63 replies to this topic

[cybertrano]

quotes:

The upscale city is forming a panel to address its small but growing homeless population.

While city leaders attribute the rising homeless population to growth, Atchley said more people also are on the street as an unintended consequence of new affordable housing projects.

Read more:

http://www.sacbee.co...-12932244c.html


Folsom tackles a harsh reality
The upscale city is forming a panel to address its small but growing homeless population.
By Molly Dugan -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PST Monday, January 17, 2005
Folsom may seem about as far from the homeless as one could get.

But the suburban enclave, with its pristine landscapes, million-dollar homes and upscale sensibilities, has a homeless problem, city officials say. They estimate Folsom's homeless population at 60 and growing.


"I don't think the community is naive enough to think we don't have a homeless population," Mayor Steve Miklos said. "We're trying to get out in front of it before it becomes overwhelming."

The city of nearly 60,000 is starting an advisory council dedicated to finding more resources such as health care, counseling, shelter and job training.

The Police Department, along with the city's neighborhood services division, is spearheading the effort. The council will include representatives of public and private agencies.

"One of the downfalls of being an upscale community is that we don't have as many services available," said Nancy Atchley, pastor and director of Powerhouse Ministries, which offers worship, support groups, food, supplies, tutoring and other services to Folsom's low-income residents.

"There's a lot more work that needs to be done in this area, but we're off to a good start."

Many of Folsom's homeless have mental health problems; city officials estimate that two-thirds struggle with drug or alcohol addiction. Some are eligible for disability pensions or government aid but don't know how to apply.

"There's no community that is immune to having homeless people. It's just in varying degrees," said Folsom Police Chief Sam Spiegel. "It's something that has not yet been addressed here."

While city leaders attribute the rising homeless population to growth, Atchley said more people also are on the street as an unintended consequence of new affordable housing projects.

[bordercolliefan]

This is an aside, but I find it very curious that someone insists on branding Folsom an "upscale enclave" with "pristine landscapes and million-dollar homes."

Huh??? Upscale compared to what? Maybe compared to Rancho Cordova or inner-city Sac, but certainly not compared to Granite Bay, El Dorado Hills, etc. And, really, how many "million dollar homes" are there in Folsom?

I have actually been surprised to discover how working class Folsom is in its sensibilities -- definitely more of a pickup-trucky, anti-intellectual place than I expected.

I suppose there is no harm in a little positive marketing of our city -- but I can't help wondering if someone is pinning this label on us for some ulterior motive (perhaps to make us look wealthy, elitist and insensitive to the homeless??)

[Orangetj]

"Upscale enclave"...give me a break. I think you're right, BC, in that this moniker just doesn't hold water. Folsom has a broad spectrum of people, but I'd guess the "million dollar" homes make up a very small percentage of what's here. Folsom is a nice, primarily middle class town, nothing more, nothing less.

I find the last sentence of the article - "While city leaders attribute the rising homeless population to growth, Atchley said more people also are on the street as an unintended consequence of new affordable housing projects." - to be very strange. How would new affordable housing projects creat homelessness? That just doesn't make sense.

[slowthegrowth]

I think they're trying to imply that the removal of lower end apts, replaced with high priced houses, caused the apt dwellers to be put out on the street. Might have been for a handful, but you're right that this likely isn't the root cause for most of our town's homeless.

[cybertrano]

well said. yes the county of sacramento do have a motive. even though we do have million homes but these are a small percentage of the overall Folsom homes. Most of Folsom are just above average hardworking middleclass like you and me.

THe Bee likes to brand Folsom as the "rich" city to highlight wrongfully how a rich city doesn't take care of its homeless people.

This is an aside, but I find it very curious that someone insists on branding Folsom an "upscale enclave" with "pristine landscapes and million-dollar homes." 

Huh???  Upscale compared to what?  Maybe compared to Rancho Cordova or inner-city Sac, but certainly not compared to Granite Bay, El Dorado Hills, etc.  And, really, how many "million dollar homes" are there in Folsom? 

I have actually been surprised to discover how working class Folsom is in its sensibilities -- definitely more of a pickup-trucky, anti-intellectual place than I expected. 

I suppose there is no harm in a little positive marketing of our city -- but I can't help wondering if someone is pinning this label on us for some ulterior motive (perhaps to make us look wealthy, elitist and insensitive to the homeless??)

