71 replies to this topic

[ducky]

 

Without addressing the veracity of the south of 50 argument, if you were on the City Council, and you knew that some people believed what they did, would you come and post on this forum?

 

Do you think they would be treated kindly or even fairly, or would people accuse them of lying and being in 'the developers' pockets'?

 

Three of them don't even respond to polite email inquiries about simple concerns from a resident so I'm not holding my breath.

I think the reason would more have to do with time because questions and answers would prompt more questions and they'd spend all day on here.

 

My concern about S50 is, if they find the water supply too onerous to adhere to Measure W, what will be next?  There were other things promised, such as traffic mitigation and new schools wouldn't go on N50's shoulders.  There was a defined amount of open space promised.

 

My other concern is the strain new development puts on city services.  The resurfacing they did on our street never stuck.  It just continually runs off  after every rain into the gutter.   Sidewalks are a mess.  We have great police and fire response right now.  I'd like that to stay the same.

 

I am also concerned that if they take water from this side of 50 and send it S50 that we will end up short and then we will all have to pay to get that expensive new water up here - something we were promised wouldn't happen.

[Rich_T]

There is no defense to deeming projected savings a "new" water source. That is like wanting a new Lexus really bad, and only being able to afford a Hyundai, then buying the Lexus anyway and telling yourself you will pay for it with "projected savings."

 

Since when did the people who are supposedly answerable to the people they represent get excused from answering the tough questions? If their actions cannot stand up to scrutiny, that says more about their decisions than it does about the people asking the questions.

 

Would I come on a "hostile" forum? Sure. Why not? If I have nothing to hide, it would be a chance to explain my position. I can guarantee you this, if I were ever elected to any office, I would not only stand behind my decisions and defend them, I would explain to others why I made the choices I did.  You might not agree, but at least you would know my rationale.

 

I'm so sick of the b.s. politispeak where you make vague statements and create soundbites that amount to exactly zero substance. Or, the refusal to even address an issue at all. No comment? Really?

 

Dang it! We are all waiting for someone to stand up, speak the unpleasant truths and tackle problems head on. We need to demand more from our "leaders," both locally and nationally. AND, if we are given the unvarnished truth, we need to act like adults and behave accordingly.

 

I entirely agree.

 

I like this sentence especially:  "If their actions cannot stand up to scrutiny, that says more about their decisions than it does about the people asking the questions."

 

As for the whole S50 thing, the City Council has viewed that as a "project" since the 1990s, and the only questions in their minds (if I can presume to mind read) have been "how" and "when" to make it happen.  The "when" got pushed back by the housing collapse in 2006, but the "how" ended up being very sneaky, from throwing out Measure T and replacing it with Measure W, to automatically equating annexation with a supposed mandate to implement the long-foreseen project, to having after-the-fact public input sessions that never allowed the option of "do nothing" (or even to build out LESS than 70% of the land), to (consciously, I believe) misleading people about the water sourcing. 

 

When "inconveniences" happen like not having enough water from originally promised sources, the honest decision would be to suspend the project, and not to unilaterally change the rules as you go.

 

Not all council members were around from the inception of the grand dream of building out S50, and some probably are more enthusiastic than others, but it seems that all take it for granted that this is the unquestioned destiny of Folsom.  What I don't like is that residents never were asked to decide, and never gave them a mandate to do what they're doing.  Measure W was decidedly NOT such a mandate, and was not advertised as a mandate (it was to "protect us" from the non-existent threat of Sac County building up the land).

 

I went to a council meeting back then, and my only real takeaway was that two of the council members (I suspect that many of us can guess which ones) were real jerks in how they dealt with residents:  very arrogant and condescending.  That's what has stuck with me most.  And, although this is a separate topic, it bugs me that we have such an entrenched council, and the workings of the process that make it almost impossible for them to be replaced, short of downright criminal behavior.

 

In the end we will see the bulldozers making their stand, and eventually we'll see nice new neighborhoods sprawling southward, and Folsom will be more crowded, for better or worse.  But the end does not justify the means.

[Steve Heard]

Since when did the people who are supposedly answerable to the people they represent get excused from answering the tough questions? If their actions cannot stand up to scrutiny, that says more about their decisions than it does about the people asking the questions.

 

Would I come on a "hostile" forum? Sure. Why not? If I have nothing to hide, it would be a chance to explain my position. I can guarantee you this, if I were ever elected to any office, I would not only stand behind my decisions and defend them, I would explain to others why I made the choices I did.  You might not agree, but at least you would know my rationale."

--------

 

My point isn't that they don't have to answer to the voters, the question is whether or not this is the place for them to do so.

