116 replies to this topic

[Rich_T]

The current residents did vote for w and not landowners south of 50.

Yes, residents agreed that IF the land is developed, then Measure W provisions should be adopted. But no one ever got to vote whether or not the land should be developed at all. And no one got to vote on Measure T provisions. Voters accepted a "take it or leave it" measure.

Is your definition of open space to be able to see it from your car? Alder Creek area will be nice.

I don't know what that is, and will wait and see how it looks. Yes, if you don't live there, backing up to open space, then all you will be able to see is what you can see as you're driving around, unless they put in some walking/bike trails. But in any case, the wide open spaces will be gone. It won't have the look and feel of "30% open space", it will have the look and feel of "70% developed".

You are living in a fantasy.

This is your response to my comment that there is a false sense of inevitability about developing the land. But it is currently not zoned for development, is it? City officials must first zone it that way, right? So why shouldn't voters decide whether or not to zone it that way? Why must this be considered "living in a fantasy"? Are you saying no one has the power to leave the land zoned as is?

Yet sadly I know you're right, and that protest is futile, and hence a fantasy. The land will be developed (unless there is suddenly no more market for new development). So what I am doing is voicing my displeasure on the lack of real resident input. It's been far too easy to make the small step to convince people that Measure W was a referendum on whether to build, rather than what it really was, i.e. only an agreement on how to build if we decide to develop. And we aren't the ones deciding that.

Isn't it funny that the Bee article devoted about half of the type to Bob and his minority group?

I don't know anything about any Bee article, but how do we know that Bob's "minority group" does not represent the opinion of a majority of Folsom residents? How would you know that? Not by Measure W, because that was never a vote on whether to build out the SOI land.

[Redone]

I don't know anything about any Bee article, but how do we know that Bob's "minority group" does not represent the opinion of a majority of Folsom residents? How would you know that? Not by Measure W, because that was never a vote on whether to build out the SOI land.

If you have accurate figures on who does or doesnt want built the SOI area, then let's see them. Measure W figures speak for themselves.

[Rich_T]

If you have accurate figures on who does or doesnt want built the SOI area, then let's see them. Measure W figures speak for themselves.

That's the whole point - I don't have figures, and would like to see them.

Measure W speaks only for the fact that residents chose it over the alternative (no city control). But some people, apparently including you, use Measure W to claim that people voted for development. They didn't expressly do that at all.

But enough beating a dead horse. I'm not here to run for office, or to get a measure passed, or to sell my land, or to further any hidden agenda. I'm just voicing my opinion and supporting Bob's point that no one ever asked residents whether we should expand into the SOI area. No more, no less. And that maybe someone should ask.

Bye.

[Robert Giacometti]

If you have accurate figures on who does or doesnt want built the SOI area, then let's see them. Measure W figures speak for themselves.

Redone, would you be opposed to the citizens having a chance to vote on approving the development plan for S50?

[tessieca]

Let me ask you, do you support development, and if so, is it because it's inevitable, or because there are benefits that outweigh costs?

I know that nobody is going to come up with the money to buy the land in order to keep it open space. I think one is just being realistic in believing it will be developed one day. If you accept that premise then you want to be involved in seeing it developed in the best possible way.

Yes, Bob was largely responsible for Measure T. I know you don't agree that Measure W was a good one, but it wouldn't have been there at all had it not been for the Measure T attempt. It's like a check and balance and turned out a compromise.

"And, let's not forget that development of the SOI will be many, many, years from now."

Well, the newspaper article said groundbreaking is slated for 2010.

Fall 2010 is only the target for annexation, not groundbreaking. That other land mass outside of the SOI is approved and ready to break ground as soon as economics dictate doing so.

tessieca, when did the RC city council approve a juice bar? They aren't going to be approving juice bars S50, besides the land owners will build what ever is most profitable at that time and whatever council is approving the request will go along with it.

That was an example, Robert. No, I don't think anyone will build another juice bar there.

What you need to realize about RC is that they have HUGE payments to make to the county over the next 30 years. They are extremely motivated to build the thing that brings the most money the fastest; i.e., residential. The rest of that city is chock full of office parks and other business entities. They are tired of Folsom and EDH serving as the bedroom communities for their employees. Thus, housing and lots of it, is the answer to multiple RC challenges, and they are motivated to do it quickly and densely. I don't think they'd give a rat's behind what the highway corridor looks like between Folsom Blvd. and Prairie City (although hopefully Gencorp would).

Robert, you're taking the wrong way from Sutter to the highway. Although, I do agree with you that whoever has planned traffic lights, etc., for this city during its biggest development years should be fired.

[Redone]

Redone, would you be opposed to the citizens having a chance to vote on approving the development plan for S50?

No, put it on the ballot. We always have the right to put something on the ballot. Refresh my memory if this was already on the ballot before or if an attempt was made in "04 to put it on the ballot.

[Rich_T]

I know that nobody is going to come up with the money to buy the land in order to keep it open space. I think one is just being realistic in believing it will be developed one day. If you accept that premise then you want to be involved in seeing it developed in the best possible way.

So you have chosen "because it's inevitable". Fair enough.

But why would anybody have to buy the land to keep it open, if it is only zoned for agriculture today? The ones who must take action are those who must rezone the land.

I agree with you: it is realistic that the land will be developed. We all believe it, thus it is accepted as a mandate by those who want to proceed for financial reasons; no vote will be conducted, yet "the will of the people" will be said to have been served. And this way, we even get an imaginary sense of having some oversight in the matter.

Yes, Bob was largely responsible for Measure T. I know you don't agree that Measure W was a good one, but it wouldn't have been there at all had it not been for the Measure T attempt. It's like a check and balance and turned out a compromise.

