224 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

I called CODE using Pete's direct line again yesterday and he again called me back this morning. He asked for specific locations which I gave him 3 and he said he would look into them. I told him all he had to do was to take one of the two signs down in each location and all would be fine.
He was going to get some clarification of the regulations.
If I see no change in the Starsky signs in a couple of days I will call him back unless he calls me back first.


And as far as Kerri's comment "multiple big signs are likely to exceed the maximum square footage in the sign ordinance, by a couple of feet." , we are not talking a couple of feet, we are talking 64 Sq ft for the two signs Vs the allowance of 40 Sq feet...

While they are looking for clarification, Mr Starsky benefits from his illegal signs remaining.

[Roger Gaylord]

I'd hate to correct Mayor Howell; however the site on Folsom Blvd is NOT a Buzz Oats owned property, she's wrong. I'm not surprised she is ignoring the fact that Starsky's signs are illegal. Just so everyone knows I called code enforcement three (3) times regarding the signs and was told they would be looked into yet no action has happened.

The whole campaign sign deal is really a clear vision into how the established "leaders" (career politicians I like to call them) try to make it impossible for anyone FRESH to step up and make a difference and rig the system. I have had (19) NINETEEN signs stolen to date, have you heard anything about this? Not one word. What's ironic is just about every sign I have stolen a "Chamber for Starsky" sign goes up at the same spot....

Starsky and The Chamber can put up all the signs they want; our Mayor can ignore the issues like usual. This only proves my cause and fires me up. I can promise you the "players" feel the challenge. Especially after the meeting I just had. This is anyone's race regardless of the amount or size of Starsky's signs. Keep the complaints coming; there’s another election in (2) years and Mayor Howell is up to bat….. This will bite her in the rear.

Roger Gaylord III
FRESH FACE FOR FOLSOM CITY COUNCIL 2012
WWW.GAYLORD4FOLSOM.COM

[supermom]

I'd hate to correct Mayor Howell; however the site on Folsom Blvd is NOT a Buzz Oats owned property, she's wrong. I'm not surprised she is ignoring the fact that Starsky's signs are illegal. Just so everyone knows I called code enforcement three (3) times regarding the signs and was told they would be looked into yet no action has happened.

The whole campaign sign deal is really a clear vision into how the established "leaders" (career politicians I like to call them) try to make it impossible for anyone FRESH to step up and make a difference and rig the system. I have had (19) NINETEEN signs stolen to date, have you heard anything about this? Not one word. What's ironic is just about every sign I have stolen a "Chamber for Starsky" sign goes up at the same spot....

Starsky and The Chamber can put up all the signs they want; our Mayor can ignore the issues like usual. This only proves my cause and fires me up. I can promise you the "players" feel the challenge. Especially after the meeting I just had. This is anyone's race regardless of the amount or size of Starsky's signs. Keep the complaints coming; there's another election in (2) years and Mayor Howell is up to bat….. This will bite her in the rear.

Roger Gaylord III
FRESH FACE FOR FOLSOM CITY COUNCIL 2012
WWW.GAYLORD4FOLSOM.COM

+1
Roger I sent you e-mail, did you get it?

[folsom500]

OK - The clock is ticking - Pete sent me an email on Oct 3 at around 2:50 pm saying that the issue on my specific 4 locations had been reviewed ( I sent him the detail regs from the Folsom Website as well as the locations that I have seen) and that the "owner' of the signs had been notified to take action.

Now it is a matter of WHEN or IF this will happen.

My 4 locations are -
1. Quick Quack- Blue Ravine and Prairie City
2. Creekside and E bidwell
3. Iron Point - just east of Subway and the jewelry store across from the outlets
4. Sibley between Blue Ravine and Glenn on the left side by the Auto repair.

