107 replies to this topic

[camay2327]

Think it is time to hit the IGNORE button for JRudi...

[ducky]

Think it is time to hit the IGNORE button for JRudi...

Couldn't agree more, camay. I don't get the rationale. Enough of feeding the troll.

[JRudi]

Well, I heard you're working for Steve Miklos and you're a Mormon elder, which might explain why you're against tattoo and lingerie shops which are perfectly ok for us non-prude citizens. Good for Kerri for supporting those shops for the rest of us!

The Dude: I'm afraid you're wrong. I'm not a member of the Mormon church, and I don't work for Mr. Miklos. In fact, I have no associatiion with any of the candidates. I'm just an average citizen who is concerned with how we have been represented over the years by our local officials and would like to see some changes.

But, frankly I'm confused. Why is it that you and some others on this forum believe that anyone that opposes Kerri Howell remaining on the city council must be part of some conspiracy? You and the others obviously don't like Miklos, Morin and Starsky, but I haven't accused you or the others as being part of a conspiracy against them.

I've repeatedly cited Ms. Howell's voting record on specific issues as to why I don't think she is suited to represent the people of this community, and have encouraged you and the others to investigate them yourselves. You apparently don't care to, but I've chosen not attack you for that. I respect your choice. If you and the few other folks here want to continue blindly supporting her because she routinely posts on this forum, that's your right. I have chosen to exercise my rights and express my concerns about her here. I am hopeful that you and the others will respect my right to do so and stop accusing me of being part of some conspiracy.

But, for the record, I think Starsky is a real sleaze.

Also, for the record, I'm not against lingerie shops.

[LWoodward]

Wow, lots going on in here, I guess I will try to respond:

About the spelling errors, I was no English major, but rather a History one, sorry if my spelling and grammar is not to your standards, if you wish to base your vote on this than that is your choice.

Someone also asked my view of the S50 in more detail. I understand that this is a process that has been set in motion a long time ago and will be very hard to prevent from happening; however, I hope that I can do my best to prevent it from occurring. (I just got a squiggly red line under occuring) haha I have looked at this issue from many different views and have some concerns:

They have set away 30% of the land to be kept untouched, however, from the information I have gathered this is something that was mandated that the city do if they wanted to develop the area.
Where is the "limit"? How much can we continue to develop and get bigger and bigger, If development does occur, I would like the city to set a boundary and say they will not go past white rock road and continue to develop that way.
I don't believe this will not solve any financial problems that the city has; however, it will hold the city responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the new area. City parks, street lights, landscape, fire, police, ect. We have budget issues now that we need to tackle before becoming bigger.
The effect of the water supply on the Sacramento region. I understand that they have secured water from the Natomas water supply, however, this makes it more of just a Folsom issue, but an issue for the region. Water is a very important issue.

[ducky]

Sorry, Lwoodward. Thanks for your responses.

I guess my concern with moving forward with south of 50 is that north of 50 will get neglected just as what happened with the older sections of Folsom during the last building boom. We kept being told how good all the growth was for our city coffers, but now that it has stopped we find ourselves struggling to maintain what we've built.

I'd also like to see more open space maintained and I, too, have a concern about availability of water. I know that water was obtained on paper for that area, but we all know how empty that lake can get in a dry year with the development we currently have. I don't care how the water trades are supposed to happen on paper. There is only so much to go around, and more development out there is going to mean more water restrictions for everybody. I don't have a problem with conservation, but I do like to have a garden in the summer and I think the more trees the better.

[JRudi]

Sorry, Lwoodward. Thanks for your responses.

I guess my concern with moving forward with south of 50 is that north of 50 will get neglected just as what happened with the older sections of Folsom during the last building boom. We kept being told how good all the growth was for our city coffers, but now that it has stopped we find ourselves struggling to maintain what we've built.

