121 replies to this topic

[Dave Burrell]

My impression of what Robert might be trying to convey is that it is more important to be proactive as opposed to reactive.

In my opinion, if you voice your concerns before they vote to let them know as their constituents what you would expect them to represent, then if they don't, it gives a little more credibility to the frustration and expectation of an explanation afterwards.

I understand that and agree it's more important to be proactive. However, that doesn't excuse these people from making decisions without making it publicly know what their justification is behind those decisions (votes).

I have to point this out - it had been made publicly known to them NUMEROUS TIMES by the Folsom Historical Society and many residents that we were against this development prior to their vote - was any of that even considered?

Did they read any of the emails that were sent to them prior to the vote, did they return any calls from the Historical Society or address their concerns? IF they really cared about citizen input they would have had a separate session just for discussing this very hot issue.

Instead it was pushed out until the very late hours of the meeting. Is it just me or does anyone else question why such hot topics that they know will be getting a lot of citizen input are put so out late on the agenda so that not many people can attend...or protest?

I think it's BS that they only listen to the developers and not to the citizens that live here and pay taxes

[ducky]

What exactly was the change in plan from 2005 when the council sent it back to ask if the footprint could be smaller and save more trees?

Is it correct that the developer came back with a larger footprint (added rooms) and saved less trees while adding an aesthetically unpleasing wall? Did they come back with basically something that had the same impact as the original design in 2005?

If either of those are correct, I certainly would like an explanation why three of these same people that were on the council then would decide that is suddenly acceptable for our community.

[Dos Pennys]

I understand that and agree it's more important to be proactive. However, that doesn't excuse these people from making decisions without making it publicly know what their justification is behind those decisions (votes).

I have to point this out - it had been made publicly known to them NUMEROUS TIMES by the Folsom Historical Society and many residents that we were against this development prior to their vote - was any of that even considered?

Did they read any of the emails that were sent to them prior to the vote, did they return any calls from the Historical Society or address their concerns? IF they really cared about citizen input they would have had a separate session just for discussing this very hot issue.

Instead it was pushed out until the very late hours of the meeting. Is it just me or does anyone else question why such hot topics that they know will be getting a lot of citizen input are put so out late on the agenda so that not many people can attend...or protest?

I think it's BS that they only listen to the developers and not to the citizens that live here and pay taxes

I completely agree with you, it was highly publicized and I think the turn out obviously showed what the majority of Folsom felt was best for their city. It was not an accident that this issue was discussed when it was during the meeting.

[Tink]

What exactly was the change in plan from 2005 when the council sent it back to ask if the footprint could be smaller and save more trees?

Is it correct that the developer came back with a larger footprint (added rooms) and saved less trees while adding an aesthetically unpleasing wall? Did they come back with basically something that had the same impact as the original design in 2005?

If either of those are correct, I certainly would like an explanation why three of these same people that were on the council then would decide that is suddenly acceptable for our community.

It was sent back to the developer in 2005 to make the footprint smaller and save more trees and the developer was also supposed to work with the Parks Dept. on the trail section.
The footprint of the hotel was the same, there are more rooms, fewer parking spaces. Many details missing in 2005 were sorted out by Planning and it was found that they need a 13 foot retaining wall to build there, and there is NO room for landscaping along Folsom Blvd or Highway 50 on the site and the developer is expecting to use the public right of way to meet these requirements. There is no plan for the 40% shade tree planting required in the parking lot and cars are to be parked up right to the edge of the retaining wall. A few more trees were saved but not the number directed by the Council.

I agree re: the reason it was put off until so late; cudos to those who stuck it out. Yes, we need a Council who is willing to stick up to our own City standards, honors our history and is willing to acknowledge that public input can make a project better. We don't have that now.

[ducky]

It was sent back to the developer in 2005 to make the footprint smaller and save more trees and the developer was also supposed to work with the Parks Dept. on the trail section.
The footprint of the hotel was the same, there are more rooms, fewer parking spaces. Many details missing in 2005 were sorted out by Planning and it was found that they need a 13 foot retaining wall to build there, and there is NO room for landscaping along Folsom Blvd or Highway 50 on the site and the developer is expecting to use the public right of way to meet these requirements. There is no plan for the 40% shade tree planting required in the parking lot and cars are to be parked up right to the edge of the retaining wall. A few more trees were saved but not the number directed by the Council.

I agree re: the reason it was put off until so late; cudos to those who stuck it out. Yes, we need a Council who is willing to stick up to our own City standards, honors our history and is willing to acknowledge that public input can make a project better. We don't have that now.

So it sounds to me like a worse plan than was presented in 2005 and sent back. Thanks, Tink, for the info.