[donto2000]

just of curiosity, how do you define "rich"

a. you think you are
b. others think you are
c. most of your friends have less $$ than you
d. you live in Folsom :-))

d is a joke, just in case you did not already know...:-))

[Young Curmudgeon]

Hey, can we talk about perception in this thread? Hope this isn't considered a thread highjack because I love this topic. It's interesting to me how people as close as Rancho Cordova can live remarkably similar lifestyles to those in Folsom yet somehow portray Folsom as a rich, elitist community seperated from its neighbors.

Folsom facts
Median age: 35.9 years
Median household income: $73,175
Ethnicity:
White/Caucasian 74%
Hispanic/Latino 9%
Asian 7%
Black/African-American 6%
Other 4%
Education:
High School Graduates 19.1%
Bachelor's Degree 25.7%
Graduate or Professional Degree 11.9%

Folsom is distinctly upper middle class, which is often wrongly associated with great wealth. The upper middle class might enjoy a taste of pleasure, but many are one paycheck from disaster just like most other debt-burdened Americans.

Interestingly, El Dorado Hills produces similar numbers (median income about $95,000), but there are many more single-income households. Living the upper middle class life on one income with a stay-at-home parent is, to me, the new American definition of wealth.

Rancho's median income is about $47,000 with a proliferation of two-income households, but this number is skewed -- Rancho is a very segregated community: there are homeowners surrounded by many less fortunate. Take a trip down Folsom Road between Mather Field and Bradshaw. Along one street you will find gang-infested, low-income apartments (I know, I once lived in them) backing up to homes fetching in excess of $350,000 these days. I read that a large home that backed up to the river near there went for $1.2 million last month. But because so much of Rancho is a mash of poorly planned low-income housing projects, people have a misconcpetion that's all there is to the area. I guess that's what lack of a city government will do over time. (And to think y'all complain about your council reps! hehe)

No one in their right mind would think of "prestine enclaves" and "million dollar homes" in Rancho, yet they exist there. I doubt anyone with time and access to numbers would find good reason to do the research, but I'd bet a homeowner-to-homeowner cross analysis would show Folsom and Rancho Cordova nearly identitical in income and education background.

The reporter clearly editorialized for effect, but you have to admit Folsom culture promotes that stereotype. Folsom has the best schools, the best parks, the best shopping, the best place to raise a family. You may know the reality of everyday hardship in this place, but I wonder how many of you have attempted to correct that misconcpetion among friends who don't have the privelege of living in this area. To the average onlooker, Folsom appears clean and beautiful and blessed with wealthy, attractive people. I guess I'm saying I don't think you can complain about misconceptions if you haven't led the charge to change it in the first palce -- and why would you do that?

[bordercolliefan]

Donto2000,

You raise an interesting point. I am surprised no one called me on my remark that Folsom is relatively working class in its "sensibilities" (the term used in the original article).

I don't define "rich" by how much money people have in the bank. There are a lot of tacky people (for lack of a better word) who happen to have big bank balances.

I define "rich" in some of the following ways:

--Enough money to be comfortable, but don't flaunt it with conspicuous consumption. (Studies have shown that most millionaires live very simply, and their neighbors never know of their true wealth.)

--A heavy emphasis on well-rounded education and achievement -- more than I see the typical Folsom parent demanding.

--An appreciation for the arts, including keeping up with current events and literature.

--Good manners.

--A well-kept house and yard (because a trashy yard is an affront to neighbors).

That's my list -- a start anyway. What do others think? What are the hallmarks of a "rich" or desirable lifestyle -- and where does Folsom fall on the scale??

[bordercolliefan]

It's interesting to me how people as close as Rancho Cordova can live remarkably similar lifestyles to those in Folsom yet somehow portray Folsom as a rich, elitist community seperated from its neighbors.

Folsom facts
Median age: 35.9 years
Median household income: $73,175
Ethnicity:
  White/Caucasian  74%
  Hispanic/Latino  9%
  Asian  7%
  Black/African-American  6%
  Other  4%
Education:
  High School Graduates  19.1%
  Bachelor's Degree  25.7%
  Graduate or Professional Degree  11.9%

Folsom is distinctly upper middle class, which is often wrongly associated with great wealth. The upper middle class might enjoy a taste of pleasure, but many are one paycheck from disaster just like most other debt-burdened Americans.

Interestingly, El Dorado Hills produces similar numbers (median income about $95,000), but there are many more single-income households. Living the upper middle class life on one income with a stay-at-home parent is, to me, the new American definition of wealth.

Rancho's median income is about $47,000 with a proliferation of two-income households, but this number is skewed -- Rancho is a very segregated community: there are homeowners surrounded by many less fortunate.
No one in their right mind would think of "prestine enclaves" and "million dollar homes" in Rancho, yet they exist there. I doubt anyone with time and access to numbers would find good reason to do the research, but I'd bet a homeowner-to-homeowner cross analysis would show Folsom and Rancho Cordova nearly identitical in income and education background.

