72 replies to this topic

[Steve Heard]

LexingtonRez, I have to say I find your posts refreshing and inspiring that there are still residents out there who think of our town as a whole.

 

 

 

I agree. By the way, the city council has often responded to citizen concerns when they make enough noise. 

 

For example, the new 'entertainment district' ordinance which will allow them to control some of the noise and goofiness that happens in the historic district on some nights.

 

Or when folks were up in arms about the lingerie and 'adult novelty' store that opened on Sutter, or the proposed store at Prairie City and Blue Ravine.

 

Citizens showed up at the council meetings and made their voices heard.

 

That doesn't always mean they will do what a vocal group says. There were plenty against the revitalization of Sutter Street and the annexation of the area South of 50, but at least there were changes to both plans because of public input. 

 

I don't know if they'll prevent a private land owner from building on his property, but you may be able to influence the size and scope of the project. 

[sunnyCA]

I agree…I hope that if they do indeed put in a 3 story, high density project that at least that forces the city to realize that a fire station is badly  needed in Empire Ranch. Response times to fires in the area are poor and it is time for the city to deal with that issue.

[Rich_T]

 

So only the Central District deserves to enjoy the benefits of Section 8 housing?  I've put a lot of work into maintaining and improving my property, too.

 

 

I don't think there should be Section 8 housing at all in Folsom.  Otherwise, as I wrote earlier, where's my reduced-price housing in Beverly Hills or even Los Lagos?

[Rich_T]

Housing is always a big topi, everywhere. 

 

I've heard people who are opposed to development say that the city council is controlled by and benefits from developers, but no one every has any evidence.

 

Once when asked for evidence, one guy suggested that Steve Miklos is pro-developer because he does mortgages, but that doesn't make sense. Most builders have their own lenders, and some, such as Elliott will not allow you to buy one of their homes unless you use their preferred lender. Additionally, most don't pay Realtor commissions for bringing them buyers. 

 

The same guy also claimed that Jeff Starsky's company sells air conditioners and he gets to benefit because builders buy air conditioners. 

 

What about Kerri Howell? She's an engineer. Andy Morin owns a restaurant, and it's not even in Folsom any more. Does Ernie Sheldon get a bump when the new families enroll the kids in park and rec classes?

 

The only other way they could have control is through bribery, and surely no one is claiming that.

 

The city itself gets fees from builders, so that could be a motivating factor, but that doesn't go into anyone's pockets. 

 

And yes, developers want to maximize profit. Don't you? Doesn't every business?

 

There can be lots of reasons to object to more development, including strain on infrastructure, crowding of schools, roads, parks, blocking of views, pollution and more, and I'm not for paving over the town, but I just don't get the 'council is controlled by developers' argument. 

 

Certainly developers want to maximize profit, but it's the city's job to push back, so that the city isn't overbuilt with dense housing.

 

I'm not saying any council members are "owned" by developers, though if they were, it would look pretty much like it does now. My guess is that they just really like development, and are prone to go overboard when approving zoning changes.

[Rich_T]

 

...So, if either of these projects are approved against the will of the immediate neighbors, then I think that speaks volumes about who they represent.  The fact that Serenade has gotten as far as it has, and was kept so quiet leaves me starting in a position of feeling fairly suspicious, I'll admit.  But, I certainly won't call them out until I have seen where they come down on these issues which is why I earlier encouraged people to write to them and simply ask where they stand on these projects, and what they are doing to support us.

 

I predict you will call them out once the complex has been built.   I haven't seen residents win one yet when it comes to development.

[Rich_T]

 

I agree. By the way, the city council has often responded to citizen concerns when they make enough noise. 

 

For example, the new 'entertainment district' ordinance which will allow them to control some of the noise and goofiness that happens in the historic district on some nights.

 

Or when folks were up in arms about the lingerie and 'adult novelty' store that opened on Sutter, or the proposed store at Prairie City and Blue Ravine.

 

Citizens showed up at the council meetings and made their voices heard.

 

That doesn't always mean they will do what a vocal group says. There were plenty against the revitalization of Sutter Street and the annexation of the area South of 50, but at least there were changes to both plans because of public input. 

 

I don't know if they'll prevent a private land owner from building on his property, but you may be able to influence the size and scope of the project. 

 

In other words, they aren't about to change their minds when it comes to development, but may offer token gestures.  In any case, this topic is not about preventing a private land owner from building on his property.  It is about maintaining responsible zoning, to prevent a private land owner from building something inappropriate.  It should not be about rezoning to accommodate the land owner at the expense of residents.

[supermom]

I believe the response time to get to a large structure would be the same as a small one. unless you are implying the firestation would intentionally take their time because its just section 8 housing? (I know your not... just adding some brevity )

 

If the size of the housing on that lot would really impact the house next to, then lets talk distance. How many houses are impacted? There arent any houses directly behind that lot. right? So how many houses are going to be directly within contact ditance of that apartment building....say the same distance as the houses are now from each other? 

[ducky]

 

 

I don't think there should be Section 8 housing at all in Folsom.  Otherwise, as I wrote earlier, where's my reduced-price housing in Beverly Hills or even Los Lagos?

Okay.  But that's a different argument, one that the city lost through a lawsuit.  They've been told they need to provide this type of housing.  Whether or not they've met their quota, I'm not sure.  I also think there is a difference between a senior complex and those of all ages such as we have on this side of town.  How many units will be very low income, low income, or affordable?  I don't know.  Just questions.

 

LexingtonRez, some points I'd ask the council give consideration to about the three-story project and its effect on surrounding residents if there will truly be a lot of very low income units. 

