158 replies to this topic

[Redone]

Maybe, Mr. Kozlowski, needs to come on here like Kerri does and let us know how he feels about things instead of having others do his work for him.

Kerri is the only one that will stick her neck out and come on this board. I will be voting for her again this time and so will my wife. Other will not get votes, period. Unless I change my mind prior to the vote.

You need to get over yourself. She comes here because it's a friendly place.
Maybe KOZ has not heard of it ? Maybe he works a lot ? Maybe he's read your post and thinks that everyone here has made up their mind ?( I hope not )

If John sends out questionaires as in the past then give each candidate a chance to be heard. Or if you have a meet and greet he'll come.

[ducky]

If John sends out questionaires as in the past then give each candidate a chance to be heard. Or if you have a meet and greet he'll come.

I think that is a great idea. I haven't made up my mind and would like to hear directly from the candidates.

[camay2327]

camay: I do think that public agencies need to exercise their power of eminent domain on occasion, specifically when it is for the overall public good. And, I believe this authority is guaranteed under the U.S. Constituiton (if I'm not mistaken).

However, the purpose of my post was to point out that Kerri was being hypocritical. She said in her post that she opposed the concept of eminent domain, but she had voted for it as a council member on at least several occasions in the past. My sense was she was trying to appease a reader who expressed opposition to it. It's campaign season, and she's trying to secure all the votes she can. Evidently, it doesn't matter to her if she contradicts herself in the process.

You better look at the other candidates too. They all do what you are saying just to get votes. Do you think the others are LILY WHITE, pardon the pun.

[JRudi]

You better look at the other candidates too. They all do what you are saying just to get votes. Do you think the others are LILY WHITE, pardon the pun.

Then we need to hold the candidates we vote for to a higher standard. This is Folsom, and we deserve better.

[Kerri Howell]

I look forward to receipt of the questionnaire and to attending a meet and greet. I very much enjoyed the last one that Folsom 500 was kind enough to host.

Suddenly there are 30+ posts in a day, from someone who had never posted before - all of which are obviously only about bashing me? How many inaccruate statements and mischaracterizations can you put in a single post? Can't possibly be some underlying, yet unstated objective there.............

[JRudi]

I look forward to receipt of the questionnaire and to attending a meet and greet. I very much enjoyed the last one that Folsom 500 was kind enough to host.

Suddenly there are 30+ posts in a day, from someone who had never posted before - all of which are obviously only about bashing me? How many inaccruate statements and mischaracterizations can you put in a single post? Can't possibly be some underlying, yet unstated objective there.............

Please be specific about which statements have been inaccurate and how you have been mischaracterized. If I am wrong, I will admit it. But, I'm confident I am not.

Bring it on Ol' Feisty One! Let's get the truth out there.

[Dave Burrell]

Please be specific about which statements have been inaccurate and how you have been mischaracterized. If I am wrong, I will admit it. But, I'm confident I am not.

Bring it on Ol' Feisty One! Let's get the truth out there.

Can we get some input from the OTHER candidates for city council too? Or does the vote rest entirely on the input from Kerri alone?

[Robert Giacometti]

I look forward to receipt of the questionnaire and to attending a meet and greet. I very much enjoyed the last one that Folsom 500 was kind enough to host.

Suddenly there are 30+ posts in a day, from someone who had never posted before - all of which are obviously only about bashing me? How many inaccruate statements and mischaracterizations can you put in a single post? Can't possibly be some underlying, yet unstated objective there.............

The objective is obvious, they are pointing out your contradictions.

It seems they are being consistent in holding all candidates to the same standard. They are highlighting your voting record and giving you the opportunity to defend your record. Predictably, you avoid defending your voting record and twist this into a personality debate.

You and others voted to sell that surplus land next to the HS for $7 million when it was worth $21 million and THEN you wrote a letter describing the Employee responsible as the best City Manager ever!

You and others voted to sell for ETERNITY our exclusive first in line water rights off the American River To Aerojet trading for their reclaimed contaminated water, then telling us we got more water in the deal. This was done so Elliot Homes could use this water as their permanent water source so they could build out at Aerojet.

You and others voted to give the Chamber of Commerce free rent ( historically they raise the most money during elections and support you) and then turn around and lay off Public Safety personel, because we don't have the revenue.

