30 replies to this topic

[Sandra Lunceford]

Steve - Thank you for posting a thoughtful article and for the opportunity to clarify my platform.  MyFolsom is such a terrific tool for discussion.  

 

"One side wants to keep Folsom the way the way it is, like challenging City Council candidates Jennifer M. Lane, Chad Vander Veen and Sandra Lunceford. 

 

While on the other side, there is the group of the other candidates, the incumbents."

 

I am not against developing south of 50.  The development plan has been forthcoming for about 20 years.  It just happens that bulldozers are slated to operate as we enter our fourth year of drought.  I just want to slow down development by increasing tourism dollars as a substitute for our dependence on property tax revenue.  I want to ensure that existing residents water supply is sustainable before we start adding more homes and putting that supply at risk.

 

We have depended on property tax revenue to pay our city's bills.  The incumbents say they don't need to develop to pay their bills, as evidenced during the recession when housing starts were so few.  During the recession they spent down the reserve, and now the reserve is low.  They now need to develop to build that reserve back up again.

 

How do we get tourism dollars?  We package our existing assets - arts venues, amazing history, and recreational venues such as trails, river, etc. and market these nationally and internationally.  We invite historically themed businesses (e.g., Old Sac) to open their doors on Sutter Street, use our amphitheatre more, add more bike shops, art shops, restaurants, etc.  We make the historic district the heart of Folsom.  We direct Folsom Stage lines into the neighborhoods, out to the college, and into the Palladio, Broadstone to unite the old and new Folsom into a family centered community.  We do this while we wait for enough water to take care of our existing residents and enough to sustain more business and development.  I am not for halting development altogether.  I am just offering a plan to pay our city's bills with tourism dollars rather than property taxes derived through development.  

 

I would certainly hope that as the rain falls, there is some way to obtain another water supply for those additional homes.  I believe we should try our best to adhere to the basic tenets of Measure W.

 

I, too, want to give north and south of Highway 50 residents opportunities to incorporate sustainable energy and water conservation options into their homes.  Please refer to SandraLunceford.com for how to accomplish that. Smart growth is inherent in the development plan - not an option.  We just have to be smart about how to grow.

 

 

[Rich_T]

"The development plan has been forthcoming for about 20 years."

 

Exactly.  Yet Measure W was pitched to residents as being necessary to preserve our open spaces, under the "threat" of development by the county.

 

"I believe we should try our best to adhere to the basic tenets of Measure W."

 

I believe we should not just try to adhere to what was passed, but should compel our elected officials to adhere to what was passed, despite their efforts to wiggle out of it by sneaky methods.

 

 

As for your platform, I can't foresee that increased tourism will ever be a financial panacea for Folsom. 

[ducky]

Sandra,

 

Part of your platform is bringing water conservation companies to Folsom so residents may have options to save water.  This sounds good as long as it stays an option and those that opt out aren't penalized financially.  Things like solar and rainwater harvesting don't come without cost and not everyone can afford to add these features.  Retrofitting is expensive.  Low-interest loans only help if you can afford the payment every month.  

 

[Steve Heard]

As for your platform, I can't foresee that increased tourism will ever be a financial panacea for Folsom. 

Perhaps not a panacea, but certainly a huge opportunity with great potential.

 

Folsom has so much to offer visitors, from history to recreation, and increasingly, the arts.

[Rich_T]

Perhaps not a panacea, but certainly a huge opportunity with great potential.

 

Folsom has so much to offer visitors, from history to recreation, and increasingly, the arts.

 

No argument there.  I'm all for increased tourism, and certainly it will bring some financial benefit.  I just don't see it as replacing other sources of revenue, because it's not like we're San Francisco in terms of a tourist destination.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Sandra,

 

Part of your platform is bringing water conservation companies to Folsom so residents may have options to save water.  This sounds good as long as it stays an option and those that opt out aren't penalized financially.  Things like solar and rainwater harvesting don't come without cost and not everyone can afford to add these features.  Retrofitting is expensive.  Low-interest loans only help if you can afford the payment every month.  

 

 

This is true - it can be costly to add renewable energy and water conservation features to your home. We explored the mPower program and found that even with solar we'd wind up paying about the same as we do now with SMUD (completely different story if you're in EDH!). That's why I advocate that we, at minimum, make these features options in new home construction in Folsom - such as the KB ZeroHouse in El Dorado Hills. It's far less expensive to do it upfront - just 8 percent more than KB's other traditionally built homes in the area. If the city is going to develop South of 50 I'd like to ensure that it's done in the most responsible and thoughtful way current technology allows. Continuing to build using old ideas and methods will not be good enough to meet the demands of the 21st century.

