JK, would you prefer that there was no public examination of the City Charter and potential changes to it, when the new mayor is proposing such drastic fundamental changes that grant himself unprecedented powers?

What would you suggest?

I would suggest an independent objective review of the Mayors proposal. But that would never happen in this corrupt town.

Is the public process being dismantled altogether? Who has the authority to fire the entire Planning Commission?

Only the CIty Council has that authority...

You people voted for these morons...and now Sacramento is getting what it deserves.

advocate: I apologize for my initial comment to you. I've read several post since the comment I made on a different article and I do see you as an advocate- my apologies

I was not aware of this, advocate. Please tell us more.

The Planning Commission changes were made over the past few weeks--instead of a board consisting entirely of at-large members vetted by city staff (to ensure that people on the Planning Commission knew something about planning) the Commission will consist of 11 people--eight hand-picked by city council members, one hand-picked by the mayor, and two people vetted by staff to have some planning experience. The change is from a system based on knowledge of planning to political patronage--there is little to stop a city council member from nominating the employee of a developer (or a developer) to the Planning Commission, or a friend to whom they owe a favor, even if they have no planning background.

There isn't much financial gain to be had directly--I think Planning gets about $100 a month, although most commissioners have gone without pay for many months in an effort to help the city balance its books--but "packing" the Planning Commission with representatives of the building trades and developer community guarantees that pet projects will sail through regardless of their merits (or lack of same.)

Marion, as always you are impressive.

we might as well give him a crown- afterall he seems to have plenty of court jesters

And they ALL wear transparent robes.

N. Natomas's issues of flood control, development, and even the issue of whether it should be developed at all should not be blamed on Fargo alone. N. Natomas's history predates her influences in local politics.

Fargo supposedly made her bones as a planning and development activist. She was councilperson for Natomas for two terms and Mayor for an additional two all while that stucco nightmare was being built. She rightly deserves a great deal of the blame for bringing this environmental disaster to Sacramento. Our city will forever be scarred because of her influence.

Yet there were 8 other council seats that were making decisions too. The City manager also recommended and made development agreements locking in the type of development that could be built there in the late 1990's. When project approvals were made and permits issued during the early 2000's the council tied there hands. I don't like what happened in N. Natomas either but the blame for it falls mostly with the City manager at the time followed by the entire Council in the Mid 1980's to the early 2000's. The N. Natomas Community plan was well intended but the excection of it was poor.

The council rarely goes against the position of the councilperson where the issue is located---in this case Heather Fargo who pushed for the massive development of North Natomas. The North Natomas plan was hairbrained at its inception because it allowed for building a boatload of homes ON A FLOOD PLAIN. Fargo rightly deserves scorn for allowing this environmental disaster to happen on her watch.

Trying to hang the development of the Natomas Basin floodplain on Heather Fargo is beyond absurd.

bbbmer, as always your comment is also impressive

The Charter Reform Committee is filled with land used attorneys, political hacks and at least two members (including the chair) who stated they opposed the SMI prior to being appointed. The meeting have had no more than 30 people attend, most times many fewer. The meeting this week was attended by 4 community members. The charter reform committee has stated that it plans to use it's power--with our tax dollar footing the bill--to defeat the SMI. It is illegal to use tax dollars for political purposes.

The financial backers of the effort to derail the SMI include the Building Trades and the SCDP (not to be confused with Democrats). The Building Trades is the group that benefited from the Natomas build out---the greatest environmental disaster that our city has faced. The SCDP betrayed a core Democratic Party value when it sat by and did nothing when the scumbag Plumbers and Pipefitters Union sent out racist mailing on behalf of Heather Fargo. They are worried that their influence is waning, so they are pulling out all the stops to defeat the SMI.

One of the principle backers of the SMI is Mark Friedman. Friedman is a lifelong Democrat and a developer of urban infill projects. Friedman's projects and similar efforts are the kind of developments that received little support from the Fargo administration. Not all developers are bad. I glad his projects are getting support from the Johnson administration.

