188 replies to this topic

[SacKen]

... however not conserving water as a means of making a statement about the contradictory messages we get from various government entities in reality doesn't hurt them in the least, let alone cause them to stop building. ...

That's not entirely true. A lot of the S50 approvals and objections are tied to the water rights and how much we currently use versus how much is still available under Folsom's rights.  Our water savings have directly resulted in them being able to avoid finding a new water source.  While they would no doubt find another way to screw us, not saving water would make it more difficult for them. While it would hurt in the short term (using too much water this year may mean trouble in a few months), in the long run, the current population using 100% of the allocated water vs the current population + S50 using that same amount of water results in the same amount of water being consumed, but with the consequence that we would REALLY be screwed when we have another drought after S50 is built out and Folsom's allocation has a mandated reduction (which I think our legal allocation has already been forced to be less the last couple of years, it just happens to still be more than we use).  Then all of us would be forced to save a lot more than we are now or the taps run dry even more dramatically than they could now.

[2 Aces]

Our water savings have directly resulted in them being able to avoid finding a new water source.  While they would no doubt find another way to screw us, not saving water would make it more difficult for them.

Good post, Ken. I hope people are starting to understand this. So, yes, if we have to "play that game", then I'm in. We should NOT make it easier for S50 to happen. That's why I am not altering my water consumption. If you do, just understand you are "playing right into their hand". No pun intended.

[cw68]

Remember that the developers agreed to spend $360M for a new water source, but our lovely city council said, "Hey, you know what? We found this leak. Why don't you pay the $90M to fix it and you can use the savings?", saving the developers a TON of money. Why?

Because the developers find their campaigns and BizPAC. The citizens don't.

By choosing to give the developers an out (from an already agreed upon action) over choosing to make our city more secure and having diversified water sources, they showed who was more important to them.

Kick 'Em out.

[ducky]

Remember that the developers agreed to spend $360M for a new water source, but our lovely city council said, "Hey, you know what? We found this leak. Why don't you pay the $90M to fix it and you can use the savings?", saving the developers a TON of money. Why?

Because the developers find their campaigns and BizPAC. The citizens don't.

By choosing to give the developers an out (from an already agreed upon action) over choosing to make our city more secure and having diversified water sources, they showed who was more important to them.

Kick 'Em out.

 

Found this leak???  They have known about the unaccounted for water since at least 2002.

[maestro]

http://www.bizjourna...olsom-hous.html

 

While Sac Biz Journal loosely calls this a "Development" group,   that is not how Westland describes itself.

Westland states it is an "investment" organization.

 

Do the math in these articles, and see if this land  ---   WITHOUT a VALID WATER SOURCE --  is very valuable.

Because seller Aerojet Easton is a public company, they had to report their figures, but AKT did not report.

 

Interesting math here......      and less water every day.

 

 

.

 

 

Ownership:

Basic point of post is that we learned the purchaser of Aerojet Easton and FPA lands:    purchaser is NOT a developer, but an investment company that deals in risk.

 

Water comments:

As for the water comments, the city's "EIR" for FPA S50 was totally rejected by Reclamation (who controls the movement of water and most of the water).        The city attempt to buy Golden State water was also rejected, so no ground water.

 

That leaves the AKT water he claimed as part of Conaway Ranch:   his "FPA new water source".      But no one is talking about that claim to ownership of public water.........    total silence on his attempts to sell that public water to MWD in Socal.

 

The gov put the biggest kibosh on FPA or S50:      mandatory cut-backs with absolute punishments for agencies which do not comply.     Folsom was given a 35% mandatory reduction rate.         Publicity means nothing:  water means everything -- and it is not there.       The water is not there, so let the fighting continue.    Munch almonds while you watch the fights and see if you can make do with 60 gallons/day/person.

 

 

.

[Robert Gary]

What if we passed a ballot measure stating that the city could not impose water restrictions on residence when there is no drought. That would kill their ability to argue that we've established a new baseline of water use and now have excess water for development.

