the state for all employers who have XX amount of employees. Public servants of private enterprise.

When I see that come into play then I will think this state is actually caring about conservation. The ridiculous tax help of guzzling SUV, or vehicles that are non fuel but can't find a station and bicycle friendly streets is a joke. The state, the county, and the city are living under an enormous illusion-when they think it's ok(like yesterday) for there to be 30 bicyclists roaming down F-A blvd at 5:15 pm in heavy traffic that is going even slower because that sorry A** bike club is taking up the slow lane of traffic rather than riding single file on the side of the road.

Ok I'm ranting-it took me 3 times as long to get home the other night and the only reason was those sorry A**ed bikes!!!

[brown]

Does anyone know if "Asbestosis" will be a problem south of 50????

They found it at the site of the new high school (north of 50).

Anyone done any testing (boreholes) etc???

Probably. Here's a map showing areas where asbestos is likely to be found:

http://www.airqualit...OAFolsomMap.pdf

I'm sure the asbestos issue will be a big one.

[brown]

I suppose the reason why I 'm thinking double deck hwy is that A) we won't get sprawl.
B) we are essentially using the "same" land for double purpose and
C) I was thinking that you could probably rather effectively get a commuter bullet train running through the center of the bottom level with under ground loading or between deck stair level skyways. You'd still be using the freeways more effectively to handle traffic.

Just a guess here, but I think a double deck highway would be prohibitively expensive. Concrete and steel ain't cheap.

[Rich_T]

OK, here is my main point:

Did the City ever come to the residents to ask the most important initial question?

“Do you, resident of Folsom, want to expand our City?”

For those of you who are relatively new here, the answer is no.

They dictated to us that it was going to happen. All subsequent discussions involved “what kind of development” and the question was pushed aside.

I am loving Bob's posts, and couldn't agree more. I remember clearly how Measure T was squashed by the developers, and how instead Measure W passed off as representing the wishes of Folsom residents, giving the illusion that residents consented to and support the current development plan. Why am I not surprised that the most recent plan (in this week's Folsom Telegraph) couldn't even manage 31% of open space, but instead predictably loaded up the maximum of 70% developed, "as per resident's wishes". What a farce.

By the way, that 30% open space seems to consist mainly of unbuildable land located in spaces that no one is going to see driving by, judging by the roads on the plan pictured in the newspaper. I remember the expensive fliers that were mailed out the day before the Measure W election, to make it seem like it was a referendum on "preserving open space". Devious.

What gets me most is the false sense of inevitability that is projected ("this is a growing region so we have to build it out or someone else will"). Starsky, Miklos and others keep driving home this point, but that view seems patently wrong for two reasons. First, if we don't build it, they won't come. How simple is that? Second, since we now apparently have gained control of what happens in the SOI area, we don't need to build. We can decide to leave the land zoned as it is right now, and tune out the landowners and developers who will start screaming and throwing money at our elected officials in one way or another.

But no, neither of these considerations seems to exist. Instead certain development "options" were presented, and the public is "strongly invited" to be involved, so that it will look residents were on board every step of the way, toward the predetermined outcome.

If development is truly inevitable (and it shouldn't be), then at very least my suggestion would be to disconnect the new region from Folsom entirely. With 12,000 residences planned, isn't that at least 25,000 people? Sounds like a brand new city to me. So why not incorporate it as South Folsom, or some new name? To build out Folsom on the other side of Highway 50 means destroying any sense of place that still remains. Folsom will be so spread out that it will be a collective of separate communities, not one community. This has already happened to some extent with Empire Ranch, but the SOI build-out would push us over the edge.

Bob's question demands a public airing, but our elected representatives are not providing that opportunity. Instead, they are "inviting questions" about the development plan they have already selected on our behalf.

"Do residents want to expand our city?"

I'd like to know the real answer to that important question. Wouldn't you?

- Rich

[maestro]

Bob,

You still make excellent sense.


Keep up the good work.


Maybe we can keep the flavor of truth in this issue.

[supermom]

I am loving Bob's posts, and couldn't agree more. I remember clearly how Measure T was squashed by the developers, and how instead Measure W passed off as representing the wishes of Folsom residents, giving the illusion that residents consented to and support the current development plan. Why am I not surprised that the most recent plan (in this week's Folsom Telegraph) couldn't even manage 31% of open space, but instead predictably loaded up the maximum of 70% developed, "as per resident's wishes". What a farce.