The "Boss Mayor" website (http://www.bossmayor.com/) doesn't have much information, but it is a good source of amusement. It's developer, Dmedia, is an out of town operation. Apparently the the Boss Mayor folks find any local folks creative enough to put together a website. Then again, given the craptastic website Fargo had last year, maybe this is a good thing. Until recently, the Boss Mayor folks couldn't or wouldn't get their act together to post their FPPC#, a violation of the law. Word of the street is that Terry Hardy is writing content for the site. I guess this is the only work she could find after getting a can tied to her ass at the Bee.

Mayor Fargo actually supported Loftworks and Fulcrum projects when they were proposed. I believe the Council voted unanimously to give the Elliot Building $3 Million to construct earthquake retrofits.

Fargo also voted against high density apartments downtown, one because "it blocked her view of the Capitol" from her office at city hall.

I thought that Cohn made that remark. If she did make it the reason was bad but so was the project. For the most part she supported well designed high density projects in downtown. But back to my point is that she supported and voted for many projects downtown including Fulcrum and Loftworks.

The project in question was a Saca project, the same guy who made the hole at 3rd & Capitol; the city council's opposition to that project was probably based more on their unwillingness to see another city block sized hole in downtown Sacramento than their desire to preserve the view of the Capitol from City Hall. And yes, Zen is correct that Fargo has supported plenty of Friedman properties and projects. The problem is that she didn't applaud (or subsidize) all of them.

The Towers project would have been built by now if there was any support from the Fargo administration. There were no high density units built downtown during her tenure. Friedman's projects happened in spite of, not because of Fargo. She did help out her financial backer Paul Petrovich build the Safeway store and parking lot on 19th and R. And of course she put a lot of muscle behind the North Natomas build out.

Friedman and other infill developers know that Johnson gets that there needs to be a strong leader to make these projects work in Sacramento. That's why they are supporting him and the SMI. At Johnson's urging, Freidman applied for and was awarded Prop 1C money for the Crystal Ice Building rehab on 16th and R that languished under Fargo's terms.

TomRunge: 800 K Street, 1801 L Street, F65 at Folsom/65th, the 14th & H lofts, adaptive reuse of the Elliott Building and adjacent 01 Lofts new construction, are just some of the infill projects were built during Fargo's tenure as mayor. Others were approved or had begun construction, like the Trammell Crow project on Alhambra and S. Trying to claim that these projects didn't happen during Fargo's tenure is an outright lie.

Apart from Trammell Crow and F65 which are out side of Downtown, I would guess the total number of units from the projects you mention are around 60. And those are all pretty much on the very high end of the cost spectrum. Compare that with all the stucco that was built in North Natomas. Not a very good record for 16 years in office. But hey, if it makes you feel good defending Fargo's horrible record, knock yourself out.

With the examples you've given, it's becoming all to clear why the building trades are putting in so much money to defeat the SMI while smart in-fill developers like Friedman are supporting it.

TomRunge: 1801 L Street alone is 180 units, about a third of which are low-income or very low-income units. 800 J Street is 225 units, and also includes low-income units. Add to that projects like Alchemy on R, the Sutter Brownstones (another Friedman project), SoCap lofts, the Globe Mills project (again, with a significant low-income/senior component, 143 units), Washington Park, C Street lofts, and assorted small infill projects throughout the central city. So no, we're talking more like hundreds, maybe a thousand new units--just during her 8 years as Mayor.

Oh yeah, speaking of building trades folks: K. Hovanian, the north Natomas builder involved in the current scandal, contributed to the SMI. AKT Development, the local kings of sprawl, contributed $25,000, plus another $25,000 from West Lakeside LLC, another Tsakopoulis family company.

The only project you mention that is downtown is 800 J. But Fargo's failure to get any movement on infill project doesn't just stop in Downtown She also ovelooked the commercial cooridors on Stockton Blvd., Franklin Blvd., Broadway, Florin Road and Del Paso Blvd. You seem to think she's the second coming of Jane Jacobs. Her efforts to pave over N. Natomas prove otherwise.

