K Street Pedestrian Mall Renovation

[travis bickle]

OH, and by the way, Westfield took over in '98 not early 90's.

You mean westfield turned DTP into a dump in even less time? Impressive!

Listen - I appreciate your passionate defenses of westfield, but the place is an unmitigated disaster and it became one under westfield's leadership. If anything, downtown's population has grown since '98 and much of it with reasonably affluent people, yet downtown plaza has continued its precipitous drop to the bottom - all on westfield's watch.

How could it have been successful ten years ago with a smaller and less affluent base? It looks and feels abandoned and forgotten. A decaying hulk despite a blossoming downtown surrounding it. Westfield gets very aggressive if someone proposes competing retail, but very slow and timid when it comes to improving its own product.

They have simply not been a good partner and the time is long overdue to force them to put up or shut up. If they see downtown as just another neighborhood and Roseville as their regional flagship then they need to be replaced with a team not suffering from such a poisoned relationship with the city and one that will put downtown first.

[ozone]

:previous: I agree 100%

[ltsmotorsport]

Same here. Well said.

[BrianSac]

:previous:

My sentiments exactly, Right on!!

[Fusey]

Believe me, Westfield isn't trying to do anything to harm the mall.

I think the point many on here are trying to make is that Westfield isn't trying at all, leading to further damage. The building is hardly maintained. You can count more drops of bird shit than people shopping any given time of the day. I've used the restrooms there as soon as they've opened and they look and smell like they haven't been mopped in a month.

Adding a Target and a cheap food court won't make many people from the 'burbs want to visit. At this point it would be better if Westfield sold the damn building and the land it sits on, demolish everything, and a developer can come along and put something that will attract people into downtown--and encourage others to live in developments going up nearby.

[ozone]

How much do you think Westfield cound get for the mall? Wouldn't it by nice if they sold it to a company like Caruso Affiliated who did the Grove in LA or Federal Realty who did Santa Row in SJ and do something like that here -but with more housing of course? Has anyone at City ever suggested they sell to somone who be interested in Downtown?

[Phillip]

Sometimes a mall is just done and it doesn't matter who owns it or what they do with it. When it's done it's done.

It's not a badge of shame or sign of civic failure that a mall becomes obsolete. Ever big city has these. There's an interesting website called www.deadmalls.com dedicated to celebrating the history and memory of defunct regional malls. Every part of the country is well represented there.

When a mall is done spending money to fix it up usually just prolongs the end by a couple years. Once things hit the skids dramatic reversals of fortune aren't common. (Although Country Club Plaza on Watt was on the brink once and has been brought back to life.)

We've got new retail coming into the railyards. Maybe a better mall than DTP or some other form of concentrated reatail will go in there. If DTP was torn down it would be a perfect spot for a large high density/mixed use project. Six twenty-story towers on DTP's site would make for a livelier downtown neighborhood than two 53 story towers on one city block, imo. I know....I've said this all before.

[ozone]

Well there are more enlightened mall developers -like the two I mentioned who mixed-use retail centers along the lines of a traditional city. While Westfield has invested in downtown malls they take a completely anti-urban approach. I don't think tearing it down is an option considering the investment the city has made and revenue it recieves. But I do think it could be remodeled in a way that would make it less isolated, more a part of the city and housing could be added. But of course Westfield is never going to be the ones to do that.

[travis bickle]

I think DTP is an ideal candidate for starting over. Force westfield's hand - starting by making it clear a target and a couple more fast food joints does not warrant a subsidy of any kind. Make it clear that the city prefers they get out of downtown. Because they can't take what's left of a once thriving center with them, start up the bulldozers. Find a developer who will put Sacramento first and offer them outstanding incentives to build a world-class project. Pay miserable westfield off and send them packing, with luck, never to return. Send in the aforementioned bulldozers. Add explosives and a fumigator to remove the westfield stench. Build a world class, phased, mixed use paradise that's well-integrated with the city and includes 3k housing units, 700k SF/office, 800 hotel rooms and 1.2 mil. SF retail/recreation with six towers of up to 36 stories.

The air in Sacramento will smell sweeter, the birds will sing more happily and there will be no ugly red “W” anywhere to spoil your view.

[NewToCA]

I'm convinced that DTP isn't done. I think a makeover with expansion and upgrade would do wonders, especially with a rejuvenated K St. I think this would be a good attraction for folks to want to come live downtown, and be within walking distance to a showplace mall. Focus on the positive, Indianapolis was able to get an exceptional downtown mall project done, and it is a real centerpiece of their significant inner city growth.

I've been in the Indy mall, and it is busy and spectacular. Indy is evolving in many of the ways folks here want Sacramento to go, and actually isn't a bad role model.

[innov8]

Developer looks to up investment in K Street's future
Sacramento Business Journal - By Michael Shaw

June 22, 2007

Trancas Ventures is converting this building at 10th and K streets into office condos.
View Larger Private investment could provide a much-needed spark to K Street.

Trancas Ventures Inc., the Napa-based developer that owns two office buildings on K Street and is under contract to buy the Crest Theatre, is looking to purchase more property, city officials said this week.

Trancas, which has reworked areas of San Francisco and San Diego, hasn't asked for city funding and isn't sitting on properties in hope of a big payoff, city officials say.

It's gutting an empty six-story office building at 1001 K St., marketing the floors as office condominiums, building a ground-floor restaurant, and plans to do the same with another office building it owns at 818 K St. after a state tenant moves this fall.

Trancas is expected to close on the Crest Theatre purchase in August, said Greg Levi, a senior vice president with CB Richard Ellis, the listing agent for Trancas' office buildings.

Jim Brennan, president of Trancas, has asked Levi to field questions about the company's properties, though the broker declined to talk about the group's future intentions on K Street.

The city of Sacramento has put about $20 million in public funds into the faded pedestrian thoroughfare by acquiring property at above-market prices and striking deals for upscale retail, entertainment and condo projects.

Yet its most ambitious plans -- those for the 700 and 800 blocks -- stalled after one group of developers rejected a land-swapping deal, prompting the city to sue to enforce it. That suit is still pending.

Trancas' plans, which so far have come with no strings attached, have been welcomed.

"They bring private capital to the table," said Leslie Fritzsche, downtown district manager for the Sacramento Regional Housing Authority. "They haven't asked us for anything."

"We need more of that," said Michael Ault, executive director of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership. "What downtown doesn't need is people buying property and sitting on it."

Trancas can proceed because the market for owner-occupied office space near the Capitol is hot, Levi said, whereas homes, shopping and entertainment might need incentives to locate on K Street.

Trancas bought the 47,000-square-foot former Roos Atkins department store at 1001 K St. in December from St. Anton Partners and Cordano Co. The building once housed the headquarters of former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.

