Representatives from the building sector are fighting a proposal from the city to charge developers fees for transportation-related construction. City staffers said that Sacramento must address how the city’s transportation infrastructure will be affected by population growth. The fees would partly pay for upgrades to infrastructure, according to the plan created by city staffers and consultants. But developers voiced their opposition to the idea at a Monday meeting of the city’s Development... KathleenHaley ez9 comment-23205 2010-03-11T22:52:14Z 2010-03-11T22:52:14Z The fee is proposed to raise nearly a billion dollars over the next ten years ... without a clear game plan of how the money would be spent, and if we as a community can afford this investment. Do you think a developer revitalizing a long vacant retail site on del paso blvd, or stockton blvd - is causing the same transportation impact as new construction on the urban edge? The fees for revitalization of our run down commercial corridors and in our more fragile urban areas need to be reduced or eliminated - that's how to direct private investment into the parts of our community that need it. ez9 2010-03-11T22:52:14Z barry comment-23146 2010-03-10T03:32:42Z 2010-03-10T03:32:42Z The City of Sacramento is simply trying to keep the eight hundred pound gorilla, wages and benefits for current and retired workers, from completely crushing them. They are using the "Transit" hook in an effort to sell people on the program. They do not care about transit any more than they care if the increased fees drive developers and builders to the outlying cities and counties. Ultimately it will decrease the amount of revenue the city brings in but they will use the "projected additional revenue" in their budgeting process. barry 2010-03-10T03:32:42Z Dale Kooyman comment-23124 2010-03-09T00:01:18Z 2010-03-09T00:01:18Z Generalized crime figures prove little and perception is a reality for the person perceiving any given situation. Regarding the number of kids in midtown and central city (there are 11 of varying ages in one and one quarter blocks of my house). So it depends on the area--even block by block. Crime depends on the area too--sometimes block by block too. Even the definition of criminal behavior has to be explored when trying to compare neighborhood safety. As Burg says, many suburban areas have far more reported crime than the central city. Some have less. Right now, East Sac is experiencing a rash of house and garage burglaries according to PD reports. Midtown has an increasing number of crimes near off and on-sale alcohol purveyors (DUI is a crime, robbing an inebriated pedestrian is a violent crime, driver hitting a pedestrian is a crime, traffic violations are criminal behavior) . He is also right in that density does not create crime--there are several other existing conditions that must be factored when concluding an area has a lot of crime. Dale Kooyman 2010-03-09T00:01:18Z Marion Millin comment-23099 2010-03-08T23:08:10Z 2010-03-08T23:08:10Z The system is broken. The DOC would do well to find a way to require developers to keep the promises/deals they make at the start of projects. First in line to pay for transit ought to be Angelides and Tsakapolous and all others (including culpable City officials who let them renege) who developed Natomas and Elk Grove, promising Lite Rail, Transit Hubs and Pedestrian Oriented Development and delivered the exact opposite. Regional Tranit must begin to incentivize ridership. Offer versatile monthly pass offers for those who use the system and must make multiple transfers from the burbs simply to reach the central city. By continuing to cut services and raise fees, RT is shooting itself in the foot. I was on an outbound Lite Rail train yesterday with a driver that hit some kids, who ran in front of the train while she laid on the horn without slowing. She kept the doors shut, it took at least 5 minutes for any emergency vehicles to arrive. For about fifteen minutes RT thought it had another fatality on its hands. The driver said "We may have a fatality" the second time she came on the intercom. The crowd of kids who swarmed the drivers door settled down when she barked at them over the intercom. The trapped riders waited and talked about what various people had seen happen. The people with the best view were up front. They were also two women with a toddler and stroller and packages, who said the driver was rude and yelling at them when they took too long to board the train. When the officials stopped looking under the train for a body, without any announcement from the driver, the train lurched off. The point is, we need transit now and in the future as an option. If short sighted developers don't understand that and only care that THEY "are going out of business left and right,” they are part of the problem, not the solution. As long as RT treats riders like a captive audience and as one rider put it yesterday "like sh#t," they will continue to circle the drain. Some riders who have other options try to use RT to support the system. The exorbitant costs, inconvenient routes/connections/schedules and rude behavior of some of the staff are counterproductive. It's time for creative and visionary thinking. It's time for developers to be made to keep their promises. That has to be built into whatever shared cost plans are devised. Marion Millin 2010-03-08T23:08:10Z Shawn Eldredge comment-23091 2010-03-08T18:50:14Z 2010-03-08T18:50:14Z tamie, the fees are also on infill development as well it will hurt all development not just suburban crap.. additionally other cities are waving fees to stimulate development ( read my first post) i do not disagree with funding transportation through development.. however ,lets be sure we are implementing with the return of the economy.. Additionally lets be sure we are funding the right projects(i.e. transit before highways) and not just putting cal trans workers to work concernin tattoo parlors, marijuana dispenseries or bars . the market determines all that (hell, yogurt shops) the market will determine what survives or doesnt.. please dont attempt to control retail or small business through govt regulation or all small business will disappear Shawn Eldredge 2010-03-08T18:50:14Z tdramer comment-23058 2010-03-07T20:53:11Z 2010-03-07T20:53:11Z Clogged Freeways- don't bring any revenue to Sacramento. The BIA has to pay to play if there's going to be a different outcome than that. They just pass it directly to the homebuyers anyway...don't let their cryin' fool you. If the BIA doesn't like it...they can go elsewhere. I don't care. We need a different source of economic development in this County OTHER than new sprawling housing development if we (Sacramentans) are not to be victims of the boom and bust and boom and bust development economy! They should probably stop with the tattoo parlors too, and perhaps move to encouraging tattoo removal businesses as the "next" generation gets all sleeved-up- they are reaching a saturation point. tdramer 2010-03-07T20:53:11Z thsas comment-23056 2010-03-07T20:23:01Z 2010-03-07T20:23:01Z I do not know, I do not believe I have ever been to those neighborhoods. But what I am pretty sure about is that it would be very easy to find a suburb of Sacramento with lower crime rates than the city, and that would attract me if I was raising a family, and that would tend to support sprawl, and that is my point. If you look at the demo of Midtown and Downtown, there are not many kids, so my thought is not origional. thsas 2010-03-07T20:23:01Z William Burg comment-23050 2010-03-07T18:40:55Z 2010-03-07T18:40:55Z thsas: Meadowview, Oak Park, and Del Paso Heights are all suburban neighborhoods, but they are also high-crime neighborhoods. They are not high-density places. If density causes crime, what is causing it in those very suburban places? William Burg 2010-03-07T18:40:55Z thsas comment-23034 2010-03-07T02:11:35Z 2010-03-07T02:11:35Z I do not, try to expain it, as I assume it is just as you say.(I think I just heard Sacramento is California 's second highest crime rate city?) To my knowledge however, crime rates are lower in most suburbs. I am a big fan of living in the city, (done it many big name cities), and I realize that many people would not prefer it, for many reasons, resutling in endless sprawl (and more malls). thsas 2010-03-07T02:11:35Z William Burg comment-22939 2010-03-05T06:58:11Z 2010-03-05T06:58:11Z So is crime an inevitable result of population density? And how do you explain it when you look at overall crime maps and Sacramento's most dangerous neighborhoods are not in the central city, but in suburban neighborhoods? William Burg 2010-03-05T06:58:11Z thsas comment-22799 2010-03-03T16:31:44Z 2010-03-03T16:31:44Z This additional burden is just brutal on business development, job creation, and ultimately the end consumer of the product or service. Everyone who manages a P and L knows where the variable expenses end up being corrected, just to make it worth even doing . thsas 2010-03-03T16:31:44Z thsas comment-22798 2010-03-03T16:27:49Z 2010-03-03T16:27:49Z WB, my comment is response to "...Stop sprawl (which often happens because it's cheap to break new ground) and give incentives to re-developers of brown field sites." Just one of many reasons to be attracted to sprawl: Check out the crime rates in downtown and Midtown Sacramento. If I was going to raise a family, I would need to opt for suburbia. No way I could feel secure letting my kids out of my sight down here. "Lifestyle" in this instance is