Comments on: “Stop the squeeze!”

By: jason

jason — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:35:48 +0000

Thanks for your post and for doing the research on the flyer. It cracked me up. The woman pictured looks like she just walked out of an Ann Taylor. Not your typical central city resident at all (renter or not.) Anyway, obviously the flier was paid for by development interests trying to influence the general plan process.

By: muckdog

muckdog — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:10:10 +0000

Well, the major employment center in Sacramento is downtown. Unless you consider Walgreens, Subways and hair salons “major employment centers.” So it’d have to be high-rise apartments or condos downtown. I guess that’s what those Towers are about.

Most folks have a NIMBY attitude, like we’re seeing folks fighting low income housing in the Pocket area recently.

By: Uneasy Rhetoric

Uneasy Rhetoric — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:48:45 +0000

muck – not at all. But East Sac is opposing an infill project that could bring a number of housing units close in to downtown and why? Because of a *perceived* increase in traffic.

If this project near me (the empty rail yards between Curtis Park and Land Park) ever gets off the ground, I’d put money on the neighborhoods hurling one big scream of “what about the traffic!?” if they haven’t already.

I do agree we should build where the jobs are, and I think that we should build higher density clusters around employment centers. The problem is, whenever anyone says “high density,” the first thing that comes to everyone’s mind is high-rise apartments (or apartments in general). Given the humongous lots we’re building on these days, “high density” in my book could encompass townhouses or even single-family developments on smaller lots. There are a lot of options to increase density without resorting to high rises. And I certainly wouldn’t advocate razing anything in Midtown or East Sac — unless it’s already abandoned.

Large lots could be parceled into smaller lots. Abandoned industrial or commercial sites could be redeveloped as higher-density (medium density?) housing or mixed use. And most importantly, vacant land could be developed into housing. I’m talking about everything from that fenced off lot on the corner to the massive site behind City College.

And you’re right, building high-density housing in Elk Grove or Rocklin won’t hurt the commute…at least until they both become major employment centers. Hopefully people working in Elk Grove won’t choose to live in Rocklin, but there isn’t much we can do about that. It’s their gas bill, and their frustration.

By: muckdog

muckdog — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:43:51 +0000

Building high-density housing out in Rocklin or Elk Grove won’t help the commute downtown. The building has to be where the jobs are. Should East Sacramento be razed so that high-density housing can take its place?

By: John (Uneasy Rhetoric)

John (Uneasy Rhetoric) — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:59:39 +0000

Well, F3, it does have my name on it…I think I’ll keep it for posterity’s sake.

By: Funky Fresh Freddie

Funky Fresh Freddie — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:35:57 +0000

That George Bush autographed picture would look great over my mantle. Feel free to send it this way!

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 06:40:39 +0000

I don’t live in the city, but I am 100% behing smart growth. In my opinion smart growth is increasing downtown density. Not all areas should have higher density, but downtown area should.

Also I liked your renter comment. Many of your suburb renters don’t really care, but I do not think that holds true for renters in donwtown/mid-town areas.

By: kit

kit — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 06:05:40 +0000

Renter!? You and me (and a ton of other pissed off Sacramentans), both. In any case, that flier definitely needs some help. I also liked that quote in regards the the East Sac nonsense. I appreciate their concern with traffic and other problems, but as you said, infill really is the most responsible course of action.

Do we all want large enough schools? Absolutely. And with more and more people moving into the city limits, that equates to more and more tax revenue to fund infrastructure.

Or, if you live in East Sac, shut up and send your kid to catholic school.