502 replies to this topic

[ducky]

There will be seven candidates running for three city council seats this fall.  I think we all know the three incumbents by now.

The four challengers, as per The Folsom Telegraph, are:

 

1.  Chad Vander Veen, who has been kind enough to share his platform here.  You can read more at chadforfolsom.com

2. Roger Gaylord, who ran in the 2012 campaign and has also been kind enough to share his opinions here.  He supports term limits and wants input on the S50 plans.

3. Jennifer Lane, Planning Commission member, who wants to "put people before politics and envisions a park at the city corporation yard at the end of Leidesdorf St."

4. Sandra Lunceford, who is active with the Folsom Historical Society, and her interest lies in our historical assets. "I want to help Folsom prosper from historic tourism possibilities."

 

I just have to put this quote from one of the incumbents because I know how much Rich T will like it:  "I want to ensure the growth south of 50 is what the residents wanted when we passed Measure W.  A lot of people don't realize the residents put the land plan together," he said.

[giacomo]

Did Miklos say that with a straight face. 

[Dave Burrell]

What is a good strategy for trying to get some new people onto the city council?

 

Which would be more effective? Vote for just one of vote for two? It's long over due time for some new people to take over.

[Rich_T]

There will be seven candidates running for three city council seats this fall.  I think we all know the three incumbents by now.

The four challengers, as per The Folsom Telegraph, are:

 

1.  Chad Vander Veen, who has been kind enough to share his platform here.  You can read more at chadforfolsom.com

2. Roger Gaylord, who ran in the 2012 campaign and has also been kind enough to share his opinions here.  He supports term limits and wants input on the S50 plans.

3. Jennifer Lane, Planning Commission member, who wants to "put people before politics and envisions a park at the city corporation yard at the end of Leidesdorf St."

4. Sandra Lunceford, who is active with the Folsom Historical Society, and her interest lies in our historical assets. "I want to help Folsom prosper from historic tourism possibilities."

 

I just have to put this quote from one of the incumbents because I know how much Rich T will like it:  "I want to ensure the growth south of 50 is what the residents wanted when we passed Measure W.  A lot of people don't realize the residents put the land plan together," he said.

 

 

I appreciate the shout-out!  Count me as one who still doesn't realize that the residents ever said to develop the S50 land - because we never did.

 

I think that 3 of the candidates should try to run as a slate, to the extent that it is legal and feasible.  The fourth candidate should step down for the greater good, and help the other 3 get elected.

 

With 7 candidates, incumbents always seem to get reelected, with slim margins such as 20% to 17%.  The name recognition, including the big signs on developer-supplied land, prove to be the tipping point, it seems.

 

So run a slate of 3 replacements at them, under the banner of ushering in a new day for Folsom politics.  Coordinate the signs and messaging around the idea of voting for all 3 together.

[Roger Gaylord]

The incumbents will need to fight for this one. I learned a lot from the last election in 2012 including how much the Chamber/ BizPAC will pay to keep the incumbents in place. Residents and business owners I’m speaking to all over the city are exhausted with Miklos and Howell and ready for a fresh face; whether they care about the issues or not. I've already put a tremendous amount of effort into this campaign and weve only just begun. The Chamber has already announced its "unanimously" endorsed all 3 incumbents without so much as speaking to any of the 7 challengers. They have about $50,000 dollars to split up among the incumbents. 

 

Social media (which most of the sitting incumbents are not using) will play a pivotal role this go around. I've geared up early and made the rounds to many local businesses and residents all over Folsom. The cars will be wrapped in big GAYLORD for Folsom banners along with all the GAYLORD signs which are already made and ready to go! 

 

 

I can’t speak for the other challengers however nearly 10,000 Folsom residents voted for me in 2012; I am ready to fight and earn those votes again and more for this election. I hope I can count on all of you in the MyFolsom community for support and help spreading the good word! 

[Steve Heard]

The name recognition, including the big signs on developer-supplied land, prove to be the tipping point, it seems.

 

So run a slate of 3 replacements at them, under the banner of ushering in a new day for Folsom politics.  Coordinate the signs and messaging around the idea of voting for all 3 together.

 

I think that name recognition is a big factor, and so are signs, but to the dissatisfied the number of signs don't mean a thing.

 

As for asking one to drop out, I don't know how feasible that would be, as all 4 new candidates are passionate about running and winning.

 

 

Social media (which most of the sitting incumbents are not using) will play a pivotal role this go around. I've geared up early and made the rounds to many local businesses and residents all over Folsom. The cars will be wrapped in big GAYLORD for Folsom banners along with all the GAYLORD signs which are already made and ready to go! 