Recently you posted on this forum defending your Developers Buddies from paying the true costs of all the planning for S50. How about sticking up for the peopel N50 instead of the wealthy landwowners S50?

I'm NOT voting for ANY incumbant who has done this harm to our Community! Folsom desrves better!

[gottasmile]

JRudi, I really do not believe in eminent domain, but this is not black and white.

Some times it really needs to be done. I think in the case of widening Blue Ravine Road out North of East Bidwell, it should be done. If the land owner will not sell the land needed to widen that short area of Blue Ravine then I think in that case it should be acquired. That is the area out between Oak and Natomas. That area of Blue Ravine should be widened.

That is my thinking anyway. If Kerri voted for that then I agree with her. I think the other city council members did too.

I have to strongly disagree. Private property IS private property. Some one should NEVER be forced to sell, or lose if they refuse to sell, their own property for the benefit of someone else....especially if it is due to the short sightedness of planners and developers.

I know the families that own the property you believe should be acquired by eminent domain. Those families have lived there before the homes were ever developed across from them. Those families were there first....way before ANY other housing was even a twinkle in the eye to the city & developers. The developers chose to create a housing with a minor roadway. It was the problem of planners and developers. How does that become the problem or responsibility of the families across the way?!

The city wants to fix the problem by forcing families to give up their land without proper compensation or complete loss if they disagree. Those families have had to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to retain the rights to keep their own land. The city of Folsom somehow feels "entitled" to that land....just because they want it. Those families have been offered pennies on the dollar of the true value of their property/land; and when they have protested, or asked for a more fair compensation, they have had to fight to keep the city from just TAKING IT!! Unfortunately, these families have lost more than they have won. Their family heritage is slowly being taken away from them...little by little. A nyone who thinks they have been fairly compensated for their land is sorely mistaken. Most often than not, it has simply been taken from them.

If any city council member has voted for the use of eminent domain in the past, which it appears they have, I will NOT be voting for them. Having now met the families that have faced this nightmare....I would never wish it upon anyone else. But, what is even more disgusting about eminent domain is how the city DOES go about it....simply because they feel they are entitled! If the city still believes Blue Ravine needs to be widened, may they should look at compensating or using eminent domain on the homes on the OTHER side of Blue Ravine....that frontage street. Oh, I hear the outcry now! A home to one is the same as a home of many. If it is to benefit the members of our city, those families on the other side of Blue Ravine should be happy to lose THEIR land and/or home to benefit Folsom. It is the same PRINCIPAL! Think before you respond...or you may let your hypocrisy show!

[tony]

Actually, studies have shown that red light cameras can be an effective tool in reducing red light violations at busy intersections. Frankly, this is a safety issue, and safety should always be placed at a higher priority than things such as costs/revenues or popularity with the public.

However, red light cameras have proven to be very successful from a revenue vs. expenditures perspective in many agencies. For example, Elk Grove recently installed them at several of their busy intersections, and they are quite pleased with the results. They have not only been effective at reducing red-light violations, but have also provided some surprising revenues.

Also, studies have shown that short-term increased speed enforcement generally has very temporary results. Speeds often return to prior levels within just days or weeks afterward. Rather than concentrating enforcement at certain locations for a limited period of time as Folsom P.D. is doing, they should try to have a more uniform presence year-round. Don't just be seen for a few days in concentrated force at the beginning of the school year and then go away. Make a point to be seen in school zones throughout the school year. I realize that they have limited resources, but spreading what they have around in all school zones continuously would be more effective in the long run than what they are currently doing. Also, signage and markings in school vicinities should be looked at as well. Make sure that it is VERY clear to motorists that they are entering a school zone and that they need to reduce their speed when required. Lastly, the speed display units can be very effective in controlling speeds as well, and they are relatively inexpensive to employ. Folsom P.D. should make more use of these.

