278 replies to this topic

[bordercolliefan]

Mr. Fish,

As I understand it, one of the City Council's biggest arguments is that if Folsom does not make South of 50 development attractive to developers, then the developers will seek to have it annexed to Rancho Cordova or some other municipality that will offer them more favorable terms.

You insist that this could never really happen. Can you explain why you are so sure of this?

Thanks.

[bishmasterb]

Would someone mind posting a link to both proposals that will be on the ballot?

Thanks,
-bish

[longgone]

Yes, Please! That would be VERY helpful and fair!

[camay2327]

First; go to the city council meeting tomorrow evening. Speak up if you have something to say one way or the other. It is your right...

----------

The problem I have with the Fish initiative:

1. They want to retain 50 percent of the land for
agricultural use. Along with land for parks and roads,
etc that would leave about 30-40 percent of the land
to build on. I do not think the owners of the land
would buy off on this.

2. Expanding highway 50 from 6 lanes to 8, again
Folsom is not in control of this. The county/state is.
Waiting for this to happen would again keep the land
owners from being able to build anything.

3. The water is my biggest concern. Someone knows
where the water is going to come from or there would
not be any chance to build south of 50. I know the
city still says it is not coming from North of 50, but
where is it going to come from?

4. Traffic and smog in the area will be worse once
building takes place south of 50. I don't know what we
can do about that.

That is it for now. See you at the meeting Tuesday
evening.

Calvin May

[EDF]

Cal...

Hey no one says they can't develop it now... did you know that....?

the current zoning is 80 Acres per parcel... and they could that right now if they wanted to....

HOWEVER....

They want to "re-zone" and now that is where WE HAVE THE RIGHT to make some demands...

You are right that the State has control over Hwy 50.... so in your mind, if the developers want to "re-zone" their property its ok to do that because after.... The state controls Hwy 50...

What about us Cal.... don't we have some rights....?

All this re-zone is going to benefit the developers not us... why do you feel so compelled to feel sorry for them....?

You don't mind the traffic gridlock we have now along with the pollution...?

Why are you afraid to take control of the situation... The folks at city hall don't give a hoot about us.... of course that's my opinion...

This is all about the fact that Staff is worried.... because once we are "built out"... we won't need such a huge building department and planning dept... and some jobs will be gone... then we will be forced to "live within our means"... because City Hall is living off of the fees... its a ponzi... don't you see....?

Ed

[camay2327]

Ed, I am trying to understand both sides. That is why my wife and I will be attending all the meetings.

[EDF]

By all means go...

However... if you read their initiative... you will find lots of "wiggle" room everywhere...

You have to ask yourself one question though...

Remember earlier in this thread Bob Fish pointed out that the City's own EIR specified that the Hwy 50 had to be widened back in 1990... ?

And pray tell... what happened....?

No freeway but the houses came anyway... is that what you want for South of 50....?

That is what they have planned... but oh... they'll ad a "feeder" road like Iron Point and call that a "mitigation".... is that good enough for you....?

[bishmasterb]

QUOTE (camay2327 @ Jul 12 2004, 01:27 PM)

First; go to the city council meeting tomorrow evening. Speak up if you have something to say one way or the other. It is your right...

Well, I suppose I could, but I have no idea what's going on. Can't I read the initiatives first? Pretty please?

A link...anyone...?

[EDF]

ok...

here is the link to our's... its been posted lots of times....

pretty simple... and straightforward....

http://www.folsomgrowth.org

[bishmasterb]

Thanks for the link, I'd like to read the other as well.

Those are pretty steep requirements for development, I'd hate to be a land owner south of the 50 if this initiative passes.

[EDF]

why....?

They can develope it now... don't you understand... but the current zoning is 80 acres per parcel...

the developers picked up this property in "hopes" that they could get the City of Folsom to annex it with a "zoning use" they like... such as single family homes....

I'm a real estate broker and developer (small time)... trust me....even our initiative will allow them to make money...

and let me ask you a question.. do you want to pay for their development... cause if the City gets its way... you will....

You will pay in higher water... more traffic and you will pay for the schools... plain and simple....

This is all a "staff driven" development in cahoots with the developer... they don't care one bit what you or I think if it differs from their agenda...

and do you in your wildest imagination think they would even have put their own initiative on the ballot if we hadn't brought ours out first....?

I'm sorry... call me a cynic... I don't think so.....

[bishmasterb]

Help me understand if I've made any incorrect assumptions in reading the initiative, but from what I understand it says that:

* All properties in Area 1 shall remain in agricultural reserve unless a majority of voters approve a specific plan for development of the entire area.
* Specific plan must protect 100% of the oak woodlands.
* Specific plan must set aside 50% of all land in agricultural reserve.
* Highway 50 must be expanded from 6 to 8 lanes (between EDH and Hazel) before any grading or building can occur.

* Area 2 has similar requirements, except it requires a supermajority (two thirds) of Folsom voters for approval.
* Area 2 also requires 75% of all land reserved in agricultural reserve.

What did I miss?

[camay2327]

Sphere of Influence South of Hwy 50
---

City Council to Consider Charter Amendment for Local Control of Land South of Highway 50

Here is the link:::::


http://www.folsom.ca...ex.asp?page=450

[bishmasterb]

thanks guys,

So, just so I understand, there are two proposals for Folsom's annexation of the area in question, one put forward by the City Council, and one put forward by a citizen's group. I assume if neither of them passes, Folsom simply doesn't attempt to annex the land?

What if they both pass?

Please correct any misconceptions I have.

[Bob]

Camay,

It seems that your problem with the Residents Initiative may simply be that you believe a landowner should not be restricted from doing whatever they please on their land. That is, they should not be restricted in any way from developing even if it harms their neighbors.

If that is the case, I have no problem with this being your philosophy. It is your right. So I will not bother debating the issue with you, as I would simply prefer to respectfully disagree. However, to prevent other readers from being confused I will elaborate our position.

If you own a house and wish to add on, you must meet a myriad of conditions including height limitations, set backs, total foot print, total square feet, architectural etc. For instance, you could not build a three-story apartment on your residential lot.

How is south of 50 any different? Is it that wealthy owners of large tracts of land should have special privileges above us “average” citizens? I don’t think so. They are currently zoned as agricultural and CAN do whatever thy please within the limits of that zoning just like you and I for our residential lots. So our initiative does not affect them one bit unless they want to ask us, the Citizens of Folsom, to up-zone their land so they can gain on the profit from that up zone.

That is, we the people of Folsom would be granting these land owners a change in their current zoning, which would make them very wealthy (or wealthier for most of them) overnight. The numbers are astronomical. We are not talking in terms of a percentage increase but “folds,” as in ten fold, twenty fold, or higher, and that is just for the raw land value. Are wealthy land speculators making obscene profits a concern? I do not think so. They are free to make as much money as they legally can. But what is a concern is that they want to make even MORE by not mitigating their impacts, by having current residents accept a lower quality of life, and by having those same residents subsidize their developments.

If your neighbors asked the City to up zone their residential lot to a business zoning that would increase their land value ten fold, but bring considerable traffic to your street, and the City told you, “Sorry, even though they could easily afford to, we are not going to ask them to mitigate the traffic because, if we do, they will simply go to Rancho Cordova and start a business there,” how would you react? Why is this scenario any different than the thousands of acres south of 50? Before you type “Well, that is just a ridiculous scenario.” I will concede that it is, and again ask, how is south of 50 any different.

Our initiative asks for only fair treatment and protection of the citizens that the developers would ask to grant them this “overnight” wealth.

Regards,
Bob Fish
Residents for Sensible Growth

PS Andy, we are still waiting for answers.