Sacramento Politics

"Strong Mayor" Proposal at Secret Public Meeting

2012-01-09T08:47:34Z

On January 7, 2012, Sacramento city staff held a public meeting about the newest proposal to change the city charter, the “Checks and Balances Act of 2012.” However, this public meeting was not announced to the general public—instead it was directed at a small group of neighborhood leaders.

I found out about the meeting via the chair of the Midtown Neighborhood Association, who received an email on December 27:

From: Raihane Dalvi
Date: December 27, 2011 2:19:11 PM PST
To: Raihane Dalvi
Subject: Checks and Balances Act of 2012

Dear Neighborhood Leader,

I'm writing to request your participation in an important discussion before the city of Sacramento.

As you may know, a broad coalition of community leaders are working to update our charter to make government work better for the voters of Sacramento. Along with our office, they recently presented the "Checks and Balances Act of 2012” [attached], a new proposal to restructure city governance, promote higher standards for ethics and transparency, and create an independent redistricting commission to draw council district boundaries in the future.

The Mayor and Council will review this plan at the January 17 council meeting. In advance of this meeting, we would like to invite you and your members to a "Neighborhood Summit" on Saturday, January 7th from 8-10 am. The summit will provide the opportunity to discuss the plan and gather your ideas and feedback.

Please email me or call (916) 808-8827 if you and your members would like to participate. In addition, we are happy to organize separate small groups or one-on-one meetings if you feel that would be beneficial.

Thanks in advance, and happy holidays!

Sincerely,

Raihane Dalvi
Assistant to the Chief of Staff
Office of Mayor Kevin Johnson

Apparently, this email was only sent to a handful of neighborhood leaders, not a formal public announcement or meeting notice—nor were the media informed. I responded to the email, and forwarded it to our neighborhood’s email list (and a couple of other neighborhoods’ email lists and Facebook pages.) I responded to the email and was told I would learn the location in a later email. It kind of reminded me of underground “raves” where you had to call a phone number a few hours in advance to find out where the party was. A few days before the event, I got another email informing me of the location—the Boys and Girls Club at 1117 G Street. Ms. Dalvi encouraged me to share the meeting details, which I did, using mostly the same social media and email lists.
The meeting was somewhat sparsely attended—about 20-25 people showed up, including several neighborhood activists and a few local print and Internet media representatives. Mayor Johnson’s chief of staff, Kunal Merchant, ran the meeting, reviewing a PowerPoint presentation and responding to questions.

Merchant described adoption of a “Strong Mayor” form of government as a natural progression for cities, one adopted by cities once they reach a certain size, and a more modern form of government than the council/manager form. I asked him if he was aware that Sacramento already had a “Strong Mayor” charter, from 1893 to 1911, prior to the council/manager charter adopted in 1920. Merchant replied that the era of our old “Strong Mayor” charter was indeed an era of great corruption. However, he replied that the late 1890s and early 1900s was an era of high unemployment and economic instability, where a small percentage of the population had most of society’s wealth, and thus an undue influence on the political process. Such conditions simply didn’t resemble the present day.

The structure of the new city government would place the city manager under the direction of the mayor, who would select the manager. The city council would increase to nine members, and elect a council president. The mayor would submit a budget to the council, instead of the current system where the city manager presents the budget to mayor and council. Merchant spent much time discussing concerns about city managers, stating that a poorly performing city manager was difficult to remove, and that we had four city managers in the past year, an indicator of dysfunction in city government. A member of the audience asked if this was the case—one city manager left voluntarily, one interim manager was rejected by the Council, and two were a two-person team deliberately hired as short-term interim city managers until a permanent manager was selected. Merchant agreed that City Manager Kerridge probably left under duress, but insisted that this condition was not healthy for the city, and it was more important for the city manager to be responsive to the Mayor’s vision than to have to respond to the wishes of the City Council. He did concede that in large cities, there is a need for a professional city manager who is trained in working with the bureaucracy, freeing the mayor to advocate on behalf of the city and interface with the public, as Kevin Johnson currently does.

Merchant spent considerable time discussing the ethics provisions of the measure: a proposed Code of Ethics and an Ethics Committee. No details were included regarding exactly what this Code of Ethics should be—as with many portions of the proposal, Merchant states that these will be worked out in the near future. Another audience member asked Merchant why this Ethics Committee would be, as written in the proposal, advisory only, as opposed to other cities where an Ethics Commission has actual statutory power and authority. Merchant replied that several options were considered and this seemed like the best one.

Concerns were raised about the costs of adding a ninth council district immediately after redistricting. The new proposal includes redistricting be shifted to a redistricting committee that would not be selected by the Mayor or Council, but did not specify who would actually choose the committee. Other audience members asked why it was so important to shift the city budget from the City Manager to the Mayor. Merchant replied that people generally expect that the Mayor submits the city budget, and it is too much to expect voters to understand how the system currently works, so it would be best to re-arrange the system to reflect their expectations. Several audience members took issue with this point, because Merchant had mentioned several times earlier in the presentation that we should “let the people vote” and that voters were savvy enough to see through any attempt at manipulation by special interests. Are the voters smart enough to understand the new proposal, but not smart enough to understand the current system?

Merchant summed up his presentation by reiterating that the supporters of charter change over the past two years have been very patient so far (although he didn’t identify who those supporters were) and that it was time to let the people vote. But in 2012, corporations are “people” and money is considered “political speech” as a means to obtain votes. There are still few answers regarding exactly who these “people” are, and how many dollars they are contributing to the “vote.” Another term heard often during the presentation was “transparency”—however, “transparency” is another word for “invisibility,” and many of the factors behind all three Strong Mayor proposals are seemingly invisible to the general public.

