278 replies to this topic

[bordercolliefan]

Okay, but you still haven't answered how we can be sure the developers won't go to Rancho Cordova or another municipality. Just saying "that's a ridiculous scenario" doesn't answer the question.

Unless you can guarantee that the developers can't or won't go to Rancho, then we could end up worse off approving your initiative than if we approve the City's.

[jagayman]

75M for a Hwy 50 upgrade? Based on the property values, seems like something developers of 3000+ acres could afford to pay.

I know, I'm missing something. What I do know is that people are paying a ton of money for new homes these days and the developers are making a killing.

When I bought my home and had to pay Mello Roos, I didn't mind because I felt obligated to pay my share of infrastructure improvements. If I had paid $500k for my house and found out that the dwelling had a replacement cost of $200k, my Mello Roos was $20k, and the developer had pocketed $150k after spending $150k in fees/lot infrastructure, I'd like to know why 50 was backed up everyday with commuters spilling smog into the air while going nowhere fast. For $25k an acre (about $6k per lot), they could have widened 50.

-jason.

[EDF]

Border....

The reason they can't go any where else is for starters.... we have the Sphere of Influence.. so they would have to go to the county and get LAFCO to take it away from us...

You want to guess how many years that might take...?

They can't go to the county because their property is outside of the "urban services boundary"... If you want to read this entire thread from beginning to the end you will find all the answers...

Bob Fish and Val Doss have posted many a response to all these questions...

What you should be doing is asking the City of Folsom staff why they haven't widen the freeway as a mitigation that was disclosed in the City's own EIR back in 1990...

I have been here since 89 and have become used to the way the City operates.... you know... "we'll ignore that requirement there... we'll give you a mitigation credit over here and waive that requirement there"... simple...

Oh... don't get me wroing... lots of it will be out in the open... but they don't talk like you and me... they talk in City-Hall-speak.... You know... they'll have a couple of meetings and staff will get out the fancy Power Point presentation and dazzle the folks in attendance and the "luv fest" will just continue and we get screwed....

Then we'll have some backed up sewers... and oh yea... we'll have to float another School Bond to alleviate the overcrowded schools we have...

Are you getting the picture yet...?

[jagayman]

I attented the CC meeting last night as an observer. The latest CC proposed ordinance that was revised last night looked pretty good to me. I'd be interested in how people believe it differs from the Fish proposal.

There was also another interesting presentation regarding development of the Sacramento region through 2050. The traffic improvements included widenening White Rock Rd to 6 lanes.

I'm starting to worry that the vote will be split and neither will pass.

-jason.

[EDF]

Jason...

If you were there... what is your reaction to the fact that Bob and I pointed out to the City Council that what they are doing is ILLEGAL...

By the way, don't you think that if we had any flaws in our initiative, such as the case in Roseville, that our "opponents" would have formed some kind of "citizens group" to file suit to get us off the ballot....?

They just ignored us... So now...we will have to sue our own City to comply with the law and that is going to cost taxpayes to defend it...?

Let me remind you..... if the roles were reversed, Miklos would have sat up there and said that "he's not against the vote, but they should follow the law".... that's exactly what we are saying to them....

[billsfan]

Bob,

Thanks for your lengthy and detailed reply regarding why the conditions were included in the growth initiative. I participated in one of those difficult phone polls, which were long and required rereading of the initiative for every change. Secondly you have determined for me that these conditions are for my welfare and best interests to be protected. Thank you for determining that but I'd prefer to decide for myself.

Essentially you have made this a NO Growth initiative because the conditions are very very difficult to be met, rather than allowing me a vote on a development plan which has been your theme all along. Yeah I read all EDF's anti developer and anti council stuff, but essentially you guys are doing the same thing - hiding a No Growth strategy behing an alleged initiative that will allow the voters to decide.

I'm voting NO for your initiative. Take out these conditions and I would have voted yes. Haven't decided on the city's yet.

[EDF]

Billsfan...

the problem with your logic is that the "final say" is not in our hands... its in the City Council's final vote....

if you read their initiative... they have lots of "wiggle" room... and just a couple are the freeway and schools..

Our initiative is very simple... They have to do all the things that the city put in their "matrix"... They must plan it all and then come to us the voters for final approval... seems very simple to me....

And by the way... I am not anti-growth... I am a real estate broker and a "developer".. very small developer... lot splits...

The only people going to benefit out of development if they City Hall Crowd gets its way will be City Hall itself with the demand for more staff and the developers...

If you like it the way it is now... go vote that way... me...? I think we can do better...

[billsfan]

Then where was your visioning process for determing these conditions?
Don't say the survey and polls. Come on you can really think that the widening of 50 before any dirt is moved, and your open space requirements are realistic? Yeah I've heard all your arguments about why these are important but believe they are too strict...

I could see a acceptable plan that phases in 50 widening over first 3 years and completed before xxx houses are developed. I could see some commercial development initially to help raise tax revenue for infrastructure. I could see lower open space but something incorporated into the development like the Parkway and Lexington Hills. The possibilities are endless but not with your initiative.