The Tskopoulos family has given plenty to Fargo through her many campaigns, including her latest. It looks like they made a wise investment with her.

Sounds like you're getting awfully selective there...all the projects I mentioned are in the central city, the downtown/midtown area. Why don't they count as urban infill? Hundreds of units of housing, much of it low-income, within walking distance of downtown, but it doesn't count because it isn't adjacent to K Street?

As to the urban corridors, make up your mind--you just discounted two development projects (F65 and Trammell Crow) because they weren't downtown, but they are on commercial corridors. It also overlooks streetscape improvement projects done on Del Paso and Broadway done during her tenure. Sure, she didn't revamp the entire city in 8 years, but do you consider that reasonable or even possible? I didn't consider her the perfect mayor, but you're not just discounting what she has done, you're pretending it didn't happen at all.

About AKT: I'm sorry, is it Backwards Day today? Tsakopoulis supported Johnson for mayor, and has given the Strong Mayor Initiative as much money as Friedman. The developer K Hovanian, whose buildings are the subject of the latest Natomas flap, also contributed to the Strong Mayor Initiative. That kind of blows a hole in your "SMI is opposed by developers who like sprawl" theory.

You called my claim that Fargo didn't build high density buildings Downtown an "outrageous lie". To support your claim, you keep listing building that are not Downtown. The one property that is Downtown--800 J--is a 6 story building that was built on an empty lot on a high profile corner. Most people consider this a lost opportunity to bring some REAL density to Downtown. Sure, Midtown was developed during Fargo's term, but it's been so gentrified that is the neighbors around 28th and J regularly complain about suburban outsiders making too much noise. Far from working on any infill development on the commercial cooridors outside of midtown, Fargo left them in worse shape than when she found them. But really her true legacy to Sacramento is the 1000's of stucco homes that were built on a flood plane in N. Natomas. This is what she will be remembered for in years to come.

Tsakopoulis may be supporting the SMI, but The Mayor hasn't opened the floodgates to unfettered development into Natomas the way Fargo did. The only thing I've heard the Mayor say he wants in Natomas is a car lot. If that property needs to be developed, that seems like a better use for that land than stucco housing. Again, Fargo took plenty of money from Tsakopoulis during her tenure. Unfortunately for us, she never learned the lesson from Jesse Unruh that, "If you can't drink a lobbyist's whiskey, take his money, sleep with his women and still vote against him in the morning, you don't belong in politics." Fargo never belonged in politics. It's a shame we all have to pay the price for her horrible career choice.

I provided examples of central city high-density housing, which you claim don't count because Midtown is supposedly miles and miles away from downtown (it's not, it is part of the central city, and both downtown/midtown combined are actually smaller than a lot of other Sacramento neighborhoods, just a lot denser.)

I don't think you know what "gentrified" means. Gentrification is when wealthier people move to the central city, displacing the original residents. Most of the activists decrying the 2700 block of J Street have lived downtown for decades. The partiers who get drunk there don't live there--they aren't "gentrifying" anything, in fact turning a neighborhood into a no-rules party zone tends to discourage the wealthy from living there.

Why don't you look at Johnson's current position if you want to know what he thinks about suburban development? A developer who gave him money is building houses on the North Natomas floodplain in violation of a federal mandate to not build anything there, and his only response is fury at the audacity of whoever leaked the story of corruption. He is the one trying to facilitate even MORE Natomas, and even a federal moratorium wasn't enough to stop their construction under Johnson's watch. If not for the ban, they would be going up just as quickly, if not faster, with even less review.

To the development community, Fargo's great sin was that she wasn't solicitous enough of the development community, which in Sacramento is dominated by greenfield developers who make their living building stucco sprawl on floodplain. Johnson hasn't advocated much, if at all, for downtown residential projects, instead focusing on office, hotel and entertainment uses. He has repeatedly suggested Phoenix as a model for Sacramento, a car-centric sprawl city that makes Sacramento look dense by comparison, and his idea for an auto mall in the North Natomas floodplain is pretty foolish, considering most auto malls are losing money or struggling to get by these days.

