81 replies to this topic

[Steve Heard]

 

Steve, is there really a such a large market that is unmet for $800,000 homes on a hillside?  

 

There may be. There are probably some folks who'd think it was worth it to be among the first to buy down there.

 

They'll know for sure if they get deposits.

[Robert Giacometti]

There are still options available to have this project be reconsidered.

 

If there was a majority on the council, they could declare a emergency based upon the drought and stop everything.

 

IMO, there are fundamental changes that need to occur that will result in more accountable representation, more informed and engaged citizens in the process, reducing the outside money influence that buys elections and level the playing field so that all residents have equal opportunity to having their concerns heard and having a legitimate shot at having their concerns addressed.

 

The current structure allows a handful of people to control what issues get addressed with a predetermined result.

 

Here is what needs to happen;

 

The incumbents ALL need to be recalled! NONE of them were elected by a majority of 50% or more votes.

 

There needs to be a slate of Candidates that run to ONLY bring about change. This slate of candidates primary focus would be to Redo the charter and put on hold S50. They will have to replace the CM and hire someone who understands and is experienced in bringing about fundamental changes. The current Cm is part of the problem since they have to keep the incumbents in power to keep his job.

 

This Slate would establish term limits and establish Districts and establish an election system that ensures candidates get elected with a Majority of votes and establish a rotating mayor vice mayor process that is shared. This will help reduce the amount of outside money buying elections and having career city council members operating on quid pro quo arrangements.

 

This slate should hold Town Hall meetings on a variety of issues, water, pension funding, budget balances, a Listing of all of our Debts and allow Residents to ask questions until most reasonable people are satisfied. These Town Hall meetings would be a fact finding mission to help inform and educate.

 

Once all this is accomplished, THEN this slate would hold new elections within each District and these winners would be the Council to lead us based upon their ability to express their visions to get elected. IF, we had 5 council members who were elected from the 5 new districts who were all committed to going full steam ahead with S50, then that is what should happen.. I seriously doubt that would happen. 

[cw68]

How does more than talk happen regarding a recall? We can all talk about changing the guard, but in the meantime the current council keeps moving toward June and the groundbreaking.

[ducky]

How does more than talk happen regarding a recall? We can all talk about changing the guard, but in the meantime the current council keeps moving toward June and the groundbreaking.

 

It's a lot of work.  The first step would be checking with the city clerk to see what is required to get something on the ballot and timelines and what percentage of the City of Folsom population would have to sign each petition for each council member you are trying to recall to get it on the ballot.  Remember, you would need more than just the minimum number of signatures because people will sign saying they are registered voters but aren't, or you'll get people that won't actually be Folsom residents who sign, or they don't sign their full name as on voter registration records, etc., and it will be thrown out.  It would take more than one person to collect signatures and you need to be sure they all know the requirements so you don't get a lot of invalid sigs.  We're talking probably thousands of signatures would be required.

Second, you will have to work with  the Sacramento County Election office to be sure you are following their requirements.

The verbiage on the petitions will need to be correct so you don't suffer the same fate as the Measure T group.

 

I'm not saying I think this is the best solution, but just FYI.

[Robert Giacometti]

Ive been doing some research on this. I would try to recall all 5 based on they violated Measure W by selling ( Giving) water from N50 to S50.

 

the 3 recently reelected council members are protected from a recall until after 6 months from their last election. The Recall wouldn't get started until May, but now is the time to begin to organize and plan.

 

I'm sure the powers to be will use every trick they can to stop this.

 

A recall would need at least 15% of the signatures of the voters who voted in the last governors election. Im thinking a recall would need about 4000 signatures at a minimum.

 

Im willing to coordinate the recall and would NOT be a candidate, so as to keep my goals altruistic. Hopefully the 4 challengers from the last election would join together and run as a slate for what Im proposing.

 

A huge fact to consider is in the last election there were 12,400 under votes. There were more under votes than the winner received. That tells you most people in Folsom, who voted, aren't happy with the incumbents. If we could bring a recall to a vote, the incumbents wont survive.

[cw68]

Robert, let me know what I can do to help.

[TruthSeeker]

I'm in Robert, let me know how I can help. I want to assist with this recall effort as much as possible. I can't stand what these jerks are planning to inflict on our great city.

[kcrides99]

Just playing devils advocate (not an attorney), let's say the recall effort moves forward, and new council members put a stop to the S50 project...Could the City be at risk for litigation costs to the tunes of millions from the property owners/developers?

 

We talk a lot about fiscal sustainability, but, wouldn't want to have to pay the developers to not develop the land if that makes sense? Especially if its calculated at the post buildout value.

 

Just wondering? 

[ducky]

Just playing devils advocate (not an attorney), let's say the recall effort moves forward, and new council members put a stop to the S50 project...Could the City be at risk for litigation costs to the tunes of millions from the property owners/developers?

 

We talk a lot about fiscal sustainability, but, wouldn't want to have to pay the developers to not develop the land if that makes sense? Especially if its calculated at the post buildout value.

 

Just wondering? 

 

I think this is a very valid concern.  I don't think there is any stopping S50.  Where a different council could change things is in the general plan.  They keep changing the one N50.  I don't see why that couldn't be done S50.