 

If they come on to the forum and say that this wasn't an evil plot paid for by developers, will it change anyone's mind?

 

We are all free to confront them and speak to them and have it on record at the City Council meetings.

 

We'll have to settle for discussing it amongst ourselves here.

[TruthSeeker]

 

Without addressing the veracity of the south of 50 argument, if you were on the City Council, and you knew that some people believed what they did, would you come and post on this forum?

 

Do you think they would be treated kindly or even fairly, or would people accuse them of lying and being in 'the developers' pockets'?

 

Politicians who hide out of fear of negative feedback are not worth having in office.  

 

Someone that weak minded is not capable of properly running a city, state nor country.  It's part of their job to get feedback, even if it's negative sometimes.

 

I really don't want anyone in office who is afraid of vocal voters.

[Steve Heard]

 

Politicians who hide out of fear of negative feedback are not worth having in office.  

 

Someone that weak minded is not capable of properly running a city, state nor country.  It's part of their job to get feedback, even if it's negative sometimes.

 

I really don't want anyone in office who is afraid of vocal voters.

 

I agree.  All of our elected officials should answer to the people they represent. I just don't get mad at 'em for not coming onto the forum to do so.

 

One can always call them on the phone, email them or go to City Council meetings, as many do. 

[TruthSeeker]

 

My point isn't that they don't have to answer to the voters, the question is whether or not this is the place for them to do so.

 

If they come on to the forum and say that this wasn't an evil plot paid for by developers, will it change anyone's mind?

 

We are all free to confront them and speak to them and have it on record at the City Council meetings.

 

We'll have to settle for discussing it amongst ourselves here.

 

 

Have you ever noticed how you always side with the city council? (maybe its just me?)

 

Why don't you try and encourage them to respond to the voters of this this site that is now yours? It would help both them and us improve city communications and it would easily increase visitors to your site who want to find out what's really going on with the city - from the people who run it. 

 

Politicians really shouldn't be afraid to talk to voters through other means then just going to a city council meeting to try and get them to listen,  when they are ready to end the meeting and leave for the day.  

 

Lets both be honest and admit that getting 2 minutes to talk at city council meeting, won't mean a hill of beans to any of them. Within 2 minutes they won't even remember why the person was there. Plus you must know that not many people have free time to spend 2-3 hours at a council meeting, especially when we all know it will accomplish absolutely nothing.

 

We all know email and online resources are the best method of communication to the masses these days - our elected leadership should know how to use email and social media sites no? They should also be responsible enough to answer emails and online questions, even if it bruises their sensitive egos sometimes.

 

I agree.  All of our elected officials should answer to the people they represent. I just don't get mad at 'em for not coming onto the forum to do so.

 

One can always call them on the phone, email them or go to City Council meetings, as many do. 

 

How come they have such a hard time answering their emails?

[Steve Heard]

 

Have you ever noticed how you always side with the city council? (maybe its just me?)

 

Why don't you try and encourage them to respond to the voters of this this site that is now yours? It would help both them and us improve city communications and it would easily increase visitors to your site who want to find out what's really going on with the city - from the people who run it. 

 

Politicians really shouldn't be afraid to talk to voters through other means then just going to a city council meeting to try and get them to listen,  when they are ready to end the meeting and leave for the day.  

 

Lets both be honest and admit that getting 2 minutes to talk at city council meeting, won't mean a hill of beans to any of them. Within 2 minutes they won't even remember why the person was there. Plus you must know that not many people have free time to spend 2-3 hours at a council meeting, especially when we all know it will accomplish absolutely nothing.

 

We all know email and online resources are the best method of communication to the masses these days - our elected leadership should know how to use email and social media sites no? They should also be responsible enough to answer emails and online questions, even if it bruises their sensitive egos sometimes.

 

How come they have such a hard time answering their emails?

 

If you think that me saying that I don't blame them for not coming on here to take the barbs and accusations that are hurled at them on the forum means that I 'side with' them, so be it.

 

I don't speak for them. They're certainly free to come on and post. I just said why I think they don't. 

 

I love Folsom. We enjoy a great quality of life and we have fantastic amenities and city services that the city was able to maintain through our economic crisis.

 

We have low unemployment, new businesses coming to town, events and marketing efforts that bring more tourists and their dollars to town, miles of bike trails, safe streets, and smartly planned retail and hotels on the edge of town. 

 

While the City Council can't take 100% of the credit, they should get some of it. 