 

These are fascinating statistics. Where do they come from? (For example, the one-income versus two-income breakdown)?

You use the statistics to argue that Rancho, Folsom, and EDH are "similar," but I was actually surprised how great the differences are.

Folsom's median income is $20,000 less than EDH. That's HUGE. Add to that the fact that EDH has so many more one-income families, and it becomes clear we are talking about a major difference in education and professions between the two communities. I didn't realize the differences were so significant.

Ditto with Rancho. I see your point about homeowner-to-homeowner comparisons, but remember that Folsom has its share of apartments and low-end housing, too, so I doubt the numbers would converge as much as you think they would.

[Young Curmudgeon]

These are fascinating statistics.  Where do they come from?  (For example, the one-income versus two-income breakdown)?

You use the statistics to argue that Rancho, Folsom, and EDH are "similar," but I was actually surprised how great the differences are. 

Folsom's median income is $20,000 less than EDH.  That's HUGE.  Add to that the fact that EDH has so many more one-income families, and it becomes clear we are talking about a major difference in education and professions between the two communities.  I didn't realize the differences were so significant.

Ditto with Rancho.  I see your point about homeowner-to-homeowner comparisons, but remember that Folsom has its share of apartments and low-end housing, too, so I doubt the numbers would converge as much as you think they would.

The numbers are mixed from the U.S. Census and the state's official econ reports. All of them have been gathered from city, state and CSD websites.

Since EDH has virtually no low-income housing for a community over 30,000, and Folsom has substantially more low-income housing in a community over 60,000, I don't see the incomes as being all that different. In terms of qualifying for a million dollar home, neither median incomes will draw much interest from lenders without a very large down payment. The difference between $75,000 and $95,000 is probably mostly attributed to a more diverse and vibrant economy in Folsom. You tend to find one kind of homeowner in EDH, whereas Folsom has more bargains for the first-time home buyer. And we're talking about a community twice the size. Homeowners define the community, though, because they are not transient. Peer-to-peer, I would bet there's not an overwhelming difference between Folsom and EDH.

I don't have anything other than personal observation to back up my claims about Rancho, but I'm still very confident the number of low-income housing units in Rancho are much greater than that in Folsom. Have you driven down Coloma west of Sunrise Blvd. the last 20 years? Rancho is about the same size population as Folsom, but much of the land is consumed by light industrial and other large commercial complexes. It just looks more condensed to me. I would think home ownership per acre is much less in Rancho than Folsom.

I suppose the other distinction I would make from my numbers is the newness of community. Rancho isn't very well planned because it was unincorporated and nearly built out years ago, and you seem to pay more for less there. A great majority of Folsom is much newer by comparison. If I had the choice of buying a 4 bedroom 30-year-old ranch home in Rancho and a 3 bedroom new build in Folsom at the same relative price, I don't think Rancho compares favorably. Housing prices have never made sense to me.

All that said, I believe the median income for Rancho homeowners would be much closer to Folsom if such a study could be done. I don't think Rancho should be penalized by (my perceived) larger transient population. Both communities are two-income household type of places, and Rancho homes can be found with the same luxury SUVs and high-end consumer electronics. The difference? Mostly it's perception. Maybe if Rancho has a number of highly payed construction workers, their contractor bosses live in Folsom (and the developers and real estate lawyers in EDH!). The leap from Rancho to Folsom does not appear to be a huge cultural or economic one to me.

I've been told too many times that Rancho Cordova should really be called "Rancho Cambodia," because of the large Asian population there. Let's attempt to ignore that it comes off as a nasty racial slam (celebrate diversity, y'all). It's not very accurate. Rancho is 66 percent caucasion, not all that different from Folsom, which is 75 percent caucasion. Rancho has less than a 10 percent population of Asians (it's around 8 percent). Folsom has (holy cow!) a little over 7 percent Asian population. Again, perception defies reality. The perception feels conspiratorial in nature. Who pushes this, anyway?

I've been told by quite a few long-time Sac area residents that EDH is where rich retirees live. Indeed, there are some there. There are also some in Folsom and Rancho. Try this one on for size, though: average age in EDH is 37.6; average age in Folsom is 35.9; average age in Rancho is 31.6. Is there really that much of an age difference between EDH and Folsom? It's indeterminable. Obviously, Rancho is considerably younger ... but again, the transient population seems to skew those numbers in my opinion.

