76 replies to this topic

[john]

http://www.sacbee.co...annex-land.html

Hey folks, the city is looking to annex 3500 acres south of 50. I'm kind of surprised nobody's talking about it!

For the record, if you have comments you want heard, you have to do it by Sept 10. There's a public forum August 2 and 4.

[camay2327]

I put the subject out under Informational Open House...

My wife and I plan to attend...




I received a flier in the mail, most of you more than likely did to.

Annexation of
Folsom's Sphere of Influence (SOI)

South of Highway 50
Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report

Please attend an
Informational Open House & Public Workshop on the Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Folsom SOI. Drop in to view displays, ask questions or make comments.

5 - 7 p.m. Monday, Aug 2
Folsom Community Center, 52 Natoma St.


You may also comment during a
Public Hearing at the Folsom Planning Commission Meeting
6:30 p.m. Wednesday, Aug 4
Council Chambers, Folsom City Hall, 50 Natoma St.

[MSgt]

It's not like anyone could stop it. It's going to happen sometime.

[camay2327]

I think it is going to be a very slow process due to the economy.

[ducky]

It's not like anyone could stop it. It's going to happen sometime.

That's how I feel. They gather "input" but do what they want anyway.

I do worry about businesses in the older part of town away from 50 once the building starts. We've already got so many empty spaces; for example, Mervyn's, the Wal Mart center, the Raley's center.

Heck, even close to 50 we still have an empty Palladio mall except for the movie theater.

[Inwit]

It's not like anyone could stop it. It's going to happen sometime.

I think it is going to be a very slow process due to the economy.

I agree with both comments.

I also agree with the city council's viewpoint, that if Folsom doesn't expand there, Rancho or Sac County would instead, so we might as well have the say as to how it goes instead of others.

I might not like it, but I believe it is inevitable.

[tgianco]

Are there any potential conflicts of interest on the City Council or Planning Commission?

I know there are several people that work in the real estate industry, finance and construction represented on the Council and Planning Commission. I am curious as to how this works and whether any of our council or appointmed commission members recuse themselves from commenting when it comes to these decisions.

[tgianco]

Are there any potential conflicts of interest on the City Council or Planning Commission?

I know there are several people that work in the real estate industry, finance and construction represented on the Council and Planning Commission. I am curious as to how this works and whether any of our council or appointmed commission members recuse themselves from commenting when it comes to these decisions.

On the other hand, though, I would hope these people with experience in real estate and finance would provide good insight as to whether the economics of the deal make sense for the City as a whole.

I would hate to see Folsom become too sprawling. We have a beautiful city that's considered a premium location in the Sacramento area. I'd hate to see that tarnished by greediness to develop south of 50.

[MSgt]

I am not saying it is a bad thing - I guess it is better to have it under the guidance of our council than Rancho Cordova's. Our city council might even have our best interest in mind? There is no way they would be swayed by the developers interest over ours.

[Inwit]

"Our city council might even have our best interest in mind? There is no way they would be swayed by the developers interest over ours. "

I understand your sarcasm, however, I think most, if not all of the council are Folsom residents, so I expect their selfish self-interest in what they want for this city somewhat influences their greedy decisions. (i.e. they won't want their property values or quality of life to deteriorate anymore than the rest of us do)

[tgianco]

"Our city council might even have our best interest in mind? There is no way they would be swayed by the developers interest over ours. "

I understand your sarcasm, however, I think most, if not all of the council are Folsom residents, so I expect their selfish self-interest in what they want for this city somewhat influences their greedy decisions. (i.e. they won't want their property values or quality of life to deteriorate anymore than the rest of us do)

Agreed, but, call us crazy, I've seen times, not just locally but especially at the state level, where their self-interest is a little more complicated. Some of these people might have enjoyed much higher incomes during the late 90s-2006 when they might have made money hand over fist and may foresee their incomes rising to those levels if they can take advantage of the project.

Not saying they will, but self-interest can be interpreted many different ways. There's a lot of desperation out there, too, so they might not take into consideration property values (or they will be lower on the list). Also, if those that are making decisions/ recommendations don't feel the pain of annexation/ expansion (say, like maybe the area around Natoma Station) like areas that more closely border the new area.

That being said, the plan does not look bad to me, although maybe a tad optimistic on the demand for the commercial and residential development.

[old soldier]

Are there any potential conflicts of interest on the City Council or Planning Commission?

I know there are several people that work in the real estate industry, finance and construction represented on the Council and Planning Commission. I am curious as to how this works and whether any of our council or appointmed commission members recuse themselves from commenting when it comes to these decisions.

it would be my guess that being in the business impacted by development and being on a commission or the council would be good for your business and if you worked for a company which made money from development, participation would be encouraged even if to took time away from the real job

as to impact on current folsom folks, other that going for a look see from what I see there is not much being planned to attract folks...it will be a mini city south of 50.

once it gets moving the developer folks will get folsom moving on annexing anther 3000 acres south of white rock. lots of money gets made when farm land gets zoned commercial/housing

[Robert Giacometti]

I agree with both comments.

I also agree with the city council's viewpoint, that if Folsom doesn't expand there, Rancho or Sac County would instead, so we might as well have the say as to how it goes instead of others.

I might not like it, but I believe it is inevitable.

Cmon people, open your eyes and think!

Sac County is on record of NOT wanting to develop S50 and RC would have to get our SOI overturned and then expand their boundaries to the SOI area, then get a SOI for this area, THEN go through the Annexation process.

This wouldn't happen for at least 20 years if then!

I can't believe people are still listening to the rhetoric being spun by the 4 council members who sold our $21 million surplus land to the developers for $7 million!

This annexation represents the greatest threat to our quality of life and financial stability of our community, than anything we will ever see in our life times!

If the council truly believed this to be the best thing for the Residents of Folsom, then they should give us the right to vote on it!

[Chad Vander Veen]

If development there happens I do not want to see more suburban sprawl. I'd much rather development be built up rather than out - skyscrapers instead of landscrapers. Building up instead of out would preserve open spaces and minimize new traffic. Any development south of 50 should be walkable. There's no reason that suburban areas have to include lateral sprawl.

[Inwit]

If development there happens I do not want to see more suburban sprawl. I'd much rather development be built up rather than out - skyscrapers instead of landscrapers. Building up instead of out would preserve open spaces and minimize new traffic. Any development south of 50 should be walkable. There's no reason that suburban areas have to include lateral sprawl.

Now, see. here I disagree. I prefer to see sprawl than high density downtown big city life.
I think skyscrapers are an ugly eyesore on the horizon. I also think high density vertical big city life brings more crime, more blight, and way too much liberalism mentality.