Actually, Danielle, the fault was not yours. I'm the one to apologize to you. You clarified the length of stay. I made the mistake which was actually meant for TWRL. Haste makes waste and I was rushing to get out of the house. Confusion happens partially because of not being able to reply directly to commenters commenting on a comment.

Daneille and Sheppard: newguy had stated an opinion as fact. I was only asking the legal basis for his conclusion. Neither of you answered that basic question. That is the key point on which officials must make the decision as to when entry and/or remaining on public property becomes either legal or illegal. I was not defending those in the building. Obviously you don't know, totally misunderstood or did not understand at all the comment and did not have a logical answer in view of what I laid out, so you chose flippant "oranges and apples" comparison as replies.

"Campus property" is public property owned by and maintained by funds from taxpayer revenues. Although there may be rules that the campus administration lays out, with or without good cause, the building is not owned by UC Davis. So whether that apparently vacant or partially vacant "building" is occupied by students or protestors, at what point does "illegally" enter into the equation?.

Conditions of buildings, like people, highways and motor vehicles, deteriorate with age and use. Delayed investment in maintenance of all four equals increased cost to each. But that investment mentality began to fall by the wayside 30 years ago, promoted by the "great communicator" in favor of mass personal wealth accumulation by the 1%ers. Predictable and inevitable results were reduced revenues to repair buildings and highways and reduced incomes to maintain vehicles and personal health.

Ben, no mention is made of the federally funded Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV). Is that at risk too or will those staff be kept on without reductions? Dos Rios has always been a city operated program and the one on Broadway too (forget its name) but HCV office on 12th Street is part of SHRA but does not receive state funding as far as I know.

Old Sac businesses could help residents like Joe get a Zip Car pod there too, like Midtown did. A major problem for Old Town, Downtown and MIdtown small businesses is that the vast vast majority of them choose to live outside the central city and commute, so apparently expect their customers to do likewise. Consequently, they know little about how to serve central city residents who live in the most compact and densely populated area in the entire city. I find those owners' a striking contrast to some So Cal Beach cities that I'm very familiar with.

Joe, Check with the parking dept as to the procedure to obtain a Preferential Residential Parking Permit program. BUT it may be a little challenging for you as residents there because there may be an assumption that you do not need a car when you work, shop, "play" and can walk, light rail, bus to all needed services. It might be easier (and is far cheaper than privately owned cars) to get a Zip car pod in front of your apt. house (8 is all I believe it takes). Zip cars can be passenger and cost shared when renting (cheaper than cabs) on evenings or weekends to go to destinations outside the walkable and public transportation routes.

Brandon, please go back and take a picture of the beautiful trees in the parking lot behind the building that got butchered in the process of this restaurant opening.

I did notice that. I also noticed that she said she had already met with some residents. Were you one? If so, you were not on the RHI/HZA committee and you say you are a business owner too. That to me, tells something about her priorities. It is no wonder you have no complaints because I understand you don't have children, and where you live is not in the core troubled area where we have lived for decades before you and they decided to locate here, . How hard is it for alcohol outlets and you to understand that if they would just provide parking for their drinkers, there would be no deterioration of our quality of life and no complaints? Instead of assuming their responsibility to provide parking as a cost of doing business and a convenience to their customers, it seems they insist on being a parasite, sucking the life out of core residents' quality of life and economic well-being..

If you'll reveal your real name, I will respect your comment but since you don't and probably won't, I'm not going to take the time to show how lame your comments are. Except I will let you know I selected my home in 1976. Where were you then? Further, unscientific surveys like this are as worthless as the proverbial "t*tts on a boar."

Time will tell, Julie, but her comments as quoted are not encouraging. I hold out hope. Fact remains, she has met with none of us residents who were on the RHI/HZA committees, but allegedly met with others. As the studies in many other enlightened cities have shown what (and what she may have done in SD) is possible in those cities such as limiting the numbers of alcohol outlets concentrated in a given area and imposing local operating conditions will not fly in Sacramento. Too backward and controlled by the alcohol interests.