The problem with what occurred previously is that the city council members got in bed with the developers and they allowed them to develop without ensuring that they paid their own way. Many of our development fee programs were intentionally underfunded because the developers did not want to pay full freight to adequately mitigate their impacts. The result was that Folsom taxpayers had to make up for the difference. That is one reason why the city's debt is one of the largest in this area (recall the article in the Sacto. Bee a few months back).

One example of this is our park development fee. It is used to fund park land and improvements. But, it is way underfunded, and is one of the lowest in the area. Folsom has been one of the most, if not the most, desirable and profitable places to develop in the Sacramento region for the past decade or more. We could have easily required developers to pay full fees to mitigate their impacts like other cities in our area, but our elected officials chose not to. In fact, just a couple years ago city staff brought some minor service fee increases to the council, fees that hadn't been increased for almost 20 years (since the early 1990's), and they shot it down, with the two most vocal opponents to the changes being Howell and Starsky. The result is that the city is not collecting full cost from developers for processing their projects, and the taxpayers like you and me are subsidizing them.

When I think about this is absolutely infuriates me. We, the taxpayers, are lining the pockets of these developers all because they bought a couple council members a few martini lunches and gave them a few bucks in campaign contributions.

Ask Kerri Howell to list the sources of campaign contributions she received from her last election. I predict you and the other readers of this forum will be shocked.

[Steve Heard]

Ducky: In regards to her voting record, I included the following list in a recent post on this forum (on a different thread).

- Opposed the Sports Complex

Are you referring to her opposition to the city purchasing it? I know lots of folks who routinely criticize the city council for approving the purchase, even accusing them of some conspiracy, claiming that that was the intent all along; acquiring a sports complex by having a private developer build it then offer it for sale to the city. With budgets being cut, that sports complex has been pointed to as an example of our wasting taxpayer money for the benefit of a few. For those folks, Kerri's opposition is reason to support her.

- Opposed the Aquatics Center

Again, many, many people opposed the aquatic center and still do. They see it as expensive and unnecessary.

- Opposed strengthening the city's adult business ordinance to stop an adult business from moving into the Historic District

You are referring to the actions intended to keep Ms.Teaz from opening her lingerie shop which included a back room with novelties and sex toys? If so, I'm glad she opposed it. All of the fears, all of the claims of crime and perversion invading Sutter street never materialized. The marketplace eventually decided the shop's fate, as it should. Underwear and dildos were never a problem on Sutter.

- Supported the tatoo palor on Natoma Street

Again, so did many, and the tattoo shop never caused any problems, to my knowledge. In fact, the owners volunteered in the community, doing free face painting for kids at a couple of events.


- Supported expansion of the card room

If card rooms are legal, what right does she have to oppose them? What has been the result or affect of having the card room in Folsom? I've never heard of any issues.

- Supported Reggie Drew for Mayor (just weeks before he was arrested for possession of illegal drugs and solicitation of a prostitute)

Surely you don't think she supported him (along with at least 2 other council members) knowing that he was seeking out drugs and hookers. Blaming one politician for another's actions isn't fair.

Concerning these items, in some cases she was the lone vote (for example the Sports Complex and the adult business ordinance). And, in regards to the Sports Complex and Aquatics Center, she opposed these for personal reasons (because her mentor, Jack Kipp, despised Ernie Sheldon, and Mr. Sheldon supported these projects).

How do you KNOW this? Did she tell you, or are you assuming?

Anyway, are these examples enough to convince you that she isn't suited, and never has been, to represent this community?

No, these aren't. Neither the facts that she smokes and may patronize local drinking establishments.

When I look around at our city, and see the beautiful parks, sports facilities, trails, gallery, and enjoy the city's cleanliness and safety, I think the city council members should be commended. All of them.

[Robert Giacometti]

The problem with what occurred previously is that the city council members got in bed with the developers and they allowed them to develop without ensuring that they paid their own way. Many of our development fee programs were intentionally underfunded because the developers did not want to pay full freight to adequately mitigate their impacts. The result was that Folsom taxpayers had to make up for the difference. That is one reason why the city's debt is one of the largest in this area (recall the article in the Sacto. Bee a few months back).

