79 replies to this topic

[Bob]

The South Of Highway 50 Growth Management Plan Initiative was submitted to the City Clerk on Wednesday, March 17th!

The initiative language has been shortened and simplified to provide Folsom voters with a very clear understanding of its goal. The main objective can be simplified as follows:

"Folsom voters have a right to decide on their future."

Please read the initiative below and decide for yourself if this initiative is good for you and your family.

We will begin signature collection after the City's review and the required notification in the newspaper. Therefore, we anticipate a Saturday, April 3rd start. More on this in future posts.

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth



**************************************
Initiative Text
**************************************

THE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 50 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN INITIATIVE

SECTION 1.

The voters of the City of Folsom hereby enact the following policies to be added to the Folsom General Plan:
Voter approval shall be required before any properties proposed for annexation south of Highway 50 can be pre-zoned or rezoned from agricultural reserve by the City of Folsom, as identified within Areas 1 and 2 on the attached Map. (Policy 7.2.1)

All properties south of Highway 50 to White Rock Road and between Prairie City Road and the El Dorado County Line (Area 1 on the attached Map) shall remain in agricultural reserve unless a majority of voters within the City of Folsom approve a specific plan for development of the entire area, which protects 100% of the oak woodlands and retains at least 50 percent of all land, including the oak woodlands, in agricultural use consistent with Sacramento County’s General Plan policies for agricultural land in this area in effect on November 2, 2004. (Policy 7.2.1.a)

All properties south of White Rock Road (Area 2 on the attached Map) shall remain in agricultural reserve unless two-thirds of Folsom voters approve a specific plan for development, which retains at least 75 per cent of the land in agricultural use consistent with Sacramento County’s General Plan policies for agricultural land in this area in effect on November 2, 2004. (Policy 7.2.1.b)

Highway 50 must be expanded from six to at least eight lanes between the El Dorado County line and the Hazel Avenue Interchange before any grading or building permit can be issued within a voter-approved specific plan south of Highway 50. (Policy 7.2.2)

Developers or landowners who seek the benefits of any voter-approved zoning changes for properties south of Highway 50 shall pay all the costs of the election. (Policy 7.2.3)

Current City of Folsom water supplies shall not be allocated to new urban development south of Highway 50 within Areas 1 and 2 on the attached Map unless the voters of the City of Folsom approve the allocation. (Policy 40.5.1)

SECTION II.
If a court declares any portion of this initiative invalid, then that portion shall be removed and the remaining portions of the initiative shall continue to be valid.

SECTION III.
This initiative shall only be amended by a majority of the City voters and the policies contained herein shall remain in effect for 30 years, unless amended by the voters of the City of Folsom.

Map


(Please see attached Word file for map)

Sorry, looks like the attached map is not coming through. I will contact John for help. Until then:

Area #1 is the Sphere of Influence area between Highway 50 and White Rock Road and between Prairie City Road and the County line

Area #2 is simply the land south of White Rock Road.

[Farley]

Thank you Bob Fish, where do we sign...Folsom resident

[Bob]

*********************************************************
If you care about the future of your City, and believe that you the voter should have direct input, we NEED YOU NOW.
Please contact us immediately.

*********************************************************
Please read the following:


We will begin signature collection either Saturday April 3rd or the 10th. It depends on when the City returns the initiative back to us.

The City attorney is required to write the initiative summary that precedes the initiative language. The intent is that the attorney's summary will be unbiased either way, and fairly portray the intent of the initiative.

Once he has finished and returned it to us, we must advertise our intent to collect signatures in a local newspaper, after which we are clear to begin the collection of signatures. Hence, the two to three week delay from when we turned it into the City on March 17th.

This leaves us a relatively short time frame to collect signatures. We will be collecting at five or seven stores, mostly supermarkets, for about five consecutive weekends.

We have a good start to our volunteer list but MUST HAVE MORE Folsom registered voters to be successful. Our plan is to make signature collection as painless as possible. No walking neighborhoods unless someone prefers to. Our plan is to set up in pairs for short three-hour shifts at the stores.

We will have four to five, maybe six, weekends to choose from. There will be time slots available to accommodate anyone’s busy schedule.