There are some hints, however: in 2010-2011, a group called the “Sacramento 60” tried to persuade council members to adopt the second “Strong Mayor” initiative, and lost a vital ally when City Manager Ray Kerridge resigned:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/12/3832880/business-groups-pac-may-boost.html

Members of this group have created a Political Action Committee, or PAC, called “Better Sacramento”, and while the website has no details about the organization, the article linked above is clear: they have formed in order to support Mayor Kevin Johnson and the Strong Mayor efforts, and to support opponents of any City Council candidate who chooses to directly oppose either one.

http://www.bettersacramento.org/

Currently the website is pretty bare, except for a link to donate money. According to the Secretary of State’s office, the contact phone number for this PAC is the law office of Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk, the law firm of Tom Hiltachk, the author of the original 2009 “Strong Mayor Initiative.” The link to donate money is via a company called “DonateSafe,” a company founded by Shawn Callahan, who was active in “Sacramentans for Accountable Government,” the original “strong mayor” group.

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/snog/blogs/post?oid=1370763&fb_source=message

A second group, Sacramento2020, also has a website:

http://sacramento2020.org/

They don’t have a link to contribute money, but are encouraging people to send a form email to City Council to support the “Checks and Balances Act.” Sacramento2020 is registered to Danny Rentschler, owner of a PR firm that has done work to promote Mayor Johnson’s “For Art’s Sake” program (a program whose latest director just resigned, about a year after the previous one.)

http://www.midtownmonthly.net/blog/head-of-for-arts-sake-resigns/

Merchant’s final slide included some upcoming key dates regarding this issue. On January 12, 2-3 PM, there will be a panel discussion with public policy professors at One Capitol Mall, Suite 300. Mayor Johnson has called for a vote regarding this initiative at the January 17 City Council meeting. If a majority of the Council agrees, this measure would be on the June 5 ballot, the same ballot where Kevin Johnson will face re-election.

My question, as a neighborhood activist and Sacramento resident, is this: Who is writing the checks to support the “Checks and Balances Act of 2012,” and how big are their bank balances? If they are working for greater transparency in government, why hide behind the cloak of a PAC? And why hold a public meeting on the new charter without telling the general public about it?

Disclosure: William Burg is a board member of Midtown Neighborhood Association.

City Seeks Arena Input

2011-10-27T05:48:37Z

As part of the Entertainment and Sports Complex project, the City of Sacramento has posted a "Notice of Preparation" for an Environmental Impact Report, or EIR. The public has until October 31 to provide comments to help city staff determine what factors should be considered in this important document.

The Notice of Preparation can be found on the City of Sacramento's website in PDF format:

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/environmental-review/eirs/documents/ESCNOPFINAL.pdf

Reports like this EIR are written to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, which requires that California governments consider the effects of their projects on the state's environment. Environmental review involves more than just the natural world, although elements like air, soil and water pollution are important factors. Also considered are a project's effects on traffic, noise, historic and cultural resources, transportation and parking, population and housing, and economic effects. Cumulative effects of multiple projects are also considered, as well as a project's potential effects on other locations (such as the effects on North Natomas if Power Balance Pavilion is replaced by a new arena.) The EIR should also consider alternatives to the proposed project. Environmental review is not intended to prevent all negative environmental effects of a project. The EIR is a disclosure document, intended to show what potential effects a project could have on a community, the people, places and things around it, and consider options to prevent, limit, or mitigate those effects. The EIR shares information about these possible effects with the general public.

Participation by citizens is a critical part of the environmental review process. Cities depend on citizens and groups in their community to keep them fully informed of all the possible factors regarding a project that they may not have considered. By providing letters indicating areas the city should address in its EIR, we can help the city consider more factors, risks and effects, and perhaps even limit later liability by identifying a simple solution to a problem early in the process. The City of Sacramento opened the public comment period for this EIR on September 28, but the comment period closes at 5:00 PM on Monday, October 31. Comments regarding anything the EIR should consider must be received by that date and time . Both organizations and individuals are welcome to send letters or emails to the contact address below.

Comments and suggestions as to the appropriate scope of analysis in the EIR are invited from
all interested parties. Written comments or questions concerning the EIR for the proposed
project should be directed to the environmental project manager at the following address by
5:00 p.m. on October 31, 2011. Please include the contact person’s full name and address in
order for staff to respond appropriately:

Tom Buford, Senior Planner,
City of Sacramento Community Development Department,
300 Richards Blvd., Third Floor, Sacramento, CA 95811.
Tele (916) 808-7931
E-mail: tbuford@cityofsacramento.org

Disclosure: William Burg is a Sacramento resident and full-time skeptic.

A 10-Step Plan To Fix K Street, Or: The Legend of the Skyscraper Fairy

2009-10-12T03:55:54Z

As a Sacramento resident keenly interested in the history of K Street from the gold rush to the present, I have read many opinions regarding the best ways to fix the ongoing problems of K Street. Some have been proposed recently, ideas that I view with a mixture of amusement and horror. Most involve returning to the mistakes of the past while clearly avoiding its successes. In order to take the best from the past while avoiding some of its mistakes, I have selected some favorites. I can take credit for none of them, as they are all ideas that have been suggested at other times and places, but they seem like the best of the lot to me. This ten-point plan varies in scope from the very simple and inexpensive to the rather complex and expensive, some are short-term solutions while others are longer-term solutions for better times, but all of them are practical. I can provide more detail about most of these points if requested.

