76 replies to this topic

[ducky]

<!--quoteo(post=394036:date=Aug 9 2010, 02:09 PM:name=Folsom Guy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Folsom Guy @ Aug 9 2010, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=394036"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I believe that's a myth (I'd say a lie) perpetrated and propagated by the city council....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To what end?

It has been argued that Miklos wants it because he's in the real estate/mortgage business and he'll get new customers. I'm in the Real Estate business, and there are plenty of homes to sell. 330 of them in Folsom right now. Adding more won't guarantee me more business, nor will it guarantee more for Steve Miklos.

It's been argued that Starsky wants it because he's counsel for an air conditioning company and they'll get new customers. Is that really what's going on?

What about Andy Morin? More customers for his cafe in Granite Bay? Kerri Howell gets more engineering clients? Eric King would get the benefit of Intel selling more computer chips?

If you believe the council is lying, what are they to gain?

I don't know what or who to believe anymore, but I will say in answer to who's to gain it seems to me moving forward South of 50 will be very, very good to every type of consultant under the sun.

[Folsom Guy]

<!--quoteo(post=394036:date=Aug 9 2010, 02:09 PM:name=Folsom Guy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Folsom Guy @ Aug 9 2010, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=394036"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I believe that's a myth (I'd say a lie) perpetrated and propagated by the city council....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To what end?

It has been argued that Miklos wants it because he's in the real estate/mortgage business and he'll get new customers. I'm in the Real Estate business, and there are plenty of homes to sell. 330 of them in Folsom right now. Adding more won't guarantee me more business, nor will it guarantee more for Steve Miklos.

It's been argued that Starsky wants it because he's counsel for an air conditioning company and they'll get new customers. Is that really what's going on?

What about Andy Morin? More customers for his cafe in Granite Bay? Kerri Howell gets more engineering clients? Eric King would get the benefit of Intel selling more computer chips?

If you believe the council is lying, what are they to gain?

I do not know what is to be gained. Things are not alway black and white. But, it is certainly not true that if Folsom doesn't develop the area someone else will. That's just a lie. Do you agree?

[Steve Heard]

I do not know what is to be gained. Things are not alway black and white. But, it is certainly not true that if Folsom doesn't develop the area someone else will. That's just a lie. Do you agree?

You are accusing them of fraud, so no, I cannot agree, as I've seen no evidence.

People and policies change as their needs do. Sacramento and Rancho Cordova may not have had designs on that area, but when the recovery happens and when more and more people move into the region, the need for housing will grow, and there will be more and more people, communities and builders wanting to build there.

I'd love to see that area remain as it is, but I don't that will happen, and I'm glad that Folsom, which seems like a pretty good place to live, would have control over any development there.

[Folsom Guy]

If they (city council) assert that development in S50 area is inevitable, then they are lying. Even if Folsom annexes the land, it is fraudulent to claim that development is inevitable. And Rancho and Sac cities would have to go thru a huge process to be able to initiate development.

NYC is a crowded place - but, they will not build in Central Park...

So, I disagree with your position that we have to build in that area if the housing needs grow.

Now, if the city council comes out and clearly states the benefits of developing S50 area, I can understand....I may not agree with them though. But, if they make their 1st argument that development is inevitable - then, there's something fishy.

[Bob]

If they (city council) assert that development in S50 area is inevitable, then they are lying. Even if Folsom annexes the land, it is fraudulent to claim that development is inevitable. And Rancho and Sac cities would have to go thru a huge process to be able to initiate development.

NYC is a crowded place - but, they will not build in Central Park...

So, I disagree with your position that we have to build in that area if the housing needs grow.

Now, if the city council comes out and clearly states the benefits of developing S50 area, I can understand....I may not agree with them though. But, if they make their 1st argument that development is inevitable - then, there's something fishy.