[tony]

[snip]
I didn't go to the meeting because I knew it was going to be a waste of time and anticipated the vote going the way that it did. I can't expect the C.C. to explain to me why they voted the way they did, when I didn't go myself. Had I gone. I might have learned why they voted the way they did.[snip]

Actually, being there wouldn't have provided any enlightenment on the reasoning for their votes. I was there, made my 120-second pitch (hurriedly and ineffectively condensed from 3 minutes), got no response to any of my points (other than being wrongly-contradicted by the applicant's lawyer), and left even more disillusioned than usual (while not one of the cc "regulars", I've spent plenty of Tuesday nights a the Folsom "theater"). This meeting was all about obfuscation; the staff report listed all of the concerns raised by opponent up to the council meeting, but in the meeting, neither staff, the applicant nor the council members made any serious effort to address any of them. Heck, there wasn't even a representative of Parks and Rec (to explain the city's bike path plans) or Public Works (to clarify LRT/JPA issues) in attendance. Who was in attendance was one of the very influential developers (and apparently part owner of the property) in town. He did not even need to speak. His mere presence easily trumped the 30-odd speakers in opposition.

[Dave Burrell]

Actually, being there wouldn't have provided any enlightenment on the reasoning for their votes. I was there, made my 120-second pitch (hurriedly and ineffectively condensed from 3 minutes), got no response to any of my points (other than being wrongly-contradicted by the applicant's lawyer), and left even more disillusioned than usual (while not one of the cc "regulars", I've spent plenty of Tuesday nights a the Folsom "theater"). This meeting was all about obfuscation; the staff report listed all of the concerns raised by opponent up to the council meeting, but in the meeting, neither staff, the applicant nor the council members made any serious effort to address any of them. Heck, there wasn't even a representative of Parks and Rec (to explain the city's bike path plans) or Public Works (to clarify LRT/JPA issues) in attendance. Who was in attendance was one of the very influential developers (and apparently part owner of the property) in town. He did not even need to speak. His mere presence easily trumped the 30-odd speakers in opposition.

When money talks, all logic and reasoning gets thrown out.

Thanks for going there Tony and trying to get the good ol' boys club to listen and consider the future of our town.

Unfortunately it seems all they want to do is kiss developers behinds and give them priority to do whatever they want.... our city is going to hell with decisions like this. Pretty soon Folsom will look just like Roseville or L.A. with mini-malls, gas stations or hotels on every corner.

I keep saying this again and again, how many friggin' hotels does our small city need? We do not get THAT many tourists or business travelers to occupy every hotel in town to capacity.... AND another hotel was just completed 2 months ago, that place too will sit barely occupied...

Next thing you know they'll put in a hotel that charges by the hour.....

[giacomo]

When money talks, all logic and reasoning gets thrown out.

Thanks for going there Tony and trying to get the good ol' boys club to listen and consider the future of our town.

Unfortunately it seems all they want to do is kiss developers behinds and give them priority to do whatever they want.... our city is going to hell with decisions like this. Pretty soon Folsom will look just like Roseville or L.A. with mini-malls, gas stations or hotels on every corner.

I keep saying this again and again, how many friggin' hotels does our small city need? We do not get THAT many tourists or business travelers to occupy every hotel in town to capacity.... AND another hotel was just completed 2 months ago, that place too will sit barely occupied...

Next thing you know they'll put in a hotel that charges by the hour.....

Manhattanization of Folsom is well on it's way if we don't stop the City Council from building on every last parcel

[Robert Giacometti]

Robert I watched it , there were no explanations from anybody, so where are you coming from in saying this stuff to cw68? Did they edit that part out? I don't get it... Since you seem to be defending the C.C.'s inaction and non-responses, maybe you can tell us what they said (or thought to themselves) was the justification for their votes since they didn't say it out loud in the meeting and you seem to be able to read their minds.... unfortunately the majority of us don't have those same magical mind reading powers.



Robert it's odd how you're always saying our city council need to be accountable for their actions, but when we ask for them to explain their reasoning behind their votes you now say we don't have a right to ask them - that makes no sense whatsoever and I really do not see why you are telling us to not ask them questions after their votes (what does it matter when we ask?) - are you forgetting that they work for us?.... they don't own the city..

There is no way I'm defending the council actions on any of this.

What I was questioning is why would someone send an email to the council after the vote asking for an explanation and NOT have any expectations of getting a response, then post about it. There seems to be another motive in doing this?

The fact is development issues have been extremely one sided, in support of development without respecting residents wishes, in this town for the last 12 plus years. The 4 senior members on this council, have never made development pay for its impact or rarely legitimately considered existing residents wishes, to the point its a waste of time to even go to the city council meeting to express an opinion. IMO, its already a done deal.

