158 replies to this topic

[tessieca]

How is it helpful to any voters to just pose questions to and attack one candidate? Kerri clearly supports annexation of the SOI and concepts of smart growth without infringing upon personal property rights. Do you truly think any other candidate would answer that question differently? Kerri, in general, disapproves of eminent domain, but admits there are times when it is needed. Who in the field would claim that under no circumstances would they vote for eminent domain? I would ask all of them if they support the proposition that eminent domain would EVER be acceptable for purposes of turning the land over to a private developer. That precedent exists and is downright scary. I hope none of the candidates would say that is okay. I prefer the city council making these decisions over the County of Sacramento.

There is far more to city council membership than development these days. We need to have people committed to policies that protect our quality of life and fiscal viability. So far, agree or disagree, like or dislike, our council overall has done a nice job with these things.

[camay2327]

OK, I know who JRudi is. Enough said.

[ducky]

How is it helpful to any voters to just pose questions to and attack one candidate? Kerri clearly supports annexation of the SOI and concepts of smart growth without infringing upon personal property rights. Do you truly think any other candidate would answer that question differently? Kerri, in general, disapproves of eminent domain, but admits there are times when it is needed. Who in the field would claim that under no circumstances would they vote for eminent domain? I would ask all of them if they support the proposition that eminent domain would EVER be acceptable for purposes of turning the land over to a private developer. That precedent exists and is downright scary. I hope none of the candidates would say that is okay. I prefer the city council making these decisions over the County of Sacramento.

There is far more to city council membership than development these days. We need to have people committed to policies that protect our quality of life and fiscal viability. So far, agree or disagree, like or dislike, our council overall has done a nice job with these things.

Good post, tessica. The bolded is what I'm concerned with. I understand in cases where there is no other place for a road or bridge to go, but I don't believe that will be the case. I know of what I speak. My first house as a kid is now an off ramp of the 210 freeway in LA.

[old soldier]

the way to tell if there is a snitch in city hall would be to look for a wall of sandbags being set up. thats what they do in places they have firing squads. thats probably what would happen to a snitch, of course they could get the developers to cough up some money for a gallows

old soldier has his eyes open and will report

[JRudi]

the way to tell if there is a snitch in city hall would be to look for a wall of sandbags being set up. thats what they do in places they have firing squads. thats probably what would happen to a snitch, of course they could get the developers to cough up some money for a gallows

old soldier has his eyes open and will report

Old Soldier: I wouldn't label someone a "snitch" if they are attempting to expose corruption in government, especially if their goal is to effect reform. Wouldn't it be a nice change to have a few honest people on the council who are not in the back pockets of big money developers and who do not attack people (or have other people do their dirty work for them) that expose them?

[old soldier]

Old Soldier: I wouldn't label someone a "snitch" if they are attempting to expose corruption in government, especially if their goal is to effect reform. Wouldn't it be a nice change to have a few honest people on the council who are not in the back pockets of big money developers and who do not attack people (or have other people do their dirty work for them) that expose them?

good point, jrudi, I will change the term from snitch to "patriotic whistleblower" but the consequence would be the same if the council folks smoke the identity out. lots of time the lead crooks forget their actions are being watched by the little people.

jrudi, from your vantage point, who has the most clout on the council and would be the old point man for the developer folks. it seems like when you get a treasure like south of 50 where a lot of bucks can be made the developer folks see it easier to buy/sweet talk city council folks rather than make a case with the people.

I harken back to the effort the developer folks made to bump that petition 4500 folsom folks signed that mostly said what happened south of 50 would be voted on by the people, but the developer measure W had the council folks giving all approvals.

there are some skunks in the old woodpile and the question is how can you get folks excited enough to get mad and start looking.... it may be putting some of the development costs on the back of north of 50 folks just might do the trick..

