278 replies to this topic

[camay2327]

Andy thanks for putting this out.

Proposed Ballot Measure
ORDINANCE NO. 1002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM SUBMITTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER REGARDING LOCAL CONTROL OF LAND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 50 TO A VOTE OF THE ELECTORATE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004

[waterbaby149]

Sorry Andy - but just because the cc says so NO WAY
When u try and take away my right to vote on an issue I will fight like.... that includes this issue and the library issue as well as any other issues! Our cc thinks only of themselves and not of the citizens of Folsom - the motives make me so sick
I would like to call all citizens to consider a grand jury investigation into the actions of city hall
enough is enough
they make decisions and spend our money w/o consequences - it has to stop

[EDF]

FYI....

Did anyone catch the little news item in today's Sacramento "fishwrap"...

Looks like some folks up in El dorado County have submitted a petition even more severe than ours...

Guess what the hot button issue is....?

No development until the freeway is widened from the El Dorado County line to Cameron Park Drive....

Hmm......

Seems like folks in this region are really fed up with the good ole "status quo"... and further proof the local beaurocrats just "don't get it"....

As one of the people out getting signatures for our initiative, the people from El Dorado Hills were upset that they couldn't sign our petition because they were angry too....

And people like Andy Morin just don't understand that we are fed up and we've decided to do something about it...

Do you for one minute think that this City Hall Crowd would be submitting a "competing" initiative if we hadn't submitted our petition first....?

Yea... sure they would have.....

[waterbaby149]

Collecting for Save the Park has been an eye opener - Citizens are angry over the park issue from other areas and want to help, they are upset over the Hwy 50 issue, they are upset over the rail system, they don't like what is going to happen to historic sutter street, they want a dog park....and it goes on
what about the people w/Lee Howard Park - the city is taking things out like the tennis courts and didn't even ask the residents in that area
the main comment is cc do what they want not what the citizens want ...

[Sara]

First, to clarify the potential for Rancho Cordova annexing the area now designated as Folsom's SOI, their city council recently adopted a planning study area that ends at Prairie City Rd, the boundary for the SOI. Their planning director told me that in reality it was unlikely that any planning would be done even that far to the east. Rancho Cordova has an enormous amount of territory to manage right now.

Could developers turn to the county? Theoretically, yes, but the first step would be to wrest the territory from Folsom as it has been officially listed as Folsom's SOI. I attend meetings sponsored by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and all planning maps clearly show the SOI as belonging to Folsom and land beyond that is marked as permanent open space. These assumptions thrown out by city officials are simply scare tactics and a way to divert attention from the more critical issues of how this land should be developed and the extent of involvement of Folsom residents. I prefer to have a vote on the city's plan just in case it isn't providing the guarantees needed to insure that traffic impacts will be mitigated, that schools will not be overcrowded, and that our current water supply doesn't get shipped south due to conservation pricing. The only eral guarantee is a citizen's vote.

Sara

[Sara]

The city's initiative has been unveiled and it is built on a series of fallacies.
While the intent is clear enough, an attempt to reassure residents gthat annexation and development south of Highway 50 will not affect them, the "devil's in the details." These are missing.

What you have instead is a series of undefined plans, nothing concrete. The city won't be able to deliver on most of these standards but their actual goal apparently is to lull voters into thinking something real is going to be in place. The way to do that in advance of a vote is to have a full environmental impact report to evaluate a range of options. Or as they say in Missouri, "Show me!" If the city tries to slip by with a negative declration this is an illegal act. Who believes that you can annex 3500 acres, apply ambiguous standards and declare there will be no impacts?
This is a con game, pure and simple.

Overall, the standard offered is that property owners south of Highway 50 will bear the full cost of schols, water supply, and roadways. We've heard that one before, when the East ARea was under consideration. I still have copies of the East Area Gazette. This publication was funded by developers and delivered free to residents. Each issue featured the advantages of East Area developement and honed in on the message that our water supply, schools, traffic, etc. would not be affected. Life would be beautiful.

Adoption of a plan does not insure that traffic impacts willl be mitigated. At a minimum, the language in a charter amendment should state that development will not be permitted unless traffic impacts are fully mitigated and details are given on the means to do so. The city's initiative does not address the consequences or impacts for not adding two lanes to Highway 50. We've already heard testimony from city officials of why they can't or won't try to do that.