 

 

 

 

 

I think anyone running for office should be using social media. It is cheap, reaches a lot of people, and allows one to go in-depth on their positions, and is seen as more personal than a sign you pass on the freeway.

[Rich_T]

<< all 4 new candidates are passionate about running and winning >>

 

And therein lies the problem - they might end up thinning out the vote, which plays to the incumbents. 

 

For that matter, what does "winning" even mean?  It would matter a little, but not a lot, if only Roger or only Chad or only Sandra or only Jennifer joined two reelected incumbents on the City Council.  It would not be enough to achieve much.  That's why three challengers should run as a slate, to the extent that this is ethical/legal.  Instead of signs that say "Gaylord for Folsom" (for example), there should be signs that refer to the triumvirate challenger by some catchy name.  It shouldn't be "vote for me", it should be "vote for us".  Otherwise, the individual challengers will be hard-pressed to overcome the entrenchment factor.

[Phoenix2014]

Roger,

 

After reviewing the past years Utility Commission meeting minutes, I have to assume that you now know exactly what the City is doing in regards to our water.

• Ignoring Measure W (The speaker lied to you by plying a verbal shell game with the pot of "conserved" water and the Fazio water)

• Suing the residents of Folsom to keep anyone from challenging the theft of our water. (The speaker lied to you saying that they "sued themselves" just to make sure a judge would agree with them that they could ignore Measure W)

• Ignoring the Environmental Impact Report that lists ONLY a new source from the Sacramento River. (the speaker lied to you saying the Report also covered conservation as an option. It does not, as verified by a number of comments from various agencies).

• There is, through conservation, enough water within our current water rights to supply South of 50's new development (The speaker lied to you by failing to disclose the failure to this plan - only works in a wet year when that "conserved" water is a physical thing still sitting in the lake. During a dry year, such as now, when we conserve because that water "does not exist", how will the "non-existent water" supply south of 50? Easy, you and I conserve another 20 to 30%)

• They are working on backup water supplies (The speaker lied to you by indicating they were viable. Then went on to lie again by insinuating that developers would pay for it. All of the backup water sources are both unreliable, especially in a drought, and very expensive - so it goes without saying that you and I, not developers south of50, would pay for them)

 

 

I would hope that by now you fully understand the lies you and the other Commissioners have been fed.

 

You have a meeting this Tuesday, August 20th. Show the residents that you hope will vote for you that you are not an Eric King, Andy Morin, or Ernie Sheldon - all elected by grass roots support, but turned on their fellow residents as soon as they were elected.

 

Bring up all of these issues and get the City on record as to how they are putting Folsom residents at risk. Show us you deserve our vote by being the lone opposing vocal voice in the crowd such as Tom and Sara were.

[tessieca]

Words of advice from someone who has successfully campaigned in this city. 

1) You can't be a single issue candidate (i.e. focus on South of 50 or "the incumbents have been here too long")

2) You can't just be a naysayer.  Voters won't take you seriously.  This city is actually well-run overall.

3) Davburr, vote for one if your goal is to displace an incumbent.  The non-incumbent candidates will probably badly split the vote, ensuring the incumbents get in, unless one stands out way above the rest.

4) A slate/team campaign as suggested by some is a really bad idea.  If you really want to be successful as a non-incumbent you really need to stop outside of the team box and distinguish yourself.  OTW split vote again.

5) Prove why you'd be better than the incumbents.  Again, distinguish yourself.  If everything you can do, they can do better, why vote for you as an inexperienced candidate?

 

Lastly, for those who are looking for anybody-but-the-incumbents, beware that you can edge out the last person you want to remove. In one of my races, a union that I am 100% sure wanted to displace me put up a challenger; however, the challenger slipped in behind me and removed someone they would have rather saved.

 

Go in peace!

[Rich_T]

tessieca, If you take your points 3 through 5, then my idea of running as a slate is not only a good idea, it's the ONLY idea that will actually finally break the incumbent entrenchment.  Your way, perhaps one new person will be elected, which is practically useless in terms of different outcomes w/r/t all those "single issues" that tend to add up.  I will be voting for three challengers, so I hope one of the four drops out, so as not to dilute the vote.

 

<< If everything you can do, they can do better, why vote for you as an inexperienced candidate? >>

 

Because some of the experienced ones have been condescending and deceitful as they pursue an agenda that they, but not I, want.

[knittychick]

I will not vote for a block of candidates. I agree with Theresa, in many ways our city is run well, so I am not inclined to vote for a candidate just because s/he is not an incumbent. I am a long term resident and I am not naïve - I know what goes on in City Hall. I would be happy to focus and replace just one member on our Council as a start. One person can create change – in two years one or two more members are replaced and we have dramatic change. There is something to be said for the continuity, historic knowledge and experience of the current members, a gradual change would not be all bad.