By the way, that 30% open space seems to consist mainly of unbuildable land located in spaces that no one is going to see driving by, judging by the roads on the plan pictured in the newspaper. I remember the expensive fliers that were mailed out the day before the Measure W election, to make it seem like it was a referendum on "preserving open space". Devious.

What gets me most is the false sense of inevitability that is projected ("this is a growing region so we have to build it out or someone else will"). Starsky, Miklos and others keep driving home this point, but that view seems patently wrong for two reasons. First, if we don't build it, they won't come. How simple is that? Second, since we now apparently have gained control of what happens in the SOI area, we don't need to build. We can decide to leave the land zoned as it is right now, and tune out the landowners and developers who will start screaming and throwing money at our elected officials in one way or another.

But no, neither of these considerations seems to exist. Instead certain development "options" were presented, and the public is "strongly invited" to be involved, so that it will look residents were on board every step of the way, toward the predetermined outcome.

If development is truly inevitable (and it shouldn't be), then at very least my suggestion would be to disconnect the new region from Folsom entirely. With 12,000 residences planned, isn't that at least 25,000 people? Sounds like a brand new city to me. So why not incorporate it as South Folsom, or some new name? To build out Folsom on the other side of Highway 50 means destroying any sense of place that still remains. Folsom will be so spread out that it will be a collective of separate communities, not one community. This has already happened to some extent with Empire Ranch, but the SOI build-out would push us over the edge.

Bob's question demands a public airing, but our elected representatives are not providing that opportunity. Instead, they are "inviting questions" about the development plan they have already selected on our behalf.

"Do residents want to expand our city?"

I'd like to know the real answer to that important question. Wouldn't you?

- Rich

+1 you are eloquent and to the point. But I don't like the idea of another folsom anymore than building on that land. As far as I'm concerned by not just name it Aerojet Flotsam Or ARF for short?

yeah- it doesn't sound very uh well whatever but I'm sure a name with no Folsom would be better.

Other than that your post was right on- and about what I was saying.

[tessieca]

"If you leave it as is, the county will make decisions."

Tesicca. Step away from the coolaid. I know that you are still giddy with the $700million bond win for schools (By the way, congratulations. What a huge win.) but come back down to earth for a minute and lets talk reality.

Number 1a: The County has already made their decision. They adopted an urban services boundary (USB) that places the entire SOI out of their reach for development. County Planning Director Robert Sherry went so far as to send a very sternly worded letter to the City chastising them for casting a bad name on the County to facilitate the City’s own development aspirations. The letter went on to explain why the County will not and can not develop it and demanding that the City stop “lying”(of course in a PC fashion.)
Saying Rancho will is even more of a loosing argument.

Bob, Honey, Dear (and all of his faithful minions):
Put down the oranges so that we can compare our apples. What many people who are reading this don't understand is that there are two distinct land masses that are being discussed as if they're one and the same.

Yes, the SOI is outside of the urban services boundary, and yes, if the city doesn't annex it will probably remain there. That is one of the reasons Measure W specifies things such as finding a non-Folsom water source. An aside, Bob, I credit your Measure T efforts for the passage of Measure W, which does put some strong, needed limitations on the city. Had you not attempted T, they wouldn't have had to put the open space, water, schools, etc., in writing. You did good, even though it wasn't the kind of good you wanted.

The "other" land mass that I keep raising is the land between Prairie City and Sunrise. The banana portion of Gencorp (carved out of the superfund site) has been cleared for development, and development plans are well underway. So Robert can want to keep it out of his community, and people can say it shouldn't be developed at all, but it will be in our community and it will be developed.

Rancho Cordova thinks they own this land already (see for example Linda Budge's quote in the Sac Bee article where she says RC borders Folsom south of PC Road). It's not doomsday stuff, but that land is adjacent to our city and more closely matched with our city. It is directly across the city from my home, Intel, and the factory outlets. Do we want to have RC build juice bars there so they can get the commercial tax dollars while we suffer the feel of the new highway 50 corridor? Do we want them to do that or whatever else they want while we, as non-RC residents, have no vote and no influence whatsoever?

Not me. I want Folsom to be the governmental overseeing body for that area, whether it's a larger SOI or an annexation. Then those of you/us who distrust government will at least be able to keep an eye on develpment and dictate how it proceeds.

P.S. It was $750M actually.

[Johnny_come_lately]

I just love the "close the gates" mentality of some of the posts on here....it seems that all too often the last ones in, want to be the last ones in.