The company is planning to add more windows to the facade and redesign a deck on the sixth floor, Levi said.

Exteriors will be architecturally consistent with the development across the street to the south, where David Taylor and CIM Group Inc. are building a home for the California Musical Theatre. That project required a $5.75 million city subsidy and eventual transfer of ownership to the developers, though the city will receive proceeds from ticket sales as a return on its investment. Taylor and CIM have proposed a condo development next door to the theater, and they're going through the environmental review process now, Fritzsche said.

The five-story building at 818 K St. that Trancas bought in late 2005 is home to the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development until this fall. Levi said lobbyists and associations have expressed interest in both properties, mainly for the proximity to the Capitol.

When the big K Street land-swapping deal was struck last fall between Joe Zeiden, co-owner of the Z Gallerie furniture stores, and a development group including Mohammed "Moe" Mohanna, city leaders said it was important that the K Street revitalization begin at the root of the problem, the 700 and 800 blocks. With plans there halted, revitalization seems to be happening in the other direction, from the east, Levi said.

Mohanna and his partners are accused in a lawsuit filed by the city of breaking the deal that would swap properties along the 700 and 800 blocks with Zeiden and allow development to move forward.

In the past few weeks, the city has turned up the heat on Mohanna, filing legal notices that alert potential buyers or tenants that the properties are subject to a lawsuit.

"We cannot get financing, we cannot get tenants, we cannot sell, we cannot do anything on the 700 block," because of the notices, Mohanna said. His attorneys are fighting them, he said. Mohanna has fired back, accusing the city of wasting money by moving a light-rail transit station from K Street to 7th Street to accommodate Zeiden's store and questioning the Downtown Sacramento Partnership's approval of that move.

Mohanna, meanwhile, is still a member of the partnership, and there has been friction between him and others on the board who blame him for the delays.

Fritzsche said the city is still negotiating outside of court in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Meanwhile, the city has initiated a streetscape improvement that will give the walkway new pavement, benches and trash receptacles.

[wburg]

The plans for the Roos-Atkins building look good: a strip of windows on either side of the corner, a shade structure on the roof, and a slight shave-down of the concrete ledge around the roof. They will also strip the paint off (the structure was originally bare concrete) and get rid of some of the tilework and do the ground floor in as much glass as possible, which more closely resembles the original building's appearance. The idea was to create a massive concrete structure that looked like it was floating on a delicate layer of glass.

Sounds like Mohanna's all fired up...he claims he got burned by the city!

[sugit]

Looks like the city is going to try and buy the proporties from Mohanna...once and for all, they just need to get this guy out of downtown.

____

http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=7&event_id=2

Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 for a matter pertaining to real property negotiations. Authorization to negotiate with M.H. Mohanna for the acquisition of the properties located at 712 K Street (APN 006-0096-005), 716 K Street (APN 006-0096-006), 724 K Street (APN 006 0096-008), 810 K Street (APN 006-0098-006), 1109 8th Street (APN 006-0098-022), and 816 K Street (APN 006-0098-008). Authorization to negotiate with 726K Street, LLC and Urban Innovation Partners, LLC for the acquisition of the property located at 726 K Street (APN 006-0096-009). Authorization to negotiate with 718 K Street, LLC for the acquisition of the property located at 718 K Street (APN 006-0096-007). Authorization to negotiate with Uran Innovation Partners, LLC for the acquisition of the property located at 806 K Street (APN 006-0098-024). The purpose is to confer with the Agency's Chief Negotiators, Leslie Fritzsche and John Dangberg, regarding the price, terms, and conditions of the acquisitions.

[Grimnebulin]

I think DTP is an ideal candidate for starting over. Force westfield's hand - starting by making it clear a target and a couple more fast food joints does not warrant a subsidy of any kind. Make it clear that the city prefers they get out of downtown. Because they can't take what's left of a once thriving center with them, start up the bulldozers. Find a developer who will put Sacramento first and offer them outstanding incentives to build a world-class project. Pay miserable westfield off and send them packing, with luck, never to return. Send in the aforementioned bulldozers. Add explosives and a fumigator to remove the westfield stench. Build a world class, phased, mixed use paradise that's well-integrated with the city and includes 3k housing units, 700k SF/office, 800 hotel rooms and 1.2 mil. SF retail/recreation with six towers of up to 36 stories.

The air in Sacramento will smell sweeter, the birds will sing more happily and there will be no ugly red “W” anywhere to spoil your view.

Now you're talking! :yes: :tup:

[snfenoc]

Looks like the city is going to try and buy the proporties from Mohanna...once and for all, they just need to get this guy out of downtown.



Dear City of Sacramento:

I am so glad you have decided to buy my properties. All of this pain and suffering could have been avoided if you would have done that in the first place. Now, since I bought my parcels, they have appreciated in value a tad bit. My asking price is $850,000,000,000,000.00. Please have the money wired to my account at Douche Bank. Or you may hand deliver the check to my associate, I. M. Abum - you will find him wearing a trench coat and sleeping on a bench in front of St. Rose of Lima Park. Don't be alarmed by the gas can and book of matches sitting next to him - in fact, just ignore them.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Sincerely,

H. M. Mohanna

[snfenoc]

WTF??? This website has a fetish for double posts.

[ozone]

WTF??? This website has a fetish for double posts.

:haha:

[ozone]

Dear City of Sacramento:

I am so glad you have decided to buy my properties. All of this pain and suffering could have been avoided if you would have done that in the first place. Now, since I bought my parcels, they have appreciated in value a tad bit. My asking price is $850,000,000,000,000.00. Please have the money wired to my account at Douche Bank. Or you may hand deliver the check to my associate, I. M. Abum - you will find him wearing a trench coat and sleeping on a bench in front of St. Rose of Lima Park. Don't be alarmed by the gas can and book of matches sitting next to him - in fact, just ignore them.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Sincerely,

H. M. Mohanna

Too funny!:haha:

[urban_encounter]

Looks like the city is going to try and buy the proporties from Mohanna...once and for all, they just need to get this guy out of downtown.

____

http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=7&event_id=2

Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 for a matter pertaining to real property negotiations. Authorization to negotiate with M.H. Mohanna for the acquisition of the properties located at 712 K Street (APN 006-0096-005), 716 K Street (APN 006-0096-006), 724 K Street (APN 006 0096-008), 810 K Street (APN 006-0098-006), 1109 8th Street (APN 006-0098-022), and 816 K Street (APN 006-0098-008). Authorization to negotiate with 726K Street, LLC and Urban Innovation Partners, LLC for the acquisition of the property located at 726 K Street (APN 006-0096-009). Authorization to negotiate with 718 K Street, LLC for the acquisition of the property located at 718 K Street (APN 006-0096-007). Authorization to negotiate with Uran Innovation Partners, LLC for the acquisition of the property located at 806 K Street (APN 006-0098-024). The purpose is to confer with the Agency's Chief Negotiators, Leslie Fritzsche and John Dangberg, regarding the price, terms, and conditions of the acquisitions.


