Friday, February 10, 2012

STORYLINE City Parks

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

No high resolution image exists...

Loading images

Sacramento will be able to start work on turning a vacant parcel at 19th and Q streets into a small Midtown park, but it is unclear exactly when that will happen.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced last week the city will get $600,000 in grants to clean up brownfields, which are industrial or commercial properties available for redevelopment but unused or under-used due to real or perceived environmental contamination.

A third of the grant monies, $200,000, will be used to ready the site near R Street Marketplace for recreational use, said Hindolo Brima, spokesperson for the city's Department of Parks and Recreation. The park will be less than five acres and feature an urban plaza akin to downtown's Cesar Chavez Plaza.

"These kind of plazas make it possible for people in the community to have a place for enjoying music, picnicking and just spending time outdoors without having to leave their neighborhood," he said.

The rest of the federal EPA Brownfields Program money is expected to be used to analyze South Sacramento areas needing cleanup, including some in the Florin Road business district.

The Midtown park will be built at a former industrial site once used for manufacturing and as a railroad corridor. The city made a swap to get some of the land, Brima said.

Detailed plans for the park aren't yet available because the park's master plan hasn't been developed yet, said Brima, adding that the city will be taking community input on the plan.

The park is expected to be used most by people living within a half-mile radius. The city expects that it will complement the R Street Market Plaza planned for the other side of 19th Street.

The federal EPA grant will be used to analyze the site, create a cleanup plan and do some cleanup work, but possibly not all. The money that will be available for cleanup all depends on the cost of remediation, he said.

The city is seeking grant money from other sources to fund the park's construction.

Rate

Community

7 Votes up

1 Votes down

Flag

Your Tags

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.

trapper

edited on May 15, 2009 | 9:36 PM

So $200,000 will be spent to make a report that will tell the EPA what they already know and that the site is contaminated? The Bee reported that Grant funds will be used to prepare cleanup plans and support community outreach activities for the 19th and Q streets park site. What a scam and waste of money!!!

3 2

William Burg

May 15, 2009 | 9:38 PM

They know the site is polluted, but not specifically what pollutants are where and what specifically needs to be done to get rid of them. It's kind of like when your car breaks down--you know your car is broken, but don't yet know what the problem is until you get under the hood and find out what needs fixing. Then, you can have a clearer idea of what is wrong and what it will cost to fix.

So, no. The money is both to analyze the site and prepare a plan, and do the cleanup work. If the total cost is over $200,000 they might have to get more money to do it.

The site is formerly a railroad "wye" that allowed Western Pacific trains on Whitney Avenue (the alley between Q and R Street) to transfer north or south on the Western Pacific main line between 19th and 20th. Railroad sites are typically a pain in the neck to clean up--note the level of toxic remediation needed at the Railyards site downtown and the old Western Pacific shops behind Sacramento City College. This will probably not be quite as complex, since it wasn't as intensively used as the Shops, but there's doubtless some gunk on the ground there that you don't want Fido tracking home.

Think I'll go take some pictures of the stuff that's out there before they start digging.

3 3

thsas

May 16, 2009 | 9:30 AM

ouch. More tax dollars spend on luxuries while famalies and businesses suffer under the tax strain. I cannot understand how spending this money is OK when unemployment is nearing 15%, businesses are failing in record numbers, there are threats to lower police and firfighter support, and on and on and on. And your taxs are going to take a BIG jump very soon...enjoy the park! Perhaps we can pitch tents there?

3 3

William Burg

May 16, 2009 | 3:09 PM

Teabags steeped too long make for a bitter drink, guys. Parks are paid for with a special assessment called "Quimby fees" that can't be used for other purposes. The money spent to make a park isn't just burned up in a bonfire: part is paid to a scientist to do the study, then another firm is paid to dig out the dirt, that firm pays workers to do the digging. Then another firm is paid to landscape and equip the park, and that firm hires workers to do the landscaping and construction. The end result is a civic amenity, not a luxury, that is usable by anyone and makes the neighborhood more valuable (when a home's value is assessed or an owner is trying to sell, "near a park" is better than "near a toxic waste site.")