[cw68]

Title 24 building codes get more energy efficient each update. 2013 standards, which went into effect July 1, 2014 will save 25% in residential building and 30% in nonresidential buildings over the 2008 standards and add about $2,000 to the residential building cost while saving (at current energy costs) $6,000 over 30 years. Noteworthy in this drought is the 200M gallons of water these standards will save.

The State of California has committed to a Net-Zero energy goal for residential buildings in 2020 and in nonresidential buildings in 2030. Net-zero (ZNE) means that a ZNE home produces as muc energy on site as it consumes on an annual basis.

Change is coming. It's just a matter of embracing it and preparing for it or fighting it.

There are many communities that adopt local standards in advance of statewide standards, but with our current council buddy-buddy with developers and developments, without new blood it is highly unlikely we will see any change in Folsom. In fact, I could see costly court maneuvers to avoid compliance instead.

[Sandra Lunceford]

Water conservation, as well as sustainable energy products and processes are optional....not required.  I believe there are a lot more options in store.  We just need to open the door to those with the determination, intuition, and innovation to make them happen.  Then, we can adopt these options into our homes, if we so desire.  

 

Tourism is not a panacea, just a way to slow down development south of 50.  Increasing our job diversity by attracting energy sustainable and water conservation companies to our area will help, too.  Some of the tourism revenue would be used to provide incentives for these companies.

 

As far as Measure W.... I am a strong proponent of the vote.  People fight wars for the voting privilege.  We voted for it...so shall it be as far as I'm concerned.  

[cw68]

If I recall correctly, when discussing water for So50, mentions that Measure W has been upheld by the courts. Has anyone challenged taking the saved water from plugging leaks as the new source or have we just complained about it?

[ducky]

 

This is true - it can be costly to add renewable energy and water conservation features to your home. We explored the mPower program and found that even with solar we'd wind up paying about the same as we do now with SMUD (completely different story if you're in EDH!). That's why I advocate that we, at minimum, make these features options in new home construction in Folsom - such as the KB ZeroHouse in El Dorado Hills. It's far less expensive to do it upfront - just 8 percent more than KB's other traditionally built homes in the area. If the city is going to develop South of 50 I'd like to ensure that it's done in the most responsible and thoughtful way current technology allows. Continuing to build using old ideas and methods will not be good enough to meet the demands of the 21st century.

Again, I like that you can see that it's a blank slate out there and Folsom has a chance to do something innovative.

[Sandra Lunceford]

"If I recall correctly, when discussing water for So50, mentions that Measure W has been upheld by the courts. Has anyone challenged taking the saved water from plugging leaks as the new source or have we just complained about it?"

 

Linda Holderness submitted an article in the Telegraph today addressing the water recovered from leaks.  It appears that recovered water (water from leaks) is included in the lawsuit.  Linda reports that Marcus Yasutake said that, "...none of it could ever again be used north of 50". My question is - if the leak was fixed north of 50, why can't it ever be used north of 50?  I'm certainly glad that the leak was fixed in any case.

 

Also in the Telegraph today is a summary of Chief Renaud's report to the City Council about Class 1 Crimes.  On my limited budget I've knocked on doors throughout the City of Folsom for my campaign.  I uphold and support all that the police do and acknowledge that they do a fabulous job.  Our response rate is truly commendable.  However, I have come across upstanding residents that do not see an "extra safe" city as reported.  That is not to say we need 8 more police; however, it does leave room to think about improvement during a time of campaign rhetoric.  Don't shoot the messenger.  Just reporting my experience.

[maestro]

If I recall correctly, when discussing water for So50, mentions that Measure W has been upheld by the courts. Has anyone challenged taking the saved water from plugging leaks as the new source or have we just complained about it?

FOLSOM SUES REST OF WORLD, CLAIMING  WATER IS THEIRS

even if non-existent, and not entitled to them.

 

Superior Court of CA , Sacramento County   CAse  34-2013-00138798    filed by Bruce Cline your city paid lawyer, by Horowitz and Gonzalez of outside law firm.

 

Anyone who wants to see the 4 pages, contact me privately.  You need to see it.

 

The city made that secret water deal with the 2 FPA landowners Jan. 2013 (remember the questions??).   Jan. 23, 2013, the city passed Res. 8457 and cites it in this lawsuit.   Res. 8457 claims the city's UNCERTIFIED 2011 water plan document PROVES the city is "protecting pre 1914 water rights".    In fact this is a lie unrelated to anything except throwing it into lawsuit 138798.

