Benjamin Phillips-Lesenana comment-31448 2010-06-25T16:49:49Z 2010-06-25T16:49:49Z UPDATE - The Sacramento Rainbow Chamber of Commerce 2010 Board Installation Dinner (2010 RCC GALA) is being held at the Hilton Sacramento Arden West on Tuesday, October 5, 2010. Tickets are on sale now. Sponsorships are available now. Visit www.rainbowchamber.com today. Thank you. Benjamin Phillips-Lesenana 2010-06-25T16:49:49Z Paul Cox comment-14420 2009-09-25T21:49:19Z 2009-09-25T21:49:19Z They love hiding in the background. I find it amusing that they're willing to put the thumbs down, but too much of a coward to come out and say anything. Paul Cox 2009-09-25T21:49:19Z Rusty Nails comment-13662 2009-09-12T02:57:59Z 2009-09-12T02:57:59Z How wonderful Capital Crossroads Gay Rodeo Association my hat is off to you guys ..Ya'll do many wonderful and Great things. Rusty Nails 2009-09-12T02:57:59Z shizart comment-12964 2009-09-01T17:05:06Z 2009-09-01T17:05:06Z Nothing gayer than rodeo, I always say. shizart 2009-09-01T17:05:06Z Mathieu Über comment-12695 2009-08-26T21:44:41Z 2009-08-26T21:44:41Z Note that farmers and farm workers are not the same people. Back a few years ago when there was a big citrus freeze everyone was worried about the farmers, including Arnold the Barbarian who went to the central valley and tried to alleviate their financial woes. The media was all over the story of the farmer's strife, but no one seemed to give a shit about the farm workers. Whether it was just ignorance - a lack of awareness about the farm workers - or just a general xenophobia - most farm workers are immigrants - I am not sure. But it is great to see Steinberg step up to speak on their behalf. He is indeed one of our better legislators. Mathieu Über 2009-08-26T21:44:41Z William Burg comment-12545 2009-08-24T18:20:15Z 2009-08-24T18:20:15Z Yet, Jim, it seems that you consider Kevin Johnson immune from developer influence (despite the fact that they bankrolled him) and consider the "strong mayor" initiative immune from developer influence (despite the fact that the developers are bankrolling that initiative.) Why the myopia, Mr. Knapp? William Burg 2009-08-24T18:20:15Z Mark comment-12507 2009-08-24T03:52:58Z 2009-08-24T03:52:58Z Why is there always some loser giving thumbs down to anything regarding gays or cannabis clubs or anything else they deem *YAWN* immoral yet they don't actually make a comment? What is it about the story that you don't you like? And can you really defend your narrow-minded views? Mark 2009-08-24T03:52:58Z christy comment-12496 2009-08-23T19:55:56Z 2009-08-23T19:55:56Z Congratulations to all the newly elected board members, and kudos to Le Rivage Hotel for a fabulous event.! We're proud of the work being done by the Rainbow Chamber and proud to be members - thanks everyone! - Christy, Ships and Trips Travel christy 2009-08-23T19:55:56Z Dale Kooyman comment-12487 2009-08-23T17:23:32Z 2009-08-23T17:23:32Z Jim, apparently you harbor a hatred for council members, and such emotions do not allow you to be objective. You don't want to admit that you missed all the behind scenes maneuvering re: city management while you were gone and the many new management team's appointments. I've noticed that you tend to attack and distort when you comment on other people's comments just as you personally attacked me on age. Reasonable dialog with you is not possible. Bye! Dale Kooyman 2009-08-23T17:23:32Z Dale Kooyman comment-12484 2009-08-23T17:12:34Z 2009-08-23T17:12:34Z Thanks for the suggestions. Apparently, there are some points that were not brought out in this dialog. Some years ago, a new city manager came on board causing the inception of the NAG. He was a great change from prior management. Edgar believed that the voice of the city's customers should be heard because the city could benefit greatly from hearing what, when and where services needed improvement or eliminated--feedback from its customers. After the many years of being ignored and often opposed when fighting the city on issues ranging from drugs/streetprostitution and historic preservation to planning and garbage pick up, residents were very suspicious. Meanwhile, a growing Central City Alliance of Neighborhoods had been meeting on Saturdays in a private home taking on these issues. It needed more space. Then came the city Area concept. and Neighborhood Services. CCAN evolved into NAG which became the advisory group to alleviate that suspicion by seeing if the new manager were sincere . One way was to bring issues to the city's attention via the NAG. Because of the NAG we found that he was. The attendance increased considerably because it was found to be an excellent forum for exchange of ideas and city development projects, etc. Now a step back. Originally, under the city's fiscal problems then, NAG was granted permission to meet in the Sr. Center on Mondays with the center issuing one or more keys to city staff for opening and closing plus our cleaning up whatever litter we may have left. There was no need for a janitor to clean up after us or to close up, i.e. no