1. Accept that the Skyscraper Fairy does not exist.

Many landlords along K Street have no apparent interest in maintaining or improving their properties. Some are convinced that as long as they own the land, the magical Skyscraper Fairy will give them uncountable millions for the land where their decaying buildings sit, and will replace them with shiny new skyscrapers. Thus, they have little interest in maintaining or tenanting their buildings. The result is under-utilized or vacant buildings whose facades continue to crumble. Despite the Downtown Partnership’s efforts to power-wash streets and alleys, buildings allowed to fall into disrepair, inhabited only by bats and squatters, make our historic buildings into eyesores. Ideally, the city’s code enforcement division would issue stiff fines to property owners who allow their buildings to fall into disrepair, in order to prevent demolition by neglect. Unfortunately, the city of Sacramento is also one of the guilty parties, and one of the strongest believers in the Skyscraper Fairy. City-owned properties currently sit vacant, awaiting their own savior in the form of a deep-pocketed developer who will brush aside the old building and provide badly-needed money to build something else. Given K Street’s current state, this is unlikely—the only propositions so far are dependent on generous subsidies from the city of Sacramento. Until both the city and K Street property owners can be dispelled of their belief in the magical skyscraper fairy, their properties will continue to rot.

2. It’s time to leave the shopping mall in the past.

K Street was a bustling place until the 1950s, when most of Sacramento’s population moved out of the central city, the residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown Sacramento were demolished, and the city streetcar system was replaced by highways and automobiles. Suburban malls were closer to the new suburban neighborhoods and had plentiful parking, while K Street was far away and none of the stores had parking lots. The K Street pedestrian mall of the 1960s and 1970s was a desperate move to woo suburban shoppers by simulating a suburban mall, including demolition of nearby buildings to provide parking. But the suburban malls were still more convenient, and their parking lots bigger and more obvious, so K Street’s rebirth as a mall of the 1970s failed. A 1990s re-vamp that enclosed the section from 4th to 7th Street has become another failure, due to its failure to move beyond the idea of a suburban mall downtown.

A new generation of city planners has noted that shopping centers of the 2000s look a lot like old downtowns, with stores that copy historic styles and a mixture of pedestrian paths and driveways. These planners have decided that this is the future of K Street, and call for a return of cars to K Street so they can pretend K Street is a new suburban "power center," the 2010s equivalent of a shopping mall. But those suburban “power centers” are still closer to suburban shoppers, and their parking lots are still bigger. If K Street is simply opened to cars and its facades remodeled to emulate new suburban shopping centers in North Natomas, how can the result be any different from the last two attempts to disguise downtown Sacramento as a suburban mall?

3. Cars, no. Bikes, yes.

The simplest change to energize K Street will cost very little: permit bicycle riding on K Street. Bike riding is already on the rise, and the freedom to bike on K Street would turn it into the main cycling corridor of the central city, free from the vehicular mayhem of J and L Street. Provide a few bike racks so bike riders can stop and shop as well as ride through, and the numbers strolling past store windows will dramatically increase.

4. Shrink light rail to streetcar size.

Until the 1940s, K Street had transit in all sizes. On K Street itself, streetcars ran from the heart of downtown to Midtown, Southside and nearby suburbs like Land Park, Oak Park and East Sacramento. These cars were small, typically 30-40 feet long, about the size of a modern bus, and operated at speeds up to 25-30 miles per hour. Like a bus, they worked reasonably well with traffic, but because they had fixed rails they had a smoother ride and a predictable path, making them more comfortable for riders. Trains ran every ten minutes during the day, and “owl” runs carried late-night travelers all night.

On the corner of 8th and K Street, interurban trains ran in both directions. Passengers from Woodland, Chico, Stockton and even Oakland could hop on the train and get off on K Street. These trains were bigger, 60-80 feet long, and operated in trains as long as 6-8 cars. They were taller and wider than streetcars, and could reach 60-70 miles per hour going flat-out through the countryside. They ran on 8th Street because K Street was far too busy to handle the big trains.

Today, modern Light Rail trains are more like the interurbans than streetcars. With 80 foot long bodies and operating in four-car trains, they are not well-suited to playing the role of a streetcar. By through-routing Blue Line trains north via the upcoming 7th Street extension and connecting to North 12th Street via Richards Boulevard, light rail trains could bring passengers from Folsom, Rancho Cordova, South Sacramento and North Highlands to K Street without crowding pedestrians off the street.

Meanwhile, the streetcars can return to K Street. Some of Sacramento’s historic streetcars exist in unrestored condition in private collections, but modern streetcars offer amenities like air conditioning and ADA-accessible low-floor entryways. They can run on the existing K Street tracks while leaving more room for pedestrians and bikes. Using existing light rail lines and sharing their tracks, these streetcars can link nearby neighborhoods and connect with light rail. Extending streetcar lines into existing neighborhoods and new development areas costs less than one-third the price of light rail extensions and drives population density, economic investment and reduces the need for cars and parking. Run them until after 2:00 AM to give downtown visitors an option to leave their cars at home—especially if they plan on drinking.

5. Legalize street life.

This is another cheap and easy solution. Part of Second Saturday’s success is its prolific use of street music, performers, and vendors, but its monthly status creates a feast-or-famine condition. A permit program to allow music, performance and vending at any time means that visitors to K Street won’t need to check their calendars before going downtown. Street music and vending also gives local entertainers and small businesspeople a stepping stone to a retail storefront or a musical career. Musicians and vendors will promote activity, give walkers a reason to stick around, and attract visitors to enjoy the street life. This also does not rule out special street festivals and special events above and beyond the day-to-day activity, and maintaining K Street as a pedestrian walk maintains this valuable civic amenity for more public festivals. Both everyday street life and special events will draw visitors from within Sacramento, the surrounding region, and tourists from out of town.

6. Tours bring tourists.

Despite the demolition of the past few decades, K Street still retains a remarkable number of historic buildings, proud evidence of our architectural heritage in stone, terra cotta and concrete. Many cities use local tourism programs to bring visitors into the heart of the city, but to most visitors, Sacramento’s history ends at the edge of Old Sacramento. Efforts to alter this perception have been minimal. The Downtown Sacramento Partnership has a guided tour program, but it is minimally staffed, minimally funded, and minimally advertised. Downtown visitors looking for local history information are likely to come up empty-handed. Sacramento needs a full-strength tourism program worthy of a city with such a rich and diverse history. K Street, the walking street at the heart of the city, can be the center of such a tour program, with more tours branching out into nearby downtown streets and our architecturally rich residential neighborhoods. History tours appeal both to visiting tourists and to locals interested in learning more about their city's past.

