49 posts / 0 new
Last post
Marklin Brown's picture
Joined: 08/12/2007
Posts: 196

Reading the elegant responses in this thread makes me want to apologize for the somewhat rude response of my own.

I respect the not so tireless efforts people like Candy have put into a cause that protects much more than the community. It protects a process. The free exchange of ideas and pursuit of every legal avenue to prevent another tumble down the road of wanton disruption of a beautiful space that we have the privilege of living in along with its wildlife.

This is what my parents taught me to look for and protect. This is what I have taught my children. I wish I were one of you that has done so much to stop the development process so there is time to see what the real impact has been and will be.




Mike Burnett's picture
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 183
Honest and Fair????


Don't mistake anger with straight talk.  I call it as I see it.  Nothing I have said was fabricated, it was public comments or statement from the RMDCCC. 

My remarks to fiction were directed at Candy's dismissal of remarks made by Jay Schneider whose family has lived on the Consumnes river for more than 100 years.  Candy dismissed his remarks and then outlandishly made the comments that Jay's rebuttal actually proved the UCD Professor's case.  I called it fiction, which by my standards is being kind.  There hasn't been enough time for anyone to investigate the information Jay provided and then see how it affects the UCD Professors analysis.  I can certainly understand why the Professor dismissed Jay's remarks, because this would invalidate years of research and all the papers the professor wrote based on his findings.

In my opinion, RMA doesn't need a group of activists coming to our homes and telling public agencies what we can and can;t do.  RMPUD is part of the Sacramento County Urban Development Zone and not a sanctuary, preserve or whatever label they try to attach to us.  They are not representing us, they are only representing their own agenda much like the Activists that  came in uninvited and saddled RMA, RMCSD and RMCC with fines relative to the cease and desist order. In my opinion, that agency was also invited here by member(s) of the RMCCC.

Step up and start thinking for yourselves and stop letting the RMCCC do your thinking for you. 


Teresa Field's picture
Joined: 08/13/2007
Posts: 110
Murieta Growth


I love what you wrote.  Part of what I appreciate about living here is the strong community that is willing to respectfully speak out whether we agree or disagree with one another.  This open exchange of ideas is a great part of what drives this wonderful community.  Thanks Ivy and everyone else for sharing your perspective.


Jeff Applebaum's picture
Joined: 05/04/2008
Posts: 10
response to Marklin

Jeff Applebaum

 Dear Marklin, 

Ivy and I both agree :   you have absolutely nothing to apologize about.  All your comments have been reasonable and  appropriate .  They have been on target.  Above all, your comments are  said with positive intentions, and do make sense.

 Perhaps you are well aware  that in any discussion or debate   involving  a large number of people ,  most of the people in the group will be "centrists" ( ie,  thinking very much like the great majority of those in the discussion)  .  Usually 1/2 to 3/4 of the people. 

Then there will be a smaller number of people whose thoughts are different, out toward  the periphery with their comments and ideas.   Their ideas may not mirror the rest of the group,  but their comments are generally insightful,  grounded in fact,  and still overall make good sense.  They usually  represent people with  very creative minds.  Usually  1/4 to 1/3  of the people.     

Finally,  there is a much smaller number of people at the far "fringe" of the group .  In general , these people tend to  congregate  with one another, and agree with each other.  They share similar views,  generating ideas that may seem  foreign and even in sharp contrast to the remaining 98% of the group. 

 Every community , large or small ,  tends to align with this cocept.  .  I think this forum follows that pattern.  You, Marklin,  are grounded within the group.    Hope to meet you in person some day.  

At the same time,  it is incumbent upon each of us to listen to everyone in the discussion,  as  each person needs to be heard.  That is the basis of fairness .  No matter  whatever faction you align yourself with ,  we should all agree that derogatory comments as have been heard are not acceptable by the rest of the group. 

Being new to this forum, I would very much like to see in writing a factual report  from Jay Schneider  about water usage affecting the Consumnes River flow over the past 50 to 100 years,  as Mr. Burnett stated in a recent forum rebuttal.  Although Mr. Schneider "spoke purely from memory"  ,  perhaps the two could provide the group with that data.  More specifically,  I am interested in data about the erratic flows of the river over the years,  the "impoundments" ,  and the redirection of river flows from the headwaters to the point of measurement.   I do understand that there are periods when water is simply "lost";   ie ,  not collected or diverted for use. That is ashame.   I have discussed this information with someone who spent years as head of the LA Water District,  the largest water district in the country.  If Mr. Schneider's data is available,  I would ask Mr. Burnett and Mr. Schneider to sit down and meet in person to further discuss and share this information.  It would be helpful to see any specifics.  I already know of 5-7 people who would love to do this in the near future.  That might help better guide our discussion in a more productive manner when we share the specific information with the entire group. 