costs to the Sr. Center other than utilities. Then at some point the Sr. Center decided to incur the cost of paying a janitor to close up and clean up pizza boxes, water cups, etc. That was nice BUT we didn't ask for and don't NEED janitorial services. Now that the city is hurting financially, like it was when in the mid 1990's, the history of our volunteering to perform the janitorial duties has been lost. Volunteerism is happening in other parks (Sr. Center is part of Marshall Park), so why not here too? Further ,we are not the only group that meets in the Sr. Center on that Monday--NRT (Neighborhood Response Team) also holds its meetings there prior to the NAG--recently every other month rather than each month. BUT that city arm is not being asked to pay for the janitorial presence and services. Very interesting. So there is no good reason why we cannot go back to the original meeting arrangements with no charge to NRT and NAG by volunteering to take over the janitorial duties. Many feel that the reason this simple approach is not happening is that the city wants to eliminate the NAG by imposing costs--particularly since the NRT costs are being ignored in the swirl of controversy. I have been strongly assured that the city does not want to eliminate the NAG. So why is the city not making a fast simple decision.? Why all of the controversy and misunderstanding when such a simple historical solution is possible? We all wonder why. Dale Kooyman 2009-08-23T17:12:34Z Terre Johnson comment-12477 2009-08-23T14:49:26Z 2009-08-23T14:49:26Z The NSD and the south area's version of NAG are hosted at the resource center at the Stockton Blvd Partnership offices for no charge. The neighborhood business association (MBA) might be the considered as a resource for funding that meeting - like we are on Stockton Blvd - as their business plan and funding allocation support community advocacy. Check with Rob Kerth. The Partnership does offer the space up to "out of area" groups for $50 fee, also. The dialog that I have read here underscores my reasoning for running for Dist. 5 City Council 2010 vacancy specifically to represent as a community's voice. It 's time to change the line up. Terre Johnson 2009-08-23T14:49:26Z The Parrhesiac comment-12472 2009-08-23T04:28:27Z 2009-08-23T04:28:27Z Dale you can't remember what you posted ONE DAY ago. To help your memory out a bit, scroll up and READ YOUR OWN POST! You stated: "developers brought this city management here from Portland. I need say no more..." Who else where you talking about if it was not for Kerridge? Please, I'm dying to know. Oh yeah, and you are wrong, Kerridge was hired by the CIty Council. You dislike developers? Hey join the crowd Dale! But guess who controls every single Council member who you think are doing such a great job? And whom by the way, controlled this City LONG BEFORE Kerridge was here. (hint: they build things) Hey wait a second...on second thought you might be onto something...hmm the developers brought him here and FORCED the Council to hire him.... OK If you want me to accept that I will...It proves my point...developers control the Council. The Parrhesiac 2009-08-23T04:28:27Z Dale Kooyman comment-12468 2009-08-23T02:18:34Z 2009-08-23T02:18:34Z While you choose insult me with the age comment, I have now talked to and/or emailed several people who were active in the central city preservation and revitalization over the years before you left. You made such an impression that no one else remembers you either. Further, I did not identity Kerridge as the city management--you did and you were gone when he was brought here,. So you wouldn't know the role developers played which was public knowledge to everyone else. As to your "marching orders," hardly. Dale Kooyman 2009-08-23T02:18:34Z Dale Kooyman comment-12437 2009-08-22T02:57:24Z 2009-08-22T02:57:24Z Jim, in your 12 year absence, you missed many of the golden years after NS was created and fostered communication with our Area 1 council members. The 1987 to 1992 was a very slow struggling beginning which culminated in success when Edgar came on board as city manager and Dave Martinez and Jack Crist as assistant managers. Even when Bob Thomas came back for his short stint. With your stated involvement (SCAN, etc.) I should remember your name but it does not ring a bell with any of us. But you may remember me. Do you happen to be using a pseudonym? I strongly disagree about the "layer of bureaucracy" separation a result of NSD. It has actually brought us closer in Area1, and I think most of us here while you were gone agree. I remember well the distance between our councilmen prior to NSD But you are right about the dramatic shift in philosophy--but not so much with council but with city management. You have to remember that developers brought this city management here from Portland. I need say no more as to how that quickly and adversely changed the level of communication and cooperation between staff in most all departments and residents.. Dale Kooyman 2009-08-22T02:57:24Z The Parrhesiac