122 replies to this topic

[tony]

tony.  No information on the appeal.  Both sides don't disclose or discuss court issues in public.

I was thinking more of just a notice that SARA had appealed, and the related schedule. I don't doubt you, but it seems there should be some record of that somewhere on line.

[The Average Joe]

Methinks this is more a boon to those that wish to develop and sell  housing over shops in Old Folsom. I can't seem to remember the name of the proposed development.

[aztransplant]

No information on the appeal.  Both sides don't disclose or discuss court issues in public.

 

Actually, it's all public record.

 

Here is the lower court docket: https://services.sac...rchByCaseNumber

(I'm thinking that link isn't going to take you directly there, in which case you'll need to search by Case and enter the case number 34-2013-80001560)

 

Here is the appellate court docket link (hope it works; you can request email updates here as well): http://appellatecase...&doc_no=C076808

 

Here is the case summary:

 

Case Summary          << search results

Trial Court Case: 34201380001560CUWMGDS Court of Appeal Case: C076808   Division:   Case Caption: Save the American River Association v. City of Folsom et al. Case Type: CV Filing Date: 06/26/2014 Oral Argument Date/Time: 10/26/2015   09:30 AM

Cross Referenced Cases:

No Cross Referenced Cases Found

[Steve Heard]

Methinks this is more a boon to those that wish to develop and sell  housing over shops in Old Folsom. I can't seem to remember the name of the proposed development.

 

What a cynical world we live in. Do you think that the buyers of new homes in the district would stay away without that access?

 

Some have called the project a 'diversionary tactic' to get our minds off of South of 50, others have said it's the first step toward eventually putting up waterfront homes. 

 

Can't it be for providing safe access for all from the south side of the lake, as described? 

 

That's what many people want, easy to access to a paved place to run, walk, ride, or sit and enjoy the lake.

 

If Sutter Street merchants get new business as a result, isn't that a good thing? If visitors are putting money into our local economy, isn't that a good thing? 

[The Average Joe]

I suppose. Not all development is good development, and not all development is "progress." I have dealt with many developers over the years from sole proprietorships to major corporations. Some are concerned with the legacy of what they leave, others are only concerned with money and will extort whatever benefits the city/county will provide to increase their haul.

 

As an example, South of 50 will benefit no one but the developers. We will be forced into permanent drought status for the benefit of a few. On the flip side, the bridge at Folsom and Lake Natoma was definitely needed, and is a benefit to all except those who loved the view from the Cliff House.  Whatever. Call me cynical, but I have seen it over and over where a patient developer works a city to get improvements done and then shortly thereafter announces the beginnings of a new project utilizing those improvements.

[4thgenFolsomite]

How does this create safe access to the lake?  You mean to look at it?  Is that not possible from the Negro Bar area on the other side of the river?  Or from the existing bike trail?  Not sure what we are gaining.  I have to admit I havent seen a final plan, but it looks like its all bike trails to me.  Is there actual beach access or beach created?

[2 Aces]

If Sutter Street merchants get new business as a result, isn't that a good thing? If visitors are putting money into our local economy, isn't that a good thing?

You made the same/similar arguments about the South of 50 project.

It's getting old, sir.

[kcrides99]

It creates an area where people at negro bar can paddle over and walk up to the HD.

There are Already trails on this side of the river but they are causing erosion and unsafe for disabled and children.

Making a safe place where people can enjoy the river after or before dinner in one of the many great restaurants on sutter is a huge benefit.

This is largely funded by tax payer funded competitive grants- I for one am glad that the construction dollars are in Folsom and the long term benefit is in Folsom.

it is not a hard concept- people like water. They like seeing it up close and personal. The configuration of negro bar does not tie into the HD very well... It is a long walk along a very busy street. Making a place to access the water and the amenities in the HD is a win win. If I have a choice to walk around the HD with access to a waterfront after a nice dinner vs going to dinner at the fountains in Roseville or even Palladio, the HD is going to win every time.