On K Street, the potential star attraction of local tourism is right under your feet. Sacramento’s underground sidewalks, the result of a street-raising measure intended to keep the city above flood waters, run the length of K Street from the river to about 12th Street. Many are demolished, but enough material remains to allow a tour to weave in and out of underground sidewalk spaces, sunken alleys, basements, and even below-surface businesses. Combined with the dramatic story of the raised streets, and some entertaining and colorful stories from Sacramento’s history, the potential of an underground sidewalks tour is unlimited. In Seattle, local booster Bill Speidel turned a walk through clammy underground sidewalks in a notoriously bad part of town into a million-dollar tourist attraction that is known worldwide, drawing as many as 300,000 visitors a year and employing as many as 50 full-time staff. There is no reason that Sacramento can’t do the same.

7. Bring on the nightlife.

If a suburban mall isn’t the answer, what will bring suburban residents downtown? The answer is simple: Give them something the suburbs don’t have. Sacramento is best known for its quiet suburbs, the result of a decades-long whitewashing operation to conceal our party-animal past. The rowdy days of the Gold Rush, the proliferation of local breweries and wineries, our almost total refusal to acknowledge Prohibition, the legendary jazz and blues clubs of Sacramento’s West End, and even last year’s New Year’s Eve party (2,000 expected, 12,000 attended) burst through the “town where nothing happens” façade. It’s time to face the truth, and bring more nightlife down the length of K Street. This doesn’t just mean bars, it also means late-night restaurants, theaters, live music venues, dance clubs, movies, spas and salons, comedy clubs, coffee shops, and other imaginative options for entertainment. Cooperative parking agreements with state parking lots can provide tens of thousands of parking spaces, and better public transit can carry revelers home in safety.

8. Shop local, even if you’re from out of town.

The shopping-mall consultants are half right about K Street—it does need more than nightlife to survive. Daytime and early evening traffic means retail stores and services in between the state-employee lunch rush and the arrival of the dinner, drinks and dancing crowd. However, national chain stores are hesitant to expand, even if bribed into doing so. And again, suburban visitors won’t drive downtown to a store in their local mall. The answer is, again, to give them something the mall doesn’t have: unique, local stores. Local businesses keep money in the local economy, stimulate local employment and provide a unique character that chain stores simply can’t match. Encouraging local businesspeople to rent storefronts on K Street should be a city priority. Matched with neighborhood-serving retail like food markets, cleaners, drugstores and small department stores, locally-based retail on K Street should appeal to suburban shoppers, out-of-town visitors, and central city residents. As stores fill and crowds start to appear, instead of having to beg national chains to locate on K Street, they will appear on their own, smelling money to be made.

One idea we might lift from San Francisco: the much-adored Metreon, high-tech consumer wonderland, is falling on hard economic times, with many vacancies. Earlier this year, a full-time farmer’s market moved into the Metreon, and has already proved a popular destination. A permanent farmer’s market on K Street, instead of the current sporadic weekly markets, would provide fresh foods to a neighborhood where none are sold. Downtown workers, visitors and residents would all benefit from a convenient source for the Sacramento Valley’s agricultural bounty.

9. Living on K Street shouldn’t mean sleeping directly on it.

The destruction of the downtown neighborhoods near K Street was followed by the destruction of thousands of inexpensive rental rooms, commonly known as SRO hotels, where thousands of workers lived. As inexpensive housing disappeared, the poorest people did not. Out of necessity, they made their home on the streets. Many are still there, and as existing SRO stock is phased out of service and homeless services disappear, their numbers grow. They will not vanish and they will not simply move away, because they have nowhere to go and no alternative. The only way to reverse this trend is to replace the housing that was lost. This replacement housing need not be here on K Street, but it needs to be somewhere. Our only alternative is to accept the presence of people sleeping on the streets as an unalterable condition, and tell them that their suffering is necessary and unavoidable—or to simply remain in denial of the problem, which amounts to the same thing. As a people, as a city and as a nation, I think we are capable of better than that.

But it isn’t just the poorest that need housing in the central city. Housing for all income levels should be included in new development projects, but putting it into existing buildings would be even easier. Many formerly residential buildings were converted to office use in the 1960s and 1970s, so why not convert the abundance of vacant upper-story office space back into residential units? This housing should cross the economic spectrum: SRO units for the disabled and seniors, low-income units for service employees, workforce housing for office employees, and high-end, high-up housing for the high rollers. A truly urban life results when you can see all the way across the economic spectrum just walking down the street. That can’t happen unless the street has places for all of them to live, dine, work and shop. Again, not all of these places have to be directly on K Street, but they should be close enough to walk there in a few minutes. Restoration of residential buildings will preserve their architectural value, bring life back to the neighborhood, fill a great social need, and jobs restoring and maintaining the buildings will create more employment than comparable levels of new construction.

10. Have faith, be good, and the Skyscraper Fairy will come.

Part of the current mentality of property owners on K Street is based on outdated models of how downtown development should happen. For decades, cities were assumed to be teeming pits of an imaginary disease called “blight” that could only be cured with wrecking balls and a liberal application of public-funded redevelopment dollars, designed to push out “undesirable” tenants and solicit only the coveted suburban émigré to return to the central business district, and then only to spend money and leave, never to live. Today’s cities don’t work like that anymore. People want to live in cities because they want the amenities of urban life unavailable in the suburbs. If K Street can offer those amenities, not a sanitized Disneyland version and certainly not a copy of a suburban mall, they will grow interested in K Street. If they are interested, they will come to visit. If there are places to live, and things to see and do, they will want to move downtown. Once enough people have moved downtown that there is no longer room in existing buildings, and people feel safe and secure in neighborhoods that are well-maintained, high-rise developers who understand how cities work will look at K Street and see dollar signs. Instead of developers seeking handouts to build on K Street, they will come with money in hand where they think they can make even more.