 

If I wonder aloud (or on the forum) if there was the same opposition to Briggs Ranch, Empire Ranch, Broadstone and the other developments which dwarf the South of 50 project.  If I wonder why so much opposition to developers by the people who live in the homes the developers built. If I wonder why development is okay south of 50 in El Dorado Hills or Rancho Cordova, but not Folsom, it doesn't mean I want it paved over or that I 'side with' anyone.

 

I remember many years ago someone came on here and accused the mayor of being 'in the developers pockets', particularly Elliott, approving his projects, because the mayor is in the mortgage business and was going to get the financing deals from the home sales.

 

What the accuser didn't know is that Elliott had an exclusive deal with Wells Fargo and with very few exceptions, every buyer had to go through them to finance their homes.

 

I know this because I worked in the mayor's mortgage company at the time, and I wished that we could have been the finance office for those homes, but it wasn't to be.

 

The mayor felt no need to come on the forum to defend himself.

 

I just find it hard to believe that 20 years ago an evil plan was hatched to destroy our town by the very people who have helped it get to where it is today.

 

Maybe some day I'll be proven wrong.

[The Average Joe]

I don't think it is an "evil plan." I DO think it is incredibly short-sighted and does NOT benefit the quality of life for people in Folsom. Water is a huge issue, and will only grow more intense as more development takes place.

 

I am not anti-development, I am anti- dumb-development. I have experienced it firsthand in SoCal, and in Elk Grove. I have seen the results all over as I travel to different cities. Some plan wisely, most do not. I would have no problem with smart development south of 50. One of the reasons I bought in ARC was being aware that S50 would be developed. I wanted to be as far from it as possible. Sure it's a pain to drive the extra miles to the HS or freeway...but what a quiet, peaceful place to come home to.

[Howdy]

 

 

 

If I wonder aloud (or on the forum) if there was the same opposition to Briggs Ranch, 

Do you know or recall the story of Briggs Ranch? Old lady Briggs never wanted to have this land developed. A particular city council member vowed to her it would stay untouched. Within 6 months of her death the city council had that overturned. Was supposed to be X amount of open space left. Know why the streets are as wide as they are? All that extra street room counting for open space. 

[Rich_T]

Do you know or recall the story of Briggs Ranch? Old lady Briggs never wanted to have this land developed. A particular city council member vowed to her it would stay untouched. Within 6 months of her death the city council had that overturned. Was supposed to be X amount of open space left. Know why the streets are as wide as they are? All that extra street room counting for open space. 

 

That story actually seems credible.  Interesting.

[camay2327]

It's not about development south of 50, IT IS ABOUT THE WATER AND THE LIES THAT WERE TOLD!!!!!!!!!!

[Rich_T]

 

If you think that me saying that I don't blame them for not coming on here to take the barbs and accusations that are hurled at them on the forum means that I 'side with' them, so be it.

 

I don't speak for them. They're certainly free to come on and post. I just said why I think they don't. 

 

I love Folsom. We enjoy a great quality of life and we have fantastic amenities and city services that the city was able to maintain through our economic crisis.

 

We have low unemployment, new businesses coming to town, events and marketing efforts that bring more tourists and their dollars to town, miles of bike trails, safe streets, and smartly planned retail and hotels on the edge of town. 

 

While the City Council can't take 100% of the credit, they should get some of it. 

 

If I wonder aloud (or on the forum) if there was the same opposition to Briggs Ranch, Empire Ranch, Broadstone and the other developments which dwarf the South of 50 project.  If I wonder why so much opposition to developers by the people who live in the homes the developers built. If I wonder why development is okay south of 50 in El Dorado Hills or Rancho Cordova, but not Folsom, it doesn't mean I want it paved over or that I 'side with' anyone.

 

I remember many years ago someone came on here and accused the mayor of being 'in the developers pockets', particularly Elliott, approving his projects, because the mayor is in the mortgage business and was going to get the financing deals from the home sales.

 

What the accuser didn't know is that Elliott had an exclusive deal with Wells Fargo and with very few exceptions, every buyer had to go through them to finance their homes.

 

I know this because I worked in the mayor's mortgage company at the time, and I wished that we could have been the finance office for those homes, but it wasn't to be.

 

The mayor felt no need to come on the forum to defend himself.

 

I just find it hard to believe that 20 years ago an evil plan was hatched to destroy our town by the very people who have helped it get to where it is today.

 

Maybe some day I'll be proven wrong.

 

I think that Folsom is what it is because of the people who have moved here, and it's a mutually reinforcing situation with business and residents.  You could probably pick any five people as councilmembers, and things would still work out well. 

 

However, I haven't seen any such balance in the S50 plan - it seems to be adding a lot more residents (11,000 homes might be 30,000 or more new residents) without adding a commensurate number of jobs to Folsom.