Here Here! Rhys... To the anti strong mayor folks on this site, this ALL about Johnson, they are short sighted. This is a once in a generation opportunity to making the sweeping changes this joke of City desperatly needs. And I say joke of a City only because of the rampant and blatant corruption that exists under the current form of government. We have eight council members that loved to be bought off through campaign contributions... If the strong Mayor initiative passes, most of that money will shift to the Mayors campaign...this is good. It will be much easier to control one mayor, corrupt or not, than eight of the buggers.

"It will be much easier to control one mayor, corrupt or not, than eight of the buggers."

This much is true--the problem is that it will be the people with deep pockets who will control the Mayor. It gives them more control while requiring that they only bankroll a single Mayor's campaign instead of the majority of the city council's campaigns--having one puppet is easier and more certain than trying to maintain a majority of the Council as puppets. It certainly won't be the voters--they will be farther removed from the political process by the SMI, regardless of who occupies the Mayor's chair.

The developers will do what developers do...attempt to buy candidates.

No matter how much money is donated to a candidate, it is the responsibility of the voters to decide who gets elected.

Campaign contributions are public record. All the voters need to do is become informed voters. Simply do not vote for candidates who are controlled by developers.

The anti strong mayor folks dont want democracy. They dont want the voters to have any personal responsibility. They dont want change in the CIty. The current form of government prevents any significant changes, and while that may suit unionists and those in power, it does not benefit the community as a whole.

The problem is that the money drives the message. The candidate with the most money can broadcast their message the loudest, drowning out candidates without big-money supporters. Some voters are more informed than others--but if you can win over the not-so-informed ones with big colorful ads, you can win elections and override the will of the more informed voter.

In terms of instances of 'rampant and blatant corruption' here in Sacramento, under the current charter, there are none -- and there haven't been in the 80 years of its existence. On the other hand such terms could be legitimately (and legally) applied to KJ's organizations and the behaviour of its principals, including KJ himself.

sfmundi- I waited to hear of the "rampant and blatant corruption" and I guess they couldn't list examples - perhaps it's just a smokescreen

This is why some people should not vote..if your not aware of the blatant corruption that runs this City, then please abstain from voting in local elections.

Developers and unions own and control every single member of our council. Developers who finance the campaigns of our council members get hundreds of millions of dollars of Redevelopment funds...it is obvious that this is quid pro qou.

These same developers also make BILLIONS of dollars off of re-zoning, land annexation and limitless urban sprawl which is all spearheaded by our purchased city council members.

Anyone who knows whats going on in this city KNOWS that developers completly control our city council and this town. There is no democracy in Sacramento, it has been sold to the highest bidder.

And now that most of the land has all been sold...and there is a building moratorium in Natomas....Corporate interests are going after our water...

Jim: You are aware that it is those same developers who are behind the Strong Mayor Initiative, right? It has been mentioned a few times, it should have sunk in by now.

This is why some people should not be allwed to vote-- William said it best-- "Jim: You are aware that it is those same developers who are behind the Strong Mayor Initiative, right? It has been mentioned a few times, it should have sunk in by now."

I am very aware of who is behind the Strong Mayor initaitve. I love the fact that scumbag developers are willing to pay for change in this city. No doubt they have an opinion on how things would shake out, I believe they will be suprised by the unintended consequences of having a strong mayor.

Most of the people attacking the inittive fail to see the big picture, and the long term ramifications of having a strong mayor, they are simply stuck on the fact that Johnson made the proposal. He wont be around for very long. The strong mayor position could be around indefinitely.

Voters would be given the option of electing a strong mayor who was an enviornmentalist, we could elect a strong mayor who is anti-urban sprawl, we could elect a strong mayor who was a fiscal conservative, we could elect a strong mayor who is willing to stand up to developers....and on and on and on. The point is, right now, no matter what the agenda or platform a mayoral candidate, the candidates vision most likely will never be implemented.