And when they do, the Skyscraper Fairy will visit the property owners and civic leaders who took care of their buildings, who encouraged vitality and street life instead of a tax write-off, who promoted transit and walkability, and drew people back downtown to share in K Street’s uniqueness, character and history. She will shower them with money and riches and blessings, and cranes will rise on K Street, filling the gaps between the last century’s architectural gems with bright, tall new buildings. Yes, Sacramento, there is a Skyscraper Fairy, but she has very high standards.

William Burg is a board member of the Sacramento Old City Association. This story is a guest editorial opinion, and does not represent the opinion of Sacramento Press or its editors.

Land Giveaway at 8th & K

2009-07-16T18:06:30Z

City plans to demolish the Bel-Vue and adjacent buildings were mentioned in my Sacramento Press article on July 3 ( http://sacramentopress.com/headline/10159/City_To_Demolish_Landmark_BelVue_Building ) but at the time the developer and financing organization behind the project were not identified. Since then, both have appeared, along with an additional partner. The financier, Consus Asset Management, is a new player in Sacramento. The developer, Bob Leach, just completed another Sacramento project, the Le Rivage Hotel. The other player in this project is a well-known name in K Street real estate, Mohammed “Mo” Mohanna. All three are asking the city for $18.6 million in free real estate and several years of tax forgiveness once the project is complete, and they want this done immediately, before public input and analysis by city staff and commissions can be completed.

Since my earlier article saw print, these parties were mentioned by articles in the Sacramento Bee, in Bob Shallit’s columns:
http://www.sacbee.com/shallit/story/2005107.html

In this column, Shallit mentions South Korea based Consus Asset Management (http://consusgroup.com/ ) as the primary financier, willing to put up $91 million for construction. Lead developer Bob Leach, builder of Le Rivage Hotel, made contact with Consus through local hotel builder Parkcrest Development. Also on the project team is Mohammed “Mo” Mohanna, who recently owned the land until the city paid him $18.6 million for it, after a lengthy series of negotiations, complex legal maneuvering, and the demolition of the buildings on the corner of 8th & K Street. The article mentioned that the developers were hoping for some tax breaks on this project.

Shallit followed this up with a second column:
http://www.sacbee.com/shallit/story/2017611.html

Here, the developers have urged the city to move quickly or risk losing financing. They have asked the city to give them the land, currently city-owned, for free, and to forgive taxes on the hotel for the first few years of its operation. Transferring the land quickly would also mean that there would be no time for an Environmental Impact Report to be completed, and before issues like the demolition of the Bel-Vue have had an opportunity to be fully reviewed by city staff, Preservation Commission or Planning Commission.

This issue will go before the Sacramento City Council on August 4. The city of Sacramento has held an Exclusive Right to Negotiate (ERN) with Bob Leach and Parkcrest, extended for 45 days on June 9, but that ERN expires on Friday, July 24.

The unspoken irony in the developers’ demand is that the city of Sacramento just paid nearly $20 million to wrest the property out of Mohanna’s hands, and are now being asked to give the property back to him. They are also asking for a free hand to demolish a Sacramento landmark, and forgiveness of future taxes, which means that it will be many years before the city of Sacramento sees any economic benefit or return on their investment of $20 million, their donation of a half-block of prime downtown real estate (by the city’s own valuation, worth the $18.6 million paid to Mohanna) and their sacrifice of irreplaceable historic buildings. This free giveaway would also add up to far more than the taxpayer-funded donation provided to developer David Taylor to rehabilitate three existing buildings on the 1000 block of K Street, a move that sparked widespread public criticism.

Why is there a need for such urgency? One possible answer is that there is another hotel project planned for K Street, only two blocks away. Unlike the project at 8th and K, this alternate project would require no historic buildings to be demolished. This project does not require the full Environmental Impact Report, instead using a far simpler process called a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND.) The MND identifies the developer behind the project as "10th & K Developers, LLC" and mentions that it will include 180 rooms in a 12-story building with ground floor retail. Could this simpler, less complex project be the competition that worries the developers behind 8th and K, and enough of a problem to make them demand a massive public subsidy from the city of Sacramento for a project that will not have to pay taxes for many years, and action fast enough to short-circuit public debate and review by city staff?

Meanwhile, the deadline for public comment on the Notice of Preparation is approaching. According to Jennifer Hageman of the city of Sacramento’s Economic Development Department, part of the process will include a public scoping meeting to present this issue to the public, but as of this writing no date has been identified for such a meeting.

To give public comment about this issue, contact Jennifer Hageman of the City of Sacramento’s Community Development Department at jhageman@cityofsacramento.org or (916)808-5538. Written comments should be sent to Jennifer Hageman, City of Sacramento Community Development Department, 300 Richards Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95811. Comments are due before 4:00 PM on July 27, 2009.
K ST MND 7-1-09 800klEIR eir3

City To Demolish Landmark "Bel-Vue" Building

2009-07-03T21:28:18Z

The city of Sacramento has announced its plans to demolish the Bel-Vue Apartments, a registered city landmark, in order to clear land on 8th Street for a potential future parking structure.

Located adjacent to the now-vacant corner of 8th and K Street, the Bel-Vue was built in 1910 as the American Cash Apartments. Built in the Craftsman style with Asian overtones, the three-story brick building contains apartments above a commercial ground floor. When the Bel-Vue was built, it was one of many downtown apartment buildings. If it was built today, the Bel-Vue would be described as a mixed-use, transit-oriented infill project. The building is currently owned by the city of Sacramento’s housing and redevelopment agency, the result of a complex land exchange between Mohammed “Mo” Mohanna, Z Gallerie owner Joe Zeiden, and the city of Sacramento. This land exchange was part of the currently stalled plans to rehabilitate the 700 block of K Street.