Not that I don't appreciate a good public discourse, it is the responsibility of the public to voice their concerns about the City you have chosen to live in...but it shouldn't be about those who can shout the loudest. And, let's not forget that development of the SOI will be many, many, years from now.

[cw68]

cw interesting post.

I suppose the reason why I 'm thinking double deck hwy is that A) we won't get sprawl.
B) we are essentially using the "same" land for double purpose and
C) I was thinking that you could probably rather effectively get a commuter bullet train running through the center of the bottom level with under ground loading or between deck stair level skyways. You'd still be using the freeways more effectively to handle traffic.

I see the traffic in SF and often wonder how soon...?

As much as I love the idea of getting rid of local commute by car this city and the county have never really thought out any kind of decent commute plans. They built a light rail running down folsom and put the stops at the most stupid of places. They aren't making it commuter friendly-unless you have a car at both ends of your commute (and that is an assanine solution).

There are a great deal of public servants that live and work in the sacramento county. They work at various locations but it is guaranteed that there is a minimum of 50 in each building.

The county wants to cut back on traffic, congestion pollution and show the public this light rail system works then they need to follow through with a thorough shuttle program enhanced by the state for all employers who have XX amount of employees. Public servants of private enterprise.

When I see that come into play then I will think this state is actually caring about conservation. The ridiculous tax help of guzzling SUV, or vehicles that are non fuel but can't find a station and bicycle friendly streets is a joke. The state, the county, and the city are living under an enormous illusion-when they think it's ok(like yesterday) for there to be 30 bicyclists roaming down F-A blvd at 5:15 pm in heavy traffic that is going even slower because that sorry A** bike club is taking up the slow lane of traffic rather than riding single file on the side of the road.

Ok I'm ranting-it took me 3 times as long to get home the other night and the only reason was those sorry A**ed bikes!!!

SACOG needs to incorporate more than cars into their planning. I agree that lightrail isn't designed well when it comes out this way, but many people can take it to downtown Sacramento without having to have a car at the other end. Putting a bullet train (which is way to expensive to do, especially in a region that's not big on public transporation to begin with) would be even more of a stupid place than running it where it is. Does anyone want to bike/walk to Highway 50?

Regarding the cyclists, I guess I first have to tell you that I'm a huge alternate transportation fan. HUGE. Yes, the cyclists should have been riding in the bike lane -- wait, IS there a bike lane there? That's the best way to not slow down transportation -- and not in a huge group. The state/county/city are not living under and enormous illusion when they are promoting cycling instead of driving. They are not encouraging masses of people to ride in groups on streets. They are enouraging bike lane, paths, bike sensors at lights, countdown timers at lights and the like. These are the things that encourage people to dump their cars some of the time. Very few people, or organizations, promote getting rid of cars. What is reasonable, however, is to ride one's bike to the dentist, like I did earlier this week. Or walk to school safely -- meaning marked crosswalks, crossing guards, elminating multiple lanes of traffic to kids to cross, traffic lights. Or bike to school safely, which means bike lanes.

I'd love to write more, but have to go.

Regarding double-decking the highway, it *would* bring sprawl. Just like HOV lanes do.

[Rich_T]

Bob, Honey, Dear (and all of his faithful minions):
Put down the oranges so that we can compare our apples. What many people who are reading this don't understand is that there are two distinct land masses that are being discussed as if they're one and the same.

Yes, the SOI is outside of the urban services boundary, and yes, if the city doesn't annex it will probably remain there. That is one of the reasons Measure W specifies things such as finding a non-Folsom water source. An aside, Bob, I credit your Measure T efforts for the passage of Measure W, which does put some strong, needed limitations on the city. Had you not attempted T, they wouldn't have had to put the open space, water, schools, etc., in writing. You did good, even though it wasn't the kind of good you wanted.

The "other" land mass that I keep raising is the land between Prairie City and Sunrise. The banana portion of Gencorp (carved out of the superfund site) has been cleared for development, and development plans are well underway. So Robert can want to keep it out of his community, and people can say it shouldn't be developed at all, but it will be in our community and it will be developed.

Rancho Cordova thinks they own this land already (see for example Linda Budge's quote in the Sac Bee article where she says RC borders Folsom south of PC Road). It's not doomsday stuff, but that land is adjacent to our city and more closely matched with our city. It is directly across the city from my home, Intel, and the factory outlets. Do we want to have RC build juice bars there so they can get the commercial tax dollars while we suffer the feel of the new highway 50 corridor? Do we want them to do that or whatever else they want while we, as non-RC residents, have no vote and no influence whatsoever?