Community investment pays dividends and creates jobs. I realize this differs from the teabagger party line, but that line is quite a bit removed from reality.

4 3

thsas

edited on May 16, 2009 | 5:50 PM

Sorry to say I do not fully understand your need to be negative on my opinion William Berg. I pay a lot in taxes, I hope I can have an opinion, even if it is different than yours. If you like the amount of taxes you are paying and you are ready to pay a lot more? Good for you. I am not.
Laws and money directives can be changed. We are living in a new economy, and to continue with these tyopes of expenses is an idea quite removed from the new reality. If you want the park, buy it and build it. Please do not make me buy it and build it while my neighbors house burns down.

2 3

trapper

May 16, 2009 | 3:30 PM

Classy Burg, you’re back handed assumptions of someone against a $200,000 park cleanup study plan lame at best. Even if a park is built someday, with all the layoffs coming down the pike from the city, there won't be anybody to maintain it... basically it will be one more expense the city can't afford. Yeah, let’s spend $200,000 to prepare a plan for the site while the city is laying off hundreds of employees.

3 4

sas

May 16, 2009 | 6:11 PM

With all of the cutbacks in what I believe are city necessities, such as Fire and Police departments.
Businesses that were once thriving are no longer there. How many homes and businesses do you walk past in the Midtown area alone that now sport Foreclosure or Available for Lease signs?
We live in an area that happens to own one of the most burdensome tax rates. If the city ran itself as a business, they would sell this lot. Instead of generating an even larger tax burden in a time when its indisputable that Sacramento as a city is BROKE! When I was running low on funds, I sold my second car and worked weekends in order to pay off my debt. Why shouldnt the city react in a similar way? Sell this piece of land to a developer to pay off debt! Its only my opinion, but I have to believe that services that affect public safety are far more important than anothet park. This is an EXTREMELY personal. Because of a slow economy and layoffs that included the fire department, my 42 year old father DIED of a heart attack that he should have survived! What killed him was what normally would have been a wait of less than 5 minutes for help that became a wait of 18 minutes. And why? It was because of cut backs that included the fire department!

3 2

rwneill

May 16, 2009 | 8:26 PM

The uncertain cleanup costs may be just what's prevented any sale of that land since the days of railroad cars bustling around the outskirts of Sacramento. The cleanup costs for the former McClellan Air Force Base to be transformed to the McClellan Business Park were enormous & took years, leaving untold numbers of displaced workers to find a new path in life. This "plan" will have to be based on extensive soil sampling by qualified contractors (jobs), just as I witnessed at McClellan. The developer who built the new building at 500 Capital Mall (George Tsakopoulos) had to first pay for asbestos removal, demolition & cleanup of the building formerly at the site...which was once filled with industrious Sacramentans toiling their lives away at the jobs from which they were ultimately displaced from, retrained from, retired from & otherwise left behind from to find their own new path in the cold, cruel changing world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Hurt, but I believe these EPA "Brownfields" funds are from President Obama's American Recovery & Reinvestment Act. Change is what we voted for & change is what we're getting. Fearful, frightening change...departure from the warm, fuzzy reliability of predictable Status Quo ad infinitum. As Scarlett O'Hara would say...'Oh, Rhett! Whatever will become of me?'. But if this miserable, useless plot of land is successfully reclaimed, it may one day be worth a great deal in the City's portfolio. And, if I were younger, I might consider learning the skills involved in becoming a Brownfields Reclamation contractor, a promising "Green Job" of the future...

4 1

savemidtown

edited on May 17, 2009 | 2:35 PM

Brownfield clean up funds have been part of the federal funding mix for decades, as state and local governments nationwide realized the breadth of the problem and also realized remediation was too large for a single state or city to tackle alone. Another byproduct of our industrial heritage. Conservative presidents have supported brownfield clean up too. Love Canal in New York state in the 1970's was a catalyst for change that both parties saw as necessary. Please do your research.

2 3

thsas

May 17, 2009 | 10:36 AM

"But if this miserable, useless plot of land is successfully reclaimed, it may one day be worth a great deal in the City's portfolio".
Makes me wonder how the city, (meaning you and me) got stuck with it in the first place. Still , it sounds like I paid for this, and will continue to pay for it during a time when all non-critical spending should be cut, and all spending prioraties need to be adjusted.