Does this mean that the city wont be transfering the 800 block to his control in a forced land swap????

:fingerscrossed:

[urban_encounter]

I'm convinced that DTP isn't done. I think a makeover with expansion and upgrade would do wonders, especially with a rejuvenated K St. I think this would be a good attraction for folks to want to come live downtown, and be within walking distance to a showplace mall. Focus on the positive, Indianapolis was able to get an exceptional downtown mall project done, and it is a real centerpiece of their significant inner city growth.

I've been in the Indy mall, and it is busy and spectacular. Indy is evolving in many of the ways folks here want Sacramento to go, and actually isn't a bad role model.



I agree.

Though I don't believe Westfield has the commitment to get it done.

[NewToCA]

Regarding DTP, Westfields is pretty easy to figure out. If you look at the mall redevelopment work they do in San Jose and Roseville the common element is competition. When they feel their property is threatened by outside competition that is LEGITIMATE, they take action. They try to discourage competition by announcing grand plans, hoping the competitor goes away and that the impacted govt area will favor the Westfield property enhancement vision over the new competitor. When real competition arrives, such as Santana Row or The Fountains, Westfields leaps into action and turns their "vision" crap into a reality.

In downtown Sacramento, the Railyard retail area is the driver to activate Westfields. Though I have no knowledge of this, I would bet they are doing things today to try and undermine the momentum of the Railyards, particularly stalling out or minimizing the retail district (such as telling city planners that if they zone down the retail area substantially they will make a more significant investment in DTP). To me, this clearly fits their historical patterns.

The best way to rejuvenate DTP in a meaningful way is to get Pro Bass open and get the Railyards shovels moving rapidly, with a full blown planned retail operation. And the city planners should IGNORE any threats by Westfield as to DTP. They can always sell the property to another developer to enhance it.

Being out here for nearly a year now, my initial observation concerning Sacramento's development problems is that the city govt lacks moxie and toughness. They seem very feeble.

[Phillip]

Westfield can be extremely aggressive defending their malls from perceived new competition. I'm thinking especially of their all out assault on a retail project proposed near their South Center Mall in Seattle.

Westfield isn't afraid to spend money where they see opportunity. Look what they've poured into the Galleria. And they're not anti-Downtown. They've more than doubled the size of San Francisco Centre, next to a skid row much worse than K Street.

I interpret Westfield's general silence and passivity over proposed retail projects on R Street and the Railyards as Westfield thinking DTP just isn't worth fighting for.

I don't see how Bass Pro Shop or other new retail in the Railyards will be a positive for for DTP. They will draw DTP customers away. Santana Row in San Jose is a different situation because it's across the street from Westfield's Valley Fair mall. Even though Westfield doesn't own Santana Row, SR brings more retail traffic to Westfield's neighborhood. If Bass Pro was part of a DTP expansion or across the street from DTP I think it would help DTP. But a mile or two away, no.

[ozone]

Westfield may not be "anti-downtown" but the vast majority of their properties are suburban malls and as such I think Westfield simply does not have the corporate culture that really understands or cares about tradtional downtowns. What works in the suburbs doesn't always appeal to the people who live in Downtown and Midtown. Westfield like Old Sacramento has yet to figure that out.

As for the San Francisco Centre -they had a strong partner who was already highly commited to developing the site long before Westfield showed up on the scene. Plus we are talking about SF -the shopping mecca of Nor Cal. You can't really compare DTP with SFC.

I don't think the Roseville Galleria is really hurting downtown Sacramento. The mall that really hurts downtown Sacramento is the Arden Fair Mall. If Arden Fair Mall was never built we'd have a much more vibrant downtown.

I think all the new housing at the Railyards will minimize the impact on DTP. And I wonder how many of people who will visit the Railyards patronize the DTP now? But if it does draw a few people away-well too bad. No one is to blame but Westfield.

I don't think Bass Pro will have any impact, negative or positive on downtown or the DTP. It's only real importance is being the first store so it'll start generating some traffic -but that's about it.

[Phillip]

Westfield owns three downtown malls in Cali---Horton Plaza in San Diego, San Francisco Centre, and DTP. They've spent heavily to expand and upgrade Horton and SFC. So I think their corporate culture is capable of growing downtown malls. Their lethargy about downtown malls seems particular to DTP.

Most of Westfield's malls are suburban, but I think that's because most malls are in suburbs. Are there companies that just operate downtown malls? If so what do you think one of them could do for DTP? What would make people who live in Downtown and Midtown want to go to DTP?

I agree with you that what works in the suburbs doesn't always work in Downtown/Midtown. But will a different tenant mix at DTP draw in Downtown/Midtown residents? Or do "Downtown people" just not want to shop in a setting like DTP now, enclosed or not?

It might be similar to the situation on Florin Road where Florin Mall went out of business, even while the number of people in Florin Mall's market area grew rapidly taking in all of exploding Elk Grove. The new residents weren't "mall people" though and Florin died while new Asian strip centers went up across the street and thrived.

Downtown/Midtown's population will grow but will it grow with people who want to shop in some version of Downtown Plaza? And if so will they be arriving fast enough and in enough numbers to save DTP?

Regarding Arden Fair....it's a peculiar situation having a large regional shopping mall so near a Downtown. But Arden Fair was there during the years when Downtown Plaza did better too. So Arden Fair doesn't explain DTP's decline.

As for Bass, maybe I'm stereotyping, but I think more of their customers are in Roseville or Folsom or Elk Grove than in the Railyards. Still any successful retailer who wants to build their one and only regional store in Downtown Sac I'm all for it.

[travis bickle]

Westfield owns three downtown malls in Cali---Horton Plaza in San Diego, San Francisco Centre, and DTP. They've spent heavily to expand and upgrade Horton and SFC. So I think their corporate culture is capable of growing downtown malls. Their lethargy about downtown malls seems particular to DTP.

Most of Westfield's malls are suburban, but I think that's because most malls are in suburbs. Are there companies that just operate downtown malls? If so what do you think one of them could do for DTP? What would make people who live in Downtown and Midtown want to go to DTP?

I agree with you that what works in the suburbs doesn't always work in Downtown/Midtown. But will a different tenant mix at DTP draw in Downtown/Midtown residents? Or do "Downtown people" just not want to shop in a setting like DTP now, enclosed or not?

It might be similar to the situation on Florin Road where Florin Mall went out of business, even while the number of people in Florin Mall's market area grew rapidly taking in all of exploding Elk Grove. The new residents weren't "mall people" though and Florin died while new Asian strip centers went up across the street and thrived.

