Elk Grove Citizen’s Group Announces Petition Drive to Slow City Expansion

Aim is to stop city's expansion via the SOI A group of citizens headed by resident Lynn Wheat have announced the formation of a gr...

Aim is to stop city's expansion via the SOI

A group of citizens headed by resident Lynn Wheat have announced the formation of a grassroots citizen’s group aimed at uniting Elk Grove residents to oppose the city’s pending application before the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to ultimately expand the city boundaries by 8,000+/- acres.

Under the banner of “GRASP—A better Elk Grove is within our Grasp - by uniting neighborhoods together.” The group notes that the City’s history of rezones, unrestrained urban sprawl and record breaking residential foreclosures shows the lack of commitment to the approved General Plan.

Elk Grove GRASP is currently undertaking a petition drive to present to LAFCo showing that local residents are deeply concerned about: their continuing decline in home property values; lack of infill development; updated market data suggesting less demand for future growth; and the future costs to existing residents to provide water, sewer, fire, police, and other services to the new area. GRASP is opposed to the unnecessary city expansion to specifically accommodate more of the same type of development which has dominated the city during the past ten years—more rooftops and strip mall centers.

Elk Grove GRASP welcomes interested residents to view their web site, Facebook page, or e-mail them for further information on how they can participate in becoming more involved in planning the future of Elk Grove.

Post a Comment Default Comments


Anonymous said...

Way to go Lynn! I hope the Wilton Action Group (WAG) helps you with this effort. Because all it takes is three votes to get the floodplain put back into Elk Grove's SOI application.

And anyone who thinks that the SOI application isn’t about annexation, well there is a condo waiting for them in Elk Grove’s version of Sodom and Gomorrah; only we have traded the Jordan River plain in for the Cosumnes River floodplain in Humeville, CA. NOT!!!

Because if that happens, it will clearly be a crime against nature.

Anonymous said...

DITTO from this household and getting WAG on board is a great idea. It's also time---actually past due, that the City start giving us updates as to meetings being held, the time, place and Agenda...this will have a major impact on us and we must insist on being informed.

Anonymous said...

OUTSTANDING!! Wow, you go Lynn. I'm so glad that someone has finally stepped up and said, "Enough!"
Our city leaders have ignored us it seems every time we go before them on large ticket items (Cath Church, SOI, floodplain issues, Connector and proposed Wal-Mart).
They follow the money of the developers every time offering the citizens a crumb to keep them quiet and make it look as though they are supporting us, when all they seem to create are more rooftops to the detriment of our long-term city's best interest.

Don't know what you can do, but maybe if you get enough support, you can make them listen and let them know that those of us who care about our city are tired of it and demand a change.

You and you're friends should run for City Council. We need and want your moxy and desire. Good Luck!!!!

Anonymous said...

Where do I sign?

Anonymous said...

Way to go Lynn! From my perspective, this is long overdue. How many more foreclosured houses; empty strip malls; and crowded classrooms do we need before that damn city council wakes up! They are a disgrace...every one of them. Whose interests do they serve? Apparently not the majority of Elk Grovians. But those developers are so very happy!


Doug Williams said...

Although I agree with limits to growth, this effort is misguided. The fearmongering about development in the floodplain, solid rooftops for miles and immediate annexation is not (and never was) based on any facts or plans for the East portion of the SOI area. The reality is that approval of the SOI only allows the opportunity for rational planning, which includes public input. The County of Sacramento General Plan acknowledged in 1993 that the land above the floodplain along Grant Line would be urbanized. But this area is surrounded by Elk Grove, so planning by the County is not appropriate, and extending the Elk Grove sphere of influence to this area is the best alternative.

Approval of the SOI is not annexation, and it does not approve any development concept. All of the issues that are listed on the GRASP web page are appropriate concerns for any project, but no project is even on the table or in the planning stages for this area. Although indefinitely continuing to farm this area may sound good to some and is theoretically possible based on 'right to farm' ordinances, it is not practical in the long term. Farming requires raising dust, airplane crop dusting and other things that most people don't want in their back yard, even if farming these isolated areas was profitable and not an economic drain.

My hope is that we can avoid the hysteria caused by misinformation and inuendo that only results in excluding rational planning for our wonderful area.

Doug Williams

Capt. Benjamin L. Willard said...

While Mr. William's makes a logical and reasonable argument that it would not be appropriate for the county to annex the property, the reality is much different.

From a political perspective, all we need to do is look at our recent history. Specifically, developers have contributed a boat load of money to all the current and past council members.

Whether we like it or not, developers have the council members in their pocket. Are we that delusional to think they will not expect a significant return on their investment?

Furthermore, why go through the hassle and expense of the SOI process if we are not going to annex it? Why not focus on completing the many stalled projects within our city limits, not to mention the Promenade.

And finally, Cui bono? Who benefits from the annexation?

The average resident certainly will not see services improved, in fact it can be argued there will be diminishing returns on services. Does the average taxpayer benefit from more sprawl, more traffic and lower city service levels?

Cui bono? Developers and the politicians they fund that is who.

Doug Williams said...

I posted a comment a few days ago and don't see it. Should I repost it?

Doug Williams

Doug Williams said...

I'm not sure why these posts haven't been received, but this is my 3rd try.

I share Capt. Willard's cynicism about politicians. WAG's champion on the Elk Grove City Council for the floodplain issue, Gary Davis, is strongly supported by developers associated with the Western portion of the SOI area, where its floodplain issues were never discussed even though portions of that area are in the floodplain.

Unfortunately, Capt. Willard, like many others, confuses sphere of influence with annexation. An SOI application is not annexation, but part of the long-term planning process. The County of Sacramento determined in the 1993 General Plan that the area between Grant Line and the floodplain would have some kind of development, and defined the Urban Services Boundary (USB) for this area as such. The Eastern portion of the SOI application essentially follows this same 20 year old line and reflects the next step in the long-term planning process. After that, if and/or when a sensible development concept arises, and annexation is proposed, there will be ample opportunity to review the details, and issues such as those noted by GRASP will need to be addressed.

Cui bono? Everyone benefits from good, long-term planning.

Doug Williams

Follow Us



Elk Grove News Minute

All previous Elk Grove News Minutes, interviews, and Dan Schmitt's Ya' Gotta be Schmittin' Me podcasts are now available on iTunes

Elk Grove News Podcast