[4thgenFolsomite]

It creates an area where people at negro bar can paddle over and walk up to the HD.

There are Already trails on this side of the river but they are causing erosion and unsafe for disabled and children.

Making a safe place where people can enjoy the river after or before dinner in one of the many great restaurants on sutter is a huge benefit.

This is largely funded by tax payer funded competitive grants- I for one am glad that the construction dollars are in Folsom and the long term benefit is in Folsom.

it is not a hard concept- people like water. They like seeing it up close and personal. The configuration of negro bar does not tie into the HD very well... It is a long walk along a very busy street. Making a place to access the water and the amenities in the HD is a win win. If I have a choice to walk around the HD with access to a waterfront after a nice dinner vs going to dinner at the fountains in Roseville or even Palladio, the HD is going to win every time.

so its more of a benefit to the HD restaurants then.  I worry mostly at the cost to the habitat down there and then change from a natural, slightly wild environment to a more paved and graded environment.  Lots of trees going away,   somehow I don't think as many people are going to go down there for a post-dinner stroll than some may think. 

[Steve Heard]

You made the same/similar arguments about the South of 50 project.

It's getting old, sir.

 

I don't think I ever said that the South of 50 project would be good for the Historic District or tourism, which the waterfront project may be. If we want our city services, the money has to come from somewhere. Unless we just want to keep building so we get developer fees, tourism and sales taxes are going to have to play a bigger role in our future. 

 

 

so its more of a benefit to the HD restaurants then.  I worry mostly at the cost to the habitat down there and then change from a natural, slightly wild environment to a more paved and graded environment.  Lots of trees going away,   somehow I don't think as many people are going to go down there for a post-dinner stroll than some may think. 

 

I think it's more than a benefit to the HD restaurants. It will also be a great benefit to the citizens and visitors. All over the country and the world, paths, promenades, walkways, whatever you want to call them are built so that people can have access to the water.

 

I don't want to pave paradise, but building this loop will not destroy the environment, just make it more accessible.

[maestro]

Funny that so many of you have all this faith in our City Council to make good decisions and spend money properly and in a smart way.

Have you people NOT been paying attention to some of the dumb#$% decisions they've made lately ??

Come on, people. Wake up.

 

 

There are some commenters here who are directly benefiting from those ____ decisions.       At least one of the rudest has political ambitions because of their ties --   having no decent employment, politics looks remunerative to the unsavory.

As for the city council's decisions and the lack of Engineer Approved Plans for this trail mess, and the city's TOTAL lack of an insurance company willing to cover them:         The few people making rude supportive honks about this city council and their staff, are a total minority.        They intend to discredit the truth, seeking to enhance themselves with our troublesome council "permanent four".

 

As all this proceeds, let's hope someone cares the city lied about having Insurance, and city refuses to account for the missing hotel tax monies of $44 Million.       At least there are many viewers reading these posts.   

 

 

Aces, look at the next city council agenda:    taxpayers get to pay almost $1/2 million for a 3 way intersection signal light.     Intel commuters ought to be interested in that waste as they sit on Sibley St.    Just another example.

 

 

BTW neighbor Tony, you have created retaliation opportunities by giving out names, so maybe you should reconsider.      Private messages make it clear who these negative persons are, so don't think the vicious posters are anonymous, or escaping attention.     This opinion comes from private communications:   those who needed get protective orders.     Why not show some respect for your neighbors and spend time on Dokken Engineering contracts with the city.

 

 

Steve, it is interesting to see how people reflect their self-interests when "anonymous"  (or so they think).      Personally, from a law enforcement perspective, it seems the city and Reclamation ought to respect the "limited access", "passive uses", of this "Conservation Zone".     It is a good thing there are those willing to read, defend, and respect the laws.   Maybe you ought to consider some of the posts permitted to remain, when their sole intent is negative........

 

 

.

