158 replies to this topic

[JRudi]

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

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.

Camay: This is another cheap shot from you. I'll assume from this that you and the other members of Kerri's gang of thugs on this forum have decided not to accept my challenge of refraining from such personal attacks.

[ducky]

Camay, seems to me you made an inquiry, as opposed to name-calling, like, as an example, calling people thugs, which is more akin to a personal attack.

[camay2327]

JRudi, I will continue to post as I always do. I have been around here for quite some time and have a lot of posts.

However, I will not respond to you any longer.

[JRudi]

* 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.

To The Readers Of This Forum:
This provides a lot of detail about the sale of some city-owned land which took place a few years ago. There have been several posts made on this forum over the course of the past few days concerning this transaction. Typically, this level of detail would have to have been provided by someone on city staff, and to obtain it somone would have had to search through city files to assemble it. Someone somewhat familiar with the transaction might be able to piece some of this information together by reviewing previous city council reports and minutes, which may be available on the city's website, but this would be very difficult and time consuming. It also would be difficult for someone only remotely familiar with the transaction to obtain this information through a Public Records Act request because the person asking would have had to have enough detailed knowledge of the sale to request the correct information.

So, where did this information come from? One possibility is that it was assembled by a city staff member, and that the direction to do so came from someone associated with the city that had enough authority to have this done, such as a council member. Now, would this be an appropriate use of city staff if this occurred?

[ducky]

To the readers of this forum,

It's called a public records request. Anyone can do one. You don't have to be a thug. I've done it in the past and been successful at obtaining the information I've requested. Now, if someone has never done one, I guess they can claim that certain documents don't exist. Of course, that wouldn't be fact-based, but wth.

http://www.folsom.ca...bID=11697#page=

[Robert Giacometti]

To the readers of this forum,

It's called a public records request. Anyone can do one. You don't have to be a thug. I've done it in the past and been successful at obtaining the information I've requested. Now, if someone has never done one, I guess they can claim that certain documents don't exist. Of course, that wouldn't be fact-based, but wth.

http://www.folsom.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=11697#page=

Are you claiming Steve filed a public records request and got all these documents including all the documents from the developer proving they paid millions of dollars for getting these entitlements?

Maybe Steve could confirm he did indeed filed this request or not?

[ducky]

Are you claiming Steve filed a public records request and got all these documents including all the documents from the developer proving they paid millions of dollars for getting these entitlements?

Maybe Steve could confirm he did indeed filed this request or not?

No, that's not what I'm claiming.

Are you saying you've been saying all you've been saying all these years without having put something as simple as a public records request?

[Steve Heard]

To The Readers Of This Forum:
This provides a lot of detail about the sale of some city-owned land which took place a few years ago. There have been several posts made on this forum over the course of the past few days concerning this transaction. Typically, this level of detail would have to have been provided by someone on city staff, and to obtain it somone would have had to search through city files to assemble it. Someone somewhat familiar with the transaction might be able to piece some of this information together by reviewing previous city council reports and minutes, which may be available on the city's website, but this would be very difficult and time consuming. It also would be difficult for someone only remotely familiar with the transaction to obtain this information through a Public Records Act request because the person asking would have had to have enough detailed knowledge of the sale to request the correct information.

So, where did this information come from? One possibility is that it was assembled by a city staff member, and that the direction to do so came from someone associated with the city that had enough authority to have this done, such as a council member. Now, would this be an appropriate use of city staff if this occurred?

JRudi, now you're just being silly. You've got to stop with the conspiracy theories, particularly with your insistence that we require only proven fact to be discussed on the forum.

I know you only joined the forum a month ago, but if you've been a long-time reader, as you claimed, you know that this topic hasn't just been discussed over last few days, but rather, for years.

FYI, Robert has been bringing it up for years, probably 5 or so. The things I've been told about it haven't changed, except for the recent foreclosure of the property, which again, is public record and was in the Sacbee.

Didn't you provide pretty much the same info, only with a bias against Kerri in explaining it, and leaving out the fact that the property has since been foreclosed on for about 1/4 of what it was last purchased for? This despite the fact that that she was only 1 of the 5 council members voting on the matter?

What's the difference?

Is the matter of the land deal public record or isn't it? Was it common knowledge or did it somehow get buried by the conspirators? Is it a widely known scandal, as you've previously claimed or isn't it?

You say I'm providing a lot of detail. Can I take that to mean that by 'details', you mean 'facts'? You haven't called them lies. If these are in fact facts, why do you insist that there was something sinister afoot if the facts speak for themselves?

If you knew these facts, why did you ignore them when presenting your accusations?

Sorry, I don't have the same knowledge as someone working for the city, but when I hear such scandalous accusations, I ask around, kinda like normal folks do.

Please don't demand that I reveal my sources. I won't, any more than I'll demand you reveal yours, or even your real name and your connection to the matter.

Attacking the messenger only works on someone with something to lose. Although I volunteer many hours in my community, I'm not a city employee and I'm not running for office.

I don't have an axe to grind or anyone to answer to.

If you've got a scandal, and you've got evidence to back it up, bring it on.

Otherwise, you seem otherwise.

Are you claiming Steve filed a public records request and got all these documents including all the documents from the developer proving they paid millions of dollars for getting these entitlements?

Maybe Steve could confirm he did indeed filed this request or not?

No Robert, I haven't requested public records. This land deal hasn't been an obsession of mine, as evidenced by the difference in the number of posts you and I have written on the subject. I'm just telling you what I've been told, and unless you've filed a request and read the documents, I guess that puts you and I in the same boat.

[Robert Giacometti]

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.

Steve has the City ever given you a copy of the RFP that Kerri claims was done? Has Miklos, Morin or Starsky, ever made a public statement that there was a RFP done for this sale? Since the haven't, how can I or anyone for that matter challenge them for MISREPRESENTING the facts of this deal? ONLY Kerri has made this claim, yet she can't produce the RFP to back up her claim.

We all know you sell Real Estate, so when ou represent the buyers do you limit the number of bidders to only 2 ( like the city did on this deal) or do you try and get the most money for your seller by getting them as many bidders as possible?

Here is what sticks in my craw, We lost out on $14 million dollars! If one serves on the City Council or are the City Manager, don't you expect them to know that land with entitlments is FAR more valuable than vacant land? Aren't you surprised that at least ONE of them didn't realize this and stopped this deal to get the most value for residents. Do you really believe NONE of them knew this?

NOW, these same Council members are telling us we HAVE to protect our borders on S50 and negotiating with the landowners there and YOU feel good about this?

Thanks for pointing out the buyer of the Surplus land next to the HS had to pay millions to get the entitlements on a 33 acre parcel, yet Kerri claims the landowners S50 have paid all the costs for all the citys planning for S50 for the 3300 acre project by only paying about $252,500 for 5 years of planning. I suppose you believe that is accurate as well?

At least Steve M and Andy M have the decency NOT to lie to us when they are screwing the citizens on these deals, but I'm still NOT going to vote for them!

You and others are going to have to stand up and decide what side do you want to belong too, the side that wants to sweep these deals under the rug and have business as usual or the side that demands the citizens and community gets its fair share to keep our quality of life that so many have worked so hard for so long!

Those of us who have been around for 20 plus years went through all this back in the early 90's, fighting to get council members to make the developers pay for their impacts. This has contributed significantly to the development of the community in a way that many on here so enjoy.

Its really sad that so many on this forum don't understand what it took to get to Folosm to where it is and who are willing to throw it all away by continuing to support council members who are screwing the citizens on these deals.

You and many others on here are being used and played like a violin! I just hope some of you realize what the hell is going on before you start talking about the good ole days in Folsom.

Its TOO LATE then my Friends!

[Steve Heard]

Steve has the City ever given you a copy of the RFP that Kerri claims was done? Has Miklos, Morin or Starsky, ever made a public statement that there was a RFP done for this sale? Since the haven't, how can I or anyone for that matter challenge them for MISREPRESENTING the facts of this deal? ONLY Kerri has made this claim, yet she can't produce the RFP to back up her claim.

We all know you sell Real Estate, so when ou represent the buyers do you limit the number of bidders to only 2 ( like the city did on this deal) or do you try and get the most money for your seller by getting them as many bidders as possible?

Here is what sticks in my craw, We lost out on $14 million dollars! If one serves on the City Council or are the City Manager, don't you expect them to know that land with entitlments is FAR more valuable than vacant land? Aren't you surprised that at least ONE of them didn't realize this and stopped this deal to get the most value for residents. Do you really believe NONE of them knew this?

NOW, these same Council members are telling us we HAVE to protect our borders on S50 and negotiating with the landowners there and YOU feel good about this?

Thanks for pointing out the buyer of the Surplus land next to the HS had to pay millions to get the entitlements on a 33 acre parcel, yet Kerri claims the landowners S50 have paid all the costs for all the citys planning for S50 for the 3300 acre project by only paying about $252,500 for 5 years of planning. I suppose you believe that is accurate as well?

At least Steve M and Andy M have the decency NOT to lie to us when they are screwing the citizens on these deals, but I'm still NOT going to vote for them!

You and others are going to have to stand up and decide what side do you want to belong too, the side that wants to sweep these deals under the rug and have business as usual or the side that demands the citizens and community gets its fair share to keep our quality of life that so many have worked so hard for so long!

Those of us who have been around for 20 plus years went through all this back in the early 90's, fighting to get council members to make the developers pay for their impacts. This has contributed significantly to the development of the community in a way that many on here so enjoy.

Its really sad that so many on this forum don't understand what it took to get to Folosm to where it is and who are willing to throw it all away by continuing to support council members who are screwing the citizens on these deals.

You and many others on here are being used and played like a violin! I just hope some of you realize what the hell is going on before you start talking about the good ole days in Folsom.

Its TOO LATE then my Friends!

Robert at least you're consistent! Your argument hasn't changed over the years, but neither has your approach. If you honestly believe there was a conspiracy lead by Kerri to rip off the citizens of Folsom and you have proof, please present it. Please call the police, the press, the FBI, whomever the appropriate party might be, but understand that occasionally bringing it and then bashing Kerri for it just keeps us going in circles.

