TomRunge comment-58814 2011-10-18T18:05:41Z 2011-10-18T18:05:41Z There's nothing compassionate about forcing people to live in tents. TomRunge 2011-10-18T18:05:41Z rjavor comment-58803 2011-10-18T14:58:21Z 2011-10-18T14:58:21Z Mr. Lukenbill says the problem is the city's "lack of attention" to cultivating the river bank, and then says that "public compassion and safety" are compatible. SafeGround has sought alternative land for a legal alternative community from the city and county for almost two years. SafeGround campers leave their camp sites cleaner than when they camped there. Maybe Mr. Luken bill and his sponsors can accomplish both safety and compassion by joining with SafeGround to find and fund an alternative living area. rjavor 2011-10-18T14:58:21Z cogmeyer comment-58778 2011-10-18T06:01:21Z 2011-10-18T06:01:21Z When will our city council say enough is enough? The city of Sacramento already carries a disproportionate share of the homeless burden compared to neighboring cities. Meanwhile our city leaders are trying to find ways to draw in more homeless from around the region and around the state. When did we as a city decide to become the transient capital of the central valley? cogmeyer 2011-10-18T06:01:21Z Davi Rodrigues comment-58769 2011-10-18T02:54:52Z 2011-10-18T02:54:52Z "overhung both sides of the blue current" Well there ya go. the water was blue before we dammed it all up Davi Rodrigues 2011-10-18T02:54:52Z IZonTruth comment-50658 2011-05-17T14:44:42Z 2011-05-17T14:44:42Z Furloughs are a short-term answer. The real problem is to many employees. Start cutting at the managment level and above. That is where the real dollars savings exist. IZonTruth 2011-05-17T14:44:42Z William Burg comment-50654 2011-05-17T04:52:14Z 2011-05-17T04:52:14Z This part of your article left me wondering about a few things. "There are several reasons why raising taxes to support parks—especially during perilous economic times—is a bad idea, but just a couple should be mentioned. Taxpayers are already paying for parks, have been for years, and will surely resist paying more." People normally resist paying more taxes if they don't see the need. But if the amount they are paying for parks is less than the amount needed to maintain those parks, either we have to increase the amount paid to make up the difference or we have to accept the consequences of not paying enough to maintain them. "Doug Ose made the point, as quoted in the Sacramento Bee story, "I don't believe there's a shortage of revenue. I believe there's a shortage of management creativity."" It's a fine assertion, but what facts are behind it? Why should we have faith in what Doug Ose believes, simply because he believes it? "Government is very good at many things, but the ability to raise taxes, when hampered by the unwillingness of voters to approve the tax increase, is not one of them" If people aren't willing to raise their own taxes, it is generally because they don't see the value in doing so. Taxes are no different from any other expenditure an individual makes--the transaction has to be worthwhile to the consumer. And while I would agree that government has been very bad lately at convincing people to pay taxes (which is why our taxes are so low nowadays), perhaps the solution to the problem is regaining the public trust that is necessary to ensure to the public that government is an accountable and responsible custodian of the public's money and resources? William Burg 2011-05-17T04:52:14Z William Burg comment-50653 2011-05-17T04:42:58Z 2011-05-17T04:42:58Z Do you have any data to back up that statement? William Burg 2011-05-17T04:42:58Z David H. Lukenbill comment-50635 2011-05-16T20:25:27Z 2011-05-16T20:25:27Z Unfortunately, the funding problems are probably too large for furloughs to have much of a long term impact. David H. Lukenbill 2011-05-16T20:25:27Z David H. Lukenbill comment-50634 2011-05-16T20:24:09Z 2011-05-16T20:24:09Z The nonprofits that are largely funded by government have not done so well, but those receiving most of their funding from philanthropy, have largely managed to weather the storm. David H. Lukenbill 2011-05-16T20:24:09Z Craig Powell comment-50632 2011-05-16T18:26:12Z 2011-05-16T18:26:12Z Thanks, David, for offering some interesting ideas for how to best care for our parks. Craig Powell 2011-05-16T18:26:12Z tired comment-50625 2011-05-16T15:31:32Z 2011-05-16T15:31:32Z How about adding some furlough days. I'm sure employees will prefer a couple of furlough days than being laid off. tired 2011-05-16T15:31:32Z William Burg comment-50624 2011-05-16T14:51:12Z 2011-05-16T14:51:12Z Have nonprofits actually done well in recent years, or have they seen reductions in contributions due to the economic troubles that have also damaged public