 

A city should be able to grow reasonably.  And at the same time, there is some vague threshold when a city loses what makes it special, when it sprawls too much.  As I already wrote before, the "I wonder about all you NIMBY people who moved in" argument can be used to justify paving over ever inch of California, but that doesn't mean we should.  People should be allowed to have some control over the decisions that affect the city.  IMO that did not happen in the case of S50 development.  Measure W was certainly not that.

 

I don't believe that there was an "evil" plan hatched in the mid-90s, but I believe that some council members, who have been in their roles for a very long time, laid the groundwork for the ongoing development of Folsom, including the future dream of S50 development.  And some of those "dreamers" are still in charge today, along with those property owners and developers who stand to make a boatload of money off of it.  (They are entitled to do so, but depend on councilmembers to change the zoning and to proceed with development.) 

 

I have no problem agreeing with those who say that certain councilmembers, who occasionally have stints as mayor, are effectively "in the pocket of developers" (you know, the ones who put up big election signs on their land for those councilmembers while excluding challengers).  I can very easily believe that there is a "wash each other's hands" situation in play.  It just doesn't pass the "smell test". 

 

But I can't change what I can't change, so I just observe it and move on with my life.  Doesn't mean I can't make the observation.

It's not about development south of 50, IT IS ABOUT THE WATER AND THE LIES THAT WERE TOLD!!!!!!!!!!

 

To me, it's about both.  The council did not ask residents whether to develop the land, and the water issue is about broken promises.

[nowtherestofthestory]

This sounds like the same BS our council members were spreading back during measure W!

 

The land was already under the County's purview, The County sent the City of Folsom a letter explaining they had NO intention or desire to develop the land south of 50. Our Council members failed to disclose this fact until the letter was discovered and brought out to the public. The County was smart enough to realize it was far too costly to try and do that and even costlier to try and provide services beyond Rancho Cordova. The county already had enough land in the development process to handle ALL of the 4 county's housing needs for the next 50 years WITHOUT the land south of 50.

 

After a lengthy and costly process, LAFCO determined that the City of Folsom should be the Agency to control what happens south of 50 and granted the SOI. There is NO LEGAL way Rancho Cordova could overcome that, unless the City of Folsom surrendered its SOI and Rancho Cordova had contiguous border with Folsom's SOI area. It will take Rancho about 50 years before it could possibly have a contiguous border there.

 

Its going to be a financial drain on the City to provide services South of 50. Its a very well known fact that residential development doesn't pay for its own way. This means those of us north of 50 will either have higher fees to subsidize the services there or have less services North of 50, to offset the costs south of 50.

 

For the record, I was in some meetings where the topic of how to develop south of 50 was talked about back in the mid 90's. 

 

Hypothetically, if the County or Rancho Cordova could or would develop south of 50, we would be better off. The City of Folsom spent nearly $14 million in reserves planning for all this, so if The County or Rancho did it we'd have that money back in the bank. Secondly, the residents who move there probably will spend their money north of 50, which would then generate sales tax dollars for Folsom, WITHOUT having to provide any services. Thirdly, Id much rather take my chances trying to persuade the County or the Rancho Council on issues than this council any day!

 

My opinion on why this council has done what they have is that it keeps them on the City Council and whatever limelight and perks ( paybacks) that brings to them. We as human beings can justify most everything we do. So I suspect this council believes in what it is doing and since they keep getting reelected, its validation for them.

 

The real reasons why these council members keep getting reelected is a combination of factors. Voter apathy, Misinformed voters, uninformed voters and an inherently flawed election system that favors incumbants and those with deep pockets. There also hasn't been many strong knowledgeable challengers, who have the knowledge and experience to debate the Incumbants on issues.

 

The last thought I have with south of 50 is, There has NEVER been any valid reason given on why doing this will make Folsom better than NOT doing it!

[4thgenFolsomite]

interesting information.

[ducky]

I'll just post this here since I don't think the timing of this type of survey is a coincidence with the start of building S50, and I would include the school district survey as well.

There was a letter to the editor in The Folsom Telegraph last week from a resident wondering why the city had used an Arizona company to poll residents about infrastructure and various other building topics relating to support for a bond measure in the city.  Kerri Howell responded in The Folsom Telegraph that it wasn't the city conducting the poll and there is no proposal to increase sales tax. 

 

While I think it was good to clear up who was conducting the poll, -- when we got the call it certainly seemed like it was being conducted by the city -- it's not like Region Builders has no connection to the city at all.  The name seemed familiar so I looked it up.  They campaigned for Jeff Starsky:  regionbuilders.com/councilmember-jeff-starsky-event