The strong mayor initaitive will open up our city to many many possibilities, something we simply dont have right now. The strong mayor inititive will empower the voters and allow THE VOTERS to determine the direction of our city. Right now, we do not have this power.

I'd be more succesful beating my head against they wall. Some of you just dont understand the long term possibilities of having a strong mayor.

Wihtout comprehensive discussion? WHAT? The proposal will have had 18 months of public review before the PUBLIC gets to vote on it. I dont see how it is possible to have any more review or discussion of the proposal.

I dont care for Johnson, but I strongly support the idea of having a strong mayor.

Jim: Not a syllable of the SMI will change as a result of that 18 months of public scrutiny, including the portions which will cause serious legal challenges and unworkable situations--including the 9th district issue, its utter failure to address who represents the city in contracts, and more. Public review means an opportunity to change the process--the SMI offers none of this.

Who cares if public review would not change one syllable - the fact of the matter is the voters will have had plenty of time to make up their minds on whether or not to vote for or against the proposal.

When state ballot initiatives are put on the ballot, no one in Sacramento complains that they were not involved in drafting the initiative. They simply read they initiative and make a decision which way to vote. Why should Johnsons initaitve be any different? He has made a proposal, which is his right under the Charter, and now we get to vote on his porposal.

All the complaining, by a small but vocal group, that the public was not involved is a red herring. Those that complain that the public did not get a say on the wording that went into the initiative would never vote for the initiative under any conditions, they are simply attacking Johnson for whatever personal or political reason.

Actually, that's not his right under the Charter. Minor revisions can be performed to the charter by the initiative process, but substantive changes (like full-scale changes to how the city is run) require a charter review process initiated by the city council.

And no, this has nothing to do with Johnson--but it has a lot to do with the guy who wrote the initiative, Tom Hiltachk. You said this wasn't about Johnson and you're right, it isn't--it is about the flawed, overreaching nature of this initiative. I wouldn't want any mayor to have that level of power, whether or not I personally liked them.

The "Public" does not have the right, under any law, to have input on the writing of local or statewide initiatives...its that simple.

We get to read them and vote one way or the other on the proposal.

But....the public cannot create an initiative that make substantial, fundamental changes to a document like the state constitution or a city charter. That requires the creation of a charter commission, and a process including public input. That's real democracy--not just having permission to approve the decisions of our "betters."

Actually you are completely wrong William, any member of the public can write and circulate a initiative to change our charter.

To make minor changes, yet--but not substantive changes that alter the overall structure of city or state government. Switching from a council/manager system to a mayor/council system goes well beyond that threshold.

sfmundi-- I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU. And in case he missed it, " I, and I think our fellow Sacramento citizens, would be most grateful if he could fill us in with specific events..."

Feel free to read my many many posts on the subject

JK, your posts add up to:

Giving one elected official the powers of multiple district officials + the powers of the city manager. will solve the problem of big money and corruption influencing City Hall campaigns.

The people who don't like the Strong Mayor Initiative and unexamined, privately drafted changes to the constitution of the City, have no reasons to object other than a personal dislike for Johnson.

That the voters will be better able to vote out big money and corruption influencing one politician than several.

You are the only one who takes the long view and sees the big picture.


None of that is true.

Adjust your tinfoil hat Marion... your reception is fuzzy.

I believe in democracy, I believe the community should have a voice in our government. This simply is not the case right now - we have a developer and public emplyee union controlled good-ol-boy-back-room-deal-cow-town, only through a strong mayor will there be any change.

Lefties all scream for Obama and change... just not here in Sacramento...Change is the last thing they want, they have a sweet deal going.

Jim, President Obama has plenty of support in Sacramento. But Kevin Johnson is not Barack Obama.

Your insults are supposed to cover your inability to address the comments directly.

You "believe in democracy," but as you've stated here repeatedly, you don't believe in participating in the process. You would rather insult and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That Obama stuff -- nothing to do with my comments.