 

-Robert

[2 Aces]

Maybe it doesn't matter, Robert. When you have *shady* people in positions of power, you're stuck....until you have a chance to VOTE 'EM OUT !!

[TruthSeeker]

 
Found this leak???  They have known about the unaccounted for water since at least 2002.

Kerrie Howell laughed when she admitted they've known about the leaks for over 10 years. Said its not a big deal because it's getting fixed now.

That's very crappy and irresponsible leadership, she's a jerk that needs to be booted out. Her crappy queen bee attitude is ridiculous and immature.

[fb95630]

I'd like to hear from the City Council how developing S50 is good for us. Furthermore they are strangely silent around how they justify in their minds that our sacrifices should allow the development without securing their own source of water. That's what we voted for! The initiative stated that development would occur only after developers for S50 had their own source of water.  And that us in North Folsom would not be impacted. They found a source. Some legal entity has water rights that would be enought for S50. They have a plan for the pipeline to come up from Freeport. I don't remember the name of the legal entity but I have the document somewhere in my PC if someone wants a copy.  It wasn't easy to find. I spent about 2 hours looking at the City website for documentation about where the water was coming from. Since they have a source for water in Freeport I'd like to hear from them how they justify ignoring the text of the initiative.  They're giving the developers a windfall? The double-speak about our water conservation allowing the development to move forward is absurd, and the Mayor's assertion lacks logic.

 

Besides leaving a legacy for themselves I don't understand the Council's motive, excitement in fact, for this development. So they got a few thousand dollars in campaign donations and maybe they'll have a street named after themselves.  Mr. Miklos is a mortgage broker so I understand his motivation. If he gets a small percentage of the 12,000 mortgages he'll reap a windfall giving himself a very comfortable retirement.  But for the rest of them it almost seems like they don't live here. They must not drive down Bidwell near Lowe's to see the traffic gridlock. Why do they think it's OK to lower our quality of life if not destroy our city?

[kcrides99]

Does anyone know if there has been a legal challenge since the change in water sources? Wondering if that is an option because it does not follow the measure to the letter.... Any pro bono lawyers out there and/or contacts with the Sierra club or other interested group that has the resources ?

[kcrides99]

Anyone? If it hasn't been challenged or at least considered by a legal professional who is familiar with the process, isn't that something we collectively as a group should be doing (instead of just complaining)?

Anyone know?

[2 Aces]

Can you fight City Hall?? Apparently this is a done deal, at least according to what I've read in the media. I hope people won't reduce the water they use...if you do, you give them even more reason to say, "see, we'll have enough water...people are cutting back to HELP the S50 project". I don't know any of the councilmen, but if I did, I'd no longer associate with them. I challenge any of you who know any of them to do the same...but tell 'em off before you do it. These people are evil. But, sadly, many people who say they are disgusted with this plan will still be *chummy* with these corrupt City Council clowns. Birds of a feather....

[TruthSeeker]

^ What he (or she) said.

[supermom]

Does anyone know if there has been a legal challenge since the change in water sources? Wondering if that is an option because it does not follow the measure to the letter.... Any pro bono lawyers out there and/or contacts with the Sierra club or other interested group that has the resources ?

I believe there is one in the works. 

I think it is being pieced together through the city planner.

 

now if youre asking if anyone has challenged the cities right to develop since the new Brown water law-- well, not a darn leak has been whispered on anything from any lobbyists as yet. (you like how i tried to add a few puns into that?)

[fb95630]

Can you fight City Hall?? Apparently this is a done deal, at least according to what I've read in the media. I hope people won't reduce the water they use...if you do, you give them even more reason to say, "see, we'll have enough water...people are cutting back to HELP the S50 project". I don't know any of the councilmen, but if I did, I'd no longer associate with them. I challenge any of you who know any of them to do the same...but tell 'em off before you do it. These people are evil. But, sadly, many people who say they are disgusted with this plan will still be *chummy* with these council clowns. Birds of a feather....

One way we could get their attention is to start writing Letters to the Editor to Folsom Telegraph and The Bee with our opinions. City Council members are more likey to see it there and that could motivate more people to write as well.