278 replies to this topic

[jagayman]

We rely on the decisions of elected officials all the time. The voters don't decide what laws are created and pass/fail in Congress -- the elected officials who are supposed to represent them do. It's simple logistics.

Now, when officials fail to represent their contingency, their contingency can decide not to re-elect them.

I'm not an expert in city development by any means. I have high-level concerns about maintaining open space, transportation, water supplies, etc... seeing how the CC has satifactorily encompassed my concerns, I'm happy to leave the details of the execution up to them and their experience and knowledgable staff.

Making offers to the effect that: traffic is bad and we can control traffic by requiring improvements to 50 before developers can develop the area south of 50, is very attractive to voters. I feel, however, that this is really just putting up a road block to new development via a chicken and the egg scenario. If this is not the case, please present a method by which developers can expand 50 before new development? Or is this not possible, in which case, the measure is really a "no growth" initiative?

And don't forget, you still have the power to change things that you do not feel are right. You're doing it right now as a prime example. Why would we believe that this is not an acceptable method in the future if we allow CC to make decisions that they feel is best for the city but the citizens decide to disagree? Yes, the burden is on the citizens then. I see that as a plus: It is easy to reject proposals in the voting booths all day long until you get the make believe perfect solution for everyone. The CC will develop a reasonable solution. We can still provide input through public forums and meetings. If we are still unhappy, then we can petition and change things. I hope, however, that we are going to reach that situation often. If it does, however, there is a litmus test that passed. It means that enough people truly have given it a fair shake and they still believe it needs to be worked out in the better interests of the Folsom residents.

Developers will not go through the litmus test too many times before they decide that it is better to please existing residents and compromise than to sit on land that only holds paper value until it is developed.

Anyways, it's just my opinion and eveyone is entitled to theirs. If both measures make it to the November ballot, one, both (still interested in what happens with that case), or neither may win (possibly from a split vote). Right now, I am pro responsible development south of 50 with the influence coming from Folsom. I only plan to approve only one, however, and with the new language, the CC measure is my current favorite.

-jason.

[forumreader]

Reminder:

Another "visioning process" workshop will be held tomorrow, Sat., 7/17 at the Folsom High library (1655 Iron Point Road) from 9:30 - 11:30.

City staff and planning consultants will be present to discuss the south of 50 sphere of influence development.

By the way, did anyone attend the workshop on the 14th? How was it?

[Patrick]

IMPORTANT!! IMPORTANT!! IMPORTANT!!

It is vitally important that interested Folsom residents participate in the City of Folsom's Sphere of Influence Visioning Process. Please provide your input about the future of undeveloped land south of Highway 50 between Prairie City Road, the El Dorado County line and White Rock road. This is an important opportunity to play an active role in shaping the city's future.

New Girl had many valid points and it is encumbent upon all of us to gather as much information as possible before voting in November on this very important issue. The bottom line is that that area IS going to be developed, with or without the City of Folsom's input. The question each voter needs to ask himself or herself before voting is, "Do you want the City of Folsom to continue with the look and feel that we currently have in Folsom along the north side of Highway 50, or would you rather have the look and feel that Sacramento County provided along Highway 50 in Rancho Cordova?

I personally think that one of many reasons Folsom is such a desirable place to live and work is because the City of Folsom has done a good job with the overall planning process and I for one would like to see that continued south of Highway 50.

This posting is very timely because TOMORROW, Saturday, July 17, 2004 the next meeting open to the public is scheduled at 11:30 A.M. at the Folsom High School Library, 1655 Iron Point Road. Please try your best to work this very important meeting into your schedule tomorrow.

For additional information on the entire process, please visit www.folsom.ca.us.

Thank you and hope to see as many of you there as possible. Make it a good weekend!

Best regards,
Patrick Warholic
Member, Folsom Chamber of Commerce

[Patrick]

IMPORTANT correction to the last posting:

The meeting time tomorrow, Saturday, July 17, 2004 is from 09:30 to 11:30 A.M. Sorry for the typo and hopefully this did not cause anyone to miss the meeting.

Regards,
Patrick Warholic
Member, Chamber of Commerce

[melloguy]

QUOTE (Patrick @ Jul 16 2004, 10:06 PM)

The bottom line is that that area IS going to be developed, with or without the City of Folsom's input.  The question each voter needs to ask himself or herself before voting is, "Do you want the City of Folsom to continue with the look and feel that we currently have in Folsom along the north side of Highway 50, or would you rather have the look and feel that Sacramento County provided along Highway 50 in Rancho Cordova?

I was a little disappointed in the Visioning Process meeting on Saturday. While they opened the meeting by stating that they would like to look at all development proposals, including no development, the SACOG representative proceeded with a presentation that focussed on four development scenarios with development ranging from 2,000+ to 14,000+ dwellings. As the number of dwellings increased, the traffic problems on Highway 50 increased.