Downtown/Midtown's population will grow but will it grow with people who want to shop in some version of Downtown Plaza? And if so will they be arriving fast enough and in enough numbers to save DTP?

Regarding Arden Fair....it's a peculiar situation having a large regional shopping mall so near a Downtown. But Arden Fair was there during the years when Downtown Plaza did better too. So Arden Fair doesn't explain DTP's decline.

As for Bass, maybe I'm stereotyping, but I think more of their customers are in Roseville or Folsom or Elk Grove than in the Railyards. Still any successful retailer who wants to build their one and only regional store in Downtown Sac I'm all for it.

Although I'm not as familiar with San Francisco Centre, I am very familiar with Horton Plaza and can tell you that with the exception of Nordstrom (an original tenant from when the mall was built some 20+ years ago), the mix has declined appreciably over the last ten years. The only money spent on expansion/renovate in this time was when the Robinson's store closed (as part of a merger) and a relative pittance was spent to subdivide the shell and some TIs. The Fourth Ave. facade was also improved several years ago but none of that was Westfield’s money as condos were built by as residential developer with ground-floor street retail. Westfield has spent money on some cosmetic improvements such as painting and minor landscaping, but I don't believe this went too far into seven figures (if that). When Horton plaza opened it had several high-end jewelry/clothing and other destination retail. Today, it looks like it would fit just fine in Des Moines or Omaha. A completely boring mix of tepid retail with little you can't find at a larger Rite Aid.

As usual, Westfield spends freely on its suburban mall, University Town Centre (why does westfield always spell center "re?"). UTC - just east of La Jolla - some years ago underwent a hundred-million dollar plus expansion that added a second level to the northern portion and has, at present, another hundreds of millions dollar expansion under review at the city.

UTC/Horton have lost most of the destination retail to the Fashion Valley Mall, but that hasn't prevented westfield from allowing Horton Plaza from becoming another glorified strip mall. This despite thousands of luxury housing units built over the last ten years in DT San Diego and a thriving cruise-ship and tourism base. Westfield's motto could easily be, "We don't, because we don't have too." If this is how they position Horton Plaza with all of its advantages, why does anyone expect them to treat DTP any differently.

Increasingly you hear grumbling from San Diego leaders regarding what's happening to Horton under Westfield.

Downtown Sacramento and Downtown San Diego are not Westfield’s priorities. Until Sacramento's leaders/citizens/shoppers find a developer that makes downtown the focus, you will be stuck with that decaying, decrepit, forgotten bunker called Downtown Plaza. To think otherwise is just kidding yourselves. DTP was once thriving. Under Westfield, it has become a morgue.

[ozone]

:previous: I was about to reply to Phillip concerning Horton Plaza but travis bickle pretty much said what I was going say -only he said it much better than I could -as usual.

I believe the original San Francisco Centre was not built by Westfield but that they acquired it afterwards (just like the DTP and Horton Plaza) and even the recent expansion was already in-the-works by another developer long before Westfield came into it.

Arden Fair might not explain DTP's decline entirely but it's close proximity to the DTP and the fact that DTP was also conceived as a regional shopping mall (to attract people from suburbs to Downtown) means that they are competing entities. A lot of people in the suburbs precieve going downtown a 'hassle' so if DTP doesn't give them a unique experience, something they can't get in the burbs, then there's no way it's are going to attract them.

Unfortunately, DTP is a prisoner of Westfield's corporate cuture. I really don't have much hope for this mythical remodel since Westfield will still own it and the architectural firm they've picked to do the work is *yawn* boring with a capital B.

[Phillip]

Thanks for the detailed update on the Westfield/Horton situation in San Diego, travis bickle. I lived in San Diego in 1998/99. I remember Horton Plaza as busy and vibrant then and wasn't aware that it had slid to the degree you describe.

Fashion Valley and UTC were already well established malls ten years ago so I don't think their presence alone explains Horton's decline. Just like Arden Fair doesn't explain why DTP has been going downhill.

From your account maybe Westfield does have some corporate bias against downtown malls in general then, although I'm pretty sure Westfield already owned SF Centre when the doubling there occurred. Even if Westfield didn't start SF Centre the expansion took place on their watch and it's been a big success for them.

Why do you think Westfield doesn't want to try and duplicate their SF success in downtown Sacramento or from your post, in downtown San Diego now?

I wonder how other downtown malls--Pioneer Place in Portland and Westlake in Seattle are faring these days? (I don't know the answer.) If they're experiencing declining sales and tenant drift too, at a time when the populations of downtown Portland and Seattle are rapidly increasing, then maybe there's an issue with the "Downtown Mall" model in general, and it's not so much about Westfield.

I agree with Ozone that when suburbanites come to Midtown it's for what they can't find in the suburbs--one of a kind shops, boutiques, galleries, restaurants, plus Downtown's unique ambience, history, and walkability. Downtown needs more of all the above. By their nature malls are full of chain stores. Another company besides Westfield might attract more upscale chains, but they'll still be chains and probably in the suburbs already.

I'm not opposed to improvements at DTP. I'm just skeptical that cosmetic remodeling or new tenants, under Westfield's guidance or someone else's, can reverse the general course, especially with R Street and Railyards on the horizon and progress on 700/800K so slow.

[greenmidtown]

I wonder how other downtown malls--Pioneer Place in Portland and Westlake in Seattle are faring these days? (I don't know the answer.) If they're experiencing declining sales and tenant drift too, at a time when the populations of downtown Portland and Seattle are rapidly increasing, then maybe there's an issue with the "Downtown Mall" model in general, and it's not so much about Westfield.

I agree with Ozone that when suburbanites come to Midtown it's for what they can't find in the suburbs--one of a kind shops, boutiques, galleries, restaurants, plus Downtown's unique ambience, history, and walkability. Downtown needs more of all the above. By their nature malls are full of chain stores. Another company besides Westfield might attract more upscale chains, but they'll still be chains and probably in the suburbs already.


True. The idea that a mall should be placed in the center of downtown as the "main attraction" has always puzzled me. Too many American cities fall into that trap. DP has one thing going for it. It never gets crowded which makes for an easier shopping experience. Arden attracts too many people. I prefer DP just to avoid the parking hassles and the crowds. And it's really not as bad as we're making it out to be. Downtown is dead because nobody lives downtown and Friday Night Concerts just aren't enough to attract and maintain any crowds. Past 9 to 5 Downtown Sac is still a ghost-town. I don't understand how Midtown which is so close can see so much development while downtown stagnates.

[travis bickle]

Thanks for the detailed update on the Westfield/Horton situation in San Diego, travis bickle. I lived in San Diego in 1998/99. I remember Horton Plaza as busy and vibrant then and wasn't aware that it had slid to the degree you describe.