The standard for Schools is totally inadequate and misleading. The basic premise is that all the city needs to do is submit a plan to the Folsom Cordova USD that provides for funding and construction of all necessary school facilities south of Highway 50, and that premise includes the assumption that none of the residents north of Highway 50 will have to pay for those schools. Thorough analysis in an EIR would show the hurdles that have to be overcome to achieve this standard. I have extensive experience in this subject and understand the complexity of what it would take to do this. State law sets a limit of $60 per $100,000 in assessed valuation. At the onset of development there won't be enough bonding capacity to provide for the cost of the school facilities. So, what else can be done? Those alternatives need to be identified and evaluated.
Will the city use municipal bonding capacity to make up the difference? Will a Mello Roos district be formed? What if developers don't agree to contribute enough to make up the difference? State law now caps developer fees at 1/3 the cost. It is outrageous to try and hoodwink the public with this standard. The public should demand an EIR on every one of these standards before it is too late. Let the city lay its cards on the table. I suspect that when the plan is presented to FCUSD officials and we point out the obstacles, what we'll hear next is a hypocritical accusation that the school officials are cooperating. Never mind that the plan was flawed from the beginning.

Adoption of a plan for 30% open space is not a satisfactory substitute for a full EIR that provides a range of alternatives including a higher percentage of open space. What is the impact on air quality with 30% open space compared to 50% open space? Better or worse?

The standard for water supply is ambiguous--the city will "acquire" a water source. Just what does "acquire" mean in this context? An EIR would define the term and let us know if this means the city is going to purchase water elsewhere, contract with another source, or if something else is planned. We need a guarantee that conservation pricing (made easy by water meters) is not intended to squeeze water from existing residents to supply newcomers south of HIghway 50. An EIR with a range of alternatives would provide the comfort level needed on this standard. Does this standard mean two rate structures, north and south, and what are the costs associated with that concept? Can this standard be met?

Another unknown factor is what happens if the standards are not met? Assume the measure passes and the charter is amended, but these grandiose expectations cannot be implemented. The voters are cheated again. For all of these reasons, the public should demand a full EIR before voting on standards for development that may be totally unrealistic.
What happens if one standard is not met, i.e. the schools? Will this mean no development or not?

I've served on the Folsom city council and currently serve on the school board so these are the questions that came to mind when I read the staff report on the city's initiative. We deserve an EIR that answers these questions before voting on the city's initiative.

Sara, a realist

[Sara]

A word was left out in the previous statement--I meant to say if school officials point out the obstacles to achieving the Schools standard, we will be accused of not cooperating. Better to get all this out in the open before a vote on the standard. An EIR is the process to be used for all of these standards. Otherwise, we are buying "pig in a poke," as they used to say in Texas.

Sara

[camay2327]

The thing that bothers me is the water supply for south of 50.

Quote:

(A) Water Supply. A water supply is acquired for the Area that does not reduce the water available to serve residents or businesses north of Highway 50. This water supply shall not be paid for by water users north of Highway 50.

Unquote:

The above statement says a water supply that does not reduce the water available to serve residents north of Highway 50.

OK, what does that mean???

Say we have water at 100% for north of 50, but only 80% is actually available to serve residents north of 50 and they are holding the other 20% back and it is not being used??

Would the 20% water that we might think is unavailable for use north of 50 be transferred to south of 50 for their use?

This has been bothering me and I am wondering if there really is water being held back. I think that there is a play of words here.

If they come out and say flat out that NO WATER north of 50 is going to be diverted to south of 50 I might agree with them. But when they say, not reduce the water available, I kind of wonder.


ANDY??? Any other city council members???

Cal

[Candy Apple]

Sara, your explanation and knowledge is very important.

Please have your post printed in The Bee and Telegraph so more people can read it.

Those who use this website are really very few compared to the numbers out there who do not use a computer or the Internet.

The population of Folsom and surrounding communities who will be affected by this So. of # 50 action need to be able to compare the two petitions.

Your post illustrates what people should look for in both.

[Bob]

Camay!

Got to love it when the light bulb turns on! I asked you a while back to hold off your enthusiasm for the City Hall Initiative until it was actually written and you had a chance to read it.

Now that you have seen it, it seems that you are picking up on why I had reservations when they first announced they were doing this "for the residents of Folsom".

There is much more to know about THEIR Initiative and I will post my summary of each paragraph after it ha been read at the Council meeting. Until then, read each of THEIR paragraphs again. But do so with the same skepticism you expressed regarding the water paragraphs. A few more questions will surely arise.

Now compare it to the language in the Residents Initiative. The Residents Initiative contains no "wiggle" or vague language. You will get exactly what you read and vote for. Again, we have invested very little time so far "explaining" our initiative. It is so straightforward, we simple ask residents to "Read it for yourself." This assertion was born out to be correct when we collected over 4,500 signatures in less than 5 weekends (just one-fifth of the time allowed by law). Our follow up message is as simple, "Vote Now Before it is Too Late!"

