Tag Cloud
Sacramentans should be enjoying a sigh of relief today, and a swell of pride. After months, years, even a decade of back and forth, conflict and aimlessness, there is finally some movement forward on a sports and entertainment complex.
Yes, forward. Thursday morning's decision by the Sacramento First Task Force to recommend - if just recommend - the complicated but far-reaching "land swap" proposed by Gerry Kamilos' and David Taylor's organizations, and supported by the NBA and other crucial organizations, means that we are moving forward. Finally.
There will be a lot of arguing about this for some time. As an assistant to Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is to be praised for making progress on this a hallmark of his administration, put it, "This was the easy part." But the fact is, it hasn't been easy even to get to this point.
That we have gotten to this point is something to be celebrated.
Passions run particularly high about this subject, and there are a lot of very certain, very loud opinions about it. But at least now we have a well-considered opinion from a group of smart, well-meaning, experienced people, including task force co-chairs Lina Fat and Chris Lehane, about the best way forward.
Because no matter what you might think of the deal that would redevelop the Cal Expo grounds, build a new state fairgrounds in Natomas and place a new arena and intermodal transportation hub at the heart of a redeveloped downtown railyard, at least it does this:
It moves us forward.
Those who want other options, be they rival developers or Sacramento's well-established NIMBY crowd, will still have ample chance to weigh in, as members of the City Council did Thursday morning. There will be much jockeying and lobbying, and that's to be expected, even desired. That's how we do it.
There are many moving parts to this, sources of funding still to be identified, political agendas to be filled, and business and neighborhood interests to be resolved. At one point it was noted that this process could consume local government and businesses for the next two decades.
But that's good. That process, as tortuous as it will likely be, will create a lot of jobs, and at the end, we will have a much-improved city, with amenities we can only dream about right now.
And it could begin as soon as next Tuesday, when city staff brings the City Council its first report on the possibilities for financing, and in April, when some sort of timetable could be brought before the council.
The dream is legitimate. As a lifelong Sacramentan, downtown homeowner and resident, and frequent visitor to the current (and previous) ARCO arenas, I have not had a particularly strong opinion about where to put the new arena. I have, however, long been convinced that we DO need a new facility - and I say that as someone who has been to four Kings games in 15 years.
But as I've studied the issue, it has become clear to me, as it has to nearly everyone who watches these things, and as it was to the Task Force, that an arena needs to be downtown. Putting the arena in the suburbs would only continue to spread Sacramento out over more farmland and vernal pools and hillsides, put more people in more cars for more hours, and, worst of all, diffuse our vital cultural and commercial center just when it is finally, after decades of struggle, being established in downtown/Midtown.
As has been pointed out many times before, of the more than a dozen new arenas that have been built in the last decade, few have been built in suburban locations. That was what we did in the '70s, and like many of the urban choices made then, it was a mistake. As anyone who leaves our town can see, the placement of ATT Park in downtown San Francisco and of the Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles has brought new life to those areas. Big, bustling, boisterous new life. Not to mention jobs and lower crime.
Now, some central city residents don't necessarily want new life in their neighborhoods. Sacramento's downtown and midtown have been quiet, nearly-suburban enclaves for so long that people have forgotten that they are, in fact, the urban core of our city. The mix of uses, particularly in Midtown, has led to some problems.
And the fact is, none of us really knows how this will affect us. I've heard dire warnings about traffic, about drunks, about noise, about air pollution, about raised taxes, and about what is essentially fear of what "those people" - sports fans, suburbanites, people with money to spend, people in cars, what-have-you - will bring to downtown.
But as Mayor Johnson has said many times, the time is now. Time is not on our side. And the future beckons: A new transportation center at the railyards will be the greenest step this city has ever taken, and increased density will stand us in good stead into the new century. A new state fair grounds in Natomas could be a showpiece for the entire state that would draw many more visitors here, and could be built in a greener, more sustainable manner than the lumbering old Cal Expo site. And having a whole new city on the old Cal Expo grounds would be greener and give more people the opportunity to live closer to downtown. To their work. To entertainment. To transportation.
To a vital new Sacramento that could finally take its rightful place as the last great undiscovered urban center of the western United States, a crossroads of north and south and east and west.
All of the details will be worked out over the next few years, as we move forward. Mistakes will be made, there will be setbacks, and arguments, and battles and wasted money. There may be a few new taxes, though that isn't going to fly in the current environment. As the mayor's assistant said, what happened today was the easy part.
But it was not easy getting even here. It took a lot of hard work, and thought, and thousands of hours of volunteer time, and negotiations. And because of that work, today, for the members of the Sacramento First Task Force, and the developers and local visionaries who pushed for this to happen, and above all to a mayor who has made progress his hallmark, was a great day.
So, this is a time to pause and take pride in our city for embracing new possibilities, even though we don't necessarily know where they will lead us. It is a proud moment, and we should savor it over the weekend.
And next week, we move. Forward.
I have to agree with you that, while I think right now the arena is a waste of money, if they insist on building one, I think it would be most useful to us in the downtown area and get people more interested in and supporting the local things we have to offer here. But, building an arena isn't going to make them come. There needs to be more done to attract the shows in the first place and give people other reasons to come downtown, especially when the area is so broke it's closing down a lot of attractions and businesses that were once an icon of the area. Unfortunately, I don't see many ideas or plans for that kind of restoration, which is what I think we really need. That is what would bring people to the area and have them filling Arco again. I have a bad feeling that an arena will be built in the hopes of rekindling the area, but will end up sitting empty just as much as Arco does. I do hope I am wrong though.
While I doubt the view of the depot from the freeway will survive, most on the freeway are more worried about the taillights ahead of them than the view. The view from I Street should be a lot better--especially since that's the direction people who park in the existing lots under I-5 or the city lots under K Street will approach the new stadium/depot from--or, folks working downtown who walk to the stadium for an evening game after dinner downtown.