Fashion Valley and UTC were already well established malls ten years ago so I don't think their presence alone explains Horton's decline. Just like Arden Fair doesn't explain why DTP has been going downhill.

From your account maybe Westfield does have some corporate bias against downtown malls in general then, although I'm pretty sure Westfield already owned SF Centre when the doubling there occurred. Even if Westfield didn't start SF Centre the expansion took place on their watch and it's been a big success for them.

Why do you think Westfield doesn't want to try and duplicate their SF success in downtown Sacramento or from your post, in downtown San Diego now?

I wonder how other downtown malls--Pioneer Place in Portland and Westlake in Seattle are faring these days? (I don't know the answer.) If they're experiencing declining sales and tenant drift too, at a time when the populations of downtown Portland and Seattle are rapidly increasing, then maybe there's an issue with the "Downtown Mall" model in general, and it's not so much about Westfield.

I agree with Ozone that when suburbanites come to Midtown it's for what they can't find in the suburbs--one of a kind shops, boutiques, galleries, restaurants, plus Downtown's unique ambience, history, and walkability. Downtown needs more of all the above. By their nature malls are full of chain stores. Another company besides Westfield might attract more upscale chains, but they'll still be chains and probably in the suburbs already.

I'm not opposed to improvements at DTP. I'm just skeptical that cosmetic remodeling or new tenants, under Westfield's guidance or someone else's, can reverse the general course, especially with R Street and Railyards on the horizon and progress on 700/800K so slow.

Make no mistake, Horton is not nearly as bad as DTP, but the trends for both are clear. An owner who has neither the vision, the funds nor the desire to change these malls from stagnant dumps into vibrant shopping experiences. OK - that's being a bit harsh on Horton, but not on DTP. Horton still benefits from tourists and is still active at times. But locals have absolutely no reason to go there and that wasn't true ten years ago.

I agree that the idea of suburban values - standard chain stores surrounded by acres of parking and catering to a specific catchment area - are probably inappropriate for urban malls - but simultaneously, using precious downtown property for a low-end mall of Targets, t-shirt shops and a few fast food joints seems equally foolhardy. Why on earth would you subsidize that kind of business model?

And while some people hate crowds (I'm sure the feeling is mutual), shop owners of course adore them so a lack of crowds is not exactly an attribute. In my view, midtown grew for a few reasons. These include growth that was not government dictated but organic, a dense local population, a unique experience derived from primarily gay owners/clientèle that brought unorthodox products/marketing/business styles to the region, and historic buildings that provided architectural excitement. Midtown is an area unlike anything east of SF; south of Portland, north of LA and west of... jeez, I don't know... what is like it to the east, and how far do you have to go? Anyway, that kind of shopping experience is going to attract people of all kinds, but is very hard to duplicate.

But that's why you need a team with vision, and Westfield just doesn't have it. Westfield will put all of its best efforts, ideas and money into Roseville (as much as some people here apparently hate it) while they let downtown Sacramento atrophy and die. Nothing will change that equation until Westfield is out of the picture.

We need a team that will re-examine incorporating an arena into the mall and find reasons for success, not see it as a hammer through which you can extort more public funding. We need a team which will immediately start to incorporate housing into all redevelopment plans. We need a team that will attract one-of-a-kind local entrepreneurs, other destination retail as well as large high-end stores like NM and/or Bloomingdales, and we need a team that will create an architectural showplace highlighting both Sacramento's historic past and its limitless future. We need a team that sees all the possibilities, instead of why things can't be done. A team that sees Sacramento as a partner, not an albatross or a just a bank. We need a team that believes in Sacramento.

Westfield is none of those things.

[wburg]

I'm going to agree wholeheartedly with Travis Bickle here. Midtown grew into the great place it is because the city hasn't been mucking about with it for half a century, and the market grew itself. Also, unlike downtown, lots of people live in midtown, in much closer density than the suburbs. In fact, every "improvement" the city tries downtown tends to shove more neat stuff into midtown and other peripheral areas: the displacement of tenants from the 700 K block pushed two tattoo/piercing parlors and a comic shop into Midtown, and a record shop to Broadway, but they are only the most recent effects.

Midtown was basically what drew me to Sacramento. I used to come visit midtown regularly in high school and on summers home from college, and moved down here in the early nineties. The rent was cheap, there was good public transportation (I didn't drive then) and you could look like a mutant freak and not be hassled the way one did living in the suburbs.

Claims that the central city was a dead zone until a couple years ago are grossly exaggerated: I found a lively, busy district filled with used bookstores, vintage clothing shops, comic shops, coffee shops, cheap and unique places to eat, and places to see bands (even if many weren't recognized entertainment venues.) At the time, the city was doing a full-court press to get people into Downtown Plaza/America Live! but I found nothing there that sparked my interest at all, and no needs that weren't satisfied by local businesses in midtown, aside from the occasional run to Safeway.

And, of course, Midtown is great because it is filled with these amazing old buildings. Part of why I got into all this historic preservation stuff was because I can't imagine Midtown without them. Don't worry--there are still plenty of parking lots and Buzz-boxes to do infill projects on.

[travis bickle]

Midtown was bustling even in the mid-late 80s when I last lived in the Sacramento area. It is rapidly becoming more cosmopolitan than San Diego's Hillcrest district (the major gay neighborhood in San Diego) and it is already far more tolerant - and thus more inviting - than San Francisco's Castro. That combined with spectacular tree canopies that keep it noticeably cooler in the summer and original architecture that give it a look difficult to duplicate today, make it truly one of Sacramento's great secrets to all outside of the region. I think even that is changing as it is getting increasingly mentioned in travel magazines and blogs and not just those catering primarily to the gay community. I envy those who live there now because every time I'm there, what is already great just seems to be getting better. It became this way au natural, with no "help" from government. As wburg alludes, the difference between the success of midtown with little government interference and downtown with all-too-much government interference is striking. wburg: Has Sacramento/state/feds provided much money for historical preservation in midtown? If so, it would appear to be another case where when government limits its intrusion to providing seed money that then allows the private sector to blossom, the results are often impressive.

[wburg]

double post

[wburg]

egads, triple post!

[wburg]

travis: Other than preservation of Sutter's Fort, not really. From what long-term residents have told me, back in the seventies people thought that folks who moved to midtown (places like Boulevard Park and Poverty Ridge) to fix up old houses were crazy or idiots. Redlining was still in effect, so one had to come up with cash to buy the houses (although they were dirt cheap) and at least one person bought his house with a credit card because nobody would finance you in redlined neighborhoods. Most of the neighborhood fix-up was done by do-it-yourselfer types, many of whom got into neighborhood activism after seeing historic homes decayed or destroyed to put up shabby four-plex apartments or faceless office buildings.