Candy Apple!

Thank for your unbiased opinion. Your statement fits our philosophy perfectly, "knowledge is very important." We want you to have it, they not.


Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Senible Growth

[Bob]

Hey Andy,

I never thought I would see the day that you became “Holdernessized” (the process of being swayed by the rhetoric of a local land use attorney who is working for the developers).

“Poison pill”, “the Fish Initiative”, “bad or deceptive ballot box land use initiative”, “dubiously circulated”, “cloaked in the guise of”, “cleverly inserted”.

This is developer/ anti-resident speak if I ever heard it, and it is certainly not the uncoached thoughts of the Council Member many grassroots residents pitched their support behind in the last election.

First, I find the description of the Residents Initiative as the “Fish Initiative” rather flattering. However, my credit is limited. This initiative was developed over several years, with numerous open invitations (even beggings) to all residents to participate. We also discussed it with senior City of Folsom Staff, and of course we had meetings with several Council Members over the past 2+ years. But of course you know this, as you were one of the Council Members (Including when you were running for office. You remember those campaign promises don’t you?).

But more importantly, the Residents Initiative was brought through the process by a dedicated and sizable committee, over 50 volunteer signature collectors (who worked their tail off to collect the required amount of signatures in record time, and the over 4,500 Folsom voters who signed the initiative.

That brings my overall credit to a very small percent. So, no Andy, this is not my initiative, it is truly the Residents Initiative, and unlike the empty promise City Hall Initiative, it is clear and concise. All a Folsom voter needs to do is read it for themselves to see that only The Residents Initiative gives the voter direct control by requiring their vote on any proposed development in the future.

I doubt that any voter who reads our initiative will ever extract the opinions you have slammed their initiative with: “Poison pill”, “bad or deceptive”, “dubiously circulated”, “cloaked in the guise of”, or “cleverly inserted”.

But this is not really what I am here to discuss. You stated in your last post

I’ll help you out hear so you do not forget the questions. Let’s go back a few posts, say about 14 and 12 days. By the way, it is interesting that you seemed to have found the time to learn “Holdernessease,” and slam the 4,500+ Folsom residents who signed the Residents Initiative (by assuming that must not be able to understand the few short paragraphs in our initiative, which is written in clear simple language). But you did not have the time to respond to these valid questions (or is that you just have not been fed the answers yet?)

OK, Andy and Forum readers, I may be a little too harsh, but this issue is too important to the families in Folsom. As an elected official, Andy knew we would not be throwing roses at him all of the time. Sometimes, an elected official is expected to back-up his position and answer some tough questions. So Andy, here they are again:

Question 1 (In regards to widening Highway 50):
Andy, I am curious how you can possibly describe a required mitigation by YOUR OWN CITY HALL’S environmental impact report as a “poison pill?

Question 2 (In regards to widening Highway 50):
Please explain to the families in Folsom why you believe it is OK to allow development south of 50 WITHOUT meeting the requirements of your own EIR?

Question 3 (In regards to smog):
Also, please explain, particularly to the children, that it is OK to allow development south of 50 at this time even though it would pump 4 tons of additional smog into our air each day, and ruin the Air Management Districts plans to bring our air quality back to accepted standards?


Council Member Eric King, care to also respond? Numerous grass roots citizens groups also supported you during your election. You also stated that you support the right of Folsom Residents to have a direct vote on any development proposals south of 50.

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth

[billsfan]

Bob - At this point, I'm not sure I'm in favor of either initiative. But I would you to address why you included the widening 50, open space, and water requirements to the initiative, rather than let the voters vote decide as you have made is your over arching theme? Did you not trust voters to make a decision whether they believe those items were important when voting on a development plan? Whether those items are needed or not, by including them in the initiative you are making decisions for the voters, that I for one would have liked to vote on - or is there an alternative motive in including these clauses?

[forumreader]

QUOTE (Candy Apple @ Jul 10 2004, 03:18 PM)

Sara, your explanation and knowledge is very important.   Please have your post printed in The Bee and Telegraph so more people can read it.   Those who use this website are really very few compared to the numbers out there who do not use a computer or the Internet.....Your post illustrates what people should look for in both.

I agree with Candy Apple.

I'd also be very interested in hearing how City Council might respond to some of the points addressed in Sara's post.

There is quite a bit of information to digest here. I hope that Folsom voters are trying to inform themselves, and will attend the meetings scheduled for this week.

At this point, I am with bills fan......I'm not decided on whether I support either initiative. If we could only take elements of each initiative, and write a new and single initiative to be placed on the ballot in November. (Just dreaming!)

[cybertrano]

Something is strange in the air when a city known for wild-development creating a ballot initiative.................

