STORYLINE Save the River - Stop the Fence

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Don't Put the River in a Cage

by Michael Stavros, published on May 17, 2009 at 8:50 PM

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images
Slideshow image

 Once again the warm weather has snuck up on us. Soon we’ll be experiencing those magnificent Sacramento nights. Many of us like to take an evening stroll along the levee after dinner with our spouse or partner. Some of us enjoy walking with our children and teaching about the various constellations.

Well that may be all in the past, if the River Park Neighborhood Association is allowed to push their proposal to build a steel, tubular fence along the top of the levee with an “exit only” turnstile.

At the neighborhood association meeting (4/18) the problems were laid out – groups of teens drinking, and carrying on at Paradise Beach, using foul language, driving out of the parking lot recklessly and sometime intoxicated and yes even a reported rape in the public bathrooms – right here in River Park.

Although summer weekends can draw a crowd, River Park still remains one of the most crime-free neighborhoods in Sacramento. Crime statistics do not support the assertion that we are plagued with a huge problem. While there are some appropriate measures that can be taken to minimize infractions, the fence proposal is not the answer. It is an extreme, ineffective, over-reaction.

Most of the problems mentioned occur in the day. The fence is designed to keep people from entering after sunset (all of us, no matter how peaceful our romantic walk may be). As for the reckless or drunk driving and the rape, the proposed fence would have no effect because these all occur outside of the barricaded area.

Aside from being a useless eye sore along our beautiful levee, the fence proposal uses up much needed resources that could be used for more productive solutions, such as: random police patrols, perhaps a life guard to keep order at the beach (and maybe save a life in the process), perhaps an attendant at the parking lot to stop the people from bringing alcohol down to the river.

We have laws against alcohol at the beach, rowdy behavior and of course, drunk driving. We need to enforce those ordinances instead of caging in our beloved natural river like it’s part of some artificial zoo exhibit. The fence proposal punishes us all for the sins of a few – and I mean a few. It’s easy to spot the troublemakers. The majority of the young people are just trying to enjoy the beauty of the river.

We criticize our youth for living behind their computer screens. We tell them to get out and get some fresh air. Now, we’re telling them to go somewhere else. The problem is - there is nowhere else. The river is one of the few natural spaces left. Don’t take that away.

River Park doesn’t own the river and we should not be able to block access any more than a neighborhood at one of the ends of the Golden Gate Bridge should be able to control access to the bridge.

The American River is a treasured resource for all of Sacramento and the Paradise Beach area is arguably the finest expanse of the entire river parkway. A decision to block that access is a decision that effects all of Sacramento. All neighborhoods should be given a chance to make their voices heard, not just the River Park neighborhood. Remember, it’s easier to stop the fence before it’s built than to tear it down after the fact. Stop the fence proposal!

 

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

May 17, 2009 | 9:09 PM
Where is this proposal currently? Has the neighborhood association spoken with the city about this, and if so, what was the city's response?
1 0
REPLY
May 17, 2009 | 9:49 PM
This is a really beautifully-reasoned and -written exposition of something I hadn't heard about before. I hope you keep us abreast of how this develops.
1 0
REPLY
edited on  May 29, 2009 | 5:27 PM
The writing is good but the factual content is not accurate. The writer is passionate about his position, and that comes across well. There are pros and cons to this proposed project. Get the facts and respond to those! Read this-
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/8525/River_Park_Levee_Fence_Facts
0 0
REPLY
May 18, 2009 | 7:51 AM
You are so right about this. You cant punish all people for this. And honestly the people who party down at the beach on the weekend is no different than any ocean beach town. People just want to enjoy what is rightfully theres. Just because you own some property somewhere doesnt make you the devine power in that area. There are kids skim boarding poeple walking dogs(myself included) and many other things. But you can bet if they built a fence that wouldnt stop me from enjoying what was never theres to take away in the first place.
2 0
REPLY
May 18, 2009 | 10:36 AM
Interesting story. Those who live in the "parks" - River, McKinley, Land and Curtis - seem to think they run things in Sacramento and can do whatever they please. Insufferable snobs IMHO. Nice work on this story!
4 1
REPLY
May 18, 2009 | 11:48 AM
Let us be clear about what to call the fencing proposal in MS’s report. The word for taking a public resource and making it private is privatization. It is that simple, folks.
1 0
REPLY
May 18, 2009 | 12:02 PM
Oracle you are right. Just because one lives next a park or river, does not mean they own it and can limit access. The land is public, proximity has nothing to do with it. It is elitist.

Regardless, access is not the issue. Current laws need to be enforced. Last time I checked, teen drinking was illegal everywhere.
3 1
REPLY
May 18, 2009 | 12:42 PM
As former teens, we think this idea is ridiculous.
A fence getting in the way of a good time? Unless it's covered in barbed wire - no dice! We can jump over it under cover of darkness and let the good times roll.
This situation is where NIMBYism and good intentions collide, knocking common sense out of the mix.
2 0
REPLY
May 18, 2009 | 2:26 PM
Do we know how the proposed fence is to be funded?
0 0
REPLY
edited on  May 19, 2009 | 3:59 PM
I'm not sure it's fair to assume all the residents of the "parks" - River, McKinley, Land and Curtis -- are snobs just because they are unhappy with the problems in their neighborhoods and are seeking solutions that are, as this fence is, wrongheaded.

No matter what neighborhood you live in, you have a right to expect civilized behavior and to have a voice in shaping the solutions that mitigate against bad behavior. Personal attacks do not build consensus, the build, uh, fences.
1 0
REPLY
June 2, 2009 | 4:53 PM
Thanks for all your comments. It appears that many of you agree that this is a bad precedent to set. As I outlined in the article, I think the crime problems (and they are few and minor) can be addressed in a less extreme, reactive way. Steve Cohn is planning to hold a public meeting in response to the growing opposition to the fence proposal. As soon as he sets a date and location, I will post it here.
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