Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 13, 2008, 11:24:18 AM

Login with username, password and session length

News   ·    Gas Prices   ·    Weather   ·    Auctions   ·    Dating
Real Estate   ·    WebCams   ·    Traffic   ·    Hotels   ·    Jobs
Get the latest traffic updates around Sacramento from the three top sources all on one page! Click here!
4,050 Posts in 1,744 Topics by 1,132 Members
Latest Member: silkey
Search: Advanced search
View Your Startpage | Forum Rules | Advertising | Sacramento, California Online Community RSS feeds  

The Sacramento, CA Online Community | Sacramento, CA Discussion | Politics | Sacramento Area | Topic: Help slow Sacramento sprawl
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »

 
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Help slow Sacramento sprawl  (Read 1138 times)
randb
Newbie
*

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 41



View Profile
« on: April 12, 2007, 12:01:15 PM »

Do you care about sprawl in the greater Sacramento area?  We need more infill projects, not large developments outside of urban areas.  Especially when those areas do not have the infrastructure to support the growth.  Rancho Murieta is one such area.  For those that are not familiar with Rancho Murieta, it is located about 25 miles from downtown up Jackson Highway.  Developers want to build thousands of new homes in Rancho Murieta.  In addition to destroying the topography and cutting down thousands of oak these news homes will increase sprawl in Sacramento.  Rancho Murieta does not have large employers and almost all working adult in Rancho Murieta must drive a 20+ miles to get to their jobs.  We do not need thousands of more people adding to our already congested roads. 

The issues surrounding development are vast and stretch far beyond the sprawl issue.  There was recent article in the Sacramento News and Review about the history of the fight in Rancho Murieta.  The CA Department of Real Estate, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, CalTrans, and State Attorney General have all issued opinions specific to this development that side with residents that want limited rural growth.   

Even with all of the overwhelming evidence against developing this area the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors may still vote to approve it.  Only one supervisor Don Nottoli actually represents the Rancho Murieta area.  The other supervisors do not care because Rancho Murieta does not represent their voting block and the developers are very large campaign contributors.  That is where you can help.  We need people to write letters that do not support uncontrolled growth in Rancho Murieta, especially without a new master plan (the current one is 25 years old).  The only thing that combat the influence of  campaign contributions is voters in the supervisor own district.  Please take the time to write a brief letter to your supervisor and let them know that one of their voters does not approve of sprawl.  Here is a map of the districts.  Below is the contact information for the supervisors.  Also if you can forward any letters to info@preservemurieta.org so we can keep track that would be greatly appreciated.

Roger Dickinson - District 1
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
dickinsonr@saccounty.net

Jimmie R. Yee - District 2
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
jyee@saccounty.net
               
Susan Peters - District 3
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
susanpeters@saccounty.net

Roberta MacGlashan - District 4
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
macglashanr@saccounty.net

Thank you, PreserveMurieta.org
Logged

attagirl
Full Member
***

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2007, 09:52:53 AM »

You know that when you start running out of land, that most areas will eventually be developed whether or not you want it to happen. When there is growth it warrants the development. I would really start see developers buying up old old outdated property and fixing it up or tearing down and rebuilding.
Logged
randb
Newbie
*

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 41



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2007, 10:10:07 AM »

There is a proper way to develop and many agencies including the state attorney general have chimmed in and said the developers in Rancho Murieta are not developing according to current laws.
Logged

wburg
Jr. Member
**

Karma: 5
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2007, 02:17:44 PM »

What makes property "outdated"?

And the problem with developing everywhere, especially developing inefficient things like single-family suburbs and strip malls fed by freeways, is that you use up available space a lot faster. Not all growth warrants the development--some does more harm than good. Remember that a lot of this growth is taking place on prime agricultural land--when we run out of farmland, where do we get our food?
Logged
fk310
Newbie
*

Karma: 1
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2007, 01:39:50 AM »

I think Sacramento's main focus on development should be the creation of a strong city core. This will work wonders in reinforcing Sacramento's identity, raising its civic profile, increasing civic pride and also raising Sacramento's stature amongst California cities.

It's finally happening now that there seems to be a lot of new life being ushered into the Midtown area. But the residential population in the core is still too low. There needs to be more residential areas in the Downtown and Midtown Areas. We definitely need to focus on rebuilding areas such as the K Street Pedestrian Mall, Alkali Flats, the Railyards, Oak Park and many others.
Logged

Visit my Blog! www.crepeguy.com
wburg
Jr. Member
**

Karma: 5
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2007, 10:32:58 AM »

We need denser housing throughout the city, and yes, we need more housing downtown--of all income levels. Most of the new housing going up is inaccessible to most of the people who work downtown, for whom it makes the most sense to live in the central city. More people living and working downtown means fewer commuters and less gridlock. Lots of this rebuilding is happening.