2 0

Zen

May 18, 2009 | 9:42 AM

I believe this property was purchased with grant funds from the state last year. I am all for investing in the community and creating jobs. It's not like all of the funds for this project are comming from the City General Fund. These are federal funds so let's use them.

These current EPA funds to test and clean the site will take time to complete. Who knows where the economy will be then and what federal funding the City will secure by then. The maintenance of the park is a worry though. The reality is the park will not be built in quite some time. The City can at least prepare the site for a time when there is construction and maintenance funds.

1 0

savemidtown

edited on May 17, 2009 | 2:24 PM

This conversation demonstrates the pervasive lack of understanding regarding the complexity of funding streams and why public administrators and legislatures across the country have been forced to develop various special funding sources. Quimby fees fund park operations and are separate from the General Fund as are brownfield clean up funds for good reason -to ensure the much needed remediation actually gets done, and protect this work from the shortsighted who would steal these budgets in tough times. As a taxpayer, I like the idea of reinvestment in the community. As a midtown resident, I am also very pleased we may get another much needed and likely highly utilized community space. Sacramento is and was the commercial/ industrial hub of this valley, like it or not we now must deal with the consequences of that past - which can be expensive. This useless plot is well located and with a little vision and investment will be gem.

3 3

thsas

edited on May 17, 2009 | 5:17 PM

Sorry to say that the funds come my one special fund, kept in my wallet, and those funds are shrinking. Perhaps we shoud work on a remedy to correct the short signtedness of the spend-spend-spend mentality that HAS bankrupted the city, the state, and well on its way, the country.
The current economy is not a short term problem, and it demands new thinking and aggressive attention. Wouldn't it be refreshing to open the paper and hear save-save-save? Our best thinking has us where we are today. Anyone proud?
Now let's all go play in the park....find the sand, and stick our heads in it.

3 2

Zen

May 18, 2009 | 10:07 AM

I don't think you can blame the spend spend spend mentality on the City or the State's current situation.

The City reacted to the rapid growth of the private industry by hiring people, creating new programs, and providing services the public wanted. Now that the taxes are not flowing, these same services are now retracting appropriately. The City knew the good times would not last forever but they didn't know it would be this bad. The CIty had a rainy day fund but it was not nearly enought to satisfy the depth of the current economic turmoil. Yes you can save the money but at what cost to the services the public demands. I have a feeling that if the government did have a fat savings fund people would still complain because the see their tax money just sitting there.

1 0

William Burg

May 18, 2009 | 11:43 AM

Speaking of private business, there is an old adage in business: "buy low, sell high." The best time to make investments is when the market is at a low point. The best time to buy land is when property values are down. The best time to hire workers to do cleanup is when unemployment is high. Happier economic times are great, but during those times land acquisition is more expensive, hiring firms to do the work costs more and takes longer because they aren't in such dire need of jobs, and materials cost more. So, by building a park now, the city is getting a deal vs. building a park when coffers are flush. Effectively, by doing it now, the city saved quite a bit of money.

Private industry wasn't going to do anything with this lot--it was a private industrial site, and when industry was done, they abandoned it. However, you can't just send a piece of land to the dumpster, instead it just sits there, and if it wasn't for the park plan, it would continue to just sit there. That's one of the things government is good for: priming the pump where private industry can't or won't do the job. The park plan takes government money that was already around (federal cleanup funds and Quimby fee park funds) and pumps them back into the community in the form of jobs and community investment.

It's a pretty good place for a park--that neighborhood doesn't really have one in between Fremont and Winn Parks, and because of the Safeway and other amenities there is quite a bit of foot traffic. Right now it's a fenced-off lot, not really doing anyone much good except as a habitat for squirrels and feral cats. Grass grows pretty high and becomes a fire hazard, and the city gets stuck with the bill for that anyhow. As a park it becomes an amenity for the neighborhood, and I imagine that people who come to the park to picnic will find the nearby Safeway and other stores very handy indeed, which is good for those businesses.

1 0