Please contact us immediately at:

983-2410
folsomfish3@cs.com

Our web site will be released as soon as the City returns the initiative to us and we can post the official copy. I will provide the address at that time.

It will have a copy of the map.

[folsomBlondie]

Thank you Bob.

Bob's info:

983-2410
folsomfish3@cs.com

[valdossjoyce]

If you've never gathered signatures, don't worry. There will be training to a)make you comfortable about it and b)maximize the number of VALID signatures that are obtained.

Call or e-mail Bob Fish.

Also, once the petitions are ready, if you don't have the opportunity to sign one while shopping, call us and we be sure you have an opportunity to sign. Keep your eyes peeled to this site once we announce our website.

Val Doss Joyce
631-1662

[Bob]

The City returned the initiative, with their summary attached, yesterday (Friday March 26th)!

Therefore, we are able to post our required legal notification in the Telegraph this Wednesday, and begin signature collecting next Saturday, April 3rd.

To those of you who have already called or e-mailed to help with signature collecting, THANKS! However, we still need more people to staff all the locations (mostly grocery stores) that we have approvals for.

For those of you who have thought that you would like to help, but are afraid of what you might be getting yourself into, please attend one of our orientation meetings, send me an e-mail, or call. There will be no pressure to join our efforts just because you do so. All we ask for is the opportunity to show you how easy it will be. If nothing else, you will walk away better informed.

Again, our orientation meetings will be this Wednesday, March 31st at 7:00PM and next Saturday, April 3rd at 10:00 AM. (Location to be announced)

Thank you again to all who have donated their time and/or money to get us this far.


Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth
folsomfish3@cs.com
983-2410

[waterbaby149]

Mr. Fish - Might I suggest that you join forces with the recall petition, and the petition to put the library location on the ballot when it comes to collecting signatures.
The more of us working together .........will make the work go faster

[Bob]

Waterbaby -

Thank you for the offer. However, several of our committee members are also on the Library Committee.

I personally have mixed feelings regarding the selected library site. I have three children who I am proud to say have spent more on overdue library book fees than on overdue video fees, yet are also involved in a sport almost continuously. So while I deplore losing a park site / ball field, especially one so important to members of the Lions Club and with a memorial that is important to all of Folsom, I was not involved in the process of selecting that site and have to trust the intentions and efforts of my fellow residents who did.

While many on our committee have been down similar roads with other issues in our city, and empathize with what you are doing, we will not be able make this a joint effort.

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth

[Bob]

Folsom Residents:

The location for our signature gathering training / orientation has been set. Please call or e-mail if you have not already done so to confirm that you will be able to make one of these meetings. They will be short.

The training will be at the Veterans Hall at the end of Forrest St. in the Preserve development. We are having a meeting of our Initiative committee there Wednesday night at 6:00PM, followed by signature gathering training at 7:00PM.

The training on Saturday will be at 10:00AM and will also be at the Veterans Hall.

For those who do not know where the hall is:
From the intersection of Riley St. and Natoma St., head toward Folsom Blvd. go straight thru the Folsom Blvd. intersection and Natoma St. will turn into Forest St. The hall is at the end of the street.
If you're coming from the other side of the river, you would take the Lake
Natoma Crossing and turn RIGHT on Forest. If you're coming down Folsom Blvd from the direction of Hwy 50/Blue Ravine, you would turn LEFT on Forest.

We will need many more people to help in order to collect enough signatures, in the short time that we have, in order to qualify for the November election.

Thanks again to all that have already offered their help.

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth
983-2410
folsomfish3@cs.com

[Bob]

Important Update:

Due to the necessity to advertise one more time in the Telegraph, we will have to delay the start of our signature collecting by one week. Our new starting date is Saturday April 10th.

Our second training / orientation meeting for those interested in helping with signature gathering will still be this Saturday April 3rd at 10:00AM and will again be located at the Veterans Hall on Forest St. (see above post for directions).

Our first orientation was held last night and well attended by about 25 residents. This is a great start, much better than is typically seen at the early stages of such a grass roots effort, and better than we had hoped for. Thanks to all who attended! It really gave our committee a lift to see such support.

Remember, this initiative is for you and your family.

