274 replies to this topic

[mylo]

Uhm... vote Kerri?

[Prairie Oaks Agitator]

Yes indeed! Vote For Kerri !

[OctoberLily]

Vote for whomever you want. . . Kerri in my opinion is a good fit for City Council. She cares...

[Steve Heard]

She's got my vote.

[camay2327]

You can read the Kerri's answers to our 15 questions here.


http://www.myfolsom....rrihowell.shtml

[DrKoz23]

Kerri Howell, is at the top of my list of candidates!

I read her bio in the Telegraph and she has a lot of qualitities that I like.

#1 of all is she is childless!

My Husband & I chose not to have kids same as the Howells. And I am sick to death of having to foot the bill for things like aquatic centers, parks & ball fields so that the familys with kids can have some place to play. If you need someplace for your kids to play get a home with a bigger yard. If you can't afford a home with a bigger yard, then maybe Folsom is not the place for you!

I checked and Kerri votes along those same lines, always is against paying for parks & ball fields. Hooray for Kerri!

A vote for Kerri, is a vote against the kiddies, and a vote for more "adult" type activities for Folsom.

Keep it up Kerri, I for one am a big fan.

Please do not post the same thing in multiple topics.

[mylo]

Please do not post the same thing in multiple topics.

Please do not requote the whole thing, again!

[DrKoz23]

Please do not requote the whole thing, again!

I directed at a specific quote. Plus it wasn't lengthy. Ha!

[Kerri Howell]

Thanks for the support from the other folks with no children. However, please do not assume that I do not like children - I have lots of nieces and nephews, most of my friends have children (most of whom like visiting our house, playing with our pets and swimming in our pool) and have had lots of exchange students. I am also not against parks, athletics and activities for children. When I have voted against things like parks, aquatic centers or anything like that, I have always explained my position. More often than not, it has come down to whether or not I think we are moving forward with a reasonable project, at a reasonable expense, with reasonable long term operations and maintenance cost. I also question whether we are taking care of the needs of all segments of our population. Do we have sufficient undeveloped park land, left as open space, for those who prefer to watch birds and wildlife, as opposed to a soccer game? Do we provide for our seniors and arts and cultural community? Do we have sufficient police and fire protection? As there is only a limited amount of money, are we spending it wisely? Will we have sufficient financial capacity to maintain facilities and services when the development is over?

I am trying to do what is best for all of us, long term, with or without children, or grandchildren. My position is not anti-children.

[camay2327]

We all knew you were not anti-children.

[DrKoz23]

I am trying to do what is best for all of us, long term, with or without children, or grandchildren. My position is not anti-children.

[tgianco]

I am trying to do what is best for all of us, long term, with or without children, or grandchildren. My position is not anti-children.

We all know that, but thanks for clarifying anyway.

[john]

Kerri, I think somebody is playing games with us. The same poster who claims to have "witnessed" a crime at CalFit is making these remarks.

[Robert Giacometti]

Thanks for the support from the other folks with no children. However, please do not assume that I do not like children - I have lots of nieces and nephews, most of my friends have children (most of whom like visiting our house, playing with our pets and swimming in our pool) and have had lots of exchange students. I am also not against parks, athletics and activities for children. When I have voted against things like parks, aquatic centers or anything like that, I have always explained my position. More often than not, it has come down to whether or not I think we are moving forward with a reasonable project, at a reasonable expense, with reasonable long term operations and maintenance cost. I also question whether we are taking care of the needs of all segments of our population. Do we have sufficient undeveloped park land, left as open space, for those who prefer to watch birds and wildlife, as opposed to a soccer game? Do we provide for our seniors and arts and cultural community? Do we have sufficient police and fire protection? As there is only a limited amount of money, are we spending it wisely? Will we have sufficient financial capacity to maintain facilities and services when the development is over?

I am trying to do what is best for all of us, long term, with or without children, or grandchildren. My position is not anti-children.

I feel its very unfair to label you anti-children.

You know very well that there is a Parks Master Plan that has been adopted by the council and that your colleagues are following the recommendations of the Park commission, following that plan, including the commissioner you appointed! ( Who we both think highly of!) You also know that the impact fees used to build parks was derived from the Park Master Plan and if those fees aren't spent on those facilities and the parks kept as open space we will then have to return those fees back to developer, according to a former city attorney.

If you are so concerend about open space for the birds and wildlife, why did you agree to sell that park site and adjacent land, nearly 33 acres, next to the high school?

Police and Fire services are NOT paid from park impact fees and you know this!

If you are so concerned about cultural arts, when did you ever request putting on the council agenda a proposal adopting an impact fee on development paying for their impact for cultural arts? Did you ever do this? What is your plan to build these facilities, take the fees that were adopted for park improvements and let them and cultural arts fight it out?

Can you explain your logic when you say we only have a limited out of money and have to spend it wisely, yet support giving Jim Estep $100,000 to leave when he was going already and then giving Martha Lofgren $140,000 for services, without taking any bids.

If you are so concerned about operating costs why did you, nearly three years ago, approve a pension increase of 39% for employees that went retroactive?

Again, I'm sorry you are being unfairly labled anti-children!