Saturday, May 18, 2013
Also for those interested, Sacramento is adding more bicycle lanes in the downtown area. Work will be done with summer road work schedules, so you might start seeing them late next year.
John Sutter came from Liestal.
Thank you for your comments. I'm sorry it wasn't immediately clear. With details not released by city officials, it seemed prudent to get an analysis from an industry expert familiar with the issue not just in Sacramento, but other jurisdictions across California. Even if city officials had released more details, I would still have talked to Conway to get a source from outside the city.
In the article, I never quoted or sourced anyone on the City Council or in the city government as saying Occupy Sacramento and chicken coops delayed their ability to make a decision. That comment is attributed to Daniel Conway of the California Restaurant Association, which is not at all a part of the city, but an industry organization. He merely pointed out that the council has had a lot on its plate lately, and it was relevant to the article, so I included it.
The address is 4261 Truxel Road. It's in the article, albeit more toward the middle.
Sometime this week.
They also went to Charleston, S.C., on a research trip and are working with a bartender there on a cocktail menu.
One thing that struck me about Charleston was how prevalent Yuengling was. I asked about other beers from the south, and they said that they are working on them, but many are near impossible to get out here. Yuengling was something they said they were reasonably sure they can get, which is why it was included in the article.
I have full support for the First Amendment, as well as all the others still on the books. You misinterpret my comments. I never once said Occupy Sacramento doesn't have the right to protest or demonstrate. All I said was that the demonstrators drew a line in the sand, and the police had to make a decision, since it was impossible to ignore Occupy Sacramento.
There is a law, and police will enforce it. Is that law Constitutional? That might be debatable.
Please re-read my comments. As a journalist, I am not giving my opinion on Occupy Sacramento, nor am I supporting one side over the other. Consider it an analysis of the situation as I saw it.
That the park has closing hours is a fact, not opinion. That the police enforce the laws is a fact, not opinion. That the protesters very loudly made their intentions to go against that law is a fact, not an opinion.
Nowhere in my comments will you see opinion, except possibly on my assertion that more often than not, police will enforce the law, as to not do so is to give official approval of something – which is not a job for the police, but for elected officials held accountable to the people.
And a word of clarification: I never said the police were forcing their hand, but that the protesters forced the police department's hand when some of them essentially said, "We are going to violate this ordinance."
If you don't like the ordinance, that is an entirely different subject on which I will not give my opinion here in case I end up covering it.
I wasn't saying they don't arrest homeless campers. I've written stories about the bigger sweeps. All I was pointing out was that the protesters forced the police department's hand. They had to act or be seen as giving approval. There's no real middle ground as the law is written. By just being there in a small scale, without drawing attention, it's easier for police to look the other way, if that is what they want to do.
Regarding your note about lack of mention of the others who camp illegally but aren't arrested: The reason I didn't include that is because these demonstrators specifically drew attention to themselves and announced their intention to the media. Homeless and other campers don't. When the intent is announced, it tends to force police to one action or the other.
The first option is do nothing. The second is to enforce the laws. In that case, the police will almost always enforce the laws.
Arrests of approximately 19 protesters were under way at 12:45 a.m. Friday.
When I spoke with Bay Miry and Ali Youssefi about the redevelopment project on the 700 block, they told me they would like to bring in an urban grocery store (but the space they have for it is smaller than a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods).
They said they will first talk to the owners of the old Greyhound station so they don't duplicate efforts.
As such, nothing is sure yet, and any grocery tenant that might come in would need to want to, which would be up to them, but with the housing going in on the 700 block, it seems likely that some form of grocery store in the area would do well.
There are currently a few redevelopment projects under way (notably the south side of the 700 block and 800 block) that seek to accomplish what you are talking about. See the last link in the article for photos and some background on the 700 block. While redevelopment remains a controversial issue as far as how much economic growth the projects get from the amount put into them, the work is being done.
Jack Gallagher's announcements are going away with the opening on Oct. 6, to be replaced with a more traditional warning system.
Just FYI, I did see Councilman Steve Cohn in the brief time I was there. I wasn't looking for the others, however.
Updated article is located here:
Update: The restaurant's special use permit application will now be heard by the Planning Commission next month, not tonight.
It's listed at 2226 10th St., which puts it in Southside Park.
I believe this is the snow cone window/pastry shop you're referring to. Indeed it is little-known.
My first job was field maintenance for a softball complex. I had to work about 15 minutes per hour chalking baselines, leveling and watering the infield, and taking out trash. The rest of the time I just sat around and ate candy and watched the games.
© 2013 Macer Media LLC
Username or Email