If Mr. Burnett is interested,  please respond to this message or directly to me through the forum.   I will make myself available. 

 Thank you all for listening to a long-winded discussion.  I need to get some thoughts off my chest and out into the open for discussion .  If this is too lengthy, let me know and I will be briefer in the future. 


RM.com's picture
Joined: 06/19/2007
Posts: 27726
Welcome aboard!

Jeff (and Ivy):

No need to apologize for the length of your post. Write at any length you like. It's a meritocracy here -- posts that are worth reading get read. Still, you're probably right to try to keep things as brief as possible. That can only help the readership of your message.

As you've discovered already, you'll get help if you have a question about forum etiquette or functionality. You can post publicly or send a private message to RM.com or one of your helpful-seeming neighbors. You'll find they are exactly that.

Mike Burnett's picture
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 183
Discussion on the Water Flows


Your proposal is a good idea, but first we need to define what it is we are going to talk about (what is the agenda) and second we need to have the RMCSD lead this forum to provide the base information to begin the discussion.

I personally do not know Jay Schneider and can't speak for him.  However, I would be willing to contact him and see if he would like to participate and share his information. 


Marklin Brown's picture
Joined: 08/12/2007
Posts: 196
Housing and Water

Thank you for your comments Mr. Applebaum. I believe you have a good suggestion to help all of us to get grounded in the facts as elusive as they tend to be. History will teach us if we have open minds. You seem to have the calming touch for such a pursuit.

I must say I would always have a bias. I would say that the water supply is more or less static. Albeit, it may change to a degree year to year but in the aggregate, a static output. Development is not static. These two are in permanent conflict. The overall development plan impacting the Cosumnes must encompass the entire length of the river before any reasonable and definitive statements can be made. I have my hopes on the Army Corp with a broad base of expertise, diluted bias and (unlimited?) revenue support, not to diminish anything that you have suggested.




Mike Burnett's picture
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 183
Consumnes River Forum

Jeff et al,

I have reached out to the RMCSD to see if they would facilitate a forum to discuss RMCSD impacts to the Consumnes and general river flows.   They can also provide some foresight into their planning requirements for proposed impacts.  This information will really help to define the issue where we can begin to have an informative dialogue.

Inviting our neighbors, such as Jay Schneider would be insightful to hear more on the historical nature of the river and what they see as alarming or not so alarming trends based on our planned activities as well as planned activities outside our Planned Unit Development.

I would suggest that we should leave the developers and activists out of the discussion.  By activists, I mean non-residents.  Any resident would be welcome.

So let me know if you all think this is a good approach or suggest one of your own.  I strongly believe that we need to have the RMCSD provide the framework for the forum, since they have the information on what our community draws and when as well and any runoff/pumping impacts back into the river. 

Wilbur Haines's picture
Joined: 08/07/2007
Posts: 474
An open forum

I believe a forum discussion is a very good idea. But I question the exclusion of anyone who may be knowledgeable about the issue. If the community is to draw conclusions from the evidence presented, all points of view should be represented. What we should ask of the presenters IMO is that they focus upon facts rather than opinion.

Mike Burnett's picture
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 183
An open forum


I think the focus is so our residents and neighbors have a better understanding of the effect our Planned Unit Development has on the Consumnes. 

We can always have a second meeting to open the agenda up to hear from anyone with pertinent facts that may affect the region or wider area of concern.

Wilbur Haines's picture
Joined: 08/07/2007
Posts: 474
Not to argue, Mike, but...

What's happening with the Cosumnes and future regulatory trends which may impact our pumping rights are a very big part of the picture. That's why the Cal Supreme Court knocked down Anatolia's EIR because it did not adequately evaluate their pumping's impacts on the groundwater basin, which is in turn - according to what the Court recited the experts as saying, is sucking down the river, impacting flows and fishies and all that.  In a groundwater basin which apparently, from what the court said, extends upstream beyond us to Michigan Bar.  So we are part of, inextricably intertwined with, Tsakapolous' Anatolia mess, and in a very real sense we are, long term, competing with him and others for dwindling flows. 