Not me. I want Folsom to be the governmental overseeing body for that area, whether it's a larger SOI or an annexation. Then those of you/us who distrust government will at least be able to keep an eye on develpment and dictate how it proceeds.

P.S. It was $750M actually.

As for apples and oranges: fair enough, yes I was only talking about the SOI land, and I agree in general with your comments. I too would want both parcels to be under Folsom decision-making control - but only if the decisions don't always automatically stem from an implicit assumption of development (even if it's supposedly done "the right way", which sounds more like "the lesser evil").

I'm hardly a "minion", I just appreciate seeing someone who seems to share my view. From your message, I understand Bob was the Measure T guy. From where I sit, Measure W usurped Measure T momentum to its own scheming ends, and was was put forward by those who stand to make lots of money from development, even though Measure W backers actually had the gall to pretend that it was about "protecting open space from development", as stated on the mailers they sent out, as opposed to the reality of "protecting development from those who prefer open space" (i.e. most residents?). That's what I recall, as a "regular resident" without any insider knowledge.

I'm tired of our elected officials and other politically active residents speaking supposedly on my behalf in the newspapers, using terms like "targeted urban growth". Bob's post was a breath of fresh air to me, because he's been the only one stating the blatantly obvious: no one "has to" build out the SOI land, there is no official doctrine of "manifest destiny" for Folsom, and most of all, no one has put the most basic question to a vote by residents: expansion, yes or no? That's still a valid question BTW, even now. And I have no way of knowing whether my answer ("no") is shared by the majority of residents. Bob cited a poll conducted by the City that suggests 70% would say "no", although I have no information about that so I couldn't say.

Let me ask you, do you support development, and if so, is it because it's inevitable, or because there are benefits that outweigh costs?

[Rich_T]

I just love the "close the gates" mentality of some of the posts on here....it seems that all too often the last ones in, want to be the last ones in.

Not that I don't appreciate a good public discourse, it is the responsibility of the public to voice their concerns about the City you have chosen to live in...but it shouldn't be about those who can shout the loudest. And, let's not forget that development of the SOI will be many, many, years from now.

Yes, the age-old "close the gates" argument. Well, I'm neither an original settler nor "the last one in"; FWIW, I arrived in 1995 (Folsom population 38,000 including prison inmates). But your point is valid no matter when I arrived. The real question is when is enough enough? Is there a point that we stop growing between now and "Welcome to Folsom, population 250,000"? If so, which point is that?


My opinion happens to be that the figurative line gets crossed once we cross the literal line of Highway 50. That open land is a buffer. Fill it up, and suddenly you have a sea of suburbia, just like in Riverside in SoCal (I'm not from there, but I've driven by it, and it's ugggly).

Your opinion might be different. So who decides? The landowners and developers? In fact, they are the ones shouting the loudest, and not the likes of me.

"The city I have chosen to live in" is not the current sprawling one, where every lot must be developed to fill every gap (usually involving setting up another new stoplight).

I won't consider it the end of the world if (when) the land south of Highway 50 is developed. I would rather it didn't happen, because of the huge influx (12,000 residences). Hey, if it were up to me to develop, I'd probably decide on something few people would agree with, for example turning it into a state-of-the-art, one-of-a-kind Wild Animal Park. So what do I know?

"And, let's not forget that development of the SOI will be many, many, years from now."

Well, the newspaper article said groundbreaking is slated for 2010. I happen to believe that this will be a rough economic time, during which development will not progress as rapidly as currently imagined.

[Jaxx]

There is no need for more housing in Folsom for the next several years, but they could set aside some land for the future.
I think it would be great if they just concentrated on bringing some large employers and many medium sized employers by developing office parks and land suitable for corporate campuses. There is way too much reliance/dependence on Intel in Folsom.
When the jobs come, then they can look at building homes around that area and then the employees can walk and bike to work.
Something like the new Capital Village development in Rancho Cordova would be nice as long as it was with a better builder, not Beazer.

http://www.tndwest.c...talvillage.html

[Redone]

I am loving Bob's posts, and couldn't agree more. I remember clearly how Measure T was squashed by the developers, and how instead Measure W passed off as representing the wishes of Folsom residents, giving the illusion that residents consented to and support the current development plan. Why am I not surprised that the most recent plan (in this week's Folsom Telegraph) couldn't even manage 31% of open space, but instead predictably loaded up the maximum of 70% developed, "as per resident's wishes". What a farce.
[/color]The current residents did vote for w and not landowners south of 50

By the way, that 30% open space seems to consist mainly of unbuildable land located in spaces that no one is going to see driving by, judging by the roads on the plan pictured in the newspaper. Is your definition of open space to be able to see it from your car? Alder Creek area will be nice.