There has been some city assistance in the formation of historic preservation districts, which make it harder to knock down or shabbily modify old buildings, but a lot of "remuddling" happened before that took effect and still goes on (especially people who replace their double-hung sash windows with cheap vinyl dual-pane windows.) There is a small "preservation grants" program that the city is setting up, mostly small grants of around $500-1000 for those without the means to do their own home repairs, but that's about it. Mostly a small stick and perhaps a few shreds of carrot.

My generation were mostly college-age or post-college slacker types who moved down here because rent was cheap, it was way prettier than the suburbs, and there were things to do. For a long time, people could work part-time at someplace like EMH, StateNet or Tower (often the only place one could work if you had facial piercings or funny haircuts), rent an inexpensive and cute (if somewhat ratty) apartment or house (in 1993 I paid $125-150/month to rent a room in a six-bedroom foursquare) and spend the rest of the time making artwork, playing in a band, or spending far too much time hanging out at bars or coffee shops. The result was the growth of an organic creative culture that is still prominent today.

[travis bickle]

wburg - were many of the homes converted to apartments? I seem to remember a few. Are there any "seeding" programs now specifically designed for midtown? Any facade improvement programs? CIB? I'd really like to see a study of how midtown has evolved and any lessons we could learn from it.

Yeah, it's funny how many "cool" districts have been created because of cheap rent. I guess some neighborhoods react best with no government interference at all... kind of like people. Downtown San Diego used to be one of those cool, somewhat untamed districts, but "cheap" disappeared about 12-15 years ago. Oh well, there are others. Of course cheap doesn't always mean cool. I lived in the Pacific Beach section of San Diego for much of the 90s. It's cool, but it was never exactly cheap.

[wburg]

travis bickle: Some larger homes were converted to apartments, while others were built that way, either as apartments, duplexes/triplexes, or boarding houses.

No, no seeding programs, no facade improvement programs--not sure what a CIB is. There is currently a plan for a Midtown PBID to complement the downtown program. Some neighborhood community organizations, like SOCA, were established as combinations of advocacy groups for local preservation and also as clearinghouses of information regarding how to properly restore old homes and lists of reliable contractors. So it wasn't really "the free market" working to preserve the neighborhood as much as independent social organizations and interpersonal networks, and quite a bit of yelling at City Hall.

It should be noted that business was always quite involved with the various projects downtown that were directed by the city. There really wasn't that much interest in midtown, real-estate wise, aside from fixer-upper types, low-end landlords, and the occasional mid-range developer who specialized in knocking down old Victorian homes and putting up fourplexes, or knocking down whatever and putting up concrete tilt-ups.

The main "free-market" effect in play in midtown was a condition of oversupply: lots of housing stock in poor condition, and a limited number of people interested in renting them--which meant low rents and minimally maintained buildings. The result of that was growth in market sectors that flourish in such environments: used bookstores, record stores, secondhand shops, coffee shops (pre-Starbucks) and small music venues.

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the same stuff was also found along K Street during that era. Record stores, secondhand shops, greasy-spoon cafes, old-man dive bars, and other such things as you also found in midtown were all around K Street, mostly shuttered because the city wanted "high-end amenities" instead of what the market would bear. Hundreds of businesses were displaced in the redevelopment of downtown in the fifties and sixties, and a lot of them, because they were relatively marginal, never reopened or relocated because they couldn't afford the rent in a new building.

[ozone]

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the same stuff was also found along K Street during that era. Record stores, secondhand shops, greasy-spoon cafes, old-man dive bars, and other such things as you also found in midtown were all around K Street, mostly shuttered because the city wanted "high-end amenities" instead of what the market would bear. Hundreds of businesses were displaced in the redevelopment of downtown in the fifties and sixties, and a lot of them, because they were relatively marginal, never reopened or relocated because they couldn't afford the rent in a new building.

I don't understand.. if as you say hundreds of businesses were displaced in the redevelopment of downtown in the fifties and sixties then why are we still dealing with an awful lot of discount/secondhand shops, greasy-spoons, and old-man dives and flop houses on or around K Street? Maybe they were moved off of M Street to create the Capitol Mall but obviously they were not forced out of downtown. K Street suffered like every other main retail street in America due to suburbanization -or as you put it -'market forces'. As a retailer I can walk up and down K Street and see what the merchants are doing wrong. If I talk to them about it they always start to blame city hall or something else. To blame city hall for their mistakes like blaming the devil for all human error.

When anyone complains about the displacement and destruction by redevelopment or in the name "progress" I think they should keep in mind that usually the city did this on behalf of, and at the request of, a certain segment of the business community and city hall often did not initiate it.

[Trojan]

What is being built on the corner of 8th and K Street? I drove by today and there is dirt on the ground with a fence around it. Anyone know? Or wait, is that where the fire was?

[ozone]

Yup

[wburg]

ozone: The hundreds of businesses included many sorts of businesses, and the redevelopment area went from I Street to R Street, from the waterfront to 8th Street/10th Street. The residents of the old waterfront flophouses moved into the old "upscale" hotels (believe it or not, the Marshall and the Berry used to be fancy hotels.)

So far as I know, there is only one junk shop in the central business district (the "99 Cent Store" on Tenth,) only one old-man dive bar (Henry's) and the remaining greasy spoon restaurant caters primarily to state workers.

As to the "flop houses," if they weren't there those folks would be sleeping on the street: the ones who are sleeping on the street are, for the most part, folks who used to sleep in the flop houses when there were more of them.

I suppose I don't consider things like secondhand shops, inexpensive diners, record stores and used bookstores to be a huge societal problem in midtown--in fact, they're part of midtown's appeal, as they are part of the greater category of independent small businesses. They're part of the solution, not part of the problem.

You are correct in that redevelopment primarly served (and continues to serve) a certain segment of business, primarily those who wanted to expand the central business district into nearby residential neighborhoods. The city wasn't an unwilling partner, in fact they were very active in the redevelopment process: when a public referendum to borrow money for redevelopment was flatly rejected by voters, the city council decided to borrow the money anyway.

[ozone]

wburg I guess I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not talking about just inexpensive stores but a 'type' of dirty run-down businesses that caters almost exclusively to the lower socioeconomic levels. Where do you find those in Midtown? If they do exist they are certainly not concentrated as they are around K Steet. There's most definitely more downtown than you listed. What about across from the Mexican consulate on J Street?

I always hear people make the argument that we need the "flop houses" so folks won't be sleeping on the street but I don't believe it. Its a reverse logic to me.