You are right on all counts Lisa. Sacramento's city government, MBA and some elected officials remain entrenched in the past as numerous studies have shown when they allow over concentration of alcohol outlets in an area, the result increases violent crime, increases police costs, degrades neighboring businesses and eventually destroys livability in adjacent neighborhoods. It is pathetic and shameful. All of this is particularly destructive to the health of residents—especially destructive to children as several studies in California and around the country show. But since none of these owners live in the area they promote over concentration, why do they care. They are only after short-term profits. I find her statement typical of alcohol business owners, large builders, developers and smacks of insincerity when they (she) choose(s) to make money here but refuse to live in Midtown’s “history and nature of the district and its buildings.” I see that she said “buildings” and carefully avoided mentioning historic houses, the selling prices of which range from moderate to 800k or more. One 3br, 2bath with home office space or 4th br near me is on the market for 400k plus—room for kids who live on both sides. So in reality her “excitement” ends where she could buy, live and experience the fallout from the party scene MBA has promoted and that she is obviously aware of. With the statement “The MBA does not have the authority to set (alcohol) licenses or set conditions on those licenses,” she avoids the fact that MBA CAN influence the city to limit and set controls on alcohol licenses issued in the PBID—most other cities have done this as several studies show. ABC sets conditions under ABC statutes--local governments can and most do add more. Further, she should know well, if she worked in the San Diego Gas Lamp PBID (she avoided saying where in SD she workEd) that businesses and residential were given EQUAL consideration when redeveloping that area as again, most PBID’s in other cities do BUT not MBA. “I’ve met with a few of the residents.” Who? Since Nikki is still one of her staff, Studebaker knows well who those residents are who attended the RHI and HZA meetings. Sounds like she will avoid them. “ It’s still too early to say anything direct about how I’m going to work with the residents.” Really? How about meeting with them to determine “how” rather than making her mind up first

Thanks for the information. All are laws the right wing, small government ranters would claim are unnecessary, waste of out tax dollars, gives government too much power, ad nausea.

As an Amtrak passenger caught in that delay some years ago, I heard Amtrak explain that water traffic has right of way since it does not have the capability to stop. And that incident was for a pleasure boat (yacht?) too tall to maneuver under the bridge when the water was at high level. That was the law when there was more river traffic than auto and train, hence the drawbridges. Unfortunately, the old law has never been updated.

The Tree Commission is a joke--no central city members anymore and they have become a rubber stamp for staff. The city management imports from Portland never saw a tree they liked and anyone could remove one for any reason and UFS went along with it. It sounds as if the college degreed Pskowski (only one of two real arborists hired and working the city's job arborist classification--all other so called arborists just pass a test after studying for it and then miraculously become an arborist) may have objected in the past for valid reasons on occasion. That may explain why management at some level transferred our most experienced arborist (tree doctor) OUT of UFS and into the street dept. to do root work which a lesser qualified and experienced "arborist" could do. So in the city of trees we have ONE degreed arborist with five or six years of experience to professionally take care of our trees. This vs. 20 or so years experience of Dan P's diagnosing tree health, diseases, insect infestations and researching and applying remedies for these threats to our urban forest. Ashby is not being realistic. Unless you see the tree removal notice no one knows the removal is planned. Further, she knows the drill well. If a person sees the notice--it is often out of sight on a large tree and NOW only 10 days to respond--that person is to call the number on the notice where you get boiler plate reasons. If you notify by email the council person who has jurisdiction over the district in which the tree is located BUT you are not one of that member's constituents, it is more than likely you will not get a response--my experience with Rob Fong and Cohn has been great--not on some others. We can all agree that old sick and dangerous trees should be removed but the environmental cost of whimsical removing of healthy ones (like the annoying Gingko in front of the Lung Association's office) adversely affects the health of all of us. Further, leaves of newly planted trees IF ones removed are replaced, will not produce the oxygen of the old for 15-20 years. Thanks Mr. Jacobson, for the time consuming and hard work you have done to fight a bureaucracy which no longer cares about our trees or our health.