agencies' budgets? William Burg 2011-05-16T14:51:12Z Curmudgeon comment-50619 2011-05-16T04:49:55Z 2011-05-16T04:49:55Z As opposed to the very real budget problems now? Curmudgeon 2011-05-16T04:49:55Z Curmudgeon comment-50618 2011-05-16T04:49:28Z 2011-05-16T04:49:28Z Doug Ose's takeover of Gibson Ranch, maintaining it as a for-profit park, is a very good case in point Curmudgeon 2011-05-16T04:49:28Z Ben Ilfeld comment-50617 2011-05-16T02:07:06Z 2011-05-16T02:07:06Z What happens if the JPA has budget problems now or in the future? Ben Ilfeld 2011-05-16T02:07:06Z Curmudgeon comment-48930 2011-04-08T18:57:52Z 2011-04-08T18:57:52Z Nope, we didn't do enough of that in the 40's and 50's, given the people who came in the 60's and beyond. $5 million in recreation related income? Really? Backpackers have nothing on boaters, to say nothing of hydro power and irrigation water. As for the bogeyman fault line, somehow Oroville, at one time the world's largest earth and rock fill dam, also said to be along the fault line, is utterly unaffected. The Auburn Dam will be reinforced concrete. Curmudgeon 2011-04-08T18:57:52Z David H. Lukenbill comment-48882 2011-04-07T23:56:55Z 2011-04-07T23:56:55Z The latest report on the Auburn Dam, which will answer your questions, was done for the American River Authority, and can be read at http://www.americanriverauthority.org/admin/upload/AUBURN-FOLSOM.SOUTH.UNIT.SUMMARY.REPORT.pdf David H. Lukenbill 2011-04-07T23:56:55Z glasrangers comment-48864 2011-04-07T18:22:35Z 2011-04-07T18:22:35Z Dear Sir - You failed to present a full cost/benefit analysis and in doing so presented misleading and incomplete information in your argument. Construction costs of a dam are not the only costs that need to be considered. The Auburn Dam site is located along a fault line, thus increasing the risk of a dam failure. The risk of such an event occurring may seem small, but the damage from such an event, in terms of economics and loss of life, would be calamitous. Your arguments for increased recreational benefits have been claimed in dam proposals for the past half century with few realized benefits over time. In fact according to the report in 2007 from the Bureau of Reclamation on the costs and benefits of Auburn Dam, the dam would result in an annual net loss of $5 million in recreation-related income! Dams may provide flow control, but generally cause much colder water temperatures - often to the detriment of instream species (are you really making a case for dam building as a means of salmon preservation/restoration!? - bold). You also argue that the dam will provide enhanced protection for the land and habitat of the American River Parkway, but what of the land and habitat that will be submerged by the reservoir? And what about species adapted to varying water levels and flow rates? There are also intrinsic values associated with the natural environment that need to be, at the very least, acknowledged as well. While Auburn Dam would provide addition flood control benefits (about an extra 10% after the Folsom Dam upgrades), the costs of doing so are prohibitively expensive. In the end it would be another dam built for the sake of building another dam. Didn't we do enough of that in the 40s and 50s? glasrangers 2011-04-07T18:22:35Z Curmudgeon comment-44327 2011-01-25T20:18:03Z 2011-01-25T20:18:03Z The City government has in effect made that part of the American River Parkway a dumping ground for the homeless. We might as well just fence / wall off the section of the Park, from east of the gravel quarry to west of Business 80, and make it a "Safe Ground" for homeless campers. Or, to be more blunt, a Bum Containment Zone. We would need to have a bike and hiking trail easement separated from the Safe Ground / Containment Zone for passing through. It would need to be razor-wire fenced off, and probably elevated along the Levee, to protect the bikers, hikers and joggers and to make the Safe Ground campsites more secure. Bums caught for other illegal acts could periodically be sentenced to pick up the trash in and around their Safe Ground / Containment Zone. Burning barrels could be provided, and the garbage would be fuel for the homeless fires. Curmudgeon 2011-01-25T20:18:03Z mybluehaven comment-44216 2011-01-21T23:50:43Z 2011-01-21T23:50:43Z The AR Parkway is a disaster Area from Cal Expo to Discovery Park. It blights every area within a mile of the Parkway. Why must residents drive miles for recreation when this resource is right in our backyard? mybluehaven 2011-01-21T23:50:43Z BobiSun comment-43654 2011-01-14T21:45:37Z 2011-01-14T21:45:37Z I am in complete ageement. Mr. Lukenbill, you seem to grasp the problem and solution . Thank you for the vote to support Doug Ose's proposal. BobiSun 2011-01-14T21:45:37Z