 

DEFENDANTS in this Folsom Lawsuit:    anybody who comes forth claiming American River Water rights, OR the city's RIGHT to give water rights to anyone it selects.      

 

Lawyer told me this type of lawsuit is based on a law which has never been used in CA -- especially not to give away NONexistent water.    Marcus Yasutake told the Utility Commission a year later the document is sitting in a pile at the courthouse because Judge Cadei  DID NOT SIGN OFF ON IT.      Maybe he knew folsom city council can ask him to bless their water theft -- but there's no reason he should grant it.      Would you like to know what the other cities and agencies in the Water Forum Agreement have to say about this lawsuit taking all the American River water exclusively for our city council and their landowners?     

 

Guess.   C'mon folks, get a copy of FOLSOM sues REST OF WORLD, claiming all water is theirs.

 

council four gave everyone's water to 2 landowners, and want a court to bless it.

[EDF]

 

FOLSOM SUES REST OF WORLD, CLAIMING  WATER IS THEIRS

even if non-existent, and not entitled to them.

 

Superior Court of CA , Sacramento County   CAse  34-2013-00138798    filed by Bruce Cline your city paid lawyer, by Horowitz and Gonzalez of outside law firm.

 

Anyone who wants to see the 4 pages, contact me privately.  You need to see it.

 

The city made that secret water deal with the 2 FPA landowners Jan. 2013 (remember the questions??).   Jan. 23, 2013, the city passed Res. 8457 and cites it in this lawsuit.   Res. 8457 claims the city's UNCERTIFIED 2011 water plan document PROVES the city is "protecting pre 1914 water rights".    In fact this is a lie unrelated to anything except throwing it into lawsuit 138798.

 

DEFENDANTS in this Folsom Lawsuit:    anybody who comes forth claiming American River Water rights, OR the city's RIGHT to give water rights to anyone it selects.      

 

Lawyer told me this type of lawsuit is based on a law which has never been used in CA -- especially not to give away NONexistent water.    Marcus Yasutake told the Utility Commission a year later the document is sitting in a pile at the courthouse because Judge Cadei  DID NOT SIGN OFF ON IT.      Maybe he knew folsom city council can ask him to bless their water theft -- but there's no reason he should grant it.      Would you like to know what the other cities and agencies in the Water Forum Agreement have to say about this lawsuit taking all the American River water exclusively for our city council and their landowners?     

 

Guess.   C'mon folks, get a copy of FOLSOM sues REST OF WORLD, claiming all water is theirs.

 

council four gave everyone's water to 2 landowners, and want a court to bless it.

 

I'd like a response from the council critters running for re-election

[supermom]

You wont get one. 

 

Pst--we still never got a response about the whole car accident and council member hitting a kid a few years ago.

 

But a member of MyFolsom got a notice to desist any further commenting or be sued....

[cw68]

FOLSOM SUES REST OF WORLD, CLAIMING  WATER IS THEIRS

even if non-existent, and not entitled to them.

 
Superior Court of CA , Sacramento County   CAse  34-2013-00138798    filed by Bruce Cline your city paid lawyer, by Horowitz and Gonzalez of outside law firm.
 
Anyone who wants to see the 4 pages, contact me privately.  You need to see it.
 
The city made that secret water deal with the 2 FPA landowners Jan. 2013 (remember the questions??).   Jan. 23, 2013, the city passed Res. 8457 and cites it in this lawsuit.   Res. 8457 claims the city's UNCERTIFIED 2011 water plan document PROVES the city is "protecting pre 1914 water rights".    In fact this is a lie unrelated to anything except throwing it into lawsuit 138798.
 
DEFENDANTS in this Folsom Lawsuit:    anybody who comes forth claiming American River Water rights, OR the city's RIGHT to give water rights to anyone it selects.      
 
Lawyer told me this type of lawsuit is based on a law which has never been used in CA -- especially not to give away NONexistent water.    Marcus Yasutake told the Utility Commission a year later the document is sitting in a pile at the courthouse because Judge Cadei  DID NOT SIGN OFF ON IT.      Maybe he knew folsom city council can ask him to bless their water theft -- but there's no reason he should grant it.      Would you like to know what the other cities and agencies in the Water Forum Agreement have to say about this lawsuit taking all the American River water exclusively for our city council and their landowners?     
 
Guess.   C'mon folks, get a copy of FOLSOM sues REST OF WORLD, claiming all water is theirs.
 

council four gave everyone's water to 2 landowners, and want a court to bless it.

I must be dense because your post makes no sense to me.