[Darth Lefty]

I'd be glad to read any studies not funded by Redflex or ATS or IIHS (all of whom have their hand in the camera till) that prove anything about red light cameras working. In the meantime here are a whole lot that show they don't:

• Chicago, IL (University of IL at Chicago)
• Virginia (Virginia DOT)
• Grand Prairie, Alberta (amusingly, they suggest they will fix the increased accident rate at intersections by adding speed cameras too)
• Peoria, AZ General conclusion, recommend increase length of yellow lights to reduce accidents (note slide 20 that rear-end accidents at 83rd & Tbird went up 233%). This will of course reduce revenue.
• Oxnard, CA'"The Oxnard red light camera study violates many basic principles of sound statistical public health research and lacks internal and external validity," the Florida researchers concluded.'
• Houston, TX Accidents doubled
• U. South Florida IIHS has its hand in the till... "IIHS behavior is similar to the tobacco industry in that both industries conducted their own research via a separate 'scientific' institute, which was used to advance a product despite independent research producing contrary conclusions that raise health and safety concerns."
• Stockton, CA "Between 1999 and 2003, before cameras were installed, there were an average of 14 fatal collisions each year in Stockton. After cameras were activated, fatalities climbed 47 percent to 20.7 per year between 2004 and 2006. The city, nonetheless, has declared the program a success with the city auditor suggestion a boost in the number of cameras from twelve to twenty. Since the program began July 14, 2004, Redflex has issued 21,202 tickets worth $7 million. For its services, Redflex, the Australian company in charge of red light camera ticketing, kept $1,926,672. After various state and local jurisdictions take their share, Stockton pockets $183,078 in profit each year."

And so on ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, the "profits" are going to evaporate in litigation... and also the fact that Folsom won't make money on the right turn violation anywhere there's a scoop. The city will also wind up footing the bill indirectly for all the efforts of the contractor to prevent citizens from kicking the cameras out.

[JRudi]

jrudi, from your vantage point, who has the most clout on the council and would be the old point man for the developer folks. it seems like when you get a treasure like south of 50 where a lot of bucks can be made the developer folks see it easier to buy/sweet talk city council folks rather than make a case with the people.

I harken back to the effort the developer folks made to bump that petition 4500 folsom folks signed that mostly said what happened south of 50 would be voted on by the people, but the developer measure W had the council folks giving all approvals.

Old Soldier: This is a difficult question to answer because each council member has one vote (i.e. no one has any more voting power than the others). Also, in the City Charter, the Mayor is afforded some additional responsibilities but no additional authority (to speak of). So, you can't always assume that in a City Manager form of government (which Folsom is) that the Mayor is typically going to be the most powerful and influencial council member. This, of course, is different in many big cities like San Francisco and L.A. where the mayor has authority to manage staff. (Kevin Johnson tried to have some of that authority granted to him through his strong mayor proposal.)

However, one way council members can increase their influence is through the manipulation of staff, and that occurred quite often with the city's previous administration. The city manager at that time was much closer to a couple of the council members than they were to the others, and this resulted in some council members being able to sway staff decisions their way. However, this was a contributing factor to what eventually led to that city manager being forced out (by essentially a three to two vote).

As for Measure W, is does allow the city council to retain their authority to grant entitlements for the project, but this is no different than any other project in town and is typical how local governments work. The alternative, having the voters approve the entitlements, is what was proposed in the petition by Bob Fish (I believe), and is the exception and not the norm. But, Measure W essentially duplicates in many ways the requirements LAFCO placed on future development of the land when they granted the city a Sphere of Influence over the area in the late 1990's. (A Sphere of Influence is a grant of authority that allows an adjacent jurisdiction limited say in the future zoning and development of an area and typically precedes the annexation process. Without this, they would have essentially no say, except through a legal challenge of the environmental document.) Many of the requirements of Measure W are very onerous, and will be difficult for the project to satisfy, especially in this economy. But, it all boils down to whether these requirements will be strictly enforced. If history repeats itself, many of these requirements will not be strictly enforced unless an upset in balance on the city council occurs in this upcoming election. And, if Ms. Howell remains on the council, there will be no such change.

[camay2327]

You are so FULL of yourself. If the other 4 members stay there will be no change either.

[JRudi]

You are so FULL of yourself. If the other 4 members stay there will be no change either.

Camay: You previously criticized me for taking a personal shot at a poster on this forum, and used your authority as the Moderator to censor me. Evidently, based on this comment, that same rule doesn't apply to you?

It's about time that you step back and reflect on what your role should be as the Moderator of this forum. You have repeatedly revealed your obvious bias in support of one particular council member (Ms. Howell) and against the other four. If anyone on this forum should be neutral, or at least should encourage an open exchange of opinions, it is you.