The city’s plan is to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) containing two possible alternatives for buildings to be built on the site, and then demolish the existing buildings. One alternative is a pair of residential towers 300 feet high, running from K Street to L Street along 8th, originally proposed by former owner Mohanna and developers John Saca (of the failed 301 Capitol Mall project) and John Lambeth. The other alternative is a 300 foot hotel tower at the corner of 8th and K, currently vacant, and a six-story parking structure on the site of the Bel-Vue and the other buildings at the corner of 8th and L. There is no developer or investor specified in the EIR notice of preparation; the city of Sacramento plans to create the EIR and demolish the Bel-Vue and nearby buildings on speculation, in case a developer appears who is interested in constructing the buildings the city has proposed for the site.

When the city of Sacramento acquired the Bel-Vue building and its neighbors, it was an occupied apartment building with several retail tenants on the ground floor. There were also commercial tenants in the adjacent buildings, and apartments above most of those buildings. The city of Sacramento evicted the residents, and today only one retail establishment, a Chinese restaurant, occupies the Bel-Vue, aside from a parking garage in one of the buildings facing L Street.

All of the buildings on the site have a role in local history. 815 L Street, constructed in 1915, was most recently the site of a nightclub of the same name. In 1957, the site was one of the original Sam’s Hof Brau locations. The side of the building, invisible from the street, still bears a painted mural advertising Sam’s. La Rosa, an Italian restaurant opened in 1927, occupied the site before the Hof Brau. On the corner of 8th and L is the Feldhusen Building, a two-story building with ground floor retail and residences upstairs. It was built in 1895 and remodeled in 1954. It was home to many businesses including grocery stores, dressmakers, and the Diamond Club Tavern card room.
Buildings like the Bel-Vue were once commonplace in Sacramento, but over the years they have become very rare.

Today, some developers seek out historic buildings for residential projects, converting them into modern apartments or condominiums. Local companies like D&S Development (http://www.dandsdev.com) have completed projects like the Old Sacramento iLofts and 1409 R, and are now restoring the historic Maydestone Apartments at 16th & J Street. Architect Mike Malinowski, contractor Bruce Booher and CFY Development helped convert the Globe Mills grain mill complex into unique residential lofts. At the Railyards, developer Thomas Enterprises will make the historic Southern Pacific shops buildings the focal point of a new downtown neighborhood. Other adaptive reuse projects like the Citizen Hotel, MARRS, the Cosmopolitan and the Firestone Building show how vacant historic buildings can be made into exciting, unique urban destinations. Projects like these are often more popular than newly-built projects because they offer one-of-a-kind places to live, work and play in an urban setting. They appeal to those who want to be close to the action of the central city and their downtown workplaces, or just like the unique character of historic buildings. Instead of demolishing the Bel-Vue, the building could easily be repaired and returned to its role as a place to live, with businesses on the street to serve downtown’s residents. Restoration of historic buildings is also a greener option than new construction, as it needs far fewer building materials and requires far less landfill space (where the demolished building’s components would end up.) If sales of recent projects like the 1409 R lofts (opened in April and already two-thirds sold) are any indication, these projects are popular even in slow economic markets, while urban infill projects in new buildings are far less successful. Historic buildings can also qualify for tax credits and other incentives that can make rehabilitation cheaper than demolition and new construction. In the right hands, the Bel-Vue could be a gorgeous, attainable new home for Sacramento’s residents for another hundred years.

In recent years, the city of Sacramento has seen many proposed projects fail to materialize. The failure of projects like John Saca’s 301 Capitol Mall towers at 3rd and Capitol resulted in ugly, gaping pits in our city’s urban fabric. Projects like the 700/800 block, bogged down by unexpected resistance and a poor economy, sit languishing, waiting for a better plan to appear. Projects that encourage the demolition of landmarks encourage speculators to allow their historic downtown properties to sit vacant, deteriorating for years or even decades, with the hope of an eventual skyscraper-shaped payoff that may never arrive. More forward-thinking developers could turn the same buildings into Sacramento's urban showpieces.

No developer or investor has been named by the city to actually build this project or pay for it, and even if a developer and/or investor does arrive, if they want to make significant changes to the plan they would need to complete a new environmental document, making this effort worthless. The sacrifice of one of Sacramento’s irreplaceable historic buildings would be for nothing. And even if the city’s long shot is successful, and a developer does build the project, we will lose a historic landmark and a quarter-block of potentially useful buildings for a six-story parking garage in a neighborhood with many underutilized parking garages.

City Council to Throw Out Fair Election Ordinance

2009-03-31T19:04:00Z

Today's (Tuesday, March 31st) Sacramento city council meeting includes an item on the "consent calendar" (meaning a group of items expected to be non-controversial) that would eliminate portions of Sacramento's campaign finance law. This change would remove any fundraising limits for organizations called "independent expenditure committees" and also raise campaign contribution limits for political candidates.

What is an "independent expenditure committee," you might ask? Wikipedia defines them as: "In elections in the United States, an independent expenditure is a political activity intended to assist or oppose a specific candidate for office which is made without their cooperation, approval, or direct knowledge. Most commonly, this takes the form of advertising. In some cases, independent expenditures may far exceed direct spending by the candidates' campaigns. Groups which frequently make use of independent expenditures include political party committees, political action committees, and 527 groups."

Some examples of "independent expenditure committees" include groups like MoveOn.org or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (527 groups) or the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee (political party committees.)

