107 replies to this topic

[MikeinFolsom]

So let me get this straight "jrudi"......You are against Kerri because she voted nay on the Sports Complex and the Aquatic Center??? Last time I checked, neither one of these adventures are self sufficient. They require money from the general fund.

You have an argument on wanting public safety reform because the city is spending money on items that you currently don't have, or have an opportunity to partake in. A basis which again, you have very little factual information on. I don't use the sports complex or aquatic center. Yet my city tax dollars go towards funding these two sites. I don't have a problem because I know other families that do use them and it makes their quality of life a little better. Do I think it was an absurd move the city should never have gotten into? You betcha. I'm glad she voted no on both of these subjects.

Like many on here, the ignore button is being pushed. Have a nice life.

[camay2327]

So let me get this straight "jrudi"......You are against Kerri because she voted nay on the Sports Complex and the Aquatic Center??? Last time I checked, neither one of these adventures are self sufficient. They require money from the general fund.

You have an argument on wanting public safety reform because the city is spending money on items that you currently don't have, or have an opportunity to partake in. A basis which again, you have very little factual information on. I don't use the sports complex or aquatic center. Yet my city tax dollars go towards funding these two sites. I don't have a problem because I know other families that do use them and it makes their quality of life a little better. Do I think it was an absurd move the city should never have gotten into? You betcha. I'm glad she voted no on both of these subjects.

Like many on here, the ignore button is being pushed. Have a nice life.

+1000

[JRudi]

So let me get this straight "jrudi"......You are against Kerri because she voted nay on the Sports Complex and the Aquatic Center??? Last time I checked, neither one of these adventures are self sufficient. They require money from the general fund.

You have an argument on wanting public safety reform because the city is spending money on items that you currently don't have, or have an opportunity to partake in. A basis which again, you have very little factual information on. I don't use the sports complex or aquatic center. Yet my city tax dollars go towards funding these two sites. I don't have a problem because I know other families that do use them and it makes their quality of life a little better. Do I think it was an absurd move the city should never have gotten into? You betcha. I'm glad she voted no on both of these subjects.

Like many on here, the ignore button is being pushed. Have a nice life.

MikeinFolsom: You need to look at the city budget. The city currently provides very little to no general fund subsidy for the Sports Complex and the Aquatics Center. They have become essentially self-sufficient.

Now, arguing that they should not receive general fund subsidy makes about the same sense as arguing that other services that benefit the community, such as police and fire, should not receive general fund sibsidy either. As I'm sure you know, these services are almost entirely funded by the general fund. Also, I have not used police and fire services since I have lived in this community, so using your logic I should not have to pay for these. Does that mean that I am entitled to receive a refund of about 60% of my property and sale tax payments for the last couple of decades (since fire and police comprise about 60% of the general fund)? Of course not.

The community benefits from having the Sports Complex and the Aquatics Center, just as it benefits from having excellent schools, well-maintain parks, an extensive bike path system, safe streets, and top-notch public safety services. Whether we all use these services/facilities or not, we pay for them through our tax dollars. And, a community without all these services and facilities would not be a complete community, and the overall quality of life enjoyed by our citizens would drop dramatically.

Please understand that my concern with Ms. Howell has to do with her ability to make decisions that are in line with what is in the best interests of this community. Based on her past voting record, I have a serious concern with this. Also, as a member of our public safety family, you should be concerned with this as well. She is not a strong supporter of police and fire, at least not behind closed doors.

[Robert Giacometti]

For starters, 1) Miklos would never post on this forum, it's beneath him to reach out to people 2) Miklos can't make any misleading comments because he's never been asked the same questions. I thought you were the bright guy, I shouldn't have to explain this to you, contact Miklos and ask him the same damn questions you asked Kerri. BTW,writing an article about the former city manager is irrelevant, not sure why you keep throwing that in over and over. Now try and understand where I'm coming from, it's not that I'm in Kerri's camp (that's for me to decide later), I'm just baffled why you don't post the same about Miklos and the rest. They all voted EXACTLY the same, but you and your alto ego Jrudi seem to be giving those guys a pass and instead only slam Kerri. Slam Miklos and Starsky too with the same data and same fervor and we might begin to believe that you really mean it about cleaning up things at City Hall.

Just for clarification, it was Kerri who came onto the forum and made the misleading claims about the sale of the surplus land next to the HS, NOT Steve. I've only been challenging her misleading claims. If she didn't say the things she did, I couldn't challenge what she said.

I don't judge our Council members on where or how they communicate to residents, I judge them on their accuracy of what they are saying.

It appears you are not understanding the importance of the role of the former City Manger played in this deal. It was a NEGOTIATED deal, its part of the City Council Agenda talking about the negotiations. The former City Manger was the negotiator for the city. Within a relatively short time period after this deal was finalized and people started talking about this deal, surprisingly the Former City manger announced they were leaving the job to spend more time with their daughters. Amazingly, the former city manger got a lucrative NO BID bridge consulting position on their way out AND did some work for the Arena Tax and started their own consulting/lobbying firm representing Landowners/developers. Sounds like they were pretty busy doesn't it?

Now don't disappoint me here and cause me to loose faith in you being bright guy! Before you respond, think about all what happened here and ask your self what would you do if you were on the city council and you just realized you voted for selling land for and the person you sold it too resold it within weeks for 3 times the amount? Since you are the wise person you are, I don't think you would be writing a letter on behalf of the person who negotiated the deal for the city calling them the best city manager ever, like Kerri did, would you?

Dude, I'll admit I enjoy going back n forth with you and chuckle reading your posts. If you can't see what happend over all this and who on the City council is misleading the Citizens, I'll glady treat for a beer or margarita and we can talk about all this.