I don't think the term "NIMBY" applies here--about the only neighborhood in the Railyards' backyard is Alkali Flat, and from the typical comments I have seen, the main objections to a downtown arena have come from folks who don't live anywhere near the central city. And I think they worry about us a lot more than we worry about them. They are very used to the suburbs and a landscape that caters to cars more than people, and the idea of getting there by any other mode is downright alien. Plus, they are hesitant to pay for parking, and fearful of parking in an urban place like downtown Sacramento.
Because downtown Sacramento, and even Midtown, really are an urban place, as much as people tend to try to cover up that unavoidable fact. Sacramento was never a bucolic farm town, we were born a city and that fact has never changed. During the era when "city" was a four-letter word, we tried to hide the evidence of our urban nature, even demolishing our urban heart and disguising downtown as a suburban mall, but I don't think anyone ever really believed it. We even had an arena back then--the L Street boxing/Sumo wrestling arena--it was demolished to make way for I-5. So the current trend towards the city center is not so much moving forward as going back to where we were before the primacy of the taxpayer-subsidized auto suburb.
I will agree with Zen, though, this is only progress of a paper sort, there are plenty of unanswered questions....such as:
Why should the state of California sell the prime real estate of Cal Expo when prices are so rock-bottom, vs. selling the property during the next boom?
Assuming they do sell and receive the Natomas land, how will the new fairgrounds be built considering that there is still a federal building moratorium in Natomas? Doesn't such a trade imply that the state of California is willing to take responsibility for solving Sacramento's flood-control problem?
Can such a move be considered "sustainable" when it involves demolishing a functioning facility and constructing an entirely new facility on a property that includes undeveloped land? Can it be considered "green" when public transit access to the site is limited to a couple of peak-hour bus routes?
Speaking of which, how would the new suburban neighborhood (because, really, that's what it would be, regardless of what we call it) be a "green" project given its own relative lack of transit amenities?
What effect will this have on nearby historic properties--not just the depot, but the historic Shops buildings? All of the drawings I have seen involve no demolition of those historic structures, which I think is great, but plans have been known to change as they get closer to construction.
And, of course, how the heck are we going to pay for all this?
I look forward to reading more on the Arena discussion, the questions you raised and I do look forward to seeing the questions and information, I'm betting, you will share next!! I can tell your heart is in it and when passion is in it more is always to follow. Thanks again.
I do, however, commend the City for at least thinking about things and realizing that there are needs that need to be met in order to pick us up and put us on par with other Cities our size, but I don't think an arena is the answer. We need to focus on what we can do to bring entertainment to the one we already have.
I defer to Burg's far greater knowledge of our community's history and knowledge of urban design. Great questions, and I'm sure you, Bill, could throw up 20 more. Ditto everyone else, and yes, the financing and transport and myriad other issues will come up and need to be addressed.
I also know that Rhonda is a passionate advocate for basic services for people in need.
But I don't think that we need to know all the answers before we start, that was my point in all of this. Yesterday, to me, indicated that we are moving forward, that serious members of the community are proposing movement, and that the Mayor is largely responsible for being the person to start this, and deserves some credit.
I have heard some NIMBY sentiments from my neighbors, so that is definitely a factor, as always. And as a homeowner and resident of the Alkali, I will certainly have some opinions from that narrow point of view myself.
But my point is that, despite more questions than answers, and years of conflict and problems and dubious motivations and most likely, some stupid mistakes, it is important that we move forward. And yesterday, we took a step. It may be, as "Zen" said, "Only an idea."
Don't many great things start with ideas, pursued imperfectly, and then evolve into something sustainable and beautiful?
And does the complicated nature of the "land swap" automatically disqualify it? And if there is "shady business," I hereby offer The Sacramento Press as an open platform to air concerns about such things. Concrete concerns. Not fears or snap judgments.
This is going to be really, really interesting, for the remainder of my professional life. I am looking forward to it VERY much.
We are walking, mobilizing in efforts towards it. You are correct we don't need to know all the answers before we start. Heck if people waited for all the answers so little would get done....But now that the questions are there hopefully answers will be provided or sought as they move forward. (closed mouths don't get fed and many I know are hungry so I put it out there in hopes jobs will become a priority.)
A journey of a thousand miles begins with it's first steps. This is the first steps and it beats walking on a treadmill. As I mentioned I could be wrong in what I previously wrote it's just so difficult sometimes when a community needs to take steps towards healing. But I want what's best for all of us and if a new arena could provide jobs then it's best - as Father Boyle of LA Homeboy Industries states, "Nothing stops a bullet like a job!" .I don't mind if people have motives --well I shouldn't say I don't mind- --lol but, I can understand it if people have motives other than jobs for the unemployeed. Heck, that's understandable. I just wish people would call a spade a spade and tell it like it is. When it was mentioned 600 jobs were at a casino, so many people that I know, including myself, rushed to fill out applications only to learn their aren't anywhere near 600 jobs (at least not on the site reported in the news) We keep getting false hopes....
I do agree and I won't deny - there has been lots of talk of a new arena and Johnson finally moved it forward. Thank you for the article it allowed me to go deeper in understanding the issue. And thank you for the kind words.
Again, I think that essentially, people like their houses here but also like that the Alkali is one of the quietest neighborhoods in town. I like it, too, but not to the point where I would stand in the way of the development of the downtown core in order to keep my neighborhood quiet. As I've said in other contexts, if you want to live in the suburbs, live in the suburbs. If you want to live in a city, let the city grow, and deal with it.
Otherwise, yes, I agree that it's complex and all sides should be heard. And that's happening. Finally!