 

My 2¢ worth.

[Rich_T]

Gradual change doesn't seem to work.  Instead, it's like with zombie movies - the new person ends up becoming like the incumbents, probably because of natural soft peer pressure to politely conform.  As "Phoenix" has chronicled, all the "change agent" candidates in the past have ended up going along with the crowd, with no discernible difference.  That's why I think a full-on shock to the system is needed.

 

Moreover, if you pick one new candidate, and I pick one other new candidate, and we each vote for two incumbents, then guess what?  All three incumbents will be elected, because we will have spread out the challenger votes.

[Roger Gaylord]

The everyday Folsom is indeed great. Clean streets, nice parks and great schools. The council has done a good job building what you see today; the problem is they want to keep building at a rate we can’t afford nor effectively control. We continue to overspend. The current city plans are to expand exponentially without any plans on increasing services to accommodate this growth. Case in point, Folsom's population is 80,000 + with plans to add 10,000 + more with projects like SO50 and rezoning single family lots to multifamily lots all while Police staff has been cut by 20+ officers. (This doesn't even bring in the whole issue with water.) Response time is already decreasing for police and more importantly fire. Have you seen how many fire stations have closed lately? Ask anyone in Folsom PD or Folsom Fire; they are all very concerned. We are slowing chipping away at first responder’s compensation packages, making our agency less sought after for more experienced candidates like the 20 year veteran who opts to go elsewhere because Folsom can’t afford them. Let's keep in mind; Rancho Cordova was the Folsom of the 50's and 60's. Take a look at it now. Schools and parks start closing, decrease in police and fire personal, you get the point. If our current leadership isn’t controlled and growth is done right, we will continue to develop beyond our means. Folsom is not hiring people, but we are committed to growth. We are also a time where funds are short. We went from a $16,000,000 surplus to $0 in six years because as the council puts it “times were tough.” I don’t see the economy anywhere near booming right now; coupled with future projections, we might be looking at another housing bubble, why aren’t we hunker down and building our reserves? Folsom lease spaces are empty and business is relatively flat. I’ve personally spoken directly to 30 small businesses here who say the Chamber has done nothing for them. What would happen if say Intel decided to do a Waste Management and pull out or have mass layoff; what would happen to Folsom? Miklos, Morin and Howell all talk about wanting to bring jobs to Folsom but talk is cheap; what are they really doing? Who are they courting?

 

The other issue is our current leadership is out of touch with modern Folsom. They do not represent the majority of Folsom. This is why I suggest term limits. The council should be cultivating people who currently live here; including younger candidates who can help promote a mix of new age ideas while relating to all demographics in Folsom not just a subculture. I ask myself and others all the time if Kerri Howell is a good representation of what Folsom? Are any of the current incumbents a good representation of Folsom today? They might have been at one time, but today is not yesterday. It’s time for a Fresh Face. The Chamber blindly endorses all three incumbents without even speaking to any of the challengers. I’m not surprised, however I am confused; how can they claim to represent Folsom’s business voice when they don’t even invest the time or the due diligence into the challengers? This is why I know the establishment is out of touch and is agenda controlled. I am a pro-business, pro-SMART development, fiscally responsible, contributing 25 year resident of Folsom who’s 31 years old; why would they not support me and make this a positive story on how Folsom’s next generation is gearing up to be involved?

 

I’m not just focused on one aspect or area of Folsom. I’m focused on all of Folsom. This election isn’t about winning; it’s about the health of Folsom. I grew up here and I’ll be damned if I let go downhill due to the Developer and Chamber influences. They don’t understand that I know Rome wasn’t built in a day; I’m here to prove a point and I will be heard whether I’m elected now or four elections from now. I won’t stop until positive change is made.

[Chad Vander Veen]

This is a good post from Roger - though he and I are competing for a seat on the council, we share a passion for this city and are rightly concerned that the current council is either unable or unwilling to accept the reality that what has worked in the past is no longer sufficient to protect Folsom's prosperity in the future. Challengers for city council seats cannot compete on the money front when the Chamber's PAC throws tens of thousands of dollars at the incumbents. And many of us are so busy in our everyday lives, it's just simpler to vote on name recognition alone. That's why it's imperative that those of you on this site, those who are actively involved in the city's affairs, help get the message out that it's time for some on the council to move on. Challengers like Roger and I don't have the war chests the incumbents are given, we aren't in developer pockets so we can't even put up campaign signs on developer-owned lots in high-traffic locations. The system is setup perfectly to maintain an absolute status quo. The only way we'll change this is if you take just a few minutes a day and tell your friends, your colleagues, and your neighbors that it's time to put an end to thoughtless sprawl, to the lack of investment in water, energy and transportation, and to reluctance to put in place today solutions to tomorrow's problems.   