As for city hall being a willing partner..of course, but who really runs the city? From my observations city hall is pretty much is the 'dog on a leash'. You know it's like when I heard a lot of people blame city hall for the Midtown Traffic Calming Project ...when in fact it was the public (a large and orgainzed group the Midtown residents) which went to the city asking for it. By the way, as it turns out none of the hysterical fears about the traffic calming project causing mayhem came to fruition.

[wburg]

What "types" of businesses are you referring to, ozone? Generally, the "poverty pimps" that make their money off the poor are check cashing stores, pawn shops, rent-to-own stores and liquor stores. Three out of four are found downtown, but they are found throughout midtown.

Along the block you mentioned are a Subway, a cell phone store, a legal bookstore, a convenience store that sells vitamins and supplements, some sort of legal-advice place for immigrants, a senior center, an art gallery, a dentist, Ricci's Restaurant (closed) and a Chinese restaurant, Jade Garden. Which portions of this block, in your mind, are the problem areas?

About "flop houses" (aka SRO hotels): the idea is not to identically duplicate a dirty, run-down building but to provide housing that is affordable to folks on the next-to-bottom rung of income, people on SSI or social security. If there is not enough of this sort of housing, more people will end up sleeping on the streets: if there is more of this sort of housing, fewer people have to sleep on the streets. I'm not sure how that logic is "reversed"; could you explain to me how my thinking is backwards?

[wburg]

Went and checked, the other businesses include a bail bondsman and a Pakistani restaurant, plus apparently there's a second art gallery going in.

[ozone]

Opps. Well maybe I'm just so turned off by the physical appearance of the stores that I just assume they are "poverty pimps" (love that term). I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with naming these buisness off. It doesn't mean they don't cater to the poor and/or tasteless. But come now you know there are more down-at-heel shops in the K Street area than any place in Midtown.

As far as flophouses, SRO's, missions, etc.. are concerned- I just think the more of them you have -the more homeless/drug addicts you'll have around. I can't believe that liberal me is saying this but I've talked to enough homeless to know that many come to Sacramento because of the available handouts & cheap digs. I mean they aren't coming to Sacramento because they landed a great job now are they? I have known enough homeless people and in fact come in contact with them every day- where I work and live. Most homeless people have 'burned a lot of bridges' to get where they are. Many of them are not nice people. They are scam artists who became slaves to drugs and alcohol and turned down help so many times in the past that they are at the point of no return. What do we do? Well start by not feeling sorry for them and making it "easy" to be homeless. Every city in the world has homeless and beggers but here in America they seem more agressive and rude. What gives them the right to sleep on a public sidewalk or in a public park? That sounds cruel but that's how I feel.

[wburg]

Perhaps a point of concern is the difference between SROs and "missions." SRO housing is not free, it costs money like any other rental housing, and the people who live there are not homeless: it is permanent, month-to-month housing. There are no free overnight shelters in the downtown area, so the homeless obviously aren't here for the free housing.

I would take serious issue with the idea that it is "easy" to be homeless. Even in a place with a relatively mild climate, being homeless is generally a fearful, dirty, dangerous existence. If you have mental health problems, physical problems, or substance abuse problems, being homeless will make them worse. Trying to deal with that sort of problem takes a back seat to the basic trouble of survival: eating, finding a place to sleep, not getting beaten up and not freezing to death. People get stuck in the life not because it is easy but because it is a trap, one that becomes harder to escape the longer you are stuck in it.

You are correct in that the problem isn't solved by people feeling sorry for them: it is solved by providing routes out of chronic homelessness, treating the ones in the greatest need, starting with providing housing and following up with case management. This "housing first" approach has met with success in cities like New York and Portland, and is part of a new decade-long plan here in Sacramento. We'll see how it turns out, but the general idea is to turn about a thousand homeless people into a thousand housed people--actually solving the problem, not shuffling it around.

Oh yeah, about the 700/800 block of J Street you mentioned: Three guesses who owns a major portion of the block?

[ozone]

Sorry about my rant. I'm a little agro from 1. Missing my train by a millisecond 2. being verbally assaulted by a homeless guy and 3. 2 Rock Stars and 3 cups of coffee.

I wonder if Mo does own that block. I would really like to know what exactly what he does own downtown.

[wburg]

ozone: He doesn't own all of it, but he is either a partner with those who do or he owns some parts of it.

Sorry about my rant too...I just know far too much about that particular subject. And yeah, it's true, homelessness just plain doesn't bring out the best in people, which is part of why it's a problem that should be addressed with what seems to me to be an obvious solution: housing.

[Phillip]

The hundreds of businesses included many sorts of businesses, and the redevelopment area went from I Street to R Street, from the waterfront to 8th Street/10th Street. The residents of the old waterfront flophouses moved into the old "upscale" hotels (believe it or not, the Marshall and the Berry used to be fancy hotels.)

regarding the Marshall and Berry...

In a dollar bin at a used bookstore I found this neat Sacramento Chamber of Commerce brochure from the early 50's called "Here's Your Sacramento Memo". It was what the Chamber mailed to people who wrote for information about Sacramento.

The brochure listed and described eleven recommended Sacramento hotels; ten Downtown, plus the El Rancho in West Sac. The Berry at 8th and L was recommended but Marshall wasn't on the list.

Other recommended hotels were the Californian at 8th and I, Clunie at 8th and K, Mark Twain at 13th and I, and, of course, the Senator at 12th and L.

Here's what the brochure said about the Berry, circa 1951:

BERRY HOTEL, 8th and L Streets. 110 rooms. Convenient downtown location with coffee shop, cocktail bar, circulating ice water in all rooms; free overnight parking; partially air cooled; conference room available.

Rates: Single, $3.75 and $4.00; Double, $5.00 and $6.00; Twin, $6.00 and $7.00; 3 to room $7.00. Rollaway, $1.50 extra. All rooms have tub and shower or shower. Quentin Lacy, Manager.

The Senator and Sacramento had the highest rates downtown, ranging from $5 to $10 for standard rooms, and suites for $15-18.

[BrianSac]

City OKs deal to renovate old hotel
City plans to forgive $1 million in loan payments, interest.
By Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, June 29, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B4

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0) | Digg it | del.icio.us

The city of Sacramento is giving a development team $5 million to take over and renovate the downtown residential Berry Hotel -- and forgive the current owners $1 million in loan payments and interest owed the city.

Details of the project were approved at Tuesday's Sacramento City Council meeting, but one crucial piece of the financial puzzle wasn't mentioned:

The deal also requires the development team to pay downtown landowner Moe Mohanna $1 million for his option on the aging six-story hotel at L and Eighth streets, next to the Greyhound bus station.


It's a sensitive subject that's caused discomfort for the city and been a hot topic among civic leaders. In another downtown issue, the city is suing Mohanna and his development team to force them to move forward with a land swap that will allow the transformation of K Street's most blighted blocks.

