Citrus Heights and Elk Grove

[shelato]

Do you think any of challengers has a reasonable chance of actually winning? The problem with local government in a city like Folsom is that the major local news sources (The Bee, the local tv stations) don't really cover what is happening good or bad in these local governments like Folsom. So I suspect the vast majority of people who are voting in the Folsom city elections are voting for people without a whole lot of knowledge of what their leaders are doing good or bad.

[caligirlz]

Yes, one has been endorsed by the Sac Bee.
Howell, Morin and Vander Veen for Folsom council | The Sacramento Bee

Three longtime incumbents – Kerri Howell, Steve Miklos and Andy Morin – are up against four credible challengers. One in particular stands out.

Chad Vander Veen, a former city architectural review commissioner and now an editor of a website focused on city issues, is an articulate advocate for a clearer vision of where Folsom should go. He says city leaders have done a good job establishing Folsom as a good place to live, but are stuck in a rut.

Vander Veen would bring a fresh perspective and energy to the council. He says he’ll work to bring express light-rail service to Folsom, to push a privately funded trolley and to make the city a leader in renewable energy and water recycling. And, notably, he pledges to serve no more than eight years.

While the other challengers don’t quite measure up to Vander Veen, they also deserve consideration.

Jennifer Lane, a city planning commissioner, has a clear, if simplistic, platform – that the city shouldn’t approve any major new development until the drought ends and an adequate water supply is guaranteed. Roger Gaylord, a city utilities commissioner who also ran in 2012, is promising to end “politics as usual” and fight developers’ influence. Sandra Lunceford, who is active in the Folsom Historical Society, wants to make the city a world-class historical destination.

Whether the incumbents like it or not, the challengers are speaking for some residents.

For instance, there’s community unrest over long-range plans for more than 10,000 homes on nearly 3,600 acres of cattle land south of Highway 50 that the city annexed in 2012. That would vastly increase the population of Folsom, now about 73,000. But a major challenge to development is a reliable water supply. The city says it can provide enough water, in part by cutting consumption among existing residents. But critics say the plan violates Measure W, which bans reducing water available to current residents.

We have a very active local forum trying to get the word out, and of course there is a large social media presence. Small city politics suck. The incumbents are allowed to have over-sized signs on every corner, but the challengers are only allowed smaller signs. And they are frequently removed. One of the challengers has been wrapping vehicles with his "sign". I've been seeing them all over town.

Chad Vander Veen | For Folsom City Council 2014
Sandra Lunceford
Roger Gaylord for Folsom City Council 2014
jenniferlane2014

[TruthTeller1954]

Citrus Heights and Elk Grove are very sterile suburban communities. No culture, no night life and lots of strip malls and big box stores. I like Citrus Heights less. Elk Grove is closer to downtown so it is easier to get to entertainment.

If you like Wal Mart and suburban sprawl, Dollar Store and fast food then both these communities might be OK for you.

Personally I prefer elder established areas such as Land Park, East Sacramento, Curtis Park, Tahoe Park, Midtown, Fabulous Forties and Fair Oaks. These areas have beautiful architecture and more historical charm with lots of tree lined streets. Citrus Heights has a lot of crime and is close to marginal ghetto areas such as North Highlands and Rancho Cordova. There are middle class areas of Citrus Heights but avoid the area near American River College. Those cheap rental apts are full of gang banging drug dealer shootouts.

[Rob98LS1]

Originally Posted by TruthTeller1954

Citrus Heights and Elk Grove are very sterile suburban communities. No culture, no night life and lots of strip malls and big box stores. I like Citrus Heights less. Elk Grove is closer to downtown so it is easier to get to entertainment.

If you like Wal Mart and suburban sprawl, Dollar Store and fast food then both these communities might be OK for you.

Personally I prefer elder established areas such as Land Park, East Sacramento, Curtis Park, Tahoe Park, Midtown, Fabulous Forties and Fair Oaks. These areas have beautiful architecture and more historical charm with lots of tree lined streets. Citrus Heights has a lot of crime and is close to marginal ghetto areas such as North Highlands and Rancho Cordova. There are middle class areas of Citrus Heights but avoid the area near American River College. Those cheap rental apts are full of gang banging drug dealer shootouts.