If it's not obvious, I'm not a water and hydrology guy.

But my point is that what our internal development would do to the river isn't the only question we need to understand, because it won't happen in a vacuum. What is happening regarding water basins and flows is a regional phenomenon. I don't expect RMA's development to wreck the Cosumnes River. What I am very interested and concerned about is whether the trend of what is happening to the water, and the trend of water regulators starting to get concerned about the Cosumnes, may one day result in a restraint of our pumping rights. I am concerned that we not go merrily along assuming we will be able to pump so many zillion acre feet a year, because we have a piece of paper that says so. I think the solidity of that expectation is crucial to any "capacity analysis," whether done by the county or by us residents, to determine what number of rooftops our water supply and storage capacity can sustain.

And understanding that, I believe, includes hearing not just from Jay but also the Nutty Professor and anybody else who has some numbers and can explain them.

Let's just not have one side of this debate or the other defining and editing the guest list, that's all I'm asking.

Pat Reeves's picture
Joined: 04/17/2008
Posts: 17
All I Can Say Is Wow!!!

Apologize for being a little late.  But as a first time poster, all I can say is there appears to be some angry, bitter and resentful individuals in this community regarding RMDCC attempts to ensure sensible development.  Do the “antagonists” of the RMDCCC cause realize that dependence on developer monies becomes an exponential reliance?  Just look towards Elk Grove, Folsom, El Dorado Hills, Roseville, etc. to see the true impact of such reliance.  And for those that profess “full buildout” would equate to the economic stability of RM’s infrastructure, you’re sadly mistaken.  From an economic standpoint, there is no such thing as finality of roof-tops when it comes to infrastructure.  There will always be tanks to refurbish, roads to repave, utilities to upgrade, lakes/common areas to maintain, etc., well after “full buildout” has concluded and the developers have disappeared.  Because once a community exhausts its land to develop, and that new roof-top revenue stream dries up and it either stagnates and deteriorates or becomes self-sufficient and independent.  Which is exactly what this community must learn to do, become more economically self-reliant, less we become that urban sprawl suburbia we all moved here to avoid.      

And to Candy & the steadfast RMDCC team, I say stay the course and don’t give up the fight.  “Keep on keeping on!”

John Hein's picture
Joined: 08/07/2007
Posts: 353
As I recall this topic in

As I recall this topic in the past most of the complaints involved density and production housing. Even high end production housing was not to be tolerated, particularly on the north where every house is supposedly a "custom" home according to the RMDCCC. As I drive around on the north I still see many look alike condo's, that are actually quite old now as well as the McKim homes. They do stick out if you just look around. And I believe that there are many older homes in the north that are approaching tear down status to rebuild something more modern.  

So my question is how did we go from less density and non- production homes to zero homes being built? With every challenge by the RMDCCC the process of any new homes to the community has been delayed over and over again. I wonder if the RMDCCC didn't know that would be the case? Makes a resident wonder what the true intent has been all along.

Controlled growth has always been the premise. One could make the case that zero growth is definitely controlled.

Just out of curiosity what would the position of the RMDCCC be if the PTF decided to sell their golf course property and the new owners made the decision to close the course and build homes? Seems far fetched, but who knows.

John Hein

Steven Mobley's picture
Joined: 08/07/2007
Posts: 261
Some Perspective


I think there are probably as many reasons members have opposed the proposed "mass development" as there are members and supporters. There is no single point of view and no single spokesman that I am aware of. The reasons for opposing the development disaster, which thankfully has been thus far avoided, are many. If folks living here are requesting scrutiny before any future development procedes, what is the harm? If everything is in order and no harm to the present homeowners will come from additional development, why oppose their request? It's in our collective best interest to get all of the facts. Water, community esthetics and quality of life issues are very important to Rancho Murietans. Some believe developers would be willing to pay for "our" infrastructure and extra amenites (community pool, etc,,,), while others believe that the past performance of the developers is the best predicator of their future performance. I must say 


Al Bauer's picture
Joined: 05/11/2008
Posts: 5
save this community

Candy, your efforts are an inspiration to all and an example of how to mobilize and participate in our democracy. Thanks for all your time, energy, and thoughtful insight into this issue.