There seems to be an agenda to highlight who responds and who doesn't. This attempt at masking over one's cumulative voting record and years of misleading the residents is doing nothing more than helping put the Fox in charge of the Henhouse. My suspicions are there are some very misguided loyalaties involving other issues, rather than results driving this, by those making these posts. These misguided loyalties are actually hurting their own community.

I appreciate both council members who voted no on this issue and will glady join in any effort to referendum this issue so the voters can vote on this. I also appreciate council members who do communicate ACCURATELY with the citizens. My biggest complaint isn't about those who don't communicate, its about those who MISLEAD the residents. Using your elected to position to mislead people about issues, IMO is far worse, than NOT communicating at all.

I've been around for 20 plus years and like to think I've been involved in quite a few things involving community service and politics. This has helped me gain a better insight into some things. I can say without being arrogant, that I've tried as much as anyone in this community these past 12 years to make changes on who serves on the council. From helping candidates , running myself and sitting it out an election (despite being the person with the most votes in the previous election) to keep the field small with the goal of replacing at least ONE council person.

My goal is to make changes on the city council and I'm perfectly content for it to be others who are knowledgeable and fair and NOT me serving. So when CW makes posts that attempt to differentiate council members based upon who responds and who doesn't, masking over their cumulative voting records and the damage these votes have done to our community, I'm going to jump in and respond!

BTW, have you or CW ever seen a copy of that RFP one council member claimed was done prior to the sale of that surplus land for $7.1 million when it was worth $21 million?
I guess it doesn't bother CW that our elected official can't back up their claim something was done.

[Dave Burrell]

What I was questioning is why would someone send an email to the council after the vote asking for an explanation and NOT have any expectations of getting a response.

Because unfortunately a non-response is what what is expected based on experience, which is very similar to your attitude about attending meetings as noted below ..

The fact is development issues have been extremely one sided, in support of development without respecting residents wishes, in this town for the last 12 plus years. The 4 senior members on this council, have never made development pay for its impact or rarely legitimately considered existing residents wishes, to the point its a waste of time to even go to the city council meeting to express an opinion. IMO, its already a done deal.

There seems to be an agenda to highlight who responds and who doesn't. This attempt at masking over one's cumulative voting record and years of misleading the residents is doing nothing more than helping put the Fox in charge of the Henhouse. My suspicions are there are some very misguided loyalaties involving other issues, rather than results driving this, by those making these posts. These misguided loyalties are actually hurting their own community.

There's no hidden agenda by cw68, she's just pointing out the obvious that several c.c. members are incapable of responding to citizen inquiries.

I appreciate both council members who voted no on this issue and will glady join in any effort to referendum this issue so the voters can vote on this. I also appreciate council members who do communicate ACCURATELY with the citizens. My biggest complaint isn't about those who don't communicate, its about those who MISLEAD the residents. Using your elected to position to mislead people about issues, IMO is far worse, than NOT communicating at all.

I've been around for 20 plus years and like to think I've been involved in quite a few things involving community service and politics. This has helped me gain a better insight into some things. I can say without being arrogant, that I've tried as much as anyone in this community these past 12 years to make changes on who serves on the council. From helping candidates , running myself and sitting it out an election (despite being the person with the most votes in the previous election) to keep the field small with the goal of replacing at least ONE council person.

My goal is to make changes on the city council and I'm perfectly content for it to be others who are knowledgeable and fair and NOT me serving. So when CW makes posts that attempt to differentiate council members based upon who responds and who doesn't, masking over their cumulative voting records and the damage these votes have done to our community, I'm going to jump in and respond!

BTW, have you or CW ever seen a copy of that RFP one council member claimed was done prior to the sale of that surplus land for $7.1 million when it was worth $21 million?
I guess it doesn't bother CW that our elected official can't back up their claim something was done.

This is more like a hidden agenda, yes we get it that you don't like Kerri and think she's the root of all evil on the c.c. (even though she represents residents better then everyone else on c.c.) - I have to ask, have you ever asked any of the other council members for the RFP or just Kerri? If so, why is that?

[camay2327]

Because unfortunately a non-response is what what is expected based on experience, which is very similar to your attitude about attending meetings as noted below ..






There's no hidden agenda by cw68, she's just pointing out the obvious that several c.c. members are incapable of responding to citizen inquiries.



This is more like a hidden agenda, yes we get it that you don't like Kerri and think she's the root of all evil on the c.c. (even though she represents residents better then everyone else on c.c.) - I have to ask, have you ever asked any of the other council members for the RFP or just Kerri? If so, why is that?