I know that you guys have worked hard on the initiative and put
in many of your own personal time. But this is important to all residents and I would like to have input and partake in the planning and voting process...

[tessieca]

There is a Visioning Process Public Meeting tonight at the Folsom Community Center, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. for those who want to be involved in the city's own review of how to handle south of 50 SOI.

[camay2327]

Billsfan, I agree with you almost 100%. My wife and I also went to the city council meeting last night and listened and even spoke.

I can not back what we are calling the "Fish Initiative" either. That is just the way it is.
I can only hope that over 50% of the people of Foslom feel that same and vote NO on it.

If there is a best of two evils then I will have to go with the city.

We vote these people in and if you don't like what they are doing, vote someone else in.

[EDF]

Billsfan...

funny you mention Lexington Hills and Parkway...

Why do you think Lexington Hills has more parks and open space... trails etc than any other neighborhood in the area...? the "largess" of the City...?

I beg your pardon... but we were behind that too... we are veterans of battles with City Hall... and mostly we lost...

We have the same goals... however do you realize that we will not get all of the "tax dollars" out of the South of 50 Area... we only get about 1/2 of the Auto Mall... its called "revenue neutrality"... so you might want to be careful if you think we are going to make lots of $$$ of that retail you were talking about...

and as for the "visioning process" please go... its because of us that they are even doing this...

However... I disagree with you...

Our initiative does not stop the developer from having to go through all the hoops that they would have to do ordinarilly... the only difference is we want 50% open space, for them to find their own water source, pay for all their new schools and the freeway widened as per their own EIR of 14 years ago... and we are only asking for 2 lanes... the EIR called for 6...

So... are we really being "unreasonable"....?

Go ahead if you think the City is going to listen... I know that the only way to get any beaurocrats attention is either to take away their funding or do some kind of ballot initiative... and that's just what we did...

and please don't forget, its because of us that you are even getting a chance to participate in the so called "visioning process"...

And as for Cal... Hey if you read their final version regarding your issue of the water... watch out... lots of "wiggle" room on that one too...

Their Freeway improvements do not include any new lanes by the way... so you guys will just see more and more gridlock...

[camay2327]

I am sure that no side of this is going to be perfect, there is wiggle room on both sides.

I just can not see anyone approving 50% open space and the building of two additional lanes on 50 prior to any building, commercial or residential, taking place.


This really is a

[EDF]

Cal..

Sorry...

There is no wiggle room in our initiative... you want to know why...?

That's because the residents have the "final say"...

and that my friend is the big difference between the two... and one more thing...

What they are doing is illegal... what we have done is to the "letter of the law"... is there some reason the City can't follow the law as well....?

[jagayman]

I am really concerned about the voting requirements.

I don't see a clear voting requirement in the Fish plan. It seems to read that you could either require a City of Folsom vote for rezoning of a single lot or a City of Folsom vote to approve a specific plan.

It it's for lots and small areas, then it's going to require a plethora of new votes each time an election comes around and I'm not sure the voters are going to have the patience -- they will either blindly vote no or yes. They may even decide just to vote "no" regardless of the proposal just because it is simply development south of 50.

If it's for a specific plan, then that makes the assumption that the plan can't change -- which is not a practical requirement given that demographics, economy, and such will and do change. The Fish plan doesn't describe what would happen if the plan changed. Does it require a revote? Then, are we back to voting in every little change?

It also sets up a situation where "south" Folsom becomes the step-daughter. If we are going to annex the land south of 50, I want the residents to feel part of the town and not that they require the rest of the cities approval for anything that happens. They may even have a good idea that requires sacrifices from both north and south residents and they will could never get approval because north residents may miss the big picture. For example, what would happen if the proposed library were put to a vote and the two locations were a south and north folsom location. Saying that it should be near the schools and the population doesn't necessarily work because it could be that in ten years, the population base is more towards the south. Broadstone and Empire Ranch is a good example of this.

At this point, I believe the CC has realized that they can't take this issue lightly. They have worked to take the Fish plan as a model and work it into something that is -- what I conder -- more reasonable for forward progress in developing the land south of 50.

If they start to deviate from this attitude, then I will be selecting new CC members come next election. Right now, however, I give them my vote.

As for the legal issues, I'm not concerned. There will be plenty of opportunity to solicit public review and feedback (in fact, they could get lots of it come November). I'm more concerned about splitting the vote.

-jason.

[EDF]

I do believe this initiative will be part of the "general plan" amendment that will become part of the "re-zone and annexation"... Bob Fish I am sure can better explain this better than I.

They (Developers) will have to make a plan for the entire SOI... and go through all the same processes that the City is proposing in theirs...

However... If as you say after a time and a changing economy, we might need to change... well, that was addressed in the SACOGG presentation... so that could happen... some changes would be by council action and some might require voter approval...

Any time you require voter approval, you get motivated voters...

or, do you think a "majority" of Folsom voters would choose to leave all those decisions up to just 5 people... ?