What gets me most is the false sense of inevitability that is projected ("this is a growing region so we have to build it out or someone else will"). Starsky, Miklos and others keep driving home this point, but that view seems patently wrong for two reasons. First, if we don't build it, they won't come. How simple is that? Second, since we now apparently have gained control of what happens in the SOI area, we don't need to build. We can decide to leave the land zoned as it is right now, and tune out the landowners and developers who will start screaming and throwing money at our elected officials in one way or another.You are living in a fantasy


Bob's question demands a public airing, but our elected representatives are not providing that opportunity. Instead, they are "inviting questions" about the development plan they have already selected on our behalf.[color="#8B0000"] Isn't it funny that the Bee article devoted about half of the type to Bob and his minority group?


- Rich

[Robert Giacometti]

Bob, Honey, Dear (and all of his faithful minions):
Put down the oranges so that we can compare our apples. What many people who are reading this don't understand is that there are two distinct land masses that are being discussed as if they're one and the same.

Yes, the SOI is outside of the urban services boundary, and yes, if the city doesn't annex it will probably remain there. That is one of the reasons Measure W specifies things such as finding a non-Folsom water source. An aside, Bob, I credit your Measure T efforts for the passage of Measure W, which does put some strong, needed limitations on the city. Had you not attempted T, they wouldn't have had to put the open space, water, schools, etc., in writing. You did good, even though it wasn't the kind of good you wanted.

The "other" land mass that I keep raising is the land between Prairie City and Sunrise. The banana portion of Gencorp (carved out of the superfund site) has been cleared for development, and development plans are well underway. So Robert can want to keep it out of his community, and people can say it shouldn't be developed at all, but it will be in our community and it will be developed.

Rancho Cordova thinks they own this land already (see for example Linda Budge's quote in the Sac Bee article where she says RC borders Folsom south of PC Road). It's not doomsday stuff, but that land is adjacent to our city and more closely matched with our city. It is directly across the city from my home, Intel, and the factory outlets. Do we want to have RC build juice bars there so they can get the commercial tax dollars while we suffer the feel of the new highway 50 corridor? Do we want them to do that or whatever else they want while we, as non-RC residents, have no vote and no influence whatsoever?

Not me. I want Folsom to be the governmental overseeing body for that area, whether it's a larger SOI or an annexation. Then those of you/us who distrust government will at least be able to keep an eye on develpment and dictate how it proceeds.

P.S. It was $750M actually.

tessieca, when did the RC city council approve a juice bar? They aren't going to be approving juice bars S50, besides the land owners will build what ever is most profitable at that time and whatever council is approving the request will go along with it.

A lot of good it did for the residents of the Historic District on keeping an eye on the recently approved housing project for citizens who have mental health issues....they were really able to dictate how it proceeds. I suspect there are some who would prefer to be dealing with the RC council on that!

Maybe you could give us an update on the Hotel project by the movie theaters....the residents are really having lots of success there too!

Maybe you could tell us when was the last time our City Council ever denied an application for development?

Hiway 50 creates a natural boundary line between cities. Somewhere RC & Folsom are going share a boundary. If you are truly concerned about RC controling the other side of the boundary then the only way to avoid that would be for Folsom to take over RC , then you would never have that worry!

We are going hear some say we need the development dollars that come with approvals for developing the land S50. What happens if it cost more to go through the approvals, plan & monitor development than what we get in fees? Those costs have to be paid some how so that means those of us n50 will be paying for development for s50 and have the impacts anyway!

Anyone......tell me what project approved N50 paid for 100% of its impacts....anyone?

Has anyone ever seen what its going to cost to provide services s50? I keep hearing whispers its going to cost more than it generates in revenue...maybe that is why we have never seen the numbers!

Next time you are traveling on East Bidwell traveling from Sutter Middle School to Hiway 50, spend the 25 minutes it takes and think about some of these things.