You should be insisting that all arguments and criticisms posted on this forum be fact-based. You also should not use your authority as the Moderator to dissuade, through censorship and intimidation, anyone who posts on this forum (as you have done with me). This a public forum and thus should be used as a mechanism to provide information to the public. Any attempts by you to restrict that, especially using your authority as the Moderator, is doing a disservice to the public.

It became especially clear early on when I began positing that you are an adamant Kerri Howell supporter, and that you don't want any information posted on this forum that reflects negatively on Ms. Howell and which could possibly jeopardize her bid for re-election to the city council. Regardless of what you personally think of me (and, by the way, other than what you have been undoubtedly fed from Ms. Howell, you don't know me), you have an obligation to the readers of this forum to allow them to hear both sides of the issues involving Ms. Howell. She is an elected official and has chosen to pursue re-election to the city council. For this reason alone, she as well as her supporters such as you and the many others who regularly post on this forum, should accept that her suitability to continue serving on the city council will be the subject to question, challenge and debate.

From this point on, I would like to challenge you and Ms. Howell's other loyalists on the forum to engage in a purely fact-based exchange of arguments concerning all candidates for the Folsom city council. I am hopeful that you and the others accept this challenge.

[camay2327]

Camay: You previously criticized me for taking a personal shot at a poster on this forum, and used your authority as the Moderator to censor me. Evidently, based on this comment, that same rule doesn't apply to you?

It's about time that you step back and reflect on what your role should be as the Moderator of this forum. You have repeatedly revealed your obvious bias in support of one particular council member (Ms. Howell) and against the other four. If anyone on this forum should be neutral, or at least should encourage an open exchange of opinions, it is you.

You should be insisting that all arguments and criticisms posted on this forum be fact-based. You also should not use your authority as the Moderator to dissuade, through censorship and intimidation, anyone who posts on this forum (as you have done with me). This a public forum and thus should be used as a mechanism to provide information to the public. Any attempts by you to restrict that, especially using your authority as the Moderator, is doing a disservice to the public.

It became especially clear early on when I began positing that you are an adamant Kerri Howell supporter, and that you don't want any information posted on this forum that reflects negatively on Ms. Howell and which could possibly jeopardize her bid for re-election to the city council. Regardless of what you personally think of me (and, by the way, other than what you have been undoubtedly fed from Ms. Howell, you don't know me), you have an obligation to the readers of this forum to allow them to hear both sides of the issues involving Ms. Howell. She is an elected official and has chosen to pursue re-election to the city council. For this reason alone, she as well as her supporters such as you and the many others who regularly post on this forum, should accept that her suitability to continue serving on the city council will be the subject to question, challenge and debate.

From this point on, I would like to challenge you and Ms. Howell's other loyalists on the forum to engage in a purely fact-based exchange of arguments concerning all candidates for the Folsom city council. I am hopeful that you and the others accept this challenge.

-------------------


You are right, I am a moderator. I also have the right to give my opinion on things. I am not deleting your items on here. When you and your friend Robert come on here and bash one person, that is also your right. The problem is most of the items that you are talking about were voted on and passed or not passed by the majority of the city council.

You are right again, my wife and I do support Kerri, we have that right too.

You have the right to support whoever you want to also.

I do not believe that I am doing a disservice to the people here on the net.

Also are you posting from work? I know that today is an off work day (holiday) but I mean the rest of the days you post.

[Steve Heard]

You should be insisting that all arguments and criticisms posted on this forum be fact-based.

We can't insist on that, as we can't investigate every post. I ask if you've been posting facts or opinion? You say that Kerri was against a couple of projects just because Ernie Sheldon supported them. Is that fact? Where is the proof?

As far as your accusations about the land deal is concerned, again, I am not an expert on such matters, but have taken the time to ask people who are or should be.

The way it was told to me is different than the way you are telling it now. I was told by two different parties on two different occasions:

* The city was going to sell some land, as they have many times before, for development purposes
* The land was appraised, and bids to purchase it were submitted
* The city council voted to approve the sale at $7.4 million, which was higher than the appraised value
* As a condition of the sale, the buyer was to pursue and obtain entitlements to develop the land. I am told this is standard practice. The buyer wants entitlements before completing the sale, otherwise, he's just buying scenery.
* It took many months, and millions of dollars pursuing the entitlements, which included mitigation of elderberries.
* After the entitlements were obtained, the sale was completed.
* After the sale was completed, the investor sold this land, which he had invested about $11 million in, now with entitlements, to another investor for about $21 million.