The full report can be found here:

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id=80&meta_id=174038

The reason given for this change is the risk of a court challenge. During the last election cycle, attorneys representing independent expenditure committees, one supporting former Mayor Fargo and one supporting current Mayor Johnson approached the city. They wanted to spend money beyond the current spending limits to support their respective candidates, and threatened to sue the city over their campaign-finance laws based on the following precedents:

N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir 2008) and Arkansas Right to Life State PAC v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540 (W.D. Ark. 1998)

The city, faced with the threat of lawsuit, declared that the city would not enforce its spending-limit laws during the last weeks of the election. Now, the city government plans to eliminate these laws entirely. It is not being discussed as a city council issue, but passed with a series of purportedly non-controversial regulations. Its result will probably be an even greater level of influence for developers and other moneyed interests, while restricting the ability of members of the public who are not wealthy or backed by the wealthy to run for public office.

If you are interested in providing feedback to the City Council, or asking them to take this item off of today's consent calendar, please call the City Council members at the numbers below. The item in question is Item 5 on the consent calendar: Ordinance Amendment: Ordinance Amending and Repealing Various Sections of Title 2 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to the City's Campaign Chapters (Contributions and Spending)

Kevin Johnson
Mayor
Mayor's Office
916-808-5300

Ray Tretheway

Ray Tretheway
District 1
916-808-7001

Sandy Sheedy
District 2
916-808-7002

Steve Cohn
District 3
916-808-7003

Robert King Fong
District 4
916-808-7004

Lauren Hammond
District 5
916-808-7005

Kevin McCarty
District 6
916-808-7006

Robbie Waters
District 7
916-808-7007

Bonnie Pannell
District 8
916-808-7008

City To Close Historic Berry Hotel

2009-02-27T06:42:17Z

On Tuesday Feb. 24, the City Council authorized the purchase of the Berry Hotel from its latest owners, developer AF Evans. Despite the efforts of the developer to restore the hotel and maintain its use as housing for those with very low incomes, the city will soon close the Berry, without a plan to reopen it.

Built in 1929, the Berry was part of Sacramento's downtown hotel district, interspersed with theaters and department stores on the blocks near K Street. The Berry and other hotels like the Clunie, the Land, the Sacramento and the Clayton offered nightly rooms to some, while others were rented on a monthly basis. In the era after World War II, downtown hotels faded in popularity compared to the new motor hotels. As redevelopment changed the face of downtown Sacramento, destroying many rooming houses downtown, hotels like the Berry became more strictly residential hotels, renting almost entirely to monthly tenants. Because the rents were generally less expensive than other housing, those with the least money to spend moved into these hotels. By 1929 standards, the Berry was a comfortable and luxurious place; by the 1970s and through today, it was housing of last resort, one step above living on the street. These hotels became known as "single room occupancy" hotels, or SRO hotels.

In 2007, AF Evans and Trinity Housing purchased the Berry with the intent of renovating the hotel, but maintaining its role as an SRO. To make this project feasible, AF Evans applied for Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) low-income housing bonds. Housing developers can obtain tax credits when building low-cost housing, which helps make low-cost housing more economically feasible. A non-profit developer like AF Evans does not need tax credits, so these housing bonds can be sold to another company who needs a tax write-off. AF Evans' objective was to use the money generated by the sale of the bonds to repair the interior of the hotel, replace its aging plumbing and electrical systems, and retain almost all of its 109 rooms. A number of rooms were to be converted to ADA-accessible use, but all would be affordable units. The agreement also included provision for an on-site case manager who would provide supportive services for residents of the hotel who are disabled or senior citizens.

The current economic crisis made the sale of tax-credit bonds nearly impossible, as very few businesses are in need of a tax write-off. The bonds could not be sold, and AF Evans returned the tax-credit bonds to TCAC. They have tried to maintain the hotel, and have spent considerable time and effort figuring out how to repair the building, but the costs of repair are far greater than the income that can be generated from rents. Because they planned to vacate the hotel, rooms were not rented out as they became vacant, and the hotel currently has only about 50 tenants. Due to their inability to fund the project, AF Evans and Trinity Housing decided to give up sell the hotel to the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) for $1.

SHRA considered several scenarios before deciding on closure. Keeping the hotel open in its current state is not possible due to the deteriorated state of the building. Carrying out the developer's plan to restore the hotel would cost about $13 million, and would still require relocation of the building's occupants while construction was underway. On February 12, the SHRA board decided that the hotel should be closed until better economic times. This plan will still cost about $2.5 million to relocate the current residents and secure the building. AF Evans had developed a relocation plan in order to temporarily move residents during the building renovation. With the ownership change, the city is now responsible for carrying out the relocation plan, but instead the move will be permanent.

The closure of the Berry means that Sacramento's stock of SRO hotel rooms will drop by 108 units. In 1986, there were over 1000 SRO units in Sacramento, down from about 4000 units in the 1960s. In 2006, the city of Sacramento passed an ordinance committing to the maintenance of the remaining 712 SRO hotel rooms in downtown Sacramento. If rooms were lost, the city of Sacramento is responsible for creating replacement units. Since the ordinance was passed, two hotels have closed, leaving about 630 units, with no replacement units built or under construction. After the Berry closes, about 520 SRO units will remain.

SRO housing is, admittedly, the housing of last resort, but in these economic times, many people are in dire need of affordable housing. If they cannot find housing they can afford, they can become homeless. As low-income housing in rooming houses and SROs has disappeared, homelessness has grown into a national epidemic. SRO hotels are often indifferently maintained, but they are preferable to a tent by the river or a spot on a park bench. As the number of SROs shrink, the number in tents or on park benches grows. Can we afford to wait until better economic times when the need for affordable housing is greatest in times like these?