If you have other specific locations or wish to use the same ones above- Call Pete at Code at 355-7316 or email him at ppiccardo@folsom.ca.us

I have always had a response from him within 24 hours ( excluding weekends)

I will call and email him again on Monday if I see no change by then ( as of this morning - NONE of the signs have been removed)

Also it looks like this is also a growing problem with commercial real estate signs on Prairie City Road , which I will look into as well-- I am tired of these large signs cluttering up our city..

[Robert Giacometti]

OK - The clock is ticking - Pete sent me an email on Oct 3 at around 2:50 pm saying that the issue on my specific 4 locations had been reviewed ( I sent him the detail regs from the Folsom Website as well as the locations that I have seen) and that the "owner' of the signs had been notified to take action.

Now it is a matter of WHEN or IF this will happen.

My 4 locations are -
1. Quick Quack- Blue Ravine and Prairie City
2. Creekside and E bidwell
3. Iron Point - just east of Subway and the jewelry store across from the outlets
4. Sibley between Blue Ravine and Glenn on the left side by the Auto repair.

If you have other specific locations or wish to use the same ones above- Call Pete at Code at 355-7316 or email him at ppiccardo@folsom.ca.us

I have always had a response from him within 24 hours ( excluding weekends)

I will call and email him again on Monday if I see no change by then ( as of this morning - NONE of the signs have been removed)

Also it looks like this is also a growing problem with commercial real estate signs on Prairie City Road , which I will look into as well-- I am tired of these large signs cluttering up our city..

Obvisouly Pete is being TOLD what to do about this....NOTHING!

I'm not loosing much sleep over the clutter. IMO, the bigger issue is having inconsistent standards of enforcement depending on WHO one is in the community!

What this demonstrates to all of us is the corrupton that is going on in this community! To not enforce existing requirements of our sign ordinance for a City council member seeking reelection, when that lack of action creates an unfair advantage over a challengar is absolutely wrong!

If our Local government will do this to its own citizens who knows to what limits they will go to any one of us going forward!( maybe NOT charge for all the planning costs for S50?)

I'm so pleased to see those of us who may have philosophical idealogical beliefs unting together to speak out about this blatant miscarriage of justice! This isn't about who we like in upcoming election, its about making sure that our local government treats all of us equally and fairly!

[folsom500]

I am guessing that Robert is right about this situation as CODE is doing NOTHING despite Pete telling that it was being taken care of.

I sent emails and phone messages on the 5th, the 9th and just now, all with CC to Jeff and Kerri- but have heard nothing back. Normally I get a call back and an email response from Pete within 24 hours - but not this time--- something is not right.

I will continue to call and email until I find out what is going on...

[camay2327]

I emailed Pete also and have heard nothing back.

What gives with our people not working for us?

[cw68]

Same here, no response. This isn't Pete; it's coming from above him.

[Robert Giacometti]

I emailed Pete also and have heard nothing back.

What gives with our people not working for us?

Anybody who has ever dealt with Pete, knows this isn't the way he conducts himself. Clearly he is being told WHAT to do and for WHO and against WHO!

This is what we get when we ALL allow the corruption to permeate and grow like it has over these past couple of decades. The Incumbants hired this City Manager, so he is NOT going to do anything that will jeoparadize their chances of getting reelected and keeping him employed!

Regardless of who one supports in the City's election, its absolutely wrong and corrupt to ignore and not enforce our own Signs ordinances when it benefits an existing council member seeking reelection! ALL of our exiting Council members share responsibility in allowing this to happen( they probably are not doing anything because most of them have done the same thing in the past).

Council members who are willing to do this probably are also willing to sell surplus land for 1/3 of its value in an arranged deal, NOT charge the landowners for all the planning costs for S50 and be willing to giveaway water rights without getting the full value back in return!

[Stop South of 50]

Unfortunately, the sheep in Folsom who pay no attention to politics are going to go to the voting booth this November and vote for Starsky because they'll remember his signs all over town. They'll be the uninformed voter who will be helping take this town down the wrong path.

It is unbelievable to see the corruption down at city hall. I have no doubts that Starsky is behind code enforcements lack of response.

