I attended the Planning Commission meeting where the City of Folsom contract to provide water for development S of 50 was discussed and voted on by the Commissioners. Planning Commissioner Jenifer Lane was the ONLY Planning Commissioner that voted NO saying that as we are in a state wide drought, why would the City want to add thousands of new homes and contract to the provide water when we (residents) are being asked to conserve water.
First, I am very happy that Jennifer at least spoke up. But please rewatch the video.
http://folsom.granic...=6&clip_id=1216
Her remarks had nothing to do with the fact the City is stealing our water and turning their back on their “beloved” Measure W that they love throwing in our face and say we “voted to approve” development south of 50.
Her only point was that during this time of drought, they should not vote to approve additional development. Point well made, and appreciated. However, not near far enough. I was left with the feeling that if we were not in a drought she would not of spoken up at all, just given her rubber vote of approval like the four yahoos beside her on the Commission.
I will add that this did show some character. She knew very well it was a pointless comment. The other four completely ignored her with comment or rebuttal.
Former Mayer Holderness/current land speculators lawyer, provided his typical shell game type of response – talk with authority but offer no real content at all.
Had she said one word about Measure W and stealing our water, I would claw my way to the front of the line to support her. But after years of observing new candidates come and go, with some leaving a very bad taste that they were a plant to split the votes going to new comers, I, as we all should be, am very cautious about getting our hopes up over a single event.
ALL current Council members heavily endorse developing south of 50 at any cost to you and me, the current residents. In terms of money, additional smog, traffic congestion, and water supply to name a few. Ernie Sheldon is no different; he has voted lock step with the other liars (comment made on fact, not opinion). Ernie appointed a close friend of his, Jennifer, to the Commission, so I can’t help being skeptical.
That being said, she is still a far better choice than any of the three incumbents. The belabored point I am getting at, is that we have an amazing opportunity to win back our City, slow down development south of 50 by reversing the water theft by vote of a new council majority or by legal action.
My concern is, would Jennifer vote contrary to Ernie?
Roger and Chad are solid. But again, without a slate, and being opposed by a war chest that will surly easily clear $100 thousand, neither stand a chance alone. I highly encourage them to pool resources, contacts, name recognition, etc. We need 100% of voters that vote for Roger to also vote for Chad and vice versa.
To complete this, they need to bring in a third, so that they will have the combined support that will be generated by all three. I trust Sandra, who has been outspoken and active in this City for over 20 years, but this is obviously a decision to be made by Chad and Roger. My support will be 100% behind which ever trio results. But please, if it is Jenifer, vet her thoroughly first. Is she willing to go on record to stop the theft of our water? Is she willing to go on record to put the brakes on south of 50, and give residents a real say in our future?
Fundraising via a Kickstart like method is a good idea, but still unlikely to bring in anywhere near the dollars raised by the incumbents. However, that combined with social media and getting a few primary messages out that will attract the print media (Bee since the Telegraph is Chamber controlled), may stand a good chance.