[kcrides99]

Agreed... Keep in mind this area is already criscrossed with dirt paths. These paths erode, people make their own paths having a worst effect on the environment.

If there is a forms trail people tend to stay on that trail more frequently. Let's not forget this is not virgin ground, this area was clear cut during the gold rush and the construction of the powerhouse.

Putting a formal trail fixes a lot of the problems that are resulting from the informal mismash of trails happening now.

[2 Aces]

Pardon me if I missed it, but did the City ever get an artist's rendition or a developer's rendition of what the proposed project would look like when finished ??
Additionally, Steve, I do believe you said in regards to the South of 50 project that an addition of tens of thousands of new Folsom residents would be a boon to local merchants and businesses. In fact I think you played the same "ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" card. You didn't address *any* negatives (hint: water, traffic, etc). Just remember there are consequences and costs (monetary and non-monetary) that need to be taken into consideration...which many times go unheeded. And when their ideas fail or fall way short of expectations, the Utopians wonder "what happened...how could WE be wrong" ??
Examples:
"Emptying Folsom Lake to temporarily solve some issues downstream...ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" ??
"You can take the Billion Dollar Bullet Train from SF to Disneyland in 9 minutes...ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" ??
"A $15 minimum wage will lift everybody out of poverty...ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" ??
"Solar panels and windmills will save the planet...ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" ??
"Hope and Change...ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" ??
You get my drift ??
Just remember this all of you Utopians out there: there are consequences and costs to your actions. Don't let you emotions run amok.
End of lecture.
Go Giants/49ers

[Steve Heard]

Steve, it is interesting to see how people reflect their self-interests when "anonymous"  (or so they think).      Personally, from a law enforcement perspective, it seems the city and Reclamation ought to respect the "limited access", "passive uses", of this "Conservation Zone".     It is a good thing there are those willing to read, defend, and respect the laws.   Maybe you ought to consider some of the posts permitted to remain, when their sole intent is negative........

 

.

 

Maestro, I try to let all sides have a say, both positive and negative. I don't agree with everything said on here, but to be fair, I avoid censoring people/posts unless they are truly offensive or dangerous.

 

Pardon me if I missed it, but did the City ever get an artist's rendition or a developer's rendition of what the proposed project would look like when finished ??
Additionally, Steve, I do believe you said in regards to the South of 50 project that an addition of tens of thousands of new Folsom residents would be a boon to local merchants and businesses. In fact I think you played the same "ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" card. You didn't address *any* negatives (hint: water, traffic, etc). Just remember there are consequences and costs (monetary and non-monetary) that need to be taken into consideration...which many times go unheeded. And when their ideas fail or fall way short of expectations, the Utopians wonder "what happened...how could WE be wrong" ??
Examples:
"Emptying Folsom Lake to temporarily solve some issues downstream...ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" ??
"You can take the Billion Dollar Bullet Train from SF to Disneyland in 9 minutes...ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" ??
"A $15 minimum wage will lift everybody out of poverty...ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" ??
"Solar panels and windmills will save the planet...ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" ??
"Hope and Change...ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING" ??
You get my drift ??
Just remember this all of you Utopians out there: there are consequences and costs to your actions. Don't let you emotions run amok.
End of lecture.
Go Giants/49ers

 

I see your point, and yes, more people buy consume more stuff, so the purveyors of stuff benefit.

 

In the case of legitimate businesses flourishing, I'm all for it. 

 

I think the trail access will indeed turn out to be a good thing. 

[RNGRDN]

The access issue has been used to justify this project.  I was present when two members of the Sacramento County Disabled Access Sub Committee visited the project site.  One of the committee members is confined to a wheelchair.  Both members said that disabled access is more than meeting ADA slope standards.  They saw the distance and decent required to visit the shoreline in the project design and said that it is beyond what a disabled person should be subjected to.

 

The committee wrote a letter recommending an access point further down the river where the decent is appropriate and far less destructive to park vegetation.  Let's not dismiss the committee members as cynical people.