Another factor in the story of the Berry is the historic nature of the building itself. The building is not listed on the current list of city landmarks, only because the city has not placed it on the existing landmarks list, which supplanted an earlier citywide list of historic buildings. Past surveys of Sacramento's historic buildings identified the Berry as a priority structure, worthy of preservation for its architectural merits and its association with Sacramento's history. Even its connection with Theodore Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber, who briefly stayed in the Berry, adds to the building's legacy. Loss of the Berry Hotel would rob our city of part of its architectural heritage, as well as a home for 108 people with few other options for housing.

There is another alternative to allowing the Berry to sit vacant, at risk for another fire like the one that destroyed the buildings at the corner of 8th &K, or those on 9th & J years earlier. Compared to new construction, $13 million for 108 units of very low income housing is practically a bargain price. Because restoration of historic buildings requires more labor than materials, a restoration project would mean more jobs for Sacramento construction workers than a new project of similar size, and require far less consumption of raw material than a new building. It would also prevent the Berry from becoming another boarded-up vacant building downtown. Because the building will continue to deteriorate whether or not it is occupied, that $13 million repair figure will only grow with time, so the sooner the project is taken up, the less it will cost. Fast action would also reduce the risk of disaster by fire, or demolition by neglect. As a renovated building, properly run, the building could become an asset to the community, and a place of hope for about a hundred Sacramentans. As a vacant hulk, it can only represent lost hopes and missed opportunities.

City Council Holds "Strong Mayor" Initiative Workshop Feb. 3

2009-02-02T22:26:05Z

http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id=74

Tomorrow, the Sacramento city council will discuss the "Strong Mayor" initiative. The workshop will include a summary of Sacramento's past charter changes, a comparative analysis of the "Strong Mayor" initiative compared to charters in the ten largest California cities, and the legal means by which the City of Sacramento may change its charter.

A staff report for the meeting on the "Strong Mayor" initiative can be found (in PDF form) here:

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id=74&meta_id=169120

The meeting will take place on Tuesday, February 3, at 6:00 PM. It takes place in New City Hall, 915 I Street, in the first floor Council Chamber.

The public is welcome to attend and participate in City Council meetings; those wishing to speak to the council can fill out a speaker slip, indicating which item they would like to address, and speak for three minutes.

Strong Mayor, Weak Ethics?

2009-01-12T22:39:09Z

Lately, many people who signed up to be on the "Sacramentans for Obama" email lists have received emails inviting them to come to events and sign petitions in favor of Sacramento's "Strong Mayor" petition. Kim Mack, one of the principal organizers of the "Strong Mayor" petition, is also involved with "Sacramentans for Obama." The directors of "Sacramentans for Obama" were apparently unaware of this misuse of their mailing list, and are investigating the matter. If Mack made unauthorized use of the "Sacramentans for Obama" mailing list to promote this Kevin Johnson-backed initiative, what other liberties will the parties pushing the "Strong Mayor" initiative take with personal information gathered for an entirely separate cause?

In an age when email use is commonplace but many of us find ourselves deluged by unwanted spam, people do sign up to receive information about political or social causes that concern them. Using an email list gathered for one purpose to promote an unrelated cause is considered, at the very least, a breach of etiquette, and definitely a breach of trust. Perhaps the organizers simply assume that everyone who signed up for "Sacramentans for Obama" is a Kevin Johnson supporter, or that people simply could not tell the difference between Barack Obama and Kevin Johnson, but in either case this sort of misuse of an email list is inappropriate.

Even more troubling is that a December 15 event, billed as a Sacramentans for Obama event, turned out to be an announcement and recruiting event for the "Strong Mayor" initiative drive. Will this misuse of an email list be followed by attemts to manipulate people who supported Obama for president, but did not support Kevin Johnson for Mayor, or the "Strong Mayor" initiative?

Cities like Sacramento revised their charters in the early 20th century in order to avoid the historic corruption of city "machine" politics. Mayors elected by powerful political "bosses" handed out government contracts and jobs as favors to the men who elected them, not on the basis of fairness, fiscal prudence or ethics. The council-manager system was introduced to professionalize city government and restore public trust in city officials. If the backers of the "Strong Mayor" initiative wish to prove that Mayor Johnson is worthy of much greater power, and the trust of the public, antics like misuse of the "Sacramentans for Obama" mailing list, and deceptive public events for Obama supporters, sets a very poor example.

Who Fills Your Potholes?

2009-01-07T17:28:18Z

If your street has a pothole, who fixes it? Recently, Mayor Kevin Johnson's initiative campaign mentioned potholes as an example of how proposed changes to the city charter would work. A document on the initiative's website reads:

"Here's an example: if you want a pothole on your street and you call the Mayor's office to get it fixed, the Mayor's office would not take action. It would have to ask the City Manager's office to take action. Then the City Manager would decide whether to fix it. Under the new system, your call to the Mayor's office would result in the Mayor ordering the pothole fixed."

Are decisions as mundane as pothole repair actually made by the mayor or the city manager? A little searching on the City of Sacramento website turned up the answers. As it turns out, neither statement is true.

The city of Sacramento has a Street Services division. Like other city departments, they can be reached directly by dialing 311 anywhere in the city of Sacramento. Information on Street Services, including many frequently asked questions, can be found here:

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/transportation/street/questions.html

Street Services handles pothole issues directly. In a city the size and complexity of Sacramento, many functions are handled at the ministerial level, by city staff, rather than by the mayor or city manager. Potholes are a simple problem, with a simple solution that our city employees are equipped to solve. The mayor has bigger issues to address. If you call the Mayor's office (or the City Manager's office) to fix a pothole, they will refer you to Street Services.

So, the question is: do the proposed changes to the city charter mean that the Mayor will have to sign off on pothole repair, instead of the current system where it is done by city staff without involvement of either the mayor or the city manager? If not, then what do the changes to the charter really mean? Are there more realistic examples of what these changes will mean, other than rhetoric about "more responsive government"?

And who watches the potholes?