As co-creator with Midtown Business Association Sacramento County and Cities Homeless Board, I predict a JPA will produce little results except under conditions that I’ll detail later. City Council and a small amount of funding from the County Board of Supervisors supported the Homeless board. Our goal was to end homelessness countywide Our mistake was to include Homeless Providers on the board as voting members because they immediately objected to the goal. We were forced to revise the goal to “mitigate” homelessness. Their reason was that the goal was impossible to meet. We felt if we set the goal high (as you would do for your children’s achievement or a coach sets for his/her teams), we would achieve better results i.e. low goals strongly suggest lack of confidence or ability to achieve a goal. Encountering one roadblock after another, we finally proposed that homeless service centers be set up close to where the homeless were originating. A primary advantage was clients would not be forced to leave their familiar surroundings and support systems only to be stranded and over concentrated in the area around L&F. We wanted to pattern the centers after the very successful Veterans Resource Center located off Florin and 99. This garnered city and county staff support BUT council members were silent and suburban county supervisors objected—“don't have homeless in my area," the late Supervisor Cox objected to me. Most influential were board member homeless providers who voted it down. Why? Could the reason have been that it would have reduced the number of their clientele by diverting more of the money to temporary housing and rehabilitating homeless than to their own “non-profit” operations (staffing and overhead)? Why do I ask that? Because when Bush’s 10-year plan to END homelessness was implemented the providers who were to receive the bulk of the funds (no longer the county) did not feel “ending homelessness” was unrealistic. They now all jumped on the bandwagon enthusiastically! Further, we had also suggested that some of the federal homeless funds be used to set up a “homeless hot line” for individuals who were facing losing their housing to call for preventive services. That too was voted down BUT when the current administration added funds for a plan to prevent homelessness, again the homeless providers were right there with open mouths. The survey should have been worded, “Will the JPA result in fewer homeless being on the streets and more in permanent housing.” That mission is “results oriented” (which we also failed to get). UNLESS THAT is the focus and providers are forced to be accountable to comply with specific performance requirements and goals for placing homeless in housing with oversight monitoring to their data collection, there is little hope for change, or so my experience tells me.

Good idea, Shawn. The fallout from my serving as resident liaison on the Midtown Business Board for three years, was that somehow someone must have referred my name to some alcohol business interests deciding to locate in Midtown. At that time I was contacted, among others, by the owner of the recently purchased Mayflower building (MARRS) and Streets of London when they bought and decided to obtain an ABC license. Having been involved with ABC for over 15 years at that time, I was able to help them speed up their application process by doing exactly as Shawn suggests. Same for some other nearby real restaurant owners--not bars/clubs who masquerade as restaurants all the while intending to be a bar/club. I know from prior negative comments and the number of thumbs down on my above comment that alcohol drinkers just hate to hear about the days when residents and businesses worked successfully together to create a better business and quality of life residential environment. Any such cooperation goes against their being able to engage in one of their favorite past times: bashing residents, if not their fear that compatible working relationships might interfere with their drinking habits.

"Aziz Bellarbi-Salah, owner of Aioli Bodega Espanola, said Friday. “Getting an alcohol license in Sacramento is especially hard.” Is your complaint that you couldn't get one or that it took you more than a couple of weeks to obtain a new one or transfer one in? Maybe it was because you are a bona fide restaurant. Your partner's license and business at his prior J Street location was supported by the city, ABC and residents, Actually, Midtown alcohol licenses have been approved in numbers and ease as throwing out confetti because the city has no opposition to ABC issuing any--no matter how many license were requested for bars/clubs masquerading as "restaurants." The city has not supported Midtown residents when they have opposed adding for very good reasons an additional license to the already "undue concentration." That density has been determined by ABC, which issues the license. With no city opposition ABC staff have no reason to deny any licenses.

While some people like to trash long time midtown residents, they and others don't know that these same midtown residents proposed and worked with midtown businesses many years ago to create this annual fun event. They also created a network of "safe houses" where kids could know that every "treat" was safe to consume. While the originators' kids are now adults, these two annual traditions live on.

Cogmeyer: If local occupiers had the money to go to and stay in D.C., then they wouldn't need to occupy here or anywhere in the country. Unlike the Tea Part dupes who were/are controlled and funded by super wealthy such as Armey, Koch Bros. etc. the occupiers are real grass roots. If you will buy them round trip tickets, some may just go and join the locals there.