My question to anyone is this, if a person serving on the Council is misleading us about this what in world gives ANYONE any faith they won't be misleading you about anything else, including the Citys true costs for Planning S50?

[JRudi]

That's a mighty strong accusation to make. Either you're lying or you work for the city.
It can only be one, which is it?

Are you implying I can't be both - that is, I can't be a liar and a city employee?

[JRudi]

Just for clarification, it was Kerri who came onto the forum and made the misleading claims about the sale of the surplus land next to the HS, NOT Steve. I've only been challenging her misleading claims. If she didn't say the things she did, I couldn't challenge what she said.

I don't judge our Council members on where or how they communicate to residents, I judge them on their accuracy of what they are saying.

It appears you are not understanding the importance of the role of the former City Manger played in this deal. It was a NEGOTIATED deal, its part of the City Council Agenda talking about the negotiations. The former City Manger was the negotiator for the city. Within a relatively short time period after this deal was finalized and people started talking about this deal, surprisingly the Former City manger announced they were leaving the job to spend more time with their daughters. Amazingly, the former city manger got a lucrative NO BID bridge consulting position on their way out AND did some work for the Arena Tax and started their own consulting/lobbying firm representing Landowners/developers. Sounds like they were pretty busy doesn't it?

Now don't disappoint me here and cause me to loose faith in you being bright guy! Before you respond, think about all what happened here and ask your self what would you do if you were on the city council and you just realized you voted for selling land for and the person you sold it too resold it within weeks for 3 times the amount? Since you are the wise person you are, I don't think you would be writing a letter on behalf of the person who negotiated the deal for the city calling them the best city manager ever, like Kerri did, would you?

Dude, I'll admit I enjoy going back n forth with you and chuckle reading your posts. If you can't see what happend over all this and who on the City council is misleading the Citizens, I'll glady treat for a beer or margarita and we can talk about all this.

My question to anyone is this, if a person serving on the Council is misleading us about this what in world gives ANYONE any faith they won't be misleading you about anything else, including the Citys true costs for Planning S50?

Ditto.

[gottasmile]

A side discussion that comes from the primary discussion of this thread. If no one votes for any of the current incumbents (there are three open positions), than who would everyone vote for?

Without incumbents, the list of City Council candidates are: Lindsey Woodward, Alex Munoz, Jaya Badiga and Michael Kozlowski. There are four candidates left if you eliminate incumbents. I would like to hear more about THESE candidates too!

So, question out there to "those who know"....who would you vote for? Why?

This will be the SECOND time to post this to everyone. Obviously it is not as interesting as bashing people posting their opinions and current council members....but, I think a validate Folsomite question. I understand everyone has a stand on the issues of Howell vs. Jrudi, Miklos/Starsky and etc. I appreciate the debate. But, I would really like to hear about OTHER candidates and what people know and how THEY could contribute to our fine city. So, let me ask the question again: If you don't want to vote for an incumbent, who would you vote for? Why?

[MikeinFolsom]

Robert, the City is spending "X" amount of dollars to revitalize Sutter Street, all at little to no cost to the actual property owners. What is to stop the property owners from turning around and selling their properties after construction is completed? Nada. What will HOPEFULLY be realized by the City is a renewed interest in Sutter Street and maybe what it has to offer everyone. So I think it might be a win/win, but we'll see.

[JRudi]

Robert, the City is spending "X" amount of dollars to revitalize Sutter Street, all at little to no cost to the actual property owners. What is to stop the property owners from turning around and selling their properties after construction is completed? Nada. What will HOPEFULLY be realized by the City is a renewed interest in Sutter Street and maybe what it has to offer everyone. So I think it might be a win/win, but we'll see.

MIkeinFolsom: Sutter Street is within the redevelopment boundaries, and the improvements are being done with redevelopment funds. Most, but not all the money, is being spent on public facilities (streets, sidewalks, water lines, sewer lines, etc.). Eighty percent of redevelopment funds legally have to be spent on activities such as this (those that revitalize the area). (The remaining 20 percent have to be spent on affordable housing.) The propoerties are undoubtedly being increased in value with the investment in the public facilities, but the investment is in the public facilities (for the most part).

The difference between this and the deal involving the property near Folsom High is that the city owned the property, sold it to a property owner for much less than it was worth (a gift of public funds), the city then granted the developer entitlements that increased the property's value, and within days afterwards the developer turned around and sold the property for a nifty 300 percent profit. And, this was all prearranged, involving no "real" competitive process for the intial purchase of the property from the city.

This doesn't pass the smell test for me.

[JRudi]

You're right you can be both, but it's not nice to lie to people, it appears you have a bad habit of doing that, such as the way you've been feeding Robert made up or exaggerated information to help with your vendetta. You're also right that we do really need to go after these people who are ripping tax payers off and wasting our money and that needs to include going after city (and state) workers (slackers) who are playing around online executing a planned personal vendetta on a blog using city assets (computer equipment and network resources) and city payroll time (while on the clock). Firing those people wasting valuable resources is the right thing to do, right? Or does that not work for you in your current situation? No biggie, I hear retirement is around the corner.

Sorry. My own time and my own resources.

[Redone]

This will be the SECOND time to post this to everyone. Obviously it is not as interesting as bashing people posting their opinions and current council members....but, I think a validate Folsomite question. I understand everyone has a stand on the issues of Howell vs. Jrudi, Miklos/Starsky and etc. I appreciate the debate. But, I would really like to hear about OTHER candidates and what people know and how THEY could contribute to our fine city. So, let me ask the question again: If you don't want to vote for an incumbent, who would you vote for? Why?

If you know any of them, seen their websites, or have any info please share. I think other than Kozlowski most people don't yet really know who the other 3 running are.