Mohanna doesn't like the land swap deal -- seen as necessary to develop the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street -- and has vowed to spend millions to fight the city.

Jim Hare, assistant director of housing policy and development for the redevelopment agency, said city officials mulled over the Mohanna payment before deciding to move forward.

"We could have thrown the baby out with the bath water and not gone forward, but we didn't think that was the best thing to do," he said.

Robert Waste, a public policy professor at California State University, Sacramento, said creating quality housing for low-income residents was the key point. "It's proof of good policy when you hold your nose and do the right thing, even if a real troublemaker benefits," he said.

To transform the 115-unit Berry Hotel into 100 apartments, each with a kitchenette and bathroom for very low-income residents, Trinity Housing Foundation and developer A.F. Evans aim to capture $8.9 million in tax credits from the state.

Tenant rents and proceeds from the commercial space on the ground floor of the building will be funneled into operating the Berry.

Hare said the city likes that the developers are promising to put access to social services on site, a provision that usually results in a well-run facility.

"The current owner doesn't have the resources to manage the property," Hare said. "This new plan is going to make all the difference."

Owners Mohammed A. and Gul Nusrean Khan received a $935,720 home loan from the city in 1994 to rehab the hotel. According to city documents, they have lagged in paying back the principal and interest, and under the deal, the amount they owe will be forgiven.

City officials say A.F. Evans' property management arm has a good track record monitoring low-income properties, including the Ping Yuen housing development downtown.

The council on Tuesday unanimously approved the project. Mayor Heather Fargo had stepped away from the dais and did not vote.

However, two councilwomen expressed concerns about A.F. Evans. Lauren Hammond said the city has been in protracted negotiations with the firm about its proposal to build a 100-unit housing development on Broadway and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Oak Park.

"Is this what's going to happen" with the Berry, she asked. "Is this going to be something that's dragged out?"

At the meeting, Hare said that the Oak Park project, which includes both rental and for-sale homes, is more complicated than the Hotel Berry plan.

Craig Adelman, director of affordable housing for A.F. Evans, told Hammond, "Frankly, we share your frustration. We aren't there yet on what we think costs are and what city staff thinks costs are. We're still trying to reach an agreement."

A.F. Evans also is proposing 140 low-income housing units at Florin Road and 29th Street in Meadowview. Residents have complained that another 700 low-income housing units are across the street, and that the project will lower property values.

City Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell, who represents that area, said at the meeting, "I'm not happy with that project, I just want you to know, and neither is my community."

Adelman did not respond to Pannell at the meeting and did not return calls for comment.

John Foley, executive director of Sacramento Self Help Housing, said even though there appeared to be questions about the development team, his organization supports the project, especially the on-site social services.

"There aren't enough of these services for residents," Foley said. "This is a positive answer for a need for services."

Last year, the city approved a budget of $5 million for preservation of the city's residential hotels and $10 million for construction of replacement units. The city put out a request for applications for the projects and the Trinity-A.F. Evans proposal has been the only response.

Redevelopment law requires the city to replace the 15 hotel rooms that would be lost as a result of the Berry remodel. City officials said units planned in the Globe Mills project in Alkali Flat would meet that requirement.

[wburg]

It does sting a bit that "Mo" is making money off the Berry sale, but at least it is getting done.

philip: I love that kind of old Sacramento ephemera--I pick it up wherever I find it. It's interesting reading about how people perceived Sacramento at various points in the past--we've always been fairly bubbly about our future, and a bit apologetic about our present.

The Marshall's glory days were probably back before it was renamed: it was originally known as the Hotel Clayton, named after Dr. Marion Clayton, whose "Pacific Water Cure" sanitarium and clinic were located on the site in the1870s. His daughter paid for the hotel's construction and named it after her parents. Mrs. Sarah Clayton, Marion's wife, helped found the county hospital, relocating it from Tenth and L to where UCDMC is now.

[rtgeisreit]

By Bob Shallit - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, June 30, 2007
Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D1

* * *

Hooking up: One of the area's most established development firms could be partnering with a newcomer.

Word on the street is that David S. Taylor Interests, longtime builder of high-rises, is looking to team up with Trancas Ventures, a St. Helena-based investment firm with big plans for the K Street Mall.

"We've had some discussions with (Trancas execs) David Troppy and Jim Brennan," confirms Elle Warner, a Taylor VP.

But she's not providing details on what projects might be pursued jointly.

The companies are logical partners. Taylor is building a cabaret and restaurant project on the southeast corner of 10th and K streets, and is exploring a condo project on the same block. Trancas has nearly completed converting a building at the 10th and K intersection's northeast corner into office condos and reportedly has acquired several other K Street sites.

Taylor was interested in developing all four corners of 10th and K when the city sought proposals for the key intersection a couple of years ago, according to Warner.

"We've never really let go of that (ambition)," she says of the company's interest in making a bold statement in the area. "What we can do together (with Trancas) is get close to where we had previously hoped to be."

* * *

[ozone]

Marcos Bretón: A poke in the eye from Moe
By Marcos Bretón - Bee Columnist
Sunday, July 1, 2007

Much of the K Street Mall is an eyesore, a string of blighted buildings and empty lots that smear renewal efforts in other parts of downtown Sacramento.

The 700 and 800 blocks of K Street are the worst, the focus of a lawsuit between the city of Sacramento and a man known for lovely manners and obstructionist tendencies.

Moe Mohanna is an Iranian-born gentleman whose Western Management Company on Ninth Street controls large swaths of K Street -- land the city wants. The city wants high-end retail in a row of faded storefronts in the 700 block. It was prepared to execute a trade with Mohanna that would have left him in control of the 800 block in exchange for giving up his properties in the 700 block. Roughly $24 million in city funds are invested in this effort. Mohanna had agreed to the deal but balked at the 11th hour.

"It appears I'm standing in the way," Mohanna said in an interview last week. [No sh't] The city sued Mohanna. The bet here is that an eminent domain fight will soon follow, while K Street remains a pit.

"I think this is a major disappointing turn of events for Sacramento," said Mike Heller, whose J Street building houses Mikuni and PF Chang's.

David Taylor, who built the Esquire Plaza, said: "It is really important that developers be able and willing to develop properties not only in their own interests but interests in the entire area. "My experience having discussed more than one joint venture with Moe is he seems to get nervous and can't bring it to closure. He seems to have an inability to know what a good deal is and what a bad deal is."

John Lambeth, a lawyer and Mohanna's partner, would not comment. That's fine. But if you think your partner is right, why not say so?

John Saca, a former Mohanna partner currently trying to build a high rise on 10th and J streets, said he likes Mohanna and respects him. [Is Saca going to be another Moe?] But in regard to the land swap, