Thanks for pointing that out Terry.
I have edited my original post to correct my error. Please reread it and the one above it to Tessieca. Then comment if you would regarding my contention that developers CAN afford to pay for 100% of schools but will NOT south of 50 because State law "protects" them from having to do so.
The Parkway School
Started by
EDF
, Mar 13 2005 11:55 AM
183 replies to this topic
#61
Bob
-
- Premium Member
-
- 171 posts
Veteran
Posted 24 April 2005 - 01:15 PM
The strength of democracy is in letting the people create the future, not the government creating it for them.
#62
Terry
-
- Premium Member
-
- 2,425 posts
Living Legend
Posted 24 April 2005 - 01:46 PM
QUOTE(Bob @ Apr 24 2005, 01:15 PM)
Thanks for pointing that out Terry.
I have edited my original post to correct my error. Please reread it and the one above it to Tessieca. Then comment if you would regarding my contention that developers CAN afford to pay for 100% of schools but will NOT south of 50 because State law "protects" them from having to do so.
I have edited my original post to correct my error. Please reread it and the one above it to Tessieca. Then comment if you would regarding my contention that developers CAN afford to pay for 100% of schools but will NOT south of 50 because State law "protects" them from having to do so.
Well, I can AFFORD a lot of things, but I choose not to buy them because I'm not REQUIRED to.
We just don't agree on this issue. Why can't you leave it at that?
#63
Robert Giacometti
-
- Premium Member
-
- 4,850 posts
There are no Dumb questions
Posted 26 April 2005 - 03:06 PM
I see where the City, the District and the Developer were going into closed session at the council meeting.
Does anyone know if this is related to the proposed school site?
Does anyone know if this is related to the proposed school site?
#64
tessieca
-
- Premium Member
-
- 5,292 posts
Hopeless Addict
Posted 26 April 2005 - 06:08 PM
I think the agenda item states that it is for land negotiation of the Parkway II site, Robert. It's uncertain how far they will get in that negotiation, particularly since Parker seems so intent on squeezing blood out of everyone to get a huge profit. If he really wants the school, he'll really negotiate. For now, he has hired Bob Holderness to be his head cheerleader. We'll see . . .
To Bob F: Speaking of head cheerleaders, I was not a one of those for Measure W nor for growth of highway 50. I simply do not see why, when the district is limited in how much it can demand of the developer, we should not support the city's attempts to get more than that maximum as part of their own negotiation process. When/if their plan falls apart, as you suggest, the district will be no worse off than it would have been without the plan.
P.S. This is a Parkway discussion, not a south of 50 discussion. No hijacking!
To Bob F: Speaking of head cheerleaders, I was not a one of those for Measure W nor for growth of highway 50. I simply do not see why, when the district is limited in how much it can demand of the developer, we should not support the city's attempts to get more than that maximum as part of their own negotiation process. When/if their plan falls apart, as you suggest, the district will be no worse off than it would have been without the plan.
P.S. This is a Parkway discussion, not a south of 50 discussion. No hijacking!
"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.
#65
Robert Giacometti
-
- Premium Member
-
- 4,850 posts
There are no Dumb questions
Posted 27 April 2005 - 09:59 AM
What I don't understand is, if the developer is required to dedicate X amount of land for Parks as required by the Quimby Act and the City is willing to accept this land for Park Site 44 and then City could consider this land as surplus, therefore could sell it to the District at Market rates, why would the developer be a part of the negoitations?
It seems relatively simple, the City accept's the required Quimby dedication land for Parks. The City then could decide what they want do with their dedicated park land.
Could then the district buy the land from the city and build the Parkway school here?
There must be some other issues that the City needs to resolve as a part of a package deal?
It seems relatively simple, the City accept's the required Quimby dedication land for Parks. The City then could decide what they want do with their dedicated park land.
Could then the district buy the land from the city and build the Parkway school here?
There must be some other issues that the City needs to resolve as a part of a package deal?
#66
camay2327
-
- Moderator
-
- 11,481 posts
GO NAVY
- Gender:Male
- Location:Folsom
Posted 27 April 2005 - 11:08 AM
Robert, i think you know the city council members, email them and get some information for us...
A VETERAN
Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life".
That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
-Author unknown-
#67
Robert Giacometti
-
- Premium Member
-
- 4,850 posts
There are no Dumb questions
Posted 27 April 2005 - 02:24 PM
Camay,
Great Idea!
I called someone who is somewhat involved in the process although they were not directly involved in this session( obvisouly no one at this session would be able to share anything publically anyway) they were extremely helpful is assisting me with general information that maybe allows me to answer my own questions.