And the SACOG recommendation? A fifth proposal that was hot-off-the-presses that morning that calls for 16,388 dwellings. Yes, that amounts to another 50,000 people for our town. Oh, did I mention that a traffic analysis on this proposal is not yet completed?

As for the person who asked who owns the land in the area and was told "private" landowners, I have included links for the single largest landowner in this area. If you really want to know how this will be developed, don't look at Highway 50 in Rancho, but look at the environmental track record of the single largest landholder in the South of 50 area.

Here is a link for the $500,000 fine he appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (and lost) for destroying wetlands:

http://sfgate.com/cg...17/MN116015.DTL

Here is a link for a referral to the Attorney General of a proposed $571,000 fine for allowing sediment runoff into Morrison Creek:

http://www.bizjourna.../02/daily9.html

Here is a link for a recent environmental "Dirty Dozen" ranking (see No. 6):

http://www.newsrevie...04-22/cover.asp

And, here is a link for another wetland problem:

http://www.sacbee.co...p-1274743c.html

Yeah, I look forward to stellar environmental stewardship in the South of 50 area.

[Love Folsom]

The fact that land owners are not always responsible is the exact reason that I would like to see Folsom have control of the land. If I, as a resident of Folsom, do not like what I see going on in the neighborhood I can go to the City of Folsom. There are five representatives to talk to, email and petition that are responsible for our City. If the area is outside of the City, in Sac County say, I can go to our one representative who is responsible for a vast area. There are many complaints about our councilors but they live here and want what is best for Folsom. We need to keep control the land south of 50. Personally I feel the sphere of influence is way too small and I worry about the rest of the land just across the freeway from the theaters. And with car dealerships buying land from Aerojet I guess that makes the land there very attractive to both Rancho and the county as there will be sales tax going with it.

[clearwater]

Hey LOVE,
What good would going to the city council do ? they are in thick with those that would develop the land.

[bordercolliefan]

Melloguy,

Thanks for that important information. It is outrageous that anyone would consider adding that number of dwellings (with the accompanying development, traffic, etc.) given the environmental problems we already face. The fact that SACOG recommended the absolute highest option in terms of number of dwellings makes me very cynical about the whole process.

I was also disappointed by the tenor of some of the citizen input (as described in the newspaper). People seemed to view it as a chance to air every whim they might have (like a kid composing a Christmas list), without thinking about the consequences. One example that stuck in my mind was someone who suggested putting an amusement park there. Thank you, but I don't think we need traffic coming from all over California to go to some tacky amusement park practically in our backyards.

All of these events make me more and more likely to vote for the Fish initiative. I no longer believe that the City Council hears us when we say we don't want hordes of people and traffic gridlock added to Folsom (let alone overcrowded schools, rationed water, and the like).

Melloguy, which initiative are you supporting?

[EDF]

I've read those links before...

I don't know if this means anything... but I find "ironic" that these fines are levied against a "big time" DEMOCRAT fat cat...

Funny how enviromental laws are only for us... not them....

[New Girl]

Border,

All the Fish Initiative will do is stop Folsom having control the land in the Sphere of Influence. Development will happen south of 50, whether the land is part of Sacramento County, Rancho Cordova or Folsom.

[Patrick]

Melloguy,

We need to keep in mind that these projected growth figures by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) covers the growth that is expected in this 6 county region by 2050. We are talking about the next 50 years.

I too was at the Saturday morning meeting, but did think that the process that the City of Folsom is undertaking to get input from the community regarding the South of 50 Sphere of Influence is a valuable and important process. There will always be some people who may want to sit back and read summaries in the newspaper, but the more active approach of attending these meetings and getting involved is what government by the people, and for the people is all about. The fact the the City wants to continue this input process over the next 12 months is also important to give the highest possible number of people an opportunity to express their opinions and to provide input. Hopefully everyone who frequents this site will take the opportunity to participate and to ecourage their Folsom friends and neighbors to participate as well.

I do not know if you had the opportunity to talk with Roberta MacGlashan after the meeting was over but I did and the conversation was most enlightening. She is one of two candidates running for County Supervisor in our district and was able to provide me with quite a bit of information regarding the granting to Folsom the Sphere of Influence for South of 50 by Sacramento County in 2001.

This Sphere of Influence lasts for a 10 year period and is for the specific purpose to provide time and input for Folsom to prepare for the ultimate goal of annexing that area into the City of Folsom. Thus, we are 3 years into the process and it expires in 7 years in 2011, at which time that area reverts back to the County of Sacramento for control.

