STORYLINE DWB: The View from Downtown

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

1 of 3
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 3
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image

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.
 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

edited on  March 11, 2010 | 8:10 PM
Wrigley Field is close to downtown and it works well, whereas in St. Louis the downtown arena doesn't work so well so each city needs to find what works for them. As a long time central city homeowner, the downtown complex is a great concept but it must be designed in a way in which it does not become a wasteland when the arena is not being used and the design must faciliate people getting out and experiencing downtown not just driving in, seeing a game and then leaving. The key is to design it in a way that serve multiple uses so it is constantly used and don't give it a sea of surface parking. My only really big concern is that the arena does not block the view shed of the intermodal and historic rail depot from I street or the freeway. So far the drawings look pretty good but it's only a drawing and plenty of developments never lived up to the artists concept drawing. This arena plan must in no way jeapordize the ten plus years of planning that has gone into the intermodal - that would be a huge setback and our transit infrastructure is critical to a liveable downtown and a higher priority than a sports & entertainment complex.
2 0
REPLY
edited on  March 14, 2010 | 12:48 PM
I think the arena for St. Louis works great for downtown. It gets people into the shops of the City, there's tons of locally owned and operated restaurants and retail stores that see the benefit of people coming downtown to go to shows (which keeps their economy higher because a lot of the money stays locally rather than going out to big chains), plus St. Louis is a beautiful city with a lot to see and do in the downtown area (far surpassing what Sac has to offer) and having the arena there, many people will come down early in the day, long before a show starts, to take advantage of the other nearby attractions like the Arch, Union Station, or going to historic locally owned eateries and experiencing the culture of St. Louis like Crown Candy Kitchen or Ted Drewe's Custard, the Hill, Soulard, Art Museum, Zoo, Natural History Museum, Science Center, Fox Theatre (spectacular BTW) and the list is endless. And, might I add, all of which are enormous in size and variety compared to what's here in Sacramento. I love Crocker, but in comparison to the Art Museum in St.L, it's like a cracker jack box. The majority of attractionsin St.L are free as well; there's no paying $7.00 to get in the zoo, no fees for the museums, and minimal parking fees if any; yet the City thrives and houses numerous major league sports, is able to keep a constant string of entertainment coming to their arenas and doesn't have the unemployment rate that we have.

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.
0 0
REPLY
Zen
Author thumbnail
March 11, 2010 | 8:22 PM
Sorry to say but this report doesn't mean anything yet. If this is forward then it's an inch in a mile. Until the CIty, Kings, NBA, and state get involved its nothing be proud of yet. Until the financing for the arena is worked out and that financing plan fits the King's business model and the Railyards plans its just an idea.
0 0
REPLY
March 11, 2010 | 8:54 PM
In some ways, this is an opportunity to one-up New York City. Their historic Penn Station depot was demolished to make way for Madison Square Garden. They still have a train station in the basement, but we could feasibly make our historic depot (and one of our city's architectural treasures) into the grand entrance to both the stadium and a transportation hub. Wrigley Field doesn't need much parking because it is right next to an El station.

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?
6 0
REPLY
March 11, 2010 | 10:37 PM
William, dang, your unanswered questions blew me away!!! Each question nearly knocked me off my seat - I was hanging on-- LOL - You put a great deal of thought into what you wrote. I would love to read answers to your questions and love even more to read what you'd write next!! I am impressed!!! I wonder how you are so knowledgeable on the city- honestly you never cease to amaze me. My grandfather (George Seabron) asked me how you knew so much of the History of Oak Park....(when I read to him the article you wrote for the Mid Town magazine) He's old and sick but your article gave him lots to smile and talk about as he shared more history with me. My grandfather isn't easily impressed but he was both surprised and impressed with your knowledge. (He asked me to also thank you) Again, the information you shared and the questions you raised in your above comment-- WOW- I am impressed!!!
4 3
REPLY
March 11, 2010 | 10:57 PM
Rhonda: Most of the information came from a couple of sources: a neighborhood tour designed by Prof. Robin Datel of Sacramento State's geography department, a study of Oak Park history done for a historic buildings survey, a Master's thesis on Sacramento's African American community by Clarence Caesar, and my own research into the streetcar system and Sacramento's urban renewal period. Will you be coming to the "Meet Mary Pleasant" movie at the Guild Theatre this Sunday?
3 0
REPLY
edited on  March 11, 2010 | 11:54 PM
Thank you for providing the information of the sources. I really appreciate it. I will pass it on. He wondered if perhaps their were old Observer articles that might of had the African American information you wrote. He was one of the 12 who started the Observer. Most of them had their own business to run and so much going on they one by one drifted out and Mr Lee kept the paper going and made it what it is today... Anyway, I wouldn't miss the movie "Meet Mary Pleasant", after all sometimes the key to the future is unlocking the spirit of activism of yesterday!