Here is a link to contact CBS 13 about a news tip,

http://sacramento.cb...13-street-team/

If multiple people fill out the easy form, maybe we can see some action! This is UNACCEPTABLE!

[giacomo]

I'd hate to correct Mayor Howell; however the site on Folsom Blvd is NOT a Buzz Oats owned property, she's wrong. I'm not surprised she is ignoring the fact that Starsky's signs are illegal. Just so everyone knows I called code enforcement three (3) times regarding the signs and was told they would be looked into yet no action has happened.

The whole campaign sign deal is really a clear vision into how the established "leaders" (career politicians I like to call them) try to make it impossible for anyone FRESH to step up and make a difference and rig the system. I have had (19) NINETEEN signs stolen to date, have you heard anything about this? Not one word. What's ironic is just about every sign I have stolen a "Chamber for Starsky" sign goes up at the same spot....

Starsky and The Chamber can put up all the signs they want; our Mayor can ignore the issues like usual. This only proves my cause and fires me up. I can promise you the "players" feel the challenge. Especially after the meeting I just had. This is anyone's race regardless of the amount or size of Starsky's signs. Keep the complaints coming; there’s another election in (2) years and Mayor Howell is up to bat….. This will bite her in the rear.

Roger Gaylord III
FRESH FACE FOR FOLSOM CITY COUNCIL 2012
WWW.GAYLORD4FOLSOM.COM

But according to our fine Mayor its mostly just talk and probably not many folks who "chat" on MyFolsom have actually called code enforcement....Wow what a statement by Kerry . How did she come to this conclusion? She must've had her own fact finding committee. What a joke.. something really does stink at City Hall. BTW did anyone ever collect that $1000 reward from the Chamber? I'm beginning to doubt that any signs were stolen from Starsky. Starsky will never get my vote

[SacKen]

So, this type of stuff gets discussed every election cycle (corruption at City Hall; need to get fresh CCMs). Much like in previous years, what I see discussed on MyFolsom, including discussions with new faces running for a seat, never really makes it outside of MyFolsom.

How can these messages better reach the people of Folsom? Anytime I mention any of these topics or new people running for office with someone in the area, they have never heard of any of it. For people running for office, it's never more than, "Yeah, I saw their sign." So they just vote for the incumbent, thinking that Folsom is a pretty nice city so everything must be OK.

Do we ever hold a debate for City Council seats?

[4thgenFolsomite]

So, this type of stuff gets discussed every election cycle (corruption at City Hall; need to get fresh CCMs). Much like in previous years, what I see discussed on MyFolsom, including discussions with new faces running for a seat, never really makes it outside of MyFolsom.

How can these messages better reach the people of Folsom? Anytime I mention any of these topics or new people running for office with someone in the area, they have never heard of any of it. For people running for office, it's never more than, "Yeah, I saw their sign." So they just vote for the incumbent, thinking that Folsom is a pretty nice city so everything must be OK.

Do we ever hold a debate for City Council seats?

sort of. there are candidate nights held at different locations in town where the candidates come out and answer questions from the public together, pretty close to a debate. Roger, you seem to be posting on this thread. When is there a candidates night coming up soon that the public can attend.

[Robert Giacometti]

So, this type of stuff gets discussed every election cycle (corruption at City Hall; need to get fresh CCMs). Much like in previous years, what I see discussed on MyFolsom, including discussions with new faces running for a seat, never really makes it outside of MyFolsom.

How can these messages better reach the people of Folsom? Anytime I mention any of these topics or new people running for office with someone in the area, they have never heard of any of it. For people running for office, it's never more than, "Yeah, I saw their sign." So they just vote for the incumbent, thinking that Folsom is a pretty nice city so everything must be OK.

Do we ever hold a debate for City Council seats?

My idea would be to hold a recall 6 months after the election of ALL council members and make everyone get 50% plus 1 vote to keep their seat.

This would force every sitting council member to explain to the public why they didn't make the CM have their staff enforce the sign ordinance?