Hopefully, this rebuilding will follow the historic modes that already exist in the central city: our historic neighborhoods provide the prototypes for "transit-oriented" and "walkable" development, because they were built before the era of automobile commuting, when walking or public transit was how people got around.

Mayor Fargo has said, though, that the problem isn't how to fix downtown, but how to fix the suburbs. The draft of the new Sacramento general plan includes provision for urban nodes throughout the city (in the north area, in south Sacramento and in the east) that will provide more density and urban environments outside of the central city, and help Sacramento escape its current form of suburbs in all directions.
Logged
The Gadfly
Newbie
*

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2008, 09:55:47 AM »

You guys are deluded if you think urban sprawl will ever stop by wishing it would stop. To support my statement, I'll direct you to take a good look at who has put ALL of our local elected officials in office, fat cat developers or those who make money off development.

Go to this government website: http://nf4.netfile.com/pub2/Default.aspx

Type in the name of any candidate, look through the candidates disclosures to see where their money is coming from.

Fargo, Tretheway, McCarty, Dickenson et al... all talk a good game on being anti-urban sprawl, yet look at their voting records, none of them have met an urban sprawl project they didn't approve of. They all need to be thrown out of office  just for being lying sacks of crap.

Did any of you know that Fargo, Tretheway, McCarty and Dickinson are also working on a plan to annex all the land up to the Sutter County border into the city limits of Sacramento so their plan for Gotham can be fulfilled. (all on public record) They are planning on sharing the spoils of this annexation, they call it "revenue sharing."  well I call them dirty rotten scumbags for destroying my city for their fat cat developer buddies and paving over the most fertile farm land in the world.

Oh and you want affordable housing downtown?  Well you wont get it with Fargo, Tretheway McCarty et al...they apparently allowed developers to swap low income housing credits in their downtown luxury lofts, and concentrate those low income units into Natomas.  Gee I wonder why Natomas is now the crime capitol of Sac.

Now that the City has bungled it's way into a financial crisis through spending like drunken sailors, they need more revenue. Well guess what needing more revenue means? More urban sprawl and strip malls to bring in more taxes.

Fargo's and Tretheway's sustainable and green economy:  spend = need for revenue = need to develop and build = need for public infrastructure = spend = need for revenue = need to develop and build = need for public infrastructure = spend = and on and on and on and on.  They must have learned this on their taxpayer supported trip around the world.

I think it is HILARIOUS that the Greenies support these sacks of shi@t.  Apparently the Greenies are like the Borg, they all share one mind and one cause...and they cant tell when they are being deceived. I especially liked the FargObama stickers going around..lol are you people schizophrenic? Seriously Fargo and Obama?

Why do you numb nuts voters ignore reality, gobble up what they say during their campaigns and continue to vote these lying scumbags back into office?

 detective

There is only one way to stop urban sprawl in Sacramento. And I may be so inclined to get it on the ballot if the voters don't get off their asses and throw these scumbags out.  It's called a Charter Amendment folks.

It's being done in Redwood City See:

http://www.redwoodcityopenspace.org/OpenSpaceVote-CharterAmdt.pdf

The Citizens of Sacramento are lucky, we are a Charter City. That affords us a Charter that is like our own Constitution. But like our American Constitution, the People don't use the powers afforded to them to the extent they can.

I will be watching the next election, and if the City does not get their SH#T together rather soon, they may be looking at a Charter amendment and a Charter Convention which will tie up their crooked little hands.

That being said, Sacramento needs development in the right places and with the right designs. Our local economy has basically no other source of income other than government workers. Sustainable transit oriented growth is the answer, and don't be confused, Fargo et al... have been using these buzzwords for years while wrapping themselves in green manure...yet they approved everything that has happened, and want to annex more land up north.  They need to pay the price for their lies at the polls.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2008, 10:26:43 AM by The Gadfly » Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
The Sacramento, CA Online Community | Sacramento, CA Discussion | Politics | Sacramento Area | Topic: Help slow Sacramento sprawl « previous next »
Jump to:  


SacRatings.com
Vote for the Sacramento, CA Online Community!
Humor Times - Funniest Paper on the Planet!





Sacramento News | Sacramento Gas Prices | Sacramento Weather | Sacramento Auctions | Sacramento Dating
Sacramento Real Estate | Sacramento Web Cams | Sacramento Traffic | Sacramento Hotels | Sacramento Jobs


Add To Favorites (ctrl+D) | Set As Startpage | Tell A Friend | Help Promote | Link To Us

Home | Sacramento Forums | Forum Rules | Information | Links | Sponsors | Advertising | Contact Us | Site Map

All Content Copyright © 2007 SacForums.com - All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy

Sacramento, CA Online Community Feed Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks
Design by 7dana.com