188 replies to this topic

[Chad Vander Veen]

Massive, stupid, thoughtless sprawl ready to ruin Folsom 

http://www.bizjourna...rs-reality.html

 

 

[Dave Burrell]

Completely agree Chad!

 

The Folsom I moved to over 10 years ago sure has changed. With this latest over development, our town will soon become another Roseville.

[Sandman]

Really wondering where all the water to support this is coming from?

 

Given our current condition and outlook, It really doesn't make sense to keep building if we don't even have enough water to support our current population.

 

While I feel urban sprawl is inevitable, the brakes should really be put on this project until we are officially declared out of this current drought.

[cw68]

The drought definitely should put this on hold. Going forward with all this development, especially without a diversified water source for Folsom, is completely irresponsible. 

 

Separately, this is going to have a very negative effect on Folsom.

[Rich_T]

On the map, it looks like there will be a new Hwy 50 overpass between Oak Ave and Scott Rd.    Does anyone know if that is correct, and exactly where it will be, or if there will be on- and off-ramps, vs. a pure overpass?  I always figured they would build an interchange at Oak Ave., but apparently not. 

 

But what worries me most is the amount of traffic that will be using Scott Rd. (E. Bidwell).  As we've noted here before, it's already a big snarl, and will only get much worse.

 

Also, I'm assuming that most of the green area on the left is being kept as open space because of the toxic land there.  I wouldn't feel great about living next to that.

[supermom]

Well, in time- we will all adjust to the sprawl and our children's children will laugh at our misgivings. Perhaps even think we are elitists for wanting to keep Folsom a green gem on the eastern border of the river valley. 

 

Nonetheless, I really would like someone to tell me, that tests were done and cleared- for the land they are about to start developing. I sure wouldnt want my kids going to a school or playing on a lawn that has Aerojet backwash in the soil. Has it been confirmed that the areas are clean? Where are those tests?

[tony]

On the map, it looks like there will be a new Hwy 50 overpass between Oak Ave and Scott Rd.    Does anyone know if that is correct, and exactly where it will be, or if there will be on- and off-ramps, vs. a pure overpass?  I always figured they would build an interchange at Oak Ave., but apparently not. 

 

But what worries me most is the amount of traffic that will be using Scott Rd. (E. Bidwell).  As we've noted here before, it's already a big snarl, and will only get much worse.

 

Also, I'm assuming that most of the green area on the left is being kept as open space because of the toxic land there.  I wouldn't feel great about living next to that.

That would be a non-interchange crossing (just an overpass) connecting to Iron Point at Rowberry, the idea being to allow people just trying to get across the freeway to avoid the interchange at E. Bidwell/Scott. It would also provide a safe way for bicyclists and pedestrians to get across the freeway -- there aren't many in the plan. I suspect the people off off Rowberry won't be too excited about it, but I actually think this is one of the better features of the plan (although Broadstone Parkway would have been a better place for it if they didn't put a big office building in the way).

 

Oak Avenue and Empire Ranch Roads are both  still slated for full interchanges, so some pressure will be taken off the E. Bidwell/Scott interchange.

[Rich_T]

That would be a non-interchange crossing (just an overpass) connecting to Iron Point at Rowberry, the idea being to allow people just trying to get across the freeway to avoid the interchange at E. Bidwell/Scott. It would also provide a safe way for bicyclists and pedestrians to get across the freeway -- there aren't many in the plan. I suspect the people off off Rowberry won't be too excited about it, but I actually think this is one of the better features of the plan (although Broadstone Parkway would have been a better place for it if they didn't put a big office building in the way.

 

Oak Avenue and Empire Ranch Roads are both  still slated for full interchanges, so some pressure will be taken off the E. Bidwell/Scott interchange.

 

Thanks, Tony.

[Rich_T]

Lo and behold, I found a Folsom Telegraph on my driveway yesterday.  And lo and behold again, the lead article was "South of 50 develops for quality control".  Here's the link:

 

http://www.folsomtel...quality-control

 

By now I find it amusing to read the justifications for development, given our water woes.  Here's my favorite part:

 

<< Folsom already has a population in the low 70,000s. Why is it taking on an additional population of approximately 25,000 in the south of 50 project and the traffic congestion and service demands they will bring? [Rich T.:  and water usage]

 

Because without annexation of the property, the city is landlocked. It wants to control its growth and assure new development matches the city’s standards.

 

“We want to maintain control. We’d rather control our own destiny,” explained Folsom Mayor Andy Morin.   >>

 

I've always wondered at how easily the "we must control our own destiny through annexation" motive has been reconciled with the "we can't not build" justification.  Look at this ridiculous quote from the article:

 

<< “The question of whether growth is going to happen or not isn’t up to the city.  People have a constitutional right to move and live where they want, and the market determines whether people move here or not. >>  [David Miller, Folsom’s director of public works and community development]

 

Did you get that?  People have a constitutional right to move to S50!!  Never mind zoning ordinances that the city can control (land has been zoned for agricultural/ranching use only).  And "the market determines whether people move here or not".  Beautiful!  So if people want to move here, just rezone the land until we're all sprawled out.  By his logic, instead of building big hillside estates, Folsom should build many high-density homes/apartments instead, because "people have a constitutional right to move there" - the more the merrier, and we can't deny them.  Just the market at work, right?

 

The original selling point to residents of "we need to control the land usage" was always just a smokescreen for "we want to control how the land is developed".  But it's still amusing and still maddening to read about how the land MUST be developed, as our constitutional/market duty.  Amazing.

[Rich_T]

Oh, and there is also a letter in the Telegraph from Eric Chevreuil, about the water supply issue and the polluted Aerojet land:

 

http://www.folsomtel...nated-cash-grab

[mrdavex]

That line cracked me up!  While the constitution does not prohibit us from choosing which place we live in, there is no constitutional guarantee that we can live where we want to.  It does not guarantee that there are houses available, nor that there will be a house in our price range.

 

 

Did you get that?  People have a constitutional right to move to S50!!  Never mind zoning ordinances that the city can control (land has been zoned for agricultural/ranching use only).  And "the market determines whether people move here or not".  Beautiful!  So if people want to move here, just rezone the land until we're all sprawled out.  By his logic, instead of building big hillside estates, Folsom should build many high-density homes/apartments instead, because "people have a constitutional right to move there" - the more the merrier, and we can't deny them.  Just the market at work, right?

 

[kcrides99]

So it begins...http://www.bizjourna...uilding-in.html

[Rich_T]

I'm so excited!!!

 

(not)

[2 Aces]

From the looks of that map, it seems that the plan is/was to extend Oak Ave to Hwy 50. I *used to* want Oak Ave to connect to Hwy 50 for personal/convenience reasons...but NOT NOW !!

[Robert Gary]

The funny thing is that before the city tricked us into voting for that "open space" county initiative that whole area was outside of the county's development corridor and development was prohibited. They certainly pulled a fast one on us. (well, not me because I knew what they were doing. 35% open space! Yea. vs 100% open space)

 

-Robert