One example of this is our park development fee. It is used to fund park land and improvements. But, it is way underfunded, and is one of the lowest in the area. Folsom has been one of the most, if not the most, desirable and profitable places to develop in the Sacramento region for the past decade or more. We could have easily required developers to pay full fees to mitigate their impacts like other cities in our area, but our elected officials chose not to. In fact, just a couple years ago city staff brought some minor service fee increases to the council, fees that hadn't been increased for almost 20 years (since the early 1990's), and they shot it down, with the two most vocal opponents to the changes being Howell and Starsky. The result is that the city is not collecting full cost from developers for processing their projects, and the taxpayers like you and me are subsidizing them.

When I think about this is absolutely infuriates me. We, the taxpayers, are lining the pockets of these developers all because they bought a couple council members a few martini lunches and gave them a few bucks in campaign contributions.

Ask Kerri Howell to list the sources of campaign contributions she received from her last election. I predict you and the other readers of this forum will be shocked.

I'm impressed another person on this forum really gets it!

Its so sad that so many on this forum can't comprehend the relationship of Developers Impact fees and quality of life. When some on here finally figure it out, the City of Folsom will be like the County, closing parks and reducing all kinds of services, to fund those services that are actively involved in the election process getting their puppets elected!

You might be aware of the city selling that surplus land for $7 million instead of the $21 milion resold a few weeks later. Its so sad that so mnay on this forum aren't angry over loosing $14 million, they are upset at me for questioning Kerri's attempt to cover it up and her letter describing the former city manager, who negoitiated the great give away, as the BEST ever! Can you believe that?

You can't open the eyes of blind people and you can't stop people from shooting themselves in the foot, although I for one appreciate your attempts to preserve our quality of life by raisng the awareness of who on the council has done what. You are in the Majority in this community, but in the minority on this forum.

Welcome to the forum and keep up the good work for a better Folsom!

[camay2327]

I'm impressed another person on this forum really gets it!

Its so sad that so many on this forum can't comprehend the relationship of Developers Impact fees and quality of life. When some on here finally figure it out, the City of Folsom will be like the County, closing parks and reducing all kinds of services, to fund those services that are actively involved in the election process getting their puppets elected!

You might be aware of the city selling that surplus land for $7 million instead of the $21 milion resold a few weeks later. Its so sad that so mnay on this forum aren't angry over loosing $14 million, they are upset at me for questioning Kerri's attempt to cover it up and her letter describing the former city manager, who negoitiated the great give away, as the BEST ever! Can you believe that?

You can't open the eyes of blind people and you can't stop people from shooting themselves in the foot, although I for one appreciate your attempts to preserve our quality of life by raisng the awareness of who on the council has done what. You are in the Majority in this community, but in the minority on this forum.

Welcome to the forum and keep up the good work for a better Folsom!

BOO, ROBERT...

[Steve Heard]

You might be aware of the city selling that surplus land for $7 million instead of the $21 milion resold a few weeks later. Its so sad that so mnay on this forum aren't angry over loosing $14 million, they are upset at me for questioning Kerri's attempt to cover it up and her letter describing the former city manager, who negoitiated the great give away, as the BEST ever! Can you believe that?

Robert, you seem to know more about this than the rest of us, so please explain.

I've asked a couple of folks in the city about this, and it's been a while, so my memory may not be 100% accurate, but this is what I recall:

* The city wanted to sell some raw land it owned, with no entitlements established.
* It was appraised and a minimum bid price was set.
* It was sold to the highest bidder for about $7 million, which was more than the appraised value.
* The buyer took the risk and used his money to procure the land and pursue entitlements.
* Land with entitlements is worth more than land without, and the owner of the land was offered about 3 times what he paid for it a year later.

