Um both of you are full of it. It would take too much time to correct the inaccurate and uninformed rants of the xmaspast. I do mean rant...get some help please because you seem one ant short of a picnic. I'm just an observer and person who knows a person involved at MBA... but I know the BS when I read it.

Not that I am in favor of a strong mayor system or a fan of KJ but he did have it in his campaign materials prior to taking office. I believe it was the fancy booklet he created which outlined his goals once in office. Just saying.

Really? 1. Midtown has developed just fine. 2. Developing public land is not simple. CADA has transformed a broken neighborhood that was neglected before and during state ownership into a great neighborhood. 3. Portland developed in very special circumstances. You didn't see that happening anywhere else in the early part of the decade. Perfect Storm! 4. San Diego tried to replicate Portland and they ended up with over half of their condo developments sit empty and their City government in shambles. 5. Downtown would not look like Portland if CADA was not around. The neighborhood would look much worse than today. At the very best...parking lots and state office buildings.

What are you talking about? Downtown/Midtown has great mix of bars and restaurants. They are not all "bro bars"... whatever that exactly means. It seems to me that places that survive or do well are the places that fit Sacramento's style not chic SF style. Shady Lady, R15, Centro, Monkey Bar, Zocalo's, Hot Italian, pick a sushi joint, Fox and Goose, 58 Degrees and Holding Company, Taps's, Press, Ella, Pronto's, Peazanos, Mix, De Vere's, Mulvaney's are just a few examples. Many of these places opened in the last decade. I would not call these Bro Bars but I would say most are sophisticated, "hip", and food destinations that are adding to the options for Sacramento. Don't judge the place before it opens. The Wongs and De Vere's seemed to know the market be doing well.

Settle down Trapper. I read the article. I am commenting on more that what was written in this piece. My comment is more about my own knowledge of the project and people involved. CADA played a part in that project but it was not CADA that led or made final decisions on it. If you talked to Mr. Schmidt, I know he will tell you that the State made a lot of mistakes on that project and CADA played a different role than you are thinking albiet an important supporting role in developing the East End. Don't "READ" too much into that line. Instrumental can mean a lot things in such a big project.

Except the City only sees only a portion of that $2.8 Million because the state take's the lion share of it.

Thank the State not CADA. If memory serves right CADA had little to do with the final design or plan for that complex. Outside of terrible design, the East End did help bring thousands of State workers to that end of Midtown and help jump start the private investment in the area.

Never thought of the Med Center as Oak Park's. Law School....Yes. Sac High...ok (hard to explain now since only a portion of the school is oak park kids) Even if you do consider it in the "neighborhood" its still there, the place didn't grow legs and move. Politically this is all about perspective. Look at the bright side Oak Park, if you have a problem with the Med Center you have a Councilmember that can go to bat for you now. The CM will not have to worry about how the Med Center feels since its not in District 5.

Nice. I hope it sticks around.

Example. "That means, if a city cannot afford the payments, it cannot afford its redevelopment agency. " I believe the $1.7 Billion \the State Office of Finance and Governor is using is from 2008. I am guessing they can't afford them regardless because tax assessments have gone down and down since then. The Gov is using unattainable numbers to start. Example 2:“It’s fair to say, then,” Detwiler said, “that the unearned half of revenue being captured by redevelopment agencies (from property value growth) should really belong to schools.” Since the state is obligated to make sure the school funding bucket is full, it is in effect subsidizing redevelopment agencies for the unearned portion of revenue." This section all assumes a line of thinking that the tax increment funding belongs to schools because rise in tax assessments may or may not be attributed to redevelopment, but that is skewed line of thinking. Tax increment financing is not created or based on the what and why the incremental increases occur. The point is to create a revenue stream for redevelopment activities regardless if redevelopment is the cause such tax increases. Assessment increases have to happen without much redevelopment activity in the beginning in order to collect enough funds to initiate projects or bond for more funds. Its a spin to state those funds should be for schools.

There are some misleading statements in this article but generally a good piece. One thing though, wasn't the 1400 R Street project a private project? I think CADA helped pay for some infrastructure but they are not technically a redevelopment agency.

Um what about West Sacramento's Triangle area, R Street, 16th Street (CADA), affordable housing projects.... 7 and H and the Alkali Flat Transit Station Housing?

Hey as long as Old Soul can crank out coffee and Latte's as fast as 'Bucks and Pete's then why not?

I agree Richard but the problem is that movement still needs to happen. Its been two years but the message still hasn't been heard apparently. The National Energy Bill is stalled and we have propositions to set back CA's Climate law while China is running away from us. No economic development plan to bring green capital, innovation, and manufacturing to Sacramento or CA for that matter has hot been created. The only thing we got going for us that China doesn't is the fact we still are more creative as a country than China.

Most of the comments cogmeyer makes is essentially the highlighted lessons/warnings Friedman gave. My guess is most of the posters here didn't attend the talk?

Bill, Marion, Lisa, people have always been in Midtown. I would argue that the area became safer and a place to be once businesses did come back. Mr. Burgua check the conversation regarding Bloc series. I commented on your status of representing the neighbors and events at parks, not how they promoted the event. Street parties are in Midtown because the urban design aspects make for a better atmosphere and the popular businesses that create some of these events reside in Midtown. Additionally there are plenty of large events/street closures, with alcohol or not, the happen all over the central city not just in Midtown. William you posted a blog that just started in August and has not been updated since August 19th. The blog posts that exist on the MBA site promote Midtown Cocktail Week an event with a mission as stated: To host a community-wide celebration of Midtown Sacramento's diverse mixology community; a week of both celebration and education of responsible cocktail culture. Check the MBA Front page or the Explore Midtown Facebook page which is more active. Or Midtown monthly? I see a number of different ads promoting the many different aspects of Midtown neighborhood’s culture. A rundown the FB page posts: Midtown Bazaar, Weekend in Midtown events, Mex 200 at Zocalo (street party), Sidewalk Sale, Discussion on Midtown Monthly on the SS tragedy, Fall MBA Mixer, A call for artists, Midtown Halloween Trick or Treat. It looks like to me the MBA is trying to promote more than just the night life economy. I even see they are promoting the SOCA tour. And no I am not Mr. Kerridge. You really think he would have the time to go back and forth with you folks on SacPress?

Once again it was not just the "residents" who helped make Midtown great. Stop trying to take all the credit. I don't see all 20,000 people are crossing the moat to Midtown at the same time nor are drunk, aimless people wandering the streets in search of a drink. Its not a massive crowd arriving at 9 PM its a change of crowds. Between 9 and 11, the art walk / second Saturday festival crowd leaves and yes a crowd of partiers show up. That crowd is smaller than the previous crowd. I don't think everyone knows that its the secondary crowd that is a problem. In Fact many people I talk too don't like the large amounts of people period. Its too crowded. Throw in a large group of teenagers and people have a problem with the event before they even get to 9 PM. Please direct us to examples of the "Marketing of Midtown" as one big bar. I must miss those ads. I see plenty of businesses individually trying to attract nightlife folks but nothing that says yes come the Midtown its one giant bar. Pleas try and use some paragraphs.

I think Parrhesiac brings up a good point in relation to your article Marion. Sometimes commenting on issues left out are just as important then what was in the writing. You certainly have done the same as others have in posts on SacPress. Same can be said about tone. As for Gang violence, It is a problem and that this tragedy could have happen anywhere. Gang related deaths occurs too often in certain neighborhoods without the strong reaction it received over this Second Saturday act. ' With that said, the reason this act of violence occurred does have a correlation to Second Saturday. The Event's reputation as a place to hang out, art watch, people watch, and enjoy what Midtown businesses have to offer attracted these negative people who committed the violence. No question. However, this is is not the first death or act of violence in Midtown either related to the nightlife or not related, but because it occurred on a Second Saturday and issues surrounding the event were already building steam through the summer, it created a strong media and community reaction. I just hope we can learn and grow together as community from this event as your article entails.

The one thing left out about the streetcar talk in the media is who will pay for it. This study was not the result of a disagreement on the route as much as the problem of who pays. In the original route the City of Sacramento and properties around that route paid the lion's share of the cost while the economic development potential really was on the West Sac side of the line. Land owners balked and now we are studying the route options and the path of least resistance for a financing plan. I like the route for the the most part you suggest except the stop a the 19th and Q Site. You might as well wait to get to the 16th Street Station where the ped routes and destinations are better situated. The other problem is many people feel that going up Capitol Mall does not do the area justice visually with wires strung across the street.

I like the new logo. Maybe your the one that is out of tune with the vast majority of your neighbors? And why write a piece like this without at least engaging the MBA? It sounds like you have know idea about how they came up with the logo and the slogan. It also seems like you have no intentions of trying to find middle ground with these folks. You just sound bitter.