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.
3 3
REPLY
edited on  March 12, 2010 | 2:34 AM
My friend works at Arco Arena. I went with her to an employee dinner. Many complained of lay offs, hours cut... some work for a while then a short lay off , they get unemployment benefits then return back to Arco to work.... If the current Arena isn't providing employment security how is moving it downtown going to provide that many more jobs? I understand it'll be a larger facility but exactly where do the jobs come in to play? What new activities will the new arena have to create a need for more employees? Are we putting the cart before the horse? Planning for a new improved larger facility is nice but how are we going to fill it with employment opportunities? What are the plans for employment? Is there a task force for the employment? Or is it a "If we build it they will come" attitude- build it and wait for the activity planning, other than Kings games, to come later? Aren't there some churches who now volunteer working at the Arena? I need to find out more about their role. It appears some at Arco would rather use volunteers than employ residents and give them benefits. It seems if we put things under a "It will provide jobs" umbrella with the current stressful Sacramento unemployment rate some will buy into it just for a hope of jobs... Looking at a building, looking at a location is nice; but is there a task force looking at the people -- unemployed? or are the people unemployed, soon to be unemployed or as many Arco employees find themselves unemployed part-time- REALLY in the site of Arco representatives or even Mayor Johnson? Is employment in this economic difficult time taking a back seat to the vision of a newer, larger, downtown facility? It seems lately we're hearing lots of "jobs to be created" It's not like I believe Mayor Johnson would see the unemployed people before a new Sports Arena. I don't share the same praises as his assistant. Heck, Maloofs and others may want Sacramento to show them the money- but I'd like to know when they will show us the JOBS! I'm curious if Arco Arena can provide jobs why all the lay offs? and why can't they plan / provide more activities to provide more jobs, save jobs and maintain steady employment - without an unemployment break --right NOW?
2 4
REPLY
March 14, 2010 | 12:19 PM
Those were my thoughts as well. You could build 10 arenas but it's not going to bring new jobs unless entertainers, sportsmen, shows, etc bring their acts to that arena - thus is one of the problems with Arco; no one wants to perform in Sacramento. They don't get the sales here like they do in other places so it's not worth their time and effort to bring a show here. Again, that has nothing to do with an arena; I doubt people are all the sudden magically going to start buying out any and every show just because it's a new arena and especially not now or in the near future when people are suffering layoffs, housing issues, and other economic crisis. They simply don't have the money to purchase tickets to those shows anyway (and I'm sure the new arena will also mean higher ticket prices for nearly everything!). Maybe by the time the arena was actually built the economic state will have changed, who knows, but still, the past (even in good economic times) has set the precedent that Sacramento is just not a place that attracts big name entertainment, sports, and other shows that will keep an arena (especially a new an improved one) in operation or bring jobs and provide benefits to the City. I think will ultimately end up being one of the worst mistakes this City will ever make.