If that is true, it sounds like proper procedures were followed, and it's just good old American capitalism at work. Even if the guy who bought it for $7mil did so with specific plans to get entitlements (adding value) then selling it to the person(s) who bought it, what's the problem? What if the entitlements had not been granted? What if the city opposed development on that land? Then what's it worth?

If I buy a house, then add value and sell it for a profit, am I doing something immoral or illegal?

If something was done illegally, shouldn't this be reported to the FBI? Shouldn't it at least make the news? Wouldn't the press just love to write a headline, "City cuts sweetheart deal at tax-payer expense. Developers make off with millions!"

If you are right. It should be pursued, but not just in the court of public opinion, or in this case, myfolsom opinion.

[JRudi]

I don't like any of the incumbents, they've all been there way too long, but your constant rants against Kerri with your so-called facts are getting old. It's painfully obvious you just have it out for Kerri, we get that. What's confusing is that for some strange reason, you haven't said squat about the other council members which is odd because Kerri cannot and does not run the entire city by herself. Since you're not against lingerie shops, then why did you give Kerri crap about one that was located in our city? This is the bs I'm talking about from you that just makes no sense, all you're here to do is slander Kerri. Look, if you can't provide similar info on Miklos and the rest (since you're so "in-the-know") then we can only assume you must be supporting them.

The Dude: You're confused about the issue concerning the lingerie shop. It's not that Ms. Howell voted to approve the shop, but rather she opposed the strengthening of the city's adult business ordinance to control the display of sexually explicit material at this and other businesses in town. The amendment to the ordinance passed on a four to one vote, and the Ol' Feisty One was the lone opposing vote. This was an issue of protecting the community from these types of businesses, and she evidently didn't feel the same obligation as the other council members to provide that protection.

So, the issue was not whether to approve the sale of some revealing night wear or not, but rather controlling the display of offensive, sexually explicit material in plain view of the public.


This is just another example of Ms. Howell's lack of good judgment and character, and is the reason why I don't want her to continue making decisions affecting me and my family. She should not be re-elected to the city council. Period.

[Robert Giacometti]

Robert, you seem to know more about this than the rest of us, so please explain.

I've asked a couple of folks in the city about this, and it's been a while, so my memory may not be 100% accurate, but this is what I recall:

* The city wanted to sell some raw land it owned, with no entitlements established.
* It was appraised and a minimum bid price was set.
* It was sold to the highest bidder for about $7 million.
* The buyer took the risk and used his money to procure the land and pursue entitlements.
* Land with entitlements is worth more than land without, and the owner of the land was offered about 3 times what he paid for it a year later.

If that is true, it sounds like proper procedures were followed, and it's just good old American capitalism at work. Even if the guy who bought it for $7mil did so with specific plans to get entitlements (adding value) then selling it to the person(s) who bought it, what's the problem? What if the entitlements had not been granted? What if the city opposed development on that land? Then what's it worth?

If I buy a house, then add value and sell it for a profit, am I doing something immoral or illegal?

If something was done illegally, shouldn't this be reported to the FBI? Shouldn't it at least make the news? Wouldn't the press just love to write a headline, "City cuts sweetheart deal at tax-payer expense. Developers make off with millions!"

If you are right. It should be pursued, but not just in the court of public opinion, or in this case, myfolsom opinion.

There was NOTHING illegal done. If you want to sell your $400,000 house for $200,000 that is your right and not illegal.

It was CITY owned land, so the City could have easily given itself the entitlments and sold it directly to any builder who wanted to bid on it with entitlements.

We the taxpaying citizens lost out on $14 million dollars by dealing with a middleman when we didn't have to! There is ONLY ONE council member who is trying to sweep this under the rug.

Everyone should ask this question, if A council member doesn't understand the difference between the value of land with entitlments and one without, then there is NO WAY they should be on the city Council voting on any S50 issue!

If you are happy that we didn't get the best we could have gotten on this deal, I guess that is your right!