A possible reason why all 3 were in the meeting together was to look at some land swaps. The City, District and the developer maybe proposing to trade some land to make it a win,win, win situation for all.
This does make sense. I was just curious on why they were all meeting.
The skeptic in me does wonder about all these "closed session" meetings. If there was some more general information posted on what was being discussed at these meetings, I sense it would reassuring to many. When items are listed the way they are one can only speculate.
Great Idea!
I called someone who is somewhat involved in the process although they were not directly involved in this session( obvisouly no one at this session would be able to share anything publically anyway) they were extremely helpful is assisting me with general information that maybe allows me to answer my own questions.
A possible reason why all 3 were in the meeting together was to look at some land swaps. The City, District and the developer maybe proposing to trade some land to make it a win,win, win situation for all.
This does make sense. I was just curious on why they were all meeting.
The skeptic in me does wonder about all these "closed session" meetings. If there was some more general information posted on what was being discussed at these meetings, I sense it would reassuring to many. When items are listed the way they are one can only speculate.
#68
camay2327
-
- Moderator
-
- 11,481 posts
GO NAVY
- Gender:Male
- Location:Folsom
Posted 27 April 2005 - 03:20 PM
I do know that the last meeting that I went to and they talked about this, yes they were talking about possibly swapping the 7.2 acres near Iron Point road that was supposed to be part of the park for some land further back toward US 50. Possibly be some rezoning going on too. Of course the land that I believe "Cook" purchased from the school is still a stand alone and I don't know what is going on with that. Some people also wanted to build some kind of school in there too. Not a public school, I think a private type of school???
Someone out there knows more!!!
City council members????
Tell us what you can !!!!!
Someone out there knows more!!!
City council members????
Tell us what you can !!!!!
A VETERAN
Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life".
That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
-Author unknown-
#69
tessieca
-
- Premium Member
-
- 5,292 posts
Hopeless Addict
Posted 27 April 2005 - 03:23 PM
I think there are some provisions of the Quimby Act that state that if the city simply declares dedicated park land as surplus, they must offer it back to the original landowner, thus Parker's continued involvement and continued opportunity to extract something for nothing.
Also, the dedicated park land is partially under power lines. No school can be built within 150 yards?/feet? of power lines. When the district planned to purchase the land, a deal was arranged with the city to do a lot line adjustment to keep the school away from the power lines. The city doesn't like to put parks under power lines either, but they can work with the land and maybe put parking there. At this point developer cooperation would be necessary to even do a lot line adjustment, thus Parker's continued involvement and continued opportunity to extract something for nothing.
Can't imagine where Parker is hiding another piece of land that could be used to accommodate a school (about 10 acres). Even if there were one, I can't imagine that Parker would be any more willing to sell at a reasonable price but in a different location.
Also, the dedicated park land is partially under power lines. No school can be built within 150 yards?/feet? of power lines. When the district planned to purchase the land, a deal was arranged with the city to do a lot line adjustment to keep the school away from the power lines. The city doesn't like to put parks under power lines either, but they can work with the land and maybe put parking there. At this point developer cooperation would be necessary to even do a lot line adjustment, thus Parker's continued involvement and continued opportunity to extract something for nothing.
Can't imagine where Parker is hiding another piece of land that could be used to accommodate a school (about 10 acres). Even if there were one, I can't imagine that Parker would be any more willing to sell at a reasonable price but in a different location.
"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.
#70
Robert Giacometti
-
- Premium Member
-
- 4,850 posts
There are no Dumb questions
Posted 27 April 2005 - 06:00 PM
Just for my clarification, the parksite (44) I am referring to is located off of Blue Ravine somewhat across the street from the Briggs Ranch Park.
I'm speculating the discussion between all parties involves a 3 way land swap, since the item on the agenda also listed a parcel of land near the Oak Chan Scool site, but is still probably in the Parkway development.
As a general rule I am not supportive of giving up parkland ( unless it involves a commercial recreation facility like the Folsom Sports Complex). In this case swapping some park land to assist building a school, IMHO would still enhance the quality of life for residents so I would be supportive. Typically school sites still retain some sort of recreational componet that would serve the neighborhood.
The reality is the developer is nearing the completion of their project. They are in business to make money and since this projects profits will soon be finished, I can understand their desire to maximize profits. They probabaly will NOT have to bring any other issues back to the council for review, so there is no real incentive for them to make any concessions.
Again, this illustrates the vital importance of getting all infrastructure in place during the original signing of the Developer Agreement. We all need to pay attention to S50!