Actually, I think Measure W was fine, as far as it went, if we all wanted development to be the outcome; I just think it was misleading in terms of its purpose. It was certainly better than the alternative of not having Measure W. But nor should it be treated as a mandate to develop 70% of the land. In fact, no one has ever voted on whether any of the land should be developed, and it looks like no one ever will.


So I do agree with you in terms of what is pragmatic. And yet, strictly speaking, development is only inevitable because our City Council wants to develop the land. Nothing is compelling them to do so except their own preferences about what should be done.

Thanks for the dialogue.

[Robert Giacometti]

No, put it on the ballot. We always have the right to put something on the ballot. Refresh my memory if this was already on the ballot before or if an attempt was made in "04 to put it on the ballot.

I don't believe this has ever been on the ballot.

As Bob has stated this is the only way, we the citizens will ever have an opportunity to have our input affect what happens S5O.

All those meetings the city put on was nothing more than a charade to get to this plan and then come back and say this is the plan that most accurately reflects the citizens input. Ask anyone who attended the meetings there were only a few options to be considered and none of them included keeping it entirely open space.

The city had predetermined the parameters of development, not the citizens!

[Redone]

As Bob has stated this is the only way, we the citizens will ever have an opportunity to have our input affect what happens S5O.

Not entirely true since we do have elected representatives who represent us on many issues. Sure, we don't agree with them all of the time. and when we really don't agree we have a special election, just ask Gray. I think this thread should stick with the point that it is likely to be developed and if so, what do you think of current proposal.

[tessieca]

I fear the density. And, I don't think that traffic flow, mass transit (i.e. light rail), people movements have been planned well.

[Robert Giacometti]

Not entirely true since we do have elected representatives who represent us on many issues. Sure, we don't agree with them all of the time. and when we really don't agree we have a special election, just ask Gray. I think this thread should stick with the point that it is likely to be developed and if so, what do you think of current proposal.

Redone, none of our current elected officials ever recieved a majority of the votes cast by the citizens ( 50% plus 1), besides none of them ever ran for election campaigning on the platform of supporting this development plan.

The magnitude of the effects of this project are so great, the council should give the citizens the right to approve or reject this plan, instead of being decided by a mere 3 votes of the council.

Regarding the proposal itself, traffic will be a nightmare and I am still not convinced this development will generate enough in taxes to pay for its services needed, which means those of us N50 will either have to pay more or suffer reduced services.

[Bob]

Not entirely true since we do have elected representatives who represent us on many issues. Sure, we don't agree with them all of the time. and when we really don't agree we have a special election, just ask Gray. I think this thread should stick with the point that it is likely to be developed and if so, what do you think of current proposal.

Redone,

First, we are "sticking with the point" and discussing what kind of development we would like to see in regards to the current proposal. It just so happens that over 70% of us (Folsom residents) think the current proposal is a sham, being rammed down our collective throat, and demand being given a real vote as to the future of OUR city.

Second, regarding our elected officials. Two actually ran on platforms to give Folsom voters a direct vote on this issue, Councilmembers King and Morin. They met with me and our Measure T initiative group on an on going basis. We adopted EVERY suggestion they had. Then they stopped meeting with us. Then they completely turned and aggressively came out against the Citizens initiative (signed by over 4,500 voters). Then they wrote their Developers initiative (Measure W)

I have asked them, on this forum, to tell us why and to respond to specific questions regarding the many adverse impacts of THEIR proposed development. They have not.

Ask them why.

[cw68]

Hey Bob, love your signature line!

[old soldier]

hey redone, like your thinking about how the old system should work, you know the elected officials being the voice of the people and all that.

the reality is that our council is and always has been developer oriented and they have to be clever on how best fool the people which is sort of what that measure W was all about.

Old Bob and Robert can come up with a list of questions for you to put to your elected folks and you can see for yourself which way their wind blows.

the big developers are not dumb and they are out there looking for folks to become candidates who will follow their line. the citizens up in placer county just a while back got organized and beat a supervisor who was in the developer pocket. when you have open land to be developed there is just so so much money that can be made when zoning and open space requirments go their way.

If I was a developer I would sure go for getting three votes from a council rather that the vote of the citizens.

we got another post going about what we like and don't like about folsom which may shed a little light on why folks don't get upset with the "developer dance tunes" that our council likes.

it seems lots of our new folks come from places with worse traffic and they see how it is here today and they are happier than pigs in a new gargage pile. us old timers see the traffic getting worse and worse but the new folks are so happy to be away from where they came from to see the danger. then when it gets bad enough to upset them it will be too late

the old developers will have their money in the bank and the political folks won't be able to remember how the bad decisions are made.

redone, and maybe with supermom, start asking questions yourself and then like old EDF says

get back to me

ps probably if you ask too many questions they will put you in the same box as old Robert and Bob, who they think are misguided

[supermom]

redone, and maybe with supermom, start asking questions yourself and then like old EDF says

get back to me

ps probably if you ask too many questions they will put you in the same box as old Robert and Bob, who they think are misguided

Hah, that was already done-signed sealed an affixed. Goes under heading ignore questions-push agenda- get paid and blame angry residents for a voting on the only measure they were offered-later.

That's ok though. I'm interested in why no one has answered my question yet. I think it's telling me something that they just can't say out loud but I'll wait.

Again- why can't the land be left alone? Why not let it just become a city protected lot of non invasive protected land? How much non invaded land is in our city--the great park and family oriented city?

Give that land another 20 years and see how much of our surrounding area has land for the terns and thrushes- coyotes and bobcats-turkeys and rattlers--ya know the small little parts of Folsom that make it so unique to other bedroom communities. (though I nearly got bit by a rattler again a few days ago.)