JRudi (whomever you are):

You took the words right out of my mouth. Red light cameras are about safety, and they have been proven to work. If they are revenue neutral or better, than they are a bargain! And, sorry Kerri, public opinion is a sorry reason not to use them. Public apathy to the 35,000 people who die and the millions who are injured in car crashes every year is why we don't do lots of things that would make our roads safer, like eliminating the 85th percentile rule for setting speed limits in urban areas, where the clear danger of fast-moving cars to pedestrians (how many of you parents will let your kids walk or bike to school?) is ignored by state law (a city can legally lower a speed limit only 5 mph below the rounded 85th percentile speed, even on a road with no sidewalks and 50 mph traffic).

Darth is correct that they sometimes result in an increase in rear end collisions (from people who were planning on pushing the orange light but didn't notice the car stopping in front of them), but these crashes are far less serious than the broadside ones they prevent. These high speed red light runners (have you ever seen someone slow down to run a red light? Well, yes, to make a right turn on red without stopping) are the people who make living in suburbia more dangerous than living in the city. That's right, your odds of getting killed in a car wreck in suburbia outweigh the combined odds of dying through criminal violence or a car wreck in the city.

And since I mentioned right turn on red violations, the legislature very generously is trying to lower the fine for this "victimless crime" (as Darth described it), completely ignoring the fact that failure to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk at a signalized intersection is one of the most common causes of the nearly 10,000 annual pedestrian fatalities in the US (although drunk drivers and drunk pedestrians are significant as well).

Finally, since we're talking about speed limits, in case you all didn't notice, the speed limit on Natoma Street from Sibley to Riley is 25 mph, because this is a residential neighborhood, just like the streets on which you all live.

[JRudi]

JRudi (whomever you are):

You took the words right out of my mouth. Red light cameras are about safety, and they have been proven to work. If they are revenue neutral or better, than they are a bargain! And, sorry Kerri, public opinion is a sorry reason not to use them. Public apathy to the 35,000 people who die and the millions who are injured in car crashes every year is why we don't do lots of things that would make our roads safer, like eliminating the 85th percentile rule for setting speed limits in urban areas, where the clear danger of fast-moving cars to pedestrians (how many of you parents will let your kids walk or bike to school?) is ignored by state law (a city can legally lower a speed limit only 5 mph below the rounded 85th percentile speed, even on a road with no sidewalks and 50 mph traffic).

Darth is correct that they sometimes result in an increase in rear end collisions (from people who were planning on pushing the orange light but didn't notice the car stopping in front of them), but these crashes are far less serious than the broadside ones they prevent. These high speed red light runners (have you ever seen someone slow down to run a red light? Well, yes, to make a right turn on red without stopping) are the people who make living in suburbia more dangerous than living in the city. That's right, your odds of getting killed in a car wreck in suburbia outweigh the combined odds of dying through criminal violence or a car wreck in the city.

And since I mentioned right turn on red violations (the legislature very generously is trying to lower the fine for this "victimless crime" (as Darth described it), completely ignoring the fact that failure to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk at a signalized intersection is one of the most common causes of the nearly 10,000 annual pedestrian fatalities in the US (although drunk drivers and drunk pedestrians are significant as well).

Finally, since we're talking about speed limits, in case you all didn't notice, the speed limit on Natoma Street from Sibley to Riley is 25 mph, because this is a residential neighborhood, just like the streets on which you all live.

Tony: You're obviously a bright person and you know your stuff. I've decided to not challenge you on anything.

[rlsliger]

A long time Folsom resident and reader of this forum, but new to posting.

You mentioned that you're a long time reader of this forum. What's held you back from posting about all this in the past? What is your motive for doing it now?

[camay2327]

JRudi, if you want anyone on here to believe anything you say, let us know who you really are...

You must work for the city or have in the past.

[Redone]

JRudi, if you want anyone on here to believe anything you say, let us know who you really are...

You must work for the city

I don't understand why IF you actually believe the poster works for the City that you (A) continue to discredit his/her posts so much and (B) think that a City employee would come out by name.

At least he/she didn't do one post and leave like a troll. They keep posting...

[JRudi]

You mentioned that you're a long time reader of this forum. What's held you back from posting about all this in the past? What is your motive for doing it now?

These are tough times for everyone, and knowing what has occurred at city hall in the past and the likelihood that it will continue unless changes occur on the council frustrates me greatly. I want to see change, and I want to see it not for selfish reasons but to benefit this entire community. I am hopeful that by exposing the corruption more will want to see change as well.

Wish me luck.