Dave,

Quote:

This is more like a hidden agenda, yes we get it that you don't like Kerri and think she's the root of all evil on the c.c. (even though she represents residents better then everyone else on c.c.) - I have to ask, have you ever asked any of the other council members for the RFP or just Kerri? If so, why is that?

Unquote:

I have wondered the same thing. It wasn't just Kerri that voted for that item. It was all 5 of them, if I am not mistaken. Robert really does have problems with Kerri and I guess we will never know why.....

[Robert Giacometti]

This is more like a hidden agenda, yes we get it that you don't like Kerri and think she's the root of all evil on the c.c. (even though she represents residents better then everyone else on c.c.) - I have to ask, have you ever asked any of the other council members for the RFP or just Kerri? If so, why is that?

You are COMPLETELY wrong about this. There are 4 Council members who need to be replaced. What part of my saying 4 (FOUR) need to be replace don't you understand? Steve Andy, Jeff and Kerri are the four.


First and foremost NO other council member has ever publically claimed there was an RFP for the sale of that land. ONLY Kerri has made that claim. How can I publically ask someone for something they have never acknowledged. If Steve, Eric, Andy or Jeff ever publically made the claim there was one I'd publically challenge them to produce it.

They are probably smart enough to avoid making claims about things that don't exist!

If you believe the person who best represents the citizens of Folsom is someone who makes public claims yet can't produce the document to back up the claims they make, I'll support your right to do so. My friend you need to open your eyes, because you are part of the problem, because you are unintentionally masking the truth.

I don't care WHO is doing things I care more about WHAT is being done!

[cw68]

There is no way I'm defending the council actions on any of this.

What I was questioning is why would someone send an email to the council after the vote asking for an explanation and NOT have any expectations of getting a response, then post about it. There seems to be another motive in doing this?

The fact is development issues have been extremely one sided, in support of development without respecting residents wishes, in this town for the last 12 plus years. The 4 senior members on this council, have never made development pay for its impact or rarely legitimately considered existing residents wishes, to the point its a waste of time to even go to the city council meeting to express an opinion. IMO, its already a done deal.

There seems to be an agenda to highlight who responds and who doesn't. This attempt at masking over one's cumulative voting record and years of misleading the residents is doing nothing more than helping put the Fox in charge of the Henhouse. My suspicions are there are some very misguided loyalaties involving other issues, rather than results driving this, by those making these posts. These misguided loyalties are actually hurting their own community.

I appreciate both council members who voted no on this issue and will glady join in any effort to referendum this issue so the voters can vote on this. I also appreciate council members who do communicate ACCURATELY with the citizens. My biggest complaint isn't about those who don't communicate, its about those who MISLEAD the residents. Using your elected to position to mislead people about issues, IMO is far worse, than NOT communicating at all.

I've been around for 20 plus years and like to think I've been involved in quite a few things involving community service and politics. This has helped me gain a better insight into some things. I can say without being arrogant, that I've tried as much as anyone in this community these past 12 years to make changes on who serves on the council. From helping candidates , running myself and sitting it out an election (despite being the person with the most votes in the previous election) to keep the field small with the goal of replacing at least ONE council person.

My goal is to make changes on the city council and I'm perfectly content for it to be others who are knowledgeable and fair and NOT me serving. So when CW makes posts that attempt to differentiate council members based upon who responds and who doesn't, masking over their cumulative voting records and the damage these votes have done to our community, I'm going to jump in and respond!

BTW, have you or CW ever seen a copy of that RFP one council member claimed was done prior to the sale of that surplus land for $7.1 million when it was worth $21 million?
I guess it doesn't bother CW that our elected official can't back up their claim something was done.

Robert, if there's anyone here with a hidden agenda, I think it's you. I know you can't seem to stomach my support of Kerri, please leave that be.

It's OK to differentiate council members based upon who responds and who doesn't. That's part of a representative process and people can put as much weight on that as they want.

No, I haven't seen an RFP and you know that because you can't get it yourself. I've never asked for it, and I'm focusing here on a current issue.

I'm going to ask you again how I'm supposed to know that certain council members won't respond to email? You've made it clear that I should know that and, for the life of me, I can't figure out how.

[cw68]

My friend you need to open your eyes, because you are part of the problem, because you are unintentionally masking the truth.

Robert, this is a personal attack and not appropriate.

Regardless, Davburr, or anyone else, can support whomever they want for any reasons they want. It's not up to you to judge him.

[SacKen]

How 'bout we get back to talking about the topic at hand so we can focus our disgust that way.

The history of Robert v Kerri, and even Robert v CW, has been heavily documented on MyFolsom for many years and these same arguments can be reviewed by using the search feature.

Thank you. Have a nice day.