 

There is also the City of Folsom vs. All Persons in Any Way Interested In The Matter, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2013-00138798, judgment pertaining to the water supply and how it isn't in violation of Measure W pertaining to the contracts entered into with the landowners.  If you were a landowner and had paid fees to the city and incurred expenses based on moving forward, which they have every reason to believe is going to happen because of council approval, would you just walk away and take a loss?  I don't think any of us would.

 

I thought this thread was more about what happens south of S50.  I'm kind of with Supermom on that one.  I'm not sure I really care what Sacramento County does.  It would be up to them to find a water supply and to deal with costs related to transportation, infrastructure, etc. 

 

Someone mentioned a land conservancy.  There is the Sacramento Valley Conservancy (they preserve Deer Creek Hills), but they only take land donations or try and buy from willing landowners.  Now, if it were somehow made more attractive to donate the land instead of develop because of lack of water supply or large fees being imposed for development that made a tax break look more attractive than building, maybe that would slow things down.

[maestro]

Sacramento Bee did a Sunday front page discussion of Folsom immediately adding 25,000 residents to south of 50.

New Homes company intends to stud the foothills with mc mansions.

 

But that 's not even the FPA area, which would add at least 75,000.

 

Bee also reported all city staff think everything is peachy keen for growth -- even though the City Engineer HAS NOT SIGNED off on any of legal mandates he is obliged to approve.

Also, the story reported the anti-Mello Roos financing is being discussed in March by the council.

 

Today the Op Ed letters are expressing outrage at the council's actions.    Worth a look-see.

[kcrides99]

Ducky:

 

I get what you and super mom are saying about the hands off approach... let sac county do what sac county does..

 

 

The problem is.... when an outside agency approves a development, they are not required to mitigate the impacts to the other agency. For example, if the county approves 10,000 homes and the result is gridlock on 50, iron point, prairie City, etc, they are required to make "reasonable efforts" to resolve the traffic impacts. Because the County does NOT have jurisdiction in Folsom, they cannot require developers to upgrade Folsom's facilities.

 

That is why I am concerned. From a tax payer perspective I am less concerned if the County is doing it, but as a resident I makes me worry.

[ducky]

Ducky:

 

I get what you and super mom are saying about the hands off approach... let sac county do what sac county does..

 

 

The problem is.... when an outside agency approves a development, they are not required to mitigate the impacts to the other agency. For example, if the county approves 10,000 homes and the result is gridlock on 50, iron point, prairie City, etc, they are required to make "reasonable efforts" to resolve the traffic impacts. Because the County does NOT have jurisdiction in Folsom, they cannot require developers to upgrade Folsom's facilities.

 

That is why I am concerned. From a tax payer perspective I am less concerned if the County is doing it, but as a resident I makes me worry.

 

If it came to that, couldn't the city take the same tack they and El Dorado County are regarding the Mather expansion and sue if it affects Folsom residents?

[kcrides99]

They could... but does not necessarily mean that the end result is different. For example, a traffic mitigation measure for the 10,000 homes could be to widen Sibley (or pick a street) to 6 lanes.... What if that is not physically possible/desirable? Then we have a backup of traffic occurring in the City Limits that is caused by development outside the City Limits.

 

Usually those types of cases get settled or the environmental document gets recirculated and then approved anyway... Not as much accountability as if it were under local control.

[supermom]

Im telling you right now... the best thing anyone could do right now is get a whole bunch of owls, pacific oak trees and desert burrowing turtles and plop them on that land. 

 

Problemo solved. 

No builidng, No mitigation. No taxes. No water bills. 

Instant conservatory. 

Green belt without taxation.

Best part of all...the feds will have to go in, clean it up and keep it nice for a bunch or transitory plants and animals that mysteriously biome-ed from several areas of california. 

 

teee heeee heeeee

[Robert Giacometti]

Kcrides99,

 

If there was a new council who hired a CM that was looking out for the residents and City's best interests, there would be all kinds of options to explore.

 

The developers don't have any building permits to build so how could they sue? What if the residents drafted a charter amendment limiting the number of building permits issued in a year, how could the developers sue the city over that? What if the residents drafted a charter amendment increasing property taxes on vacant parcels? What if the residents drafted a charter amendment adopting a fixed water monthly fee of say $200 per home per month for all new homes built after 2016?

 

If there was new Council in place who had the existing residents best interests and the City's in place, instead of developers, there are all kinds of options to explore!

 

Local control, what a joke that is! The Local control argument was what delivered S50!

 

Here is a question for you. Name a project this council approved that paid for 100% of its impacts? There isn't ANY! Why in the world would you want to give them control over additional land? Havent you ever heard of Einstein's definition of Insanity? 

 

Id much rather have the County controlling the land S50 because A) it wouldn't be developed, B) we'd have almost another $9 million in reserves that this council wasted on the planning process without getting reimbursed, C)we'd have plenty of water going forward, D) The City wouldn't have to provides services for S50, yet we'd get al the sales tax revenue from those residents shopping Folsom!

 

I starting to get the impression, that you have an ulterior motive?