If 4 people make a mistake, rob a bank, neglect their duties or otherwise blunder, they either did it or they didn't. Saying that only the one who tried to explain it should take the heat is a strange argument indeed.

I'm not defending Kerri or anyone else. You are making an accusation. When someone makes a statement on this forum which you disagree with, you are often very quick to demand proof. Should you be exempt from the same standard?

Your argument that Kerri is the only one who deserves to be called out because she is the one denying it is silly.

[Dave Burrell]

If 4 people make a mistake, rob a bank, neglect their duties or otherwise blunder, they either did it or they didn't. Saying that only the one who tried to explain it should take the heat is a strange argument indeed.

I'm not defending Kerri or anyone else. You are making an accusation. When someone makes a statement on this forum which you disagree with, you are often very quick to demand proof. Should you be exempt from the same standard?

Your argument that Kerri is the only one who deserves to be called out because she is the one denying it is silly.

100% agree

[Robert Giacometti]

Robert at least you're consistent! Your argument hasn't changed over the years, but neither has your approach. If you honestly believe there was a conspiracy lead by Kerri to rip off the citizens of Folsom and you have proof, please present it. Please call the police, the press, the FBI, whomever the appropriate party might be, but understand that occasionally bringing it and then bashing Kerri for it just keeps us going in circles.

If 4 people make a mistake, rob a bank, neglect their duties or otherwise blunder, they either did it or they didn't. Saying that only the one who tried to explain it should take the heat is a strange argument indeed.

I'm not defending Kerri or anyone else. You are making an accusation. When someone makes a statement on this forum which you disagree with, you are often very quick to demand proof. Should you be exempt from the same standard?

Your argument that Kerri is the only one who deserves to be called out because she is the one denying it is silly.

You sure are twisting things aren't you? I've had people ask me how much you are getting paid for helping keep this quiet. I've told them I don't know why you are helping by twisting things and muddling up the facts of the deal.

I thought you and I agreed with the facts of the deal in that the City Council sold surplus land for $7 milion and the buyer flipped shortly afterwards for $21 million. The City could have sold it directly to the developer for the $21 million and then the residents would have gotten $21 million for our asset instead of the $7 million. Either you are OK with this or your not, which one is it?

Sounds like your OK with elected officials making statements misrepresenting the facts on a issue without being challenged. I think its silly to allow those who are making misrepresentations to continue without being challenged!

I still don't know why I should be challenging Steve, Andy or Jeff about statements Kerri made. Can you explain that to me?

What side are you on, the side that is trying to cover up this poor deal where the residents got screwed or the side that isn't going to allow our elected officials to continue to give away these sweetheart deals at our expense any more?

[Robert Giacometti]

No, that's not what I'm claiming.

Are you saying you've been saying all you've been saying all these years without having put something as simple as a public records request?

I'm not real good at understanding innuendo, what is it you are claiming then? What is motivating you to ask this question, did you think of this on your own or is someone whispering in your ear? You are being used Ducky, its too bad you don't see it!

Since Stevethedad and I agree that the city sold a $7 million parcel of land and the buyer flipped shortly afterwards for $21 million, how does that make you feel? Are you able to understand that the City could have sold it directly to the Home builder and we the citizens could have gotten the full $21 million?

What side are you on, the side that is working to help keep this quiet or the side that isn't going to allow these things to occur anymore?

[folsom500]

You sure are twisting things aren't you? I've had people ask me how much you are getting paid for helping keep this quiet. I've told them I don't know why you are helping by twisting things and muddling up the facts of the deal.

I thought you and I agreed with the facts of the deal in that the City Council sold surplus land for $7 milion and the buyer flipped shortly afterwards for $21 million. The City could have sold it directly to the developer for the $21 million and then the residents would have gotten $21 million for our asset instead of the $7 million. Either you are OK with this or your not, which one is it?

Sounds like your OK with elected officials making statements misrepresenting the facts on a issue without being challenged. I think its silly to allow those who are making misrepresentations to continue without being challenged!

I still don't know why I should be challenging Steve, Andy or Jeff about statements Kerri made. Can you explain that to me?

What side are you on, the side that is trying to cover up this poor deal where the residents got screwed or the side that isn't going to allow our elected officials to continue to give away these sweetheart deals at our expense any more?

Robert - you obsession with this is getting Old--- It was done and we lost some money in doing it- OK ? Bad decisions do occur but PLEASE - let this rest -- it has little to do with now polluted topic and you yourself have done nothing to add to it.
Let is go man- or start a new thread " Robert Hates the fact that the City sold out cheap"
OK ???
Cheers
F500

[old soldier]

you know this 14 million dollar land deal could be a lismus test on whether the people of folsom give a whoot what the city council did and with whom. if folks can't get excite about a possilbe corrked/mismanaged black and white land deal what can they get excited about

old rober said there were just tow folks allowed to bid on the land, you would assume the one that lost probably knew the prize was a steal and they probably shed a few tears about the deal going the other way. I guess folks that were not allowed to even participate in the bidding would also be upset and you would wonder why they didn't squawk