 

1.  Will the landowner assign portable shopping carts to the residents that need them?  Otherwise, abandoned shopping carts may become an issue.  In the complexes near us the residents don't have vehicles, or for whatever reason, "borrow" carts and don't return them.

 

2.  Where will the dumpsters and air-conditioning units be located?  Noise issue.

 

3.  I'm not an expert on the fire response times and what kind of equipment the FFD would need to respond to a fire at a three-story complex of that size.  There are other posters here that may be able to answer these questions.   Perhaps they can already handle it, but I would definitely ask.

[TruthSeeker]

Housing is always a big topi, everywhere. 

 

I've heard people who are opposed to development say that the city council is controlled by and benefits from developers, but no one every has any evidence.

 

Once when asked for evidence, one guy suggested that Steve Miklos is pro-developer because he does mortgages, but that doesn't make sense. Most builders have their own lenders, and some, such as Elliott will not allow you to buy one of their homes unless you use their preferred lender. Additionally, most don't pay Realtor commissions for bringing them buyers. 

 

The same guy also claimed that Jeff Starsky's company sells air conditioners and he gets to benefit because builders buy air conditioners. 

 

What about Kerri Howell? She's an engineer. Andy Morin owns a restaurant, and it's not even in Folsom any more. Does Ernie Sheldon get a bump when the new families enroll the kids in park and rec classes?

 

The only other way they could have control is through bribery, and surely no one is claiming that.

 

The city itself gets fees from builders, so that could be a motivating factor, but that doesn't go into anyone's pockets. 

 

And yes, developers want to maximize profit. Don't you? Doesn't every business?

 

There can be lots of reasons to object to more development, including strain on infrastructure, crowding of schools, roads, parks, blocking of views, pollution and more, and I'm not for paving over the town, but I just don't get the 'council is controlled by developers' argument. 

 

Some might find it interesting to see the list of donors each council member has when it comes to election time.  You will be surprised to notice a few developers on that list.  It may not be obvious but our city council is very pro development.

 

Yes everyone wants to maximize profit - but many do not do it by paving over paradise.

 

Certainly developers want to maximize profit, but it's the city's job to push back, so that the city isn't overbuilt with dense housing.

 

I'm not saying any council members are "owned" by developers, though if they were, it would look pretty much like it does now. My guess is that they just really like development, and are prone to go overboard when approving zoning changes.

 

" it's the city's job to push back, so that the city isn't overbuilt with dense housing."

 

Exactly!

[Homer]

Okay.  But that's a different argument, one that the city lost through a lawsuit.  They've been told they need to provide this type of housing.  Whether or not they've met their quota, I'm not sure.  I also think there is a difference between a senior complex and those of all ages such as we have on this side of town.  How many units will be very low income, low income, or affordable?  I don't know.  Just questions.

 

LexingtonRez, some points I'd ask the council give consideration to about the three-story project and its effect on surrounding residents if there will truly be a lot of very low income units. 

 

1.  Will the landowner assign portable shopping carts to the residents that need them?  Otherwise, abandoned shopping carts may become an issue.  In the complexes near us the residents don't have vehicles, or for whatever reason, "borrow" carts and don't return them.

 

2.  Where will the dumpsters and air-conditioning units be located?  Noise issue.

 

3.  I'm not an expert on the fire response times and what kind of equipment the FFD would need to respond to a fire at a three-story complex of that size.  There are other posters here that may be able to answer these questions.   Perhaps they can already handle it, but I would definitely ask.

 

 

The shopping cart issue is kind of irritating,, Stores that have carts should be required to use the ones with wheels that lock up if they leave the parking lot. When i couldn't get the store to come pick up one that was left in my yard, I cut it up and made a garden cart out of it for my wife. Low income housing shouldn't be concentrated in large complexes, It should be spread out in smaller complexes across the city, Including the future development south of 50. 

[bordercolliefan]

 

 

I don't think there should be Section 8 housing at all in Folsom.  Otherwise, as I wrote earlier, where's my reduced-price housing in Beverly Hills or even Los Lagos?

I've wondered about this, too.  Is low income housing required to be built in Granite Bay?  In EDH?  I'm not taking a position for or against (haven't thought it through), but it's an odd concept that people have a "right" to live in places they can't afford. 

[4thgenFolsomite]

I think its the property owner's choice whether to accept Section 8 housing or not.  Developments aren't built as Section 8.  It's a subsidy for qualified tenants that the land lord must agree to accept.  Subsidized housing is not the same as "affordable housing," which I think municipalities have to, by law, provide.

[Homer]

I think its the property owner's choice whether to accept Section 8 housing or not.  Developments aren't built as Section 8.  It's a subsidy for qualified tenants that the land lord must agree to accept.  Subsidized housing is not the same as "affordable housing," which I think municipalities have to, by law, provide.

 

 

Folsom is mandated to build low income housing due to a law suit brought on by a taxpayer funded group of Lawyers called Legal Services Of California. 

[4thgenFolsomite]

 

 

Folsom is mandated to build low income housing due to a law suit brought on by a taxpayer funded group of Lawyers called Legal Services Of California. 

Yes, but Section 8 is not low income housing; its a subsidy, like welfare, that pays part of a tenant's rent.

[Homer]

Yes, but Section 8 is not low income housing; its a subsidy, like welfare, that pays part of a tenant's rent.

 

I didn't bring up section 8, I believe it was someone from an earlier post. I was commenting as to why Folsom is being forced to build affordable housing projects around town. I think section 8 is a better alternative for low income people that need help then cramming them into high density apartment projects like ones that were built on Greenback and on Sibley.