The thread isn't asking how much you love downtown sac by the way.
Back on topic. It does in fact seem as though many people do like "walmart, suburban sprawl, dollar stores, and fast food" because many people live in elk grove and citrus heights. They may also like living there for other reasons that you might not want to acknowledge such as proximity to work, cost of living, nearby friends and family, general location, etc.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by shelato

The major employment clusters in Sacramento are downtown Sac, the highway 50 corridor and in Roseville along 80 and highway 65. Citrus Heights is comparative close to all three, whereas Elk Grove is quite possibly probably further from all three than Citrus Heights. What is remarkable about Elk Grove is that for an area with so much new construction that it has had so much trouble landing major employers. One of the things that I think has held Elk Grove back is that there isn't a freeway that goes from Elk Grove to 50 that would bypass downtown Sac.

Citrus Heights and Elk Grove are equidistant from Downtown Sac.

Citrus Heights is not really attracting middle class white collar workers. The only white collars in citrus heights have been collecting Social Security for the last 10-20 years.

These days, white collar professionals with kids want charming eatablished burbs like Land Park, hoods on north bluffs of the American River, Fair Oaks, etc. Or they want newer "flagship" burbs like Folsom, Rocklin, and El Dorado Hills.


Elk grove fills a much different niche. It has been the "go to" burb for nearly the last 20 years, for folks who want suburban living, with out the stepford wives racism. They want diversity. It is also known as having a great bang for your buck.
You can get the same exact tract home, built by the same developers, for 20-30k less than it would go for in Roseville, with schools Api rankings being nearly identical in most cases.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by Rob98LS1

The thread isn't asking how much you love downtown sac by the way.
Back on topic. It does in fact seem as though many people do like "walmart, suburban sprawl, dollar stores, and fast food" because many people live in elk grove and citrus heights. They may also like living there for other reasons that you might not want to acknowledge such as proximity to work, cost of living, nearby friends and family, general location, etc.

But those are such petty bourgeois concerns!

[DontKnowIfImComingOrGoing]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Elk grove fills a much different niche. It has been the "go to" burb for nearly the last 20 years, for folks who want suburban living, with out the stepford wives racism. They want diversity. It is also known as having a great bang for your buck.
You can get the same exact tract home, built by the same developers, for 20-30k less than it would go for in Roseville, with schools Api rankings being nearly identical in most cases.

The real bang for your buck was/is in newer homes that are being resold. In 2012 you could be a 3000 sq ft home in Stonelake for $300K. We are talking about a nicely outfitted home with granite counters, updated cabinetry etc. Those homes were built in 2004. The same home built in 2012 was selling for $400K. It was ridiculous since the older suburbs had nicer parks, amenities etc.

[Rob98LS1]

Originally Posted by NickB1967

But those are such petty bourgeois concerns!

Which part?

[shelato]

Originally Posted by Rob98LS1

It does in fact seem as though many people do like "walmart, suburban sprawl, dollar stores, and fast food" because many people live in elk grove and citrus heights. They may also like living there for other reasons that you might not want to acknowledge such as proximity to work, cost of living, nearby friends and family, general location, etc.

I agree a lot of people like living in neighborhoods with protected left turn lanes and no need for parallel parking. Most of the people I know who live in courts love them. Its nice to live in a neighborhood where you and your neighborhoods can afford to buy and put down roots. Where you get to know your neighbors and were you feel safe enough to let your kids go trick or treating at night.

[Rob98LS1]

Originally Posted by shelato

I agree a lot of people like living in neighborhoods with protected left turn lanes and no need for parallel parking. Most of the people I know who live in courts love them. Its nice to live in a neighborhood where you and your neighborhoods can afford to buy and put down roots. Where you get to know your neighbors and were you feel safe enough to let your kids go trick or treating at night.

I just don't get the tunnel vision so many people display on this forum. I side with the logic that opinions on subjective matters are not facts, and therefore shouldn't be peddled as such. And yes everything you mentioned is something that people can enjoy living in EG, nothing wrong with that. It's a market that exists because there is a demand for it.