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.
0 0
REPLY
edited on  March 12, 2010 | 3:05 AM
I could be wrong but it's just like with youth violence and alleged anti-crime initiatives- where crime and often victims are used as others profit (surveillance, high tech companies... ) and political careers advance for not appearing soft on crime yet it's all under a crime prevention umbrella but many are looking at money and not people affected. Here, with the Arena, it seems unemployment is the bait and the hook is really a newer facility... And not to appear soft on advancing Sacramento into “world-class city” and the Maloofs and others profit and Johnson advances his political career. It just seems like deja vous to me not an attempt to look at all the people- or unemployment. (just like anti-crime efforts aren't really looking at the people affected/ exposed to violence or crime prevention- it takes a backseat to money- enhancing depts & advancing political careers) . Again, I could be wrong. I look forward to learning more about this effort.
1 3
REPLY
March 12, 2010 | 9:47 AM
I live downtown & I don't have any objections to the arena being here. However, I greatly dislike the land swap idea - it's complicated, confusing to your average voter & reeks of shady business to me. I can't be the only person who wonders why they don't just build an arena in the railyards & leave Cal Expo & Natomas out of it.
2 1
REPLY
edited on  March 12, 2010 | 12:32 PM
This is a great conversation, and I look forward to continuing it for years.
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.
4 0
REPLY
March 12, 2010 | 3:29 PM
I appreciate and respect the article that you wrote. With all my heart I like to look for the postives and we should look for the silver lining. I won't say a new arena won't be good for Sacramento, heck it could be great. I don't know that's why I want to learn more of the discussion...

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.
1 1
REPLY
March 12, 2010 | 10:33 PM
Well, we have started--now it's time to start asking the questions that will have to be answered on the journey. I tend to take a worm's eye view of things--the details are what interest me the most. It's nice to have a dream, an overarching vision--but if there isn't a mechanism for achieving it, you just plain don't get there, or start out on the wrong route. The problem with dreams is that they aren't concrete--they can change in an eye-blink, and you wake up with nothing. Now is exactly the time for planning--and answering some of those hard questions that need answers.
2 1
REPLY
edited on  March 12, 2010 | 1:42 PM
David - I am a bit curious what type of comments you've heard from your neighbors and what part of town they're from? I have heard generally positive feedback from my central city neighbors. And in general, the planning for the intermodal and railyards can shed some light on the complexity of this potential transaction - it has been a complex interaction of city, federal, state and private entities but for the most part, the details are almost worked out. It has taken many years but it is getting done in a way that will satisfy all the parties. In general, these transactions are not easy but...not understanding them does not make them inherently shady. But on the flip side, the public needs to try to understand the process and ask lots of questions and demand answers.
2 0
REPLY
January 6, 2011 | 5:49 PM
Hi Savemidtown, sorry not to have replied to this, uh, LAST YEAR. I just revisited this because I'm writing an editorial about today's meeting. A couple of my neighbors are convinced that an arena belongs out in Natomas or at Cal Expo or ANYWHERE but downtown, largely, I think, because they are afraid it will mean less parking in our neighborhood. But we have parking challenges due to state and county workers and juries and whatever else might be going on. We have passes. It'll all work out, from my point of view.
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!
1 0
REPLY
March 13, 2010 | 9:40 AM
Geez, finally a well-written, soundly-reasoned and interesting story on this topic. A professional take by a pro! Thanks Mr. Barton for taking the reins on a story Sacramento Press can own. Too often, we think "sports" and not "entertainment" when we think Arena. This is a no-brainer for smart downtown development. I look forward to reading more.
4 1
REPLY
March 14, 2010 | 12:48 PM
Perhaps the rail yard site would be better served by a minor league Football stadium. Let's face it. In these hard times, we already have a well crafted, but kinda ugly, pro basketball stadium. We also have a nice minor league stadium across the river. Let's spend dollars on boosting the infrastructure to make these facilities accessible by the public; namely light rail and bus service. And leave Cal Expo alone! It aint broke so don't fix it!
0 0
REPLY
P W
Author thumbnail
edited on  May 23, 2010 | 5:59 PM
COMMENT REMOVED BY USER
March 25, 2010 | 10:21 AM
Don't roll over and play dead. This awful arena deal is not a foregone conclusion. The city council has only agreed to listen to the idea. A rotten plan like this will inevitably sink under the pressure raised by reasonable minded citizens!
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below.
Use commas to separate your tags.

Cancel Submit

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background