It will give you the right to vote regarding the future growth of your City and will protect your quality of life. Please, no commitment is too small. Even If you have only a few hours to commit, every minute will be appreciated. For those that might be able to commit time, but have some reservation for any reason, please attend the meeting to find out more or call or e-mail with your concerns or questions.


Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth
983-2410
folsomfish3@cs.com

[Bob Holderness]

Regretably, Bob Fish's commendable enthusiasm for citizen participation is not matched by an accurate characterization of his initiative. For starters, none of the land which is the subject of the Bob Fish initiative is within the current city limits of Folsom. Simply put, this fact alone negates the whole purpose of the initiative. Why? If the Bob Fish initiative passes, instead of asking to annex their land to the city of Folsom, those owners of that land will simply apply to Sacramento County or to the city of Rancho Cordova for permission to develop their land and Folsom voters will have nothing to say about it. Why have Bob Fish and his supporters made such a huge mistake? Because they don't know what they're doing. The watch word for this initiative is: voters beware! Bob Holderness

[camay2327]

Bob Holderness, I agree with you on this.

I also think that Folsom needs to annex the land South of Folsom as soon as possible or someone else is going to control it.

Cal

[EDF]

To Bob Holderness...

come on...you can do better... that rhetoric is out of the "old" pro-development "play book"...

Rancho can barely run their own city... and you are gonna tell me that they would rather bring on that extra burden now....?

I know you have since gone over to the "other side" so to speak...but tell me.... please.... Is there something wrong with allowing the "vote of the people" on this important issue....?

The initiative doesn't say they can't develop... just they have to get "voter permission" for their plan... is that a bad thing Bob...?

Seems reasonnable to me a vote of the people on this issue would be just fine...since it will be we the people picking up the costs the Developers never do..... I call your attention to two School Bonds in the last 10 years... for starters....

If your developer friends have a great idea... then how about they present it to the voters of Folsom... in the form of a "public vote".... and by the way, they would pay for the election... that seems fair to me...

It puts the burden of the election where it belongs... on the Developers...

[valdossjoyce]

Two reasons to sign the petitions in the coming weeks:

1. If you're on the fence on this one, sign the petition so it at least gets on the November ballot. If it doesn't make it to the ballot, you'll never have a real choice. We'll all have plenty of time between now and November to evaluate the merits of pro and con arguments. How can anyone be against democracy? Besides, no irreversible actions can be taken by owners/developers between now and November. Sign today, then let's debate cooly and calmly.

2. I don't buy the argument that owners/developers will fly into the open arms of County or RC. The initiative is NOT a no-growth initiative---it's a "do-it-right" initiative. We don't want current Folsom residents to be stuck footing the bill for development and/or losing quality of life. Folsom voterd would approve a sensible development plan. It would cost the developers more money, but they'd still make more profit working with us rather than County or RC. That's because a Folsom address is worth hundreds of thousands of more dollars to them than a RC address or un-city address. Talk to a real estate broker and do the math.

PS to Mr. Holderness: I know you have the same 1st amendment free speech rights I do, but it's a tad deceptive to voice your opinions without identifying yourself as the paid attorney of the developer(s) of whom we speak. I can never tell which "hat" you're wearing, your "Folsom resident" hat or your "developer's paid advocate" hat.

[folsomBlondie]

QUOTE (valdossjoyce @ Apr 9 2004, 12:13 PM)

it's a "do-it-right" initiative.  We don't want current Folsom residents to be stuck footing the bill for development and/or losing quality of life.  Folsom voterd would approve a sensible development plan.  It would cost the developers more money, but they'd still make more profit working with us rather than County or RC.  That's because a Folsom address is worth hundreds of thousands of more dollars to them than a RC address or un-city address.  Talk to a real estate broker and do the math.     PS to Mr. Holderness:  I know you have the same 1st amendment free speech rights I do, but it's a tad deceptive to voice your opinions without identifying yourself as the paid attorney of the developer(s) of whom we speak.  I can never tell which "hat" you're wearing, your "Folsom resident" hat or your "developer's paid advocate" hat.

Yes the key word is "do-it-right". We need the Folsom residents' involvement in the development process South of 50. Currently, the process is only Folsom city and developers, and you know that the city is very very friendly to developers. After all we will have to live with what the developers will put there.