about the population dense neighborhoods way of life and baggage, (some of which I prefer at this stage of my life, having no young kids). thsas 2010-03-03T16:27:49Z William Burg comment-22797 2010-03-03T08:39:09Z 2010-03-03T08:39:09Z Increased taxes generated by new development generally don't add up to enough to upgrade infrastructure, and won't appear for years down the road. The problem with simple ideas is that just because an idea is simple doesn't mean it is true. William Burg 2010-03-03T08:39:09Z Rhys02 comment-22790 2010-03-03T05:08:56Z 2010-03-03T05:08:56Z This is Kevin Johnson's idea of a city that wants to move forward? Whatever happened to the simple idea that the increased taxes generated by the new value a development project would be available to upgrade infrastructure. Or does the city need that money to pay back all the millions it has been stealing from city utility rate payers? Note of course that they are proposing a 'fee', so it is not subject to a popular vote. If the city council moves forward with this, then the voters need to amend the earlier proposition that requires taxes to be put to a popular vote to include requiring fee increases to be put to a popular vote. This nonsense has got to stop... Rhys02 2010-03-03T05:08:56Z William Burg comment-22786 2010-03-03T03:11:47Z 2010-03-03T03:11:47Z thsas: What other problems do you think need resolving, and how would you resolve them? Requiring developers to pay for transportation infrastructure in places where their development will result in an impact on that infrastructure just plain makes sense--and is a step towards rolling back sprawl. And what does "lifestyle" have to do with this in the first place? William Burg 2010-03-03T03:11:47Z William Burg comment-22785 2010-03-03T03:10:09Z 2010-03-03T03:10:09Z Stephanie: This valley still IS a premier supplier of food to the world...but I agree that we should stop building suburbs on such prime agricultural land. William Burg 2010-03-03T03:10:09Z thsas comment-22772 2010-03-02T18:56:04Z 2010-03-02T18:56:04Z Urban lifestyle has a host of problems associated with it, and mere transportation initatives will not cure the issue. thsas 2010-03-02T18:56:04Z Mark Urquhart comment-22769 2010-03-02T17:38:31Z 2010-03-02T17:38:31Z I agree with Steph 100%. Stop sprawl (which often happens because it's cheap to break new ground) and give incentives to re-developers of brown field sites. Mark Urquhart 2010-03-02T17:38:31Z stephanie taylor comment-22767 2010-03-02T17:03:01Z 2010-03-02T17:03:01Z As an advocate of vital urban centers, anti-development, endlessly stretching suburbia person, transportation fees are a great idea, IF they don't all go for administration of these very fees. The impact of people who move here for affordable housing and then commute long distances to their jobs is unacceptable. For example, we desperately need a more viable way to get to all the way into San Francisco and to SFO on public transportation. Ditto to our own airport. More important, this valley was a premier supplier of food to the world. Where's that food going to be grown if all the land is covered with housing? What are these people going to eat and where are they going to get water? stephanie taylor 2010-03-02T17:03:01Z Shawn Eldredge comment-22765 2010-03-02T14:56:17Z 2010-03-02T14:56:17Z This is going to take a lot of stakeholder discussion before it can go forward. Issues such as the actual projects the funds are earmarked for i.e. there are HOV lanes in there, new interchanges etc. ( highway projects traditionally not funded by city funds) Additionally, there will need to be a phasing in of the new fees as there aren’t any projects being built as there is no money to build anything . Other cities whose fees on paper are higher yet they are scrambling to lower them and add incentives to assist in economic recovery. I heard of attempting to find a matrix or economic indicator to tie the fees to. ( as the economy slowly recovers the fees could be slowly phased in ) Additionally the some of comments from the BIA were valid . Shouldn’t we look at all the fees to determine if they are appropriate as some of the fees were established pre economic melt down and some are outdated . I personally would like to see the percentages adjusted . With less money going to highway funds and more to transit. I asked the question and from DOT got a" they cant be any lower , we are already pushing the percentages now" . But during the presentation there was mention of San Francisco looking to implement such a plan where the percentages were almost reversed nearly 75% going to transit and the balance to highways just wanted to start the flurry this morning ( the full report is on the city site ( sorry for not attaching it ) Shawn Eldredge 2010-03-02T14:56:17Z