I'm speculating the discussion between all parties involves a 3 way land swap, since the item on the agenda also listed a parcel of land near the Oak Chan Scool site, but is still probably in the Parkway development.
As a general rule I am not supportive of giving up parkland ( unless it involves a commercial recreation facility like the Folsom Sports Complex). In this case swapping some park land to assist building a school, IMHO would still enhance the quality of life for residents so I would be supportive. Typically school sites still retain some sort of recreational componet that would serve the neighborhood.
The reality is the developer is nearing the completion of their project. They are in business to make money and since this projects profits will soon be finished, I can understand their desire to maximize profits. They probabaly will NOT have to bring any other issues back to the council for review, so there is no real incentive for them to make any concessions.
Again, this illustrates the vital importance of getting all infrastructure in place during the original signing of the Developer Agreement. We all need to pay attention to S50!
#71
EDF
-
- Premium Member
-
- 4,517 posts
Living Legend
Posted 27 April 2005 - 08:05 PM
Hey Bob... you are right...
In fact that will come at us soon.... you wait and see when the developers start to build all that area to the south... I can't wait for the School Board's announcement that our schools are overcrowded and we'll need to float a bond because even though the Developers agreed to pay their share.... their share isn't the whole thing...
Thank you Pete Wilson....
In fact that will come at us soon.... you wait and see when the developers start to build all that area to the south... I can't wait for the School Board's announcement that our schools are overcrowded and we'll need to float a bond because even though the Developers agreed to pay their share.... their share isn't the whole thing...
Thank you Pete Wilson....
#72
Terry
-
- Premium Member
-
- 2,425 posts
Living Legend
Posted 27 April 2005 - 08:18 PM
QUOTE(camay2327 @ Apr 27 2005, 03:20 PM)
I Of course the land that I believe "Cook" purchased from the school is still a stand alone and I don't know what is going on with that. Some people also wanted to build some kind of school in there too. Not a public school, I think a private type of school???
I recall the Cook property was at one point planned to be used for some chiropractic college.
#73
MikeinFolsom
-
- Premium Member
-
- 2,198 posts
Living Legend
Posted 01 June 2005 - 09:13 AM
I am thinking that since the Parkway schools will be attended by not only Parkway children, but children of other neighborhoods, why not have a provision in place that the developer sets aside the land for the construction not only of a new school, but for a fire station as well? The further the city develops out towards EDH, the longer the responses will be for fire engines and fire ambulances.
The developers make a huge windfall off of every parcel of land developed in the city of Folsom. Deep, deep pockets should be able to absorb the cost of "donating" land to such a worthy cause as educational and public safety concerns.
How about it Mr. Parker??????
The developers make a huge windfall off of every parcel of land developed in the city of Folsom. Deep, deep pockets should be able to absorb the cost of "donating" land to such a worthy cause as educational and public safety concerns.
How about it Mr. Parker??????
#74
tessieca
-
- Premium Member
-
- 5,292 posts
Hopeless Addict
Posted 01 June 2005 - 09:48 AM
Some have pushed for legislation to make this happen. It'll never occur voluntarily, that's for sure. The BIA lobby is big enough to keep out a law similar to the Quimby Act (which requires donation of park land).
"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.
#75
Terry
-
- Premium Member
-
- 2,425 posts
Living Legend
Posted 01 June 2005 - 12:24 PM
QUOTE(MikeinFolsom @ Jun 1 2005, 09:13 AM)
I am thinking that since the Parkway schools will be attended by not only Parkway children, but children of other neighborhoods, why not have a provision in place that the developer sets aside the land for the construction not only of a new school, but for a fire station as well? The further the city develops out towards EDH, the longer the responses will be for fire engines and fire ambulances.
The developers make a huge windfall off of every parcel of land developed in the city of Folsom. Deep, deep pockets should be able to absorb the cost of "donating" land to such a worthy cause as educational and public safety concerns.
How about it Mr. Parker??????
The developers make a huge windfall off of every parcel of land developed in the city of Folsom. Deep, deep pockets should be able to absorb the cost of "donating" land to such a worthy cause as educational and public safety concerns.
How about it Mr. Parker??????
This already happens through the building permit fees. There are fees assessed for impacts to public safety (police and fire), schools, sewers, water, etc., etc., etc.
Tessieca, can you provide information as to the total amount in school fees the Parker Company has paid to the City of Folsom for the Parkway development? Remember there are several developers in the Parkway development, so maybe you can provide the dollar amount of the total school fees paid for the entire development regardless of which developer paid them?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