I enjoy contrasting your polite and pithy commentary to the desperate and angry drivel of some of the “unbridled development” crowd. Not only have they implied that the RMCCC was communist (talk about an antiquated form of fear mongering), compared the people testifying at the recent hearing to animals in a zoo, and accused you and your committee of using BS. Then, in the ultimate form of self-congratulatory egotism, they claim that all of this input is “straight talk.” These are clear signs of a group of people on the defensive.


Since development is stalled until 2014, let’s push for and complete a cumulative environmental impact on all proposed build out. I should hope that all members in this community agree that an exhaustive and cumulative approach will provide us with the best analysis for the future growth and preservation of this unique community.


John Hein's picture
Joined: 08/07/2007
Posts: 353
Enough already

Thanks Steve for your comments. The purpose of my post was only to ask a couple of questions. I of course do not want any residents lives adversely impacted by over developed or poorly developed projects either.

As for Al, I'm wondering "who" ever suggested that the RMDCCC crowd were communist? I've read these posts for years and never saw anything like that. I guess a reader can interpret writing as they choose.

For those residents who would like to see more development, they do have a right to their opinion as well as to be heard. It's a shame this forum has to turn into a name-calling or branding contest. Seems to me that RMonline is better suited for that type of banter.

John Hein

Kirk Rowert's picture
Joined: 08/25/2007
Posts: 27
More houses <> lower fees/dues

Why does it always seem like the Pro-development folks resort to name bashing, and other unprofessional means of getting their points across, yet folks like Candy Chand always sound professional and courteous?  I mean calling out Candy's profession and saying you won't buy her books?!  Very tacky in my mind.  We know why the RMDCCC is here and what they stand for, but seriously what hidden agenda does Mr. Burnett and others have to be so bitter about this?  I mean a few hundred houses won't make a DENT in our RMA or CSD dues.  I've been here since 1996, and I'm PRETTY certain there have been a few new houses built in the south(about 40% more if my guess is right) and yet RMA dues have gone from around $80 to over $130 in those eleven+ years.  Can someone please tell me what impact those houses built in the South had on our dues?  Not to mention the poorly planned and built houses that the devloper "rushed" in so they could move on to their next fleecing.  If any of you have talked to some of these poor homeowners, you would realize that there IS a reason for properly planned development.  This is a fantastic community with FANTASTIC people, and if you think people will just sit back and not fight for what they believe makes this community worth living in....your not living in reality.  If 500 extra houses is going to make or break your own business/company, you might consider relocating or expanding it.  I work in the IT industry by the way, in case someone feels like taking a pop shot at that but I am learning a "New Dehli" accent :-)

"I am not undertanding the things you are telling me"

Doug Lewis's picture
Joined: 08/08/2007
Posts: 165
Shills? Hidden agendas? Why

Shills? Hidden agendas? Why is it that if one voices a different opinion than the RMDCC they are seen as working for the developers. For the record, Im not associated with any developer in any way. Our families employment cannot benefit from more people living here. I own two homes in RM and know that R&Bs actions has affected home values. I too moved here as I love the rural feeling RM has. I dont believe anyone of us that has commented wants poorly planned or rushed development that could harm RM. The master plan debate has hardly been rushed as its been being tossed around for many many years.This is not a debate about selling land to builders. They already own the land and they will continue to try to make a profit on it when the economy improves. I just fear that while any progress to build has been stalled by one tactic then another that when building finally does proceed, we may end up with higher density, low income housing, and apartments as county codes and commitee personnel change. Leaving the cake in the oven too long doesnt always make a better cake.

We keep hearing that CSD and RMA need additional funds to maintain RM in the fashion we are used to. If adding rooftops created less income into their budgets while causing more maintanence costs they would surely discourage any further buildout. If RM can continue to maintain just fine with the current membership then they should say so. If not they, (along with the community they work for) should devise a plan that, although requiring compromises, will be needed to keep RM nice and affordable. And hopefully all the concerns, issues and agendas can be brought to the table at one time instead of one at a time. Otherwise it begins to be "what can we do next" to stall any building and although an effective tactic, we end up in the same uncertainty we have today.

Im not advocating turning RM into Elkgrove anymore than RMDCC is advocating reverting present homesites back to nature when a home reaches maturity.


Doug Lewis


Log in or register to post comments

Your comments