Roberta explained that the County does not have to deal with nearly as many concerns that the City of Folsom is addressing should the area revert back to the County for control over development. Also, as "Love Folsom" mentioned, and Roberta brought up the same point, is that if we as residents of Folsom elect to give the City of Folsom control over the process, we have input to each one of the 5 City Council members. If we do not like the direction they are taking things, we can always vote them out in favor of someone more closely aligned with the majority opinion. Whereas, if the SOI expires in 7 years and the City of Folsom has not annexed the area, we as residents of Folsom then only can influence one of the 5 County Supervisors.

Roberta explained to me that many people who seem to be favoring the grass roots effort fail to understand is that if that (no growth) issue passes in November, it only effects the City of Folsom but does nothing at all to control or provide any input to the County of Sacramento when the SOI expires in 2011. Thus, we as residents of Foslom would reduce our control over the process by 80% (One County Supervisor vs. five City Council Members). It certainly appears to me that our strongest and best position would obviously be to elect to put the process in the hands of the City of Folsom.

Hope this helps and make it a good day. Stop over and say "hello" at the next meeting.

Best regards,
Patrick Warholic
Member, Folsom Chamber of Commerce

[melloguy]

QUOTE (Patrick @ Jul 19 2004, 04:53 PM)

We need to keep in mind that these projected growth figures by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) covers the growth that is expected in this 6 county region by 2050. We are talking about the next 50 years. Roberta explained to me that many people who seem to be favoring the grass roots effort fail to understand is that if that (no growth)  issue passes in November, it only effects the City of Folsom but does nothing at all to control or provide any input to the County of Sacramento when the SOI expires in 2011.

I am keeping in mind that this is a 50 YEAR PLAN. What most who know understand and what has been mostly unspoken during this "Visioning" process so far is that Folsom is well ahead of its projected build-out date and would attempt to develop this property almost immediately (i.e. within the next 15-20 years). With Folsom, we have seen that the current council lets developer dollars take precedent over current residents concerns for traffic and other infrastructure issues.

I also have in mind that along the 50 corridor, there are already approved developments plans for more than 100,000 additional people (Sunrise-Douglas and Folsom to current build-out) in addition to another 2,000+ dwelling proposal by Aerojet along 50 between Folsom Blvd. and Prarie City. Any guesees to what 50 will look like after all the approved developments are completed?

New Girl - Both the City's and Citizen's Initiatives deal predominantly with a small portion of land south of 50 that is between Prarie City, Scott, and White Rock Roads. It is outside Sacramento County's urban services boundary and will require a 4/5 Board of Supervisors vote to change from agriculture/open space. It is much easier and more likely for Folsom to develop this land in the near future and without SERIOUS consideration for traffic, air, etc. impacts than for Sac Co. Aerojet as we know is also south of 50 and has about 4x this amount of land which is currently developed industrial but will likely change within the next 50 years. Aerojet's land I do expect to be developed more densely.

Did anyone else notice that all 5 development scenarios presented by SACOG at the CITY'S meeting had at least 35% open space and as much as 45%? So, why does the current City initiative only call for 30%? To expand on my earlier post about the 16,000+ dwellings - this is much more dense than Bay Area cities Campbell, Concord, and Los Altos and is about the same density as So Cal cities/areas of Compton, Downey, and Long Beach. Since this proposal will not only fit the City's current initiative but can even be built MORE DENSE, I obviously will not be supporting the City's proposed initiative.

[ducky]

I was in city hall today and at the entrance is a sign that says "South of 50 Interviews" with people in the room off to the right talking at a conference room table. What are the interviews about? Does anyone know?

[camay2327]

The way I see it::::

The problem seems to be that the residents of Folsom think the SACOG blueprint recommendations are supported by the City of Folsom, referring to the information that was presented at the Council meeting and then again at the visioning meetings.

Starting with the basic assumption that there will be was it 1.7 million people over the next planning period, which will require the building of a bunch of housing units, there were various recommendations made, during the blueprint process, A thru D. (I think my wife and I liked "C" the best, but do not have it in front of me)

The recommendations showed both jobs and housing.  The recommended alternate included limited jobs and 16,000 housing units.  THIS SCENARIO DID NOT COME FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.. It is the recommendation of the Region (of which we are only a small number).

This is even more reason for Folsom to have control over what happens there. If the Region thinks we need more housing over there, it is more likely that a large number of homes would be approved for that area by either the County or Rancho.  We already have a very good jobs/housing balance, which is why our budget is in much better shape than the rest of the region.

Now, SACOG is trying to convince us that we have too many jobs, and too much of a tax base and we need to build more homes (or be adversely effected by their presence, if constructed in another jurisdiction).  Single family housing is a drain on local budgets - that is why they would have us build them.

---

We need commercial businesses south of 50 and limited housing.

[EDF]

Yea but Cal....

They are going to build houses mostly... and houses as you know do not pay for themselves...

You are making a big mistake backing the City... They will screw you and me if they get the chance....

But what do I know... I've only been here for 15 years....so I wouldn't know... not really....