What seems to be sticking in the craw of those who see wrongdoing seem to have a problem with both the timing of the re-sale, and the fact that the land with entitlements is worth more than without.

So, should the city have canceled the deal once the buyer had spent the time, effort and money to obtain the entitlements, thus breaching the contract?

Should they have insisted on a higher price on the un-entitled land in the first place?

Should they have required that the buyer hold the land for a period of time before allowing a resale?

By the way, that land eventually went into foreclosure and was purchased, I believe, for $5.3 million, with entitlements, utilities, streets and sidewalks. Is the original buyer due a refund from the city?

I don't get why Kerri is being blamed. To say that it was wrong, but only Kerri should take the heat because she came on the forum to explain it is silly at best. It's either a crime or it isn't. The punishment isn't different for those who committed the crime than those who denied it.

But the question is whether or not a crime was committed in the first place. If you have facts to prove a case, I suggest the FBI, or maybe even the SacBee. They love a good scandal. Otherwise, it appears nothing more than a personal vendetta and smear campaign fueled by unprovable accusations.

[camay2327]

We can't insist on that, as we can't investigate every post. I ask if you've been posting facts or opinion? You say that Kerri was against a couple of projects just because Ernie Sheldon supported them. Is that fact? Where is the proof?

As far as your accusations about the land deal is concerned, again, I am not an expert on such matters, but have taken the time to ask people who are or should be.

The way it was told to me is different than the way you are telling it now. I was told by two different parties on two different occasions:

* The city was going to sell some land, as they have many times before, for development purposes
* The land was appraised, and bids to purchase it were submitted
* The city council voted to approve the sale at $7.4 million, which was higher than the appraised value
* As a condition of the sale, the buyer was to pursue and obtain entitlements to develop the land. I am told this is standard practice. The buyer wants entitlements before completing the sale, otherwise, he's just buying scenery.
* It took many months, and millions of dollars pursuing the entitlements, which included mitigation of elderberries.
* After the entitlements were obtained, the sale was completed.
* After the sale was completed, the investor sold this land, which he had invested about $11 million in, now with entitlements, to another investor for about $21 million.

What seems to be sticking in the craw of those who see wrongdoing seem to have a problem with both the timing of the re-sale, and the fact that the land with entitlements is worth more than without.

So, should the city have canceled the deal once the buyer had spent the time, effort and money to obtain the entitlements, thus breaching the contract?

Should they have insisted on a higher price on the un-entitled land in the first place?

Should they have required that the buyer hold the land for a period of time before allowing a resale?

By the way, that land eventually went into foreclosure and was purchased, I believe, for $5.3 million, with entitlements, utilities, streets and sidewalks. Is the original buyer due a refund from the city?

I don't get why Kerri is being blamed. To say that it was wrong, but only Kerri should take the heat because she came on the forum to explain it is silly at best. It's either a crime or it isn't. The punishment isn't different for those who committed the crime than those who denied it.

But the question is whether or not a crime was committed in the first place. If you have facts to prove a case, I suggest the FBI, or maybe even the SacBee. They love a good scandal. Otherwise, it appears nothing more than a personal vendetta and smear campaign fueled by unprovable accusations.

I know I am a moderator and all so hope it is OK for me to SAY...

+1000

[ducky]

I know I am a moderator and all so hope it is OK for me to SAY...

+1000

I think it is perfectly acceptable for you to say that, camay.

Stevethedad, excellent post above as well as your first post. I think you've said it best. Regardless of my personal feelings towards some of the incumbants, when you get down to brass tacks, I still love living in Folsom and need to acknowledge that they all are responsible for keeping Folsom a great place to raise a family.

[camay2327]

Ducky, I feel the same way. This is a great place to live. My wife and I looked long and hard to find the place we wanted to retire to. Folsom had/has what we needed and wanted. All in all the city councils that have been in since we arrived have done their jobs. I am not going to point fingers at any of them. I do know who I am voting for in the next election and so does my wife.