278 replies to this topic

[camay2327]

EDF, the city does not want just houses over south of 50. We do need businesses over there to increase the tax base for the city. I have been saying that all along.



----

[EDF]

Cal...

Hey... are you aware that that area is going to be a "revenue nuetral" area... by that I mean... "we ain't gettin all the tax money"... just like the automall

[camay2327]

We will take what we can get then...

[Patrick]

Melloguy,

I understand how you might feel that way and want to support the grass roots initiative, but please keep in mind that if that one passes and the City of Folsom does not end up having any influence over the area and is unable to annex it into the City boundaries, the SOI granted to the City will simply expire in 2011, 7 years from now, and simply revert back to the County of Sacramento.

As you must realize, if that should happen, the grass roots initiative will no longer be binding (since it only affects Folsom as a city and does nothing to bind the County) residents of Folsom will in effect be giving up more than 80% of their control over this area. Right now, if the CC acts in a manner suggested by "EDF", all five members of the City Council are subject to re-election by Folsom voters. If this area reverts back to the County in 2011, Folsom residents only have partial voter control over one of five county supervisors. Sacramento County District 4 includes the Cities of Citrus Heights and Folsom, and the communities of Antelope, Fair Oaks, Orangevale, and Gold River.

The bottom line is that our best shot at controlling the development process is with the City initiative. If you want a more detailed explaination about how the Sphere of Influence 10 year term window expires, please feel free to contact Roberta MacGlashan who is one of two candidates running for Sacramento County Supervisor in November. For your reference, she is currently a City Councilwoman and former two term mayor of Citrus Heights and her website is http://www.voteroberta.com .

Granted, there are a ton of questions we all have about protecting our environment and life styles with regard to the development in the South of 50 Sphere of Influence, but the only way to assure long term control is to help the City (and by defalut, each of us as residents of the City of Folsom) maintain effective control and annex that area into the City boundaries. The grass roots initiative simply is a short term, no growth statement, that expires and no longer has any effect if the SOI expires in 2011 without having been annexed into the City of Folsom.

Best regards and make it a good day,
Patrick Warholic
Member, Folsom Chamber of Commerce
[I][U]

[ducky]

Bob do you know what the South of 50 interviews were at city hall today?

[EDF]

Cal...

you'll take what you can get then... even thought it may not pay for itself...?

[valdossjoyce]

Ducky,

The interviews were called "stakeholder interviews." Certain individuals were invited for these interviews in which we were asked about what we'd like to see south of 50; if development were to take place, what kind of development; what are our concerns, etc.

The consultant met with me and Sara Myers; there was another consultant employee who was "taking notes" on a laptop.

We were also asked if we would be interested in participating in a stakeholder committee if one should be formed.

In some of her questions, she alluded to what other interviewees expressed. My guess is that they selected the most visible and outspoken people in the community on this issue, including businesses from the Chamber of Commerce; Sara and I were selected because we are founders of the inititiative. Bob was asked but I don't know if he went.

[ducky]

Thanks for the info, Val. I was just curious and trying to keep informed.

[Terry]

The county's new affordable housing policy would require that 15 percent of all housing built in the unincorporated county be affordable to families that earn less than half the area's median income - $57,700 a year for a family of three.

**************

Another good reason for Folsom to incorporate the area south of 50..................


See today's Sac Bee article regarding Sac County's plans to implement this requirement on all unincorporated county areas. This include the area south of 50.

[longgone]

I have missed some of this discussion----can the city of Folsom apply to annex that SOI land now? Or does that hang on the vote in Nov.?

[camay2327]

I think it will have to wait because we have two different items on the ballot. The Fish initiative and the Folsom one.

[Bob]

VOTE FOR MEASURE ‘T’ BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!


Terry,

I have enjoyed your many posts on other forum threads. You always seem to strive to provide good information to others. However, on the issue of developing south of 50, your lack of knowledge of the regional and local issues involved cannot be ignored.

That is, you simply do not have sufficient information to support your point.

State law passed in 1993 (I believe that was the year), requires ALL new developments to include a minimum of 15% inclusionary (spread around, not lumped in one building) affordable housing. Sacramento County, the City of Folsom, and others in this region had been ignoring State law until an affordable housing advocate sued.

A few years ago, the City of Folsom lost in court against the advocates and the settlement required two things:
1. Immediately rezone 120 acres for affordable housing. This has been completed.
2. Adopt a policy that all future developments will require 15% inclusionary housing. This was adopted by the City over a year ago.

So you see Terry, on this score, and many others, it would not matter who develops the land. Both agencies, City and County, were sued into compliance with State law and would have to provide 15% affordable housing. So would Rancho Cordova.

This brings up the broader question I have regarding this issue. The ONLY rational that our City Hall can muster up to oppose the Residents Initiative is the “Chicken Little” attack. Their falling sky is that the County or Rancho Cordova will develop that land if we do not. Therefore, they and others that also support the status quo of uncontrolled growth, where the Council retains authority to dictate the direction of development, will grasp at anything to paint the County or Rancho as the bad guys.

Terry, Camay, and the few others who seem so eager to jump on the City Hall bandwagon, I ask you to please take a few minutes and look at this issue without the City Halls “falling sky” influencing you. Contemplate our future if City Hall maintains the authority to continue uncontrolled development south of 50. Imagine the increased traffic congestion, the additional smog, the overcrowded schools, the drain on your taxes, etc. These are REAL concerns that can and have been quantified in numerous studies regarding what would happen if that area were developed under THEIR status quo scenario.

Is it really worth the gamble? That is, do we as a City allow them to continue to degrade the quality of our lives on the chance that the County MIGHT in 30+ years allow some development there?

I have not only provided this forum with the numbers associated with these and other impacts, but I have also provided the names of the documents, and sometimes direct internet links, for any interested resident to investigate for themselves. What has City Hall provided you? Proof that the County or Ranch will swoop in to develop south of 50 if we make it to “restrictive” (force developers to actually address our concerns)? Of course not, there is none. However, as I have also provided on this Forum, there is also strong evidence to the contrary, that is, that they wont.

Your comment regarding affordable housing is a prime example that their unsubstantiated message is getting out. Those who have not taken the time to educate themselves tend to be influenced by such exaggerated incitements.

You are not alone in taking an unsubstantiated idea regarding the issue of development south of 50 and using it incorrectly, and your error is certainly understandable. However, such unintentional mistakes can add up in the public eye to sway opinions if not corrected.

The reason I am explaining my motivation for correcting you, is that others, namely Council Members, Chamber of Commerce “leadership” and others who are desperately opposed to the Residents Initiative, which will give residents direct control, also, sometimes even purposefully (that is knowingly), use misinformation to confuse voters.

Please read my upcoming post for prime examples from this past Tuesday night’s Council meeting.

Council Member Andy Morin, we are all still awaiting your responses to my questions. We have been waiting a long time.


VOTE FOR MEASURE ‘T’ BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!


Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth


Note:
The Residents Initiative, which will give residents direct control, has been labeled as Measure “T” (as in 'T'errific for Folsom families) by the County.

The City Hall Initiative, which leaves all decision making with a simple majority of three Council members, will be Measure “W” (as in lots of 'W'iggle room for the Council).

[Bob]

VOTE FOR MEASURE ‘T’ BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!


Longgone,

Excellent question. Annexation is solely a State power. The controlling agency is LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission), a State agency.

http://www.saclafco.org/

They are the ones who granted Folsom the Sphere of Influence over the land from Highway 50 to White Rock road, allowed Rancho Cordova to become a City, and who also oversees school, fire district, water district, and other boundary issues.

The City has absolutely no power over this agency. Therefore, when annexation occurs, if ever, is solely up to them. Obviously, the City of Folsom has some clout in the matter, but no legal standing.

There are numerous cases around the State where all parties (City, County, land owners, and local voters) have not agreed as to weather a parcel should or should not be annexed to a City and LAFCO has made a decision one way or the other.

In Bakersfield, owners of some ranch land wanted to be annexed to the City, but the City did not want that land. LAFCO voted to require the annexation. So where am I headed with all this? The City Hall Initiative (Measure lots of “W”iggle room) wants voters to believe that annexation cannot occur until the City has met all of their promises to residents regarding what must happen before annexation occurs. The problem is, they have no legal authority to make such a promise. If the landowners request annexation from LAFCO directly, LAFCO could grant it without City Hall being “ready.” Is this likely to happen? Probably not, but the point is, the City cannot legally say it will not.

Regarding your question if annexation can occur before the vote this November, most definitely not. Besides the fact that LAFCO would certainly not act until the results of these Initiatives were settled, they could not possibly act so quickly as it requires a certain process that takes some time.

However, this brings me to my main point. After Measure “T”errific for Folsom Families passes this November, and that other one fails, the City CAN proceed with annexation even if the developers protest! The City then would have control over that land and the residents would have control over their City as what to do with that land!


Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth


VOTE FOR MEASURE ‘T’ BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

[waterbaby149]

Bob
I enjoyed your information on Tuesday night about how to avoid CEQA - although the state should be involved as the lead agency - they differ to the city -which is a very big problem
I support your issue based on the continual scare tactics being used by city hall
there are so many issues to the other side of 50 and the apparent greed will cause nothing but more headaches and problems for our city
there is concern that Gen Corp has applied to the County - let them - there will be unknowning people moving to this area - and the failure to have knowledge of the previous uses of this area and the failure to clean contamenation is very scary
Wake up people -- this is very much like medical malpractice - the patient believes that the doctor is god and doesn't ask questions and doesn't get a second opinion and then it is too late
Maybe we elected the City Council but they are not gods and do not have all the answers - we need to not have blind trust

[Terry]

QUOTE (Bob @ Jul 29 2004, 08:20 PM)

Terry, I have enjoyed your many posts on other forum threads. You always seem to strive to provide good information to others. However, on the issue of developing south of 50, your lack of knowledge of the regional and local issues involved cannot be ignored. That is, you simply do not have sufficient information to support your point. ).

Well, Bob, you may have "enjoyed" my posts in the past, but you don't seem to remember much of them. I've never opposed affordable housing, in fact, I've supported it. And in fact, many of my previous posts give the history of affordable housing laws and pointed to the fact that many city/county areas throughout the state are not in compliance.

I suppose my only error in the post to which you currently refer is not saying enough. I am opposed only to Sac County developing the area south of 50 because I don't see their development of unincorporated county areas as being too successful, particularly along freeway areas (remember, Rancho Cordova was developed under the guidance of Sac County planners, not the new City of Rancho Cordova).

So, my comment was probably a little misleading, so I'll restate it more completely. I would much prefer to see the City of Folsom develop the area south of 50 rather than the County of Sacramento. The City of Folsom has developed affordable housing guidelines that are inclusionary and much better thought out than what the county has done in the past.

Additionally, a comment about the city council - if you don't like them, vote them out, but don't legislate by referendum every time you don't like something. We still are a city, county, nation of majority rule.