comment-12443 2009-08-21T23:07:15Z 2009-08-21T23:07:15Z Dale at your age, i will give you a pass on your memory, I remember you well. I hear your veiled attack on Ray Kerridge, this has NOTHING to do with Kerridge. The developers do not finanince Kerridge, they do finance the Council, and long before he was around. I'm not sure if you were aware, Kerridge takes his marching orders from the Council. The fact that your happy with the Council, and you believe they listen to the community, tells me enough. The Parrhesiac 2009-08-21T23:07:15Z The Parrhesiac comment-12405 2009-08-21T19:26:09Z 2009-08-21T19:26:09Z Dale, I believe that a limited number of City staff are sincerely interested in doing their jobs, and sincerly interested in public input. However, I do not believe the sincerity of those few well meaning staff members translates into a City that is responsive to the views of the community. As for Johnsons staff, as well as the other Council Members staff I have had interaction with, they are always polite and friendly, but those interactions have not translated into any meaningful outcomes. Back in the day, 85-97 when I was active in the City, in my opinion the Council did listen to Neighborhood Associations (NA'S) and especially they listend to the Sacramento County Alliance of Neighborhoods. (SCAN) I have a different perspective on the City than most, after having been very active, moving away and coming back. I believe there has been dramatic changed in the recent years and that NA's have little or no voice in the business of the City, and apparently SCAN is all but defunct form what I hear. We always had very good rapport with Joe Serna and other council members, and we could see the results of our report through action by the council. Since I moved back to Sac after having been gone for 12 years, there appears to have been a dramatic shift in the philosophy of the Council and their willingness to work with the community. I believe that much of this has to do with the creation of the Neighborhood Services Department. (NSD) While the Idea of the NSD may have been well meaning at the time of the creation, it has placed a layer of bureaucracy between the Council and the community. From what I can see, the Council is only interested in doing the biding of the developers. Now to make something clear, I am NOT against development, our community needs it for housing, shopping, jobs, economic growth etc, as long it is done in a sustainable fasion; well here in Sacramento it is not. It apperas rather apparent that the developers have usurpt the democratic process by purchasing council members by campaign contributions. For me, the question now is, how does the community take back the political power that was sold to the developers. The Parrhesiac 2009-08-21T19:26:09Z Kassandra Perlongo comment-12423 2009-08-21T17:53:37Z 2009-08-21T17:53:37Z I look forward to hearing more about the Rainbow Chamber in the future! Great charities to be supporting and bringing more awareness to the community. Kassandra Perlongo 2009-08-21T17:53:37Z Dale Kooyman comment-12359 2009-08-20T17:50:48Z 2009-08-20T17:50:48Z Ben, I did not see your comment at the time I wrote the above response. When time permits, I will be pleased to write a history and involvement of the NAG, starting with CCAN to NAAG to NAG. Dale Kooyman 2009-08-20T17:50:48Z Ben Ilfeld comment-12353 2009-08-20T16:38:37Z 2009-08-20T16:38:37Z Actually the history of NAG is interesting. Perhaps Dale can chime in on why NAG does not take positions as a group and operates as a forum. Ben Ilfeld 2009-08-20T16:38:37Z Ben Ilfeld comment-12352 2009-08-20T16:35:28Z 2009-08-20T16:35:28Z NAG is usually about informing neighbors. Despite its name it is a forum to start discussions and present issues of mutual interest between the neighborhood associations of Area 1. It would be difficult to create public pressure in that atmosphere, but I have seen issues that are presented as problems at NAG taken up by neighborhood associations or other public groups which have effectively challenged government and business. Just google NAST or read about the block party concert series on this site. Ben Ilfeld 2009-08-20T16:35:28Z Dale Kooyman comment-12348 2009-08-20T16:22:01Z 2009-08-20T16:22:01Z Holmes stated the facts accurately according to what I heard immediately after the NAG from two individuals calling me to ask why I was absent. Jim, when you say the "city is uninterested," who or what department do you mean? It has become apparent that current city management is not interested, if not hostile to the NAG. But that does not mean all departments and all staff or council members are uninterested. Fargo was very interested and either she or one of her staff frequently attended. Same for Cohn and his district director. Ortiz (when councilwoman) Hammond, Fong (and or staff) have sometimes attended. All did listen and became educated from a resident perspective regarding various city services. Mayor Johnson attended briefly but more to make his points rather than listen. One of his staff attended once too--at least when I was there. What remains to be seen is whether the Mayor or his staff, as mayor now or under a "strong mayor" concept, will attend to obtain residents' perspective. Some feel that he or his staff have made a poor showing so far. What do you think, Jim? Dale Kooyman 2009-08-20T16:22:01Z Bill Burgua comment-12347 2009-08-20T16:10:13Z 2009-08-20T16:10:13Z There is more to this. At this month's NAG agenda committee meeting Neighborhood Services Manager Derrick Lim informed the committee that 1. NAG would now have to pay to use the Hart Center and that 2. Neighborhood Services Area One would now have Area Leadership Meetings. Neighborhood Services Areas 2,3,and 4 have Area Leadership Meetings. This is primarily due to lack of citizen participation in those areas. Area Leadership Meetings have agendas set and controlled by City Management. If you look at the Neighborhood Services website under "Get Involved" you will see that for Neighborhood Services Area 1 the Neighborhood Advisory Group is listed for community involvement. (I would look soon if you want to see this.) The reason given was "there were complaints". Who complained? Derrick would not say. I and others believe that it is folks that do not appreciate residents being involved in what information is presented. So in the future if you want the information about what is happening in Area 1 that the City wants you to know it is free. If you want to know what is really happening in Area 1 you pay. Bill Burgua 2009-08-20T16:10:13Z The Parrhesiac comment-12346 2009-08-20T16:05:42Z 2009-08-20T16:05:42Z George, regardless of the “purpose” it has evolved into, N.A.G's were originally intended to be EXACTLY as the name would suggest. Neighborhood ADVISORY Groups. I dont know where this new definition of the N.A.G came from, but it illustrates that there has been a change in philosophy of what the origninal intent was. The City is not interested in what citizens have to say, but they sure want to APPEAR to be interested; they want citizens to "FEEL" as though they have input. The Parrhesiac 2009-08-20T16:05:42Z BruceHolmes comment-12342 2009-08-20T15:02:25Z 2009-08-20T15:02:25Z George's Headline is incorrect. The NAG is a forum not an entity. Perhaps this would have been better: The demonstrated value of the NAG was clear and present Monday night. Vincene began the discussion around the fact that Sacramento Press had graciously stepped forward with a 6 month commitment and followed that by saying we only would need an additional 5 pledges to cover the cost. What was left out was the ongoing discussion and previous history of where the community would voluntarily provide the janitorial and locking up services in conjunction with a city staff person having the required key. When that point was brought up, Vincene explained that she had not been able to make contact with the necessary parties to pursue that option hence she could not offer it Monday night, however she realized that that was a primary option that the group wanted to pursue. With the exception of SacPress and council member Cohn, none of the NA reps that were present were in a position to authorize the payment, they simply stated they would take the proposal to their respective Boards....Overwhelmingly Everyone is stepping up to make sure that the NAG lives on. If you haven't been there before...It's open to everyone! Unlike Leadership meetings put together by city staff, the NAG agenda is set by a partnership of both volunteer community and city staff members. You just need to show up! BruceHolmes 2009-08-20T15:02:25Z Midtown George comment-12338 2009-08-20T07:38:23Z 2009-08-20T07:38:23Z The purpose of the NAG is to be a forum where information can be shared, and to promote neighbors working together to address issues of mutual interest. Midtown George 2009-08-20T07:38:23Z The Parrhesiac comment-12335 2009-08-20T05:50:42Z 2009-08-20T05:50:42Z I'm not convinced that anyone should pay for a meeting place for the NAG, it's wasted money. Why have a NAG? Does anyone really think that the City listens to the public? EVER! I have been in Council meetings where hundreds spoke out against a proposal, only to have the Council vote unanimously to approve something the vast majority of citizens opposed. So tell me, what is the use of having a NAG other than making community members "feel" like they have input. The Parrhesiac 2009-08-20T05:50:42Z Dale Kooyman comment-12329 2009-08-20T04:37:47Z 2009-08-20T04:37:47Z George misunderstood. While I was not able to attend due to a home emergency that evening, I heard back from four attendees that there WAS NO SUCH AGREEMENT! The main reason the Sr. Center incurs costs for the NAG is that the center chooses to pay a janitor to be there is to clean up after us and and lock up after NAG attendees leave. While the janitor is there, he does other work around the center which could be done during the day. I had recommended via email to at least 7 attendees when this issue first came up and all replied in the affirmative (one did not reply at all), that we should go back to our orignal arrangement years ago with the city when Charlsey Cartwright and I, subsequently, were NAAG chairs . The city was experiencing severe budget deficits then too. Bill Edgar was City Manager. Our arrangement was that attendees would clean up after ourselves, turn off the utilities and one or more Neighborhood Services staff were issued keys to lock up (we each witnessed that the janitorial tasks were done correctly ). NO JANITOR WAS NEEDED THEN AND NOW. Further, the city's Neighborhood Response Team meets there every two months just before the NAG. We are supposed to pay for that, George? All of us are adults and we can do the clean up job as well as a janitor. The center can issue keys to staff for lock up--they are as responsible as the janitor. After all, the Parks Dept is accepting volunteers to work in other park buildings and there is no good reason why the Dept. cannot accept our voluntarism at the Senior Center. People who meet with city staff and developer representatives to discuss city issues that affect Area I residents should never be forced to pay for such a meeting. Dale Kooyman 2009-08-20T04:37:47Z The Parrhesiac comment-5091 2009-03-26T04:58:36Z 2009-03-26T04:58:36Z geez this site sensors posts...even good jokes? come on! The Parrhesiac 2009-03-26T04:58:36Z Colleen Belcher comment-5073 2009-03-25T19:45:49Z 2009-03-25T19:45:49Z I'm sad that I missed out on this event. Thanks for writing about it for those who weren't there on Monday night. Colleen Belcher 2009-03-25T19:45:49Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1303 2008-12-10T08:23:09Z 2008-12-10T08:23:09Z I attended the meeting last night and I am not convinced that this would require "one less meeting." From what I understand this would simply change the body hearing the appeal, not actually change the process of the appeal. So if a tree decision is appealed then it would still require a meeting, just a Planning rather than Parks and Rec meeting. But I have been mistaken on this issue before so feel free to correct me. Ben Ilfeld 2008-12-10T08:23:09Z Zen comment-1267 2008-12-09T18:29:37Z 2008-12-09T18:29:37Z Bill I agree that we disagree. I don't necessarilly thing the experts or people on the Parks and Rec Commission are more knowledgable about trees. It is a simplification in the case of a tree decision related to a development proposal. If an applicant can go to one less city meeting to get a decision related to a development proposal that is a simplification. Zen 2008-12-09T18:29:37Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1235 2008-12-09T06:47:38Z 2008-12-09T06:47:38Z You can click the green "storyline" tab on the right side of the page to read George's proposal for a Trees Commission. Ben Ilfeld 2008-12-09T06:47:38Z Midtown George comment-1266 2008-12-09T06:08:43Z 2008-12-09T06:08:43Z If you care about trees, you are qualified. Midtown George 2008-12-09T06:08:43Z Midtown George comment-1265 2008-12-09T05:53:32Z 2008-12-09T05:53:32Z We need to have a Trees Commission. Please read my earlier article on the subject. Midtown George 2008-12-09T05:53:32Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1234 2008-12-09T03:36:38Z 2008-12-09T03:36:38Z I just came back from the Commission meeting listed above. I have to say that this is a more complex issue than these accounts can capture. What I can say is that this is an interesting story that is worth a closer look. There are reasons to change the ordinance, and the commissioners themselves seemed split on this issue. I hope that more people will write in and give another account of why this may be a good change. For me personally, I will step back for the moment and try to collect more evidence before opening my big mouth. Ben Ilfeld 2008-12-09T03:36:38Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1233 2008-12-09T01:11:21Z 2008-12-09T01:11:21Z oh, and I am at City Hall. security says the meeting is at 5:30pm as originally listed. Ben Ilfeld 2008-12-09T01:11:21Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1248 2008-12-09T01:09:33Z 2008-12-09T01:09:33Z I believe the meeting is Monday, December 8, 5:30 PM at New City Hall. Bring your ID. Ben Ilfeld 2008-12-09T01:09:33Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1232 2008-12-09T00:54:03Z 2008-12-09T00:54:03Z That makes sense. Thank you. Ben Ilfeld 2008-12-09T00:54:03Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1231 2008-12-09T00:51:41Z 2008-12-09T00:51:41Z Thank you for clarifying. I hope that you re-post this comment as an article outright. By doing so we can better inform our readers. Ben Ilfeld 2008-12-09T00:51:41Z Linda Tucker comment-1263 2008-12-09T00:33:26Z 2008-12-09T00:33:26Z The City of Sacramento Department of Transportation is clearing up misunderstandings with tonight's Urban Forestry Committee Meeting, held at 5 p.m. at new City Hall. Given the typical meeting where only committee members attend, the meeting is scheduled in a conference room, which is not conducive to accommodating a large group of attendees. However, City staff will do their best to welcome and make attendees feel comfortable. The committee will be starting its first discussion this evening on whether or not it makes sense to shift responsibility for hearing appeals on applications to remove heritage trees or other trees to the City of Sacramento Planning Commission from the Parks Commission. The discussion is the first and not the only opportunity for the public to learn more about the idea and to weigh in. The outcome of tonight's committee meeting will be presented early next year to the Parks and Rec Commission, and then if necessary to the Law and Legislation Committee and on to City Council. There are multiple opportunities to be heard. The idea arose from some members of the Parks and Recreation Commission because decisions regarding development projects tend to be separated from the project’s impacts to heritage or street trees, when two different bodies are weighing in. Appeals heard by the Planning Commission can make better decisions based on the big picture and not just on the tree or trees itself. What's important to note is that neither the Parks and Recreation Commission nor the Planning Commission have certified arborists as members so neither group is necessarily more knowledgeable about trees than the other. Members of both commissions, regardless of what body hears the appeals, will always continue to uphold or deny an appeal based upon the expertise of the City's arborists in Urban Forestry. And those arborists will continue to generate their findings, which will be posted on the City's Urban Forestry webpage before the first tree hearing. This process will not change. While we encourage the public to learn more about the idea, we want to assure the public that there will be opportunities for the public to get involved and gain a greater understanding of why the idea is being discussed and its merits. Linda Tucker, Public Information Officer, City of Sacramento Department of Transportation Linda Tucker 2008-12-09T00:33:26Z William Burg comment-1229 2008-12-08T21:52:09Z 2008-12-08T21:52:09Z "Shouldn't city staff or the planning commission be better suited try to strike a balance between the project and the urban forest?" No. The decision is about the tree, so the Parks & Rec commission are the people with the expertise. Changing to Planning is a political decision--a way to make it easier to cut down trees. Not sick trees, not damaged trees, not even trees that are in the way of a project. "I think appropriate decisions can be made from one related process and commission not two seperate ones." That's not what we're talking about here. This decision changes the process from a decision by a body that knows about trees to a decision by a body that does not know about trees. No steps are being removed from the process, they're just changing the process. It isn't a simplification. William Burg 2008-12-08T21:52:09Z Zen comment-1257 2008-12-08T21:05:18Z 2008-12-08T21:05:18Z Yes, taking the "appropriate time" is important in any decision. Is that why we have an urban forest division (in the transporatation department not parks now.)? They take the time to analyze the trees and issues. Don't they give a report that any commission or member of the public can read and interpret? Is that not where the "experts" really are in these decisions? Even then a decision like the one you are worried about comes down to mixture of values and expertise. Shouldn't city staff or the planning commission be better suited try to strike a balance between the project and the urban forest? I don't think it comes down to "profitability or livability." I don't think its as black and white as that. I think trees are important to Sacramento and the Central City. Its one piece to our vision of livibility of this area but I think the process of making decisions about trees and development is convoluted righ now. I think appropriate decisions can be made from one related process and commission not two seperate ones. By the way there is no transportation or mobility commission. We have council, design, preservation, planning, parks and a number of advisory groups/committees. I can't imagine the mess such a commission would create. Zen 2008-12-08T21:05:18Z William Burg comment-1255 2008-12-08T20:41:41Z 2008-12-08T20:41:41Z Streamlining is one thing--ramrodding is another. Making informed decisions takes money and time. For those whom money and time are more important than informed decisions, streamlining tree policy makes sense. For those more interested in the long-term well-being of their community, taking a bit more time and ensuring that decisions are made by someone with some expertise in the matter being decided on makes more sense. This isn't a matter of going to two different commissions to get a decision on the same thing. The changes don't "streamline" decision making, they just change the department with jurisdiction over appeals from one with expertise in trees to one that lacks that expertise. This also isn't a matter of removing decaying trees: that's already part of Parks' work process, and has nothing to do with this decision. It comes down to this--what matters more to you, profitability or livability? People here are talking about it a lot because the livability of the central city is more important to the folks here than making it easier to cut down trees. William Burg 2008-12-08T20:41:41Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1253 2008-12-08T18:50:17Z 2008-12-08T18:50:17Z I made that decision to highlight this issue today. The meeting is tonight and because the decision is being made so soon, this was one way to highlight the issue. That said, we are a new publication and I welcome your feedback. We do not intend to be one-note on any issue. I actually like your argument. The only issue I have is that I have only seen big beautiful trees go down and scrawny trees go up in Midtown. This is anecdotal evidence, but that's how I see it. And I am not against development at all, but if a development affects a highway or street I would want review in the transportation commission. If a development is asking to cut down a designated heritage tree I would want that decision reviewed by those who know trees and our urban forest. Ultimately, I agree with you that there needs to be a balance. Trees, historic preservation, walkability, transit, and development all push back and forth on all sorts of issues and developers often get caught in the middle wading through it. But we should have a healthy discussion about why these oversights and protections are in place and I hope that The Press can provide that. Ben Ilfeld 2008-12-08T18:50:17Z Zen comment-1251 2008-12-08T17:52:54Z 2008-12-08T17:52:54Z I don't necessary see it that way. I like trees. I have many fond memories of climbing trees and sitting under trees on a hot summber day in my youth. I walk everywhere in Central City and appreciate the shade trees that we have in Sacramento. However, I think we go a little too far in our obsession with some of decaying, older trees. I actually think the city proposal makes sense in many ways. People always talk about the many levels of bureaucracy to get any City decision. When the City tries to consolidate the system others get upset. The planning commission would not make a decision blindly. There are many smart people, community people on the commission that can read a staff report or tree report to make an informed decision. I do think setbacks and stepbacks are important for new trees but some of the requested distances are asking too much. There needs to be a balance between maximizing space in a development, planting new trees to replace the many older trees, providing more density in our central city without having to go to two different commissions to get a decision wasting time and money for the City and the developer. People upset with a potential tree removal can still reflect there opinion at Planning Commission. By the way, since when did this become a Save our Trees website. Every article on the front page is about trees. Zen 2008-12-08T17:52:54Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1249 2008-12-08T04:37:03Z 2008-12-08T04:37:03Z Sacramento is not the "City of Trees" because of us. It is the City of Trees because of generations before us. We need to come together to honor our legacy as a city. We must move forward by taking action to reclaim our streets and neighborhoods for more canopy trees, not fewer. How can we take credit for the past while we actively erode that legacy? Ben Ilfeld 2008-12-08T04:37:03Z advocate comment-1113 2008-12-02T05:18:57Z 2008-12-02T05:18:57Z Check out Minneapolis Tree Commission on the Internet for details. advocate 2008-12-02T05:18:57Z Catherine Foss comment-1081 2008-11-24T23:15:18Z 2008-11-24T23:15:18Z A trees commission could be a great way to get people thinking about how important--and often neglected--our environment truly is. I wonder how many people in the Sacramento area would be interested? It seems that if it was well-advertised, many people would be willing to devote some time. Catherine Foss 2008-11-24T23:15:18Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1064 2008-11-22T22:36:50Z 2008-11-22T22:36:50Z What is the Minneapolis model? Ben Ilfeld 2008-11-22T22:36:50Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1063 2008-11-22T22:36:19Z 2008-11-22T22:36:19Z Thanks for the photo compliment, though it does make our other green tones look yellowish . . . Ben Ilfeld 2008-11-22T22:36:19Z Joe Krause comment-1035 2008-11-22T22:02:02Z 2008-11-22T22:02:02Z Good article and beautiful photograph on the front page. Joe Krause 2008-11-22T22:02:02Z Emma Staniels comment-1060 2008-11-22T21:24:43Z 2008-11-22T21:24:43Z I agree that there should be a trees commission. I would be willing to help, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to do much... Emma Staniels 2008-11-22T21:24:43Z advocate comment-1033 2008-11-22T20:03:02Z 2008-11-22T20:03:02Z There should be a tree commission and it should be based on the Minneapolis model. I would help based on time available. advocate 2008-11-22T20:03:02Z