 

We can ensure a more prosperous Folsom in the years to come. But it can't be done without your help.  

[Phoenix2014]

tessieca,

 

I would be at the front of the line to thank you for your years of service on the school board. I especially appreciate the text in your banner at the bottom of your posts.

However, how many school board candidates, incumbents or other wise, ever received tens of thousands in donations from developers?

The current council incumbents will. I agree with Rich_T. Your suggested strategy is a long proven failure in this City. One "voice" on the council is, excuse the vulgar comparison, "Like pissin' in the wind." Useless and not so pleasant.

 

Candidates,

 

I very strongly believe that a slate is the only effective means of winning back our City. Only a combined advertising effort will stand a chance against the incumbents big signs at every corner (where none of you will be allowed to place even a flyer, and the City's own staff will be out 24/7 to make damn sure any of your signs are promptly removed - again, no exaggeration as it happens every election)

 

Of the four, I would ask and encourage Jennifer to step down. As a member of the Planning commission that rubber stamps every thing regarding south of 50, without so much as a debate - including the theft of our water - she might as well be a Council incumbent.

 

This leaves Chad, Roger and Sandra. You all now the first two by their active posts, but why Sandra? Over 20 years of unwavering community involvement, including years of working at a voter precinct, and an expert in environmental documents (that pesky little document that the City has already ignored regarding water fro south of 50.)

 

If these three banded together, it would get media attention as well as possibly even wake up the typical apathetic Folsom voter to actually pay attention to who they are voting for.

 

tessieca,

 

Back to your comment on "one issue", yes there is only ONE issue at stake, the future of our City. But to get voters attention, you have to start with something they will care about:

 

• fiscally responsible! blah, blah, blah
• busses will run on time! blah, blah, blah
• pot holes will be repaired! blah, blah, blah
• more police and fire!

All this and a hundred more are important for a well run City, but we have excellent, professional, City staff that does a good job at this.

 

The Council sets the direction for the City, is responsible for living up to promises to residents, ordinances, state law, etc. This Council has failed any way you try and twist this. The fact that this City is still a great place to live is why I am fighting for it, but the credit goes to staff who have struggled to do so against the Councils undermining of their good efforts

 

Water, the theft of your water, the extreme risk they put us in by stealing our water when the next drought comes, letting your lawn die because we are short on water, cutting your use of water but seeing your rates go up, finding out that the stolen water is not only being sent south of 50, but the revenue from the theft of your water is also being sent south of 50.

 

This tessieca, is one heck of a start to campaign for. But, there is much more regarding south of 50 than just water:

 

 

So, lets look at South of 50.

•Water - Already lied about and now ignoring 5+ major legal documents that were written to protect our water. Stealing right in front of our faces. Then, they intend to turn over any profit from the "sale" of our stolen water to the developers south of 50 to offset the cost of the water infrastructure over there. This is in City documents.

•Saving 30% for open space?

•Schools paid for by a separate bond exclusive to the new south of 50 school zone?

•Cost of, and actual implementation, of traffic congestion mitigation?


Read the following letter from ex-mayor, now attorney to the land speculators, Holderness, and form your own opinion as to weather you think any of the current Council with stand up for you the resident regarding other promises:

** Begin **
CITY OF FOLSOM
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 15, 2005

Robert G. Holderness, 80 Iron Point Circle, appearing on behalf of AKT Development, which is the principal land owner with 1,300 acres, introduced Mike McDougal with MJM Properties who is the property manager for AKT Development and Dave Storer with HDAS who is serving as the Planning Consultant for AKT Development.

He spoke about the 30 percent open space requirement for this area, stating that it was a burden on the land owners in that it limits the base upon which the infrastructure can be funded.

With respect to schools, he stated that the land owners in this area were included in Measure C, which meant they paid for some of the bonds that were adopted by the voters of Folsom. However the land owners did not vote on the Measure, they were just included in the district. It means the land owners are entitled to a seat at the table when the funding of schools is discussed because they are already participating in the financing of the schools.

The transportations issues were going to be significant challenges. He felt that the development of White Rock Road as an expressway would be key not only to the development of the SOI, but also to alleviate traffic on Highway 50 for the whole corridor.

He commended staff for the way they managed the public outreach over the last 18 months, in addition to the way they have worked with the landowners. He noted that the landowners started meeting on a weekly basis six months ago.

** end **