The one thing that's difficult to quantify in numbers is quality of life. Things like clean air, commute time, opportunity for self-improvement, cost of living, safety, etc. I'm sure Folsom has some clear advantages there, but that, again, is my perception. I don't know. Is it safer in Folsom than in Rancho? I would argue that's a strong possibility (having lived on La Loma in Rancho). As I understand, Folsom and Rancho share a high school district, but FHS looks a great deal more appealing to me than CHS. I suppose these are the largest contributing factors in Folsom's distinguishment ... but I could always be blinded by perception. We all share the burden of sitting along the 50 cooridor and the heavy congestion it inflicts on arterial surface streets.

Ain't that the dangdest thing?

[DougP]

I've been told too many times that Rancho Cordova should really be called "Rancho Cambodia," because of the large Asian population there. Let's attempt to ignore that it comes off as a nasty racial slam (celebrate diversity, y'all).

This is one statement that caught me off guard. When I first moved to California 10 years ago, I lived in an apartment in Rancho Cordova. Some of my coworkers wondered why I wanted to live in "Rancho Cambodia". At the time, I got the distinct impression that it wasn't due to any asian population, but due to being perceived as a "war zone".

At the time, Mather field had been shut down as an air base for a few years, and a lot of the housing in the area was simply abandoned and derelict. Driving past some of the older housing between 50 and Folsom near the base definitely reinforced that "war zone" image.

[Steve Heard]

This is an aside, but I find it very curious that someone insists on branding Folsom an "upscale enclave" with "pristine landscapes and million-dollar homes." 

Huh???  Upscale compared to what?  Maybe compared to Rancho Cordova or inner-city Sac, but certainly not compared to Granite Bay, El Dorado Hills, etc.  And, really, how many "million dollar homes" are there in Folsom? 

I have actually been surprised to discover how working class Folsom is in its sensibilities -- definitely more of a pickup-trucky, anti-intellectual place than I expected. 

I suppose there is no harm in a little positive marketing of our city -- but I can't help wondering if someone is pinning this label on us for some ulterior motive (perhaps to make us look wealthy, elitist and insensitive to the homeless??)

Border

I'm with you. Ask the former Bay Area folks why they chose Folsom. It wasn't because we needed a place to spend our millions. No, it's because it provided AFFORDABLE HOUSING, in an attractive, growing community, good schools, and with lots of services existing and planned.

I'd be willing to bet that most of the wealth created here is by home appreciation. I know people who paid less than $200,000 for homes that are now worh $500,000 or more.

Many of the old time Folsomites were blue collar, with a liberal sprinkling of rednecks. Intel brought attention, money, and diversity, and forced the city to grow and provide new services.

In the 'upscale enclave' I live in, I've got a sherriff's deputy on one side, a retired postal worker on the other. I've got neighbors who sell cement, cook, teach, interpret, lay tile, and manage utility projects. Hardly Ivy Leaguers, but one thing they all have in common is that they bought their homes for much less than they could have in the Bay Area, and now those homes are worth hundreds of thousands more.

I have seen so many folks with snobbish attitudes.

As for the homeless, there have always been underacheivers in this and every town, and many of those end up homeless. Drug addiction is a big factor, as mental illness, and a general attitude where education was not valued, or even needed, and now, uneducated folks find it difficult to compete for jobs which do not require much more than will.

[donto2000]

agree, some parts of Rancho Cordova do look like a "war zone".....most Asian residing in Sacramento county live in Elk Saigon (Elk Grove).....

[ducky]

Putting aside the whole misperception issue of Folsom being the land of millionaires, I would like to focus on the Catch-22 that we are in as far as the homeless population. This issue has been discussed in the Light Rail thread a little. I believe Stevethedad brought up that our homeless population would not be increased by Light Rail coming into town because Folsom really has no services for them. According to the Bee article, our council will have to start considering a way to provide those very services.

I'm glad to see that our police department is no longer willing to turn a blind eye to the problem. We do need to do something because this problem is not going to go away. I don't envy our council because how do you accomplish taking care of the homeless you have without encouraging more homeless to come to town?

[bordercolliefan]

Ducky, you raise a fair point. Whether or not Folsom is "wealthy," we are well off enough that it is a moral imperative to take care of our residents who become homeless. But it is a fact that sometimes providing services attracts more people who need services.

This was brought home to me a few months ago when talking to the mother of an autistic boy at my daughter's preschool/kindergarten. He has a full-time aide (paid for by the state) who attends classes with him and helps him at home. The mother told me that they moved from Texas to here "because the autistic services are so much better here."

That gave me some pause. We are almost at the bottom of per-student school funding... yet we have special needs students moving here from other states because our special needs services are so much more generous???