Folsom Guy,

You make two points that are so simple, a child could understand. Unfortunately, the majority of Folsom voters are ignorant regarding these issues:

1. Not all land within a City MUST be or INEVITABILY will be developed as folks like Stevethedad and our Council claim. Drive around the Bay Area and note the number of large open areas in-between developed areas. Many have been preserved via voter initiatives. What many voters fail to understand is the power they actually have. It is not the "government" (City Councils or County Board of supervisors) that actual have the authority to rezone agricultural land for development, it is on the proxy authority granted to them by the voters. That is why the State of California has the initiative process, to rescind that proxy on a specific issue when elected officials go astray. Folsom residents CAN truly control development south of 50, weather that be no development, reduced development, or simply ensuring that developers actually pay for ALL costs (something our City Hall will never enforce).

2. Benefits of developing south of 50. This has been my main argument against the Council. They have refused to have an open discussion in regards to "benefits" vs. the known ills of THEIR plans (traffic, smog, water, and financial impact to current residents). The community meetings they like to hype always began with the premise that development WILL occur, so what kind of development do you want? Of course, this was all a charade and the final plans mostly conform to what the land speculators wanted all along.

Folsom guys implication that the City has never “clearly stated the benefits of developing S50 area” is spot on, but falls short. “Clearly” implies that they have discussed benefits. My recollection is that they have only tried to scare Folsom residents into developing south of 50 by claiming the County WILL develop it and make it look like the worst parts of industrial Rancho Cordova.

Regards,
Bob

[Rich_T]

You make two points that are so simple, a child could understand. Unfortunately, the majority of Folsom voters are ignorant regarding these issues:

1. Not all land within a City MUST be or INEVITABILY will be developed as folks like Stevethedad and our Council claim.

I read in this week's Folsom Telegraph that Miklos trotted out the same old lie (if you repeat it enough, it becomes the truth, right?) that development S50 is "voter approved". Sigh.

As we all know, Measure W (which shamefully usurped Measure T, but that's another story) merely presented parameters **if** the land were to be developed. Residents voted for annexation, but not automatically for development, and no one should assume they did. No one has yet put the question to a vote of Folsom residents: develop south of 50, yea or nay? Rezone, yea or nay? This would force an honest dialogue about the pros and cons.

[Steve Heard]

1. Not all land within a City MUST be or INEVITABILY will be developed as folks like Stevethedad and our Council claim.

Bob, I am not a proponent of development south of 50, and have stated many times that I'd love to see it stay as open space. I am not, however, naive enough to believe that if we don't annex it, no one else will, and that there's no need to take steps to get the land under Folsom's control, because Rancho and the county would never ever even think about developing it.

I'm old enough to remember when much of what is now Silicon Valley was open space and orchards. Land was cheap because no one wanted it. It was too far from everything. Now look at it. This happened because there was a demand
for housing and commercial space.

Perhaps some day there will be a demand for more housing and commercial space in this area, too.

I'm all for the voters deciding what happens to the land. I just don't believe that if we leave it alone, everyone else will, too.

[Bob]

I'm all for the voters deciding what happens to the land.

Steve,

Glad to read that you support that the voters should decide what happens. So why then do you support the current Council and their continued deceptions?

Miklos is quoted in the Telegraph last Wednesday, "He said the planned development was voter approved."

Just when did this happen Steve?

Please do not insult the readers of this forum by espousing Measure W. You know very well that was a scam put forward by the Council to undermine the nearly 5,000 Folsom voters that signed the petition for Measure T, the initiative that would have given voters real control. As you recall, the residents initiative made it to the ballot but was then pulled off by a judge (who has ties with one of the major land owners south of 50) after several former Council members (one a land use attorney for the same land owner, the other a commercial real estate agent) filled a suit against the residents of this City.

The fact is that City Hall has rammed this down our throats from day one. We were never given a choice. The apparent City’s attitude regarding giving us a “choice” is, “We are going to develop regardless of what you the residents want, but you can choose what color to use on the maps we already drew up designating what will be developed.”

Letter from the County:
The letter from the County sternly telling the City to stop lying about the County was hidden from the residents. It was not disclosed until the County sent us a copy out of frustration when the City continued to ignore their objections.