.......did I say that?

[Bob]

Candy Apple, Billsfan, Camay, Forumreader, and all forum readers,

As most of you know, the Council will be having the first reading of the proposed City Hall Initiative this Tuesday night. Please be there to ask your questions directly to the Council. This is the public forum such questions should be asked in as it is televised and the media will be there.

Even if you choose not to speak, you will likely enjoy the show and learn a little more about each initiative. Although this will not really be the time to discuss the Residents Initiative, as it is not on the agenda, the City Hall Initiative is, feel free to do so as I am sure the Council and others will bring it up.

To Billsfan,

You ask a great2 question: "Did you not trust voters to make a decision whether they believe those items were important when voting on a development plan?"

Of course we trust the voters!

If not, we certainly would not have wasted our time to deliver the Residents Initiative to them. At the same time, we felt we owed the voter more than just a one-sentence initiative if we were going to ask them to support the Residents Initiative.

Hopefully, the following will more directly answer your question:
During the initial stages of our initiative, we brainstormed all the concepts we felt would be advantages to Folsom families. We then developed an initiative that brought the primary concepts into a reasonable and readable order. It was nine pages long.

We then started the two+ year process of honing it down to a reasonable size. We spoke with many residents, City Staff, and Council members to condense the language so we could present a concise initiative to the voter with language that was so straightforward, their would be no question as to the intent of each paragraph and each sentence.

But most importantly, along the way, we drew heavily on three major phone and mail-in polls on the issue of development south of 50. Two were ours (one done by a professional), the third, one of the phone polls, was conducted by the City. Interestingly, they did not like the results of their own poll. That is, they apparently "Did you not trust voters to make a decision whether they believe those items were important…."

Rather than acknowledge that Folsom residents had major concerns regarding development south of 50 (about 70% wanted no growth at all in that area), they chose to try and hide the results. They told a citizens group, the Bee, the Telegraph, and the Business Journal that the poll was not theirs and they knew nothing about it. Note that I just named three sources that can verify this. So if any one has any doubt, please call one or all. After we produced proof that the poll was indeed conducted by City Hall and paid for by the same taxpayers that they tried to deceive, they finally acknowledged it was theirs with a lame, “Oh, THAT poll.”

Anyway, the reason I bring up the polls is that there is a document, “Guide to Local Growth Control Initiatives,” by the Planning and Conservation League that insists that the only way to start an initiative is to ask those who will be voting on it what it should contain. That is, conduct polls. So again, do we trust voters? Of course, we asked them to help us write it!

After analyzing the poll results, (and with the help of the many face-to-face discussions noted above) we began the process of evaluating every thought contained in the initiative. The overriding criterion was, would that concern be adequately addressed by the main theme, “Folsom voters must vote to accept a proposed development plan.” If yes, it was tossed. We eliminated over eight pages by doing this.

So, again, why the additional paragraphs?
1. We felt we owed the voter more based on the following two reasons.
2. The polls clearly showed that Folsom residents had these items as the greatest concerns (over 80%).
3. The welfare and best interest of Folsom families may not have been protected regarding these items had they not been directly included. The best example is Highway 50. There is a 1990 Environmental Impact Report (14 years old!) for the Broadstone development, which required as mitigation for traffic, that Highway 50 be widened by two lanes. It never happened. By including Highway 50 directly in the initiative, it brings that occurrence of ignoring the City’s own EIR and the issue itself to the forefront, as it has done so by your question. Residents will then be educated on that issue BEFORE they even vote on the initiative. Seem pretty fair, reasonable and democratic?
Regarding the paragraph on water, read the latest Bee article today on Folsom Lake? Down to 30% capacity be the end of September! What more needs to be said regarding direct voter control and protection of our water.


Regardless of the City’s comments (please note that their comments are generally derogatory and void of any real content such as documentation to support their position) we have nothing to hide. So, please, be at the Council meeting this Tuesday night and ask them your questions.

Cybertrano:
Note that the City hastily slammed THEIR initiative together in less than 2 weeks without ANY public discussion or input. As Sara pointed out, voters should read each word and evaluate the possibility of loopholes, wiggle room, etc.

Then compare it to the Residents initiative. No loopholes, No wiggle room, and No etc. Plane and simple, you get to vote directly on any proposed development plan! This is like the Queen in chess. It can do anything. That is the Residents Initiative WILL provide everything that the City Hall Initiative only purports to provide, and more. Because you will have the power of the vote, which is DIRECT control.

Folsom Voters:

Our message has been very clear and consistent from day one. Just read our (YOUR) Initiative for yourself. It is short, simple, and straightforward. Then vote YES in November before it is too late. :thumbsup:



Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth