I very much, personally, agree w/ your ideas & suggestions, and applaud your desire to know more about this budget expense, Keith. May I suggest you contact our excellent 311 Call Center to request follow-up on the issues you raise, whether by the phone or email-based messaging system available on the City's website. And please consider posting any continuing info you feel might be of interest to the SacPress readership on this topic. More transparency and citizen involvement in OUR government!

I know I'm hardly alone in my awe of and praise for Mr. Burg's near-encyclopedic informational contributions to so many vital city issues routinely discussed here on SacPress. He's a constant inspiration, IMO.

Thanks for weighing in, Isaac, and I'm very interested in hearing whether others in the CMA class feel they're getting new info, etc from these meetings, too. Ditto on Gus's candor, and my personal preference for more of that kind of speaker and presentation as the weeks proceed.

Richard Rich (w/ Thomas Ent.) has explained this issue to public groups in the past, but my "senior memory" has relinquished the info. Something about infrastructure & engineering timelines makes it appropriate, I believe, for the roadwork to come first.

Nice work, Deb! My bias sniff test tried hard to find anything fishy about your article, and really came up clean. Except (perhaps) for the lack of images showing the proposed structure (I've seen some print-outs of such showing the view from the C Street facing north between the lots) it seems your "relationship" w/ the project stayed below the surface of the writing. Thanks for the disclosure! Will you follow-up after the Council on Tuesday?

Wouldn't we love to know whether any other electeds (city or county) were out on a cold January weeknight from 8 til midnight alongside newly-arrived Sup. Phil Serna?

Melody! Melody!

Village wise men... he, he, he! It's likely only a matter of time before this sort of desperation gets tossed, either by the leg or the courts: Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Moorpark) has introduced legislation banning crash taxes in California cities and municipalities. SB 49 would ban a local government from charging a fee or tax to nonresidents for the costs to dispatch police and fire. “Californians, regardless of the city in which they live, work, or visit, should be awarded certain public safety protections. They should be allowed to commute to work or travel on vacation without having to worry about a bill waiting for them when they get home,” Strickland said in a recent press release. More @ Cal watchdog online: www.calwatchdog.com/2011/01/26/sacramento-passes-crash-tax/

They've kept the original elevator equipment in the basement! And the cast iron radiators in some units. What a fine example of wonderful decisions with vision and history included! Thanks, Brandon, for the nifty tidbits us historic bldg nerds luv!

Yep!

I only WISH it were true that early (actually vote-by-mail) registration would cause either of your mentioned good fortunes, Craig. In none of the 3 states where I've been able to abstentee / mail / early vote have I noticed any drop in the annoyance of campaign snail mail, precinct-walkers & phone calls. Do you know some magical trick I don't? I've only learned to NEVER fill-out my telephone info w/ any electoral situation, but beyond that...

non-fat soymilk & Nutrasweet... or a few plunges in the fishtank to work off the calories... Ben, The Moonlighting Merman... hmmmm.

David might want to ALSO suggest to readers how much enjoyment they might find during the Grand Re-opening day-long events happening next Sunday 10/10/10 when "everyone" finally gets an opportunity to see all the wonderful improvements. This Sunday's SacBee will have a lovely insert w/ all sorts of ACTUAL info about the museum, including venue updates, exhibitions on view, education & outreach, etc. Perhaps David's ed piece is a precursor to more planned coverage from Sac Press as THE TRULY BIG 10/10/10 date approaches... prior to the benefit party on the 16th?

Yep!

"... said Betty Masuoka, a former assistant city manager temporarily managing the project for the city." is the sort of fuzzy logic scenario I can't help but question. Does anyone else wonder why, how and from whom this individual became this job title, and ponder the ramifications? It simply leapt off the screen at me!

French's wine & food writing were absolutely delicious to read, although an excellent headline was buried in paragraph 6. Who were Vibe Foundation's people @ the benefit event? How much was raised, and how many attended?

Does anybody else who respects Bill Burg's commitment to this issue want to know his choice / opinion among the (initial 4 and) now 2 projects proposed? Has Bill a best choice suggestion for us to consider?

copy editor sleeping, Ben? Nice reminder re America Live! though...

Thank you, Bill, for the reality checking. And take a look @ their website: boqueriaca.com for even more fantasy.

Tony's example above of how other sites announce user limitations seems to me the best method. While this initial banning has (clearly with intent) created the thread above, I'll assume future user admin actions will not be so emphasized or prominently featured. I continue to be reminded, Geoff, of the rather faint but visible "BETA" graphic in the upper left corner of the website banner! P.S. And based on last evening @ Q Street, you need an updated profile image pic, buddy.