Poll by the City:
Another major lie. The City commissioned (residents paid for it) a poll to gather what Folsom residents desired regarding development south of 50. But the results were devastating to their objective of developing no matter what. Over 70% of your friends and neighbors said NO! , with only about 12% actually supporting it. The City then lied to the Telegraph, the Bee, the Business Journal, and even to us tax paying residents, that there was no such poll. Again, we obtained a copy from a third party. But the City refused to discuss the results.

Environmental Report:
Have you even bothered to read it Steve?

You might be interested to see that our smog (already the worst in the County) will become much worse. Traffic on Hwy 50 – much worse (they can’t add lanes since our smog is so bad), traffic within our current city – much worse. But don’t let these issues bother you Steve, since it is ”inevitable” that it will be developed. Water and schools are not a settled issue either.

So, back to your comment, does that mean you would support an initiative that would give residents a direct vote on what kind of development would occur? This is the ONLY way we can be assured that development will may 100% of its cost and FULLY mitigate any problems it causes to current residents.

Regards,
Bob

[Steve Heard]

[quote name='Bob' timestamp='1286682345' post='399098']
Glad to read that you support that the voters should decide what happens. So why then do you support the current Council and their continued deceptions?

That's a good one. I don't 'support' the council, nor to I support any deceptions. I just don't have any hatred toward them

Miklos is quoted in the Telegraph last Wednesday, "He said the planned development was voter approved."

Just when did this happen Steve?

I don't know. I am not the one who said it.

Please do not insult the readers of this forum by espousing Measure W. You know very well that was a scam put forward by the Council to undermine the nearly 5,000 Folsom voters that signed the petition for Measure T, the initiative that would have given voters real control. As you recall, the residents initiative made it to the ballot but was then pulled off by a judge (who has ties with one of the major land owners south of 50) after several former Council members (one a land use attorney for the same land owner, the other a commercial real estate agent) filled a suit against the residents of this City.

Bob, when have you EVER heard me say or read anything that you could consider me 'espousing' Measure W? Fact is, I don't know very much about it, other than what you say it was and what the council members has stated about it. That's all I've ever been able to say about it.

Environmental Report:
Have you even bothered to read it Steve?

Nope. Very unlikely to.

So, back to your comment, does that mean you would support an initiative that would give residents a direct vote on what kind of development would occur?

Of course I would. What would make you think otherwise? You give me too much credit and power. I'm a guy who hangs out on a public forum, and who sits on the Arts and Cultural Commission. I don't make policy.

[Redone]

Poll by the City:
Another major lie. The City commissioned (residents paid for it) a poll to gather what Folsom residents desired regarding development south of 50. But the results were devastating to their objective of developing no matter what. Over 70% of your friends and neighbors said NO! , with only about 12% actually supporting it. The City then lied to the Telegraph, the Bee, the Business Journal, and even to us tax paying residents, that there was no such poll. Again, we obtained a copy from a third party. But the City refused to discuss the results.

That is a big accusation to make with no proof offered.

If you have this Poll as you say , then please post it for everyone.

[ducky]

That is a big accusation to make with no proof offered.

If you have this Poll as you say , then please post it for everyone.

I think this may be the poll Bob is speaking of. This is back in 2001. I'm wondering how residents in 2010 feel about it.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2001/10/15/story6.html

[Bill Z]

I think this may be the poll Bob is speaking of. This is back in 2001. I'm wondering how residents in 2010 feel about it.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2001/10/15/story6.html

Nice find ducky.

good job.

[ducky]

Nice find ducky.

good job.

Thanks, Bill Z. Even with my intelligence deficit I can manage to Yahoo and Google... that and I remember all the old arguments

[Steve Heard]

I think this may be the poll Bob is speaking of. This is back in 2001. I'm wondering how residents in 2010 feel about it.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2001/10/15/story6.html

"The poll, done in August and released last week, found that 58 percent of the city's residents oppose outright annexation of the land, while 38 percent support it. Fifty-four percent favor annexation if severe limits are placed on development."

If Bob was talking about the same poll, though certainly not favoring development, the numbers are quite a bit different than 70% opposition and 12% for as he claimed.

[Redone]

I think this may be the poll Bob is speaking of. This is back in 2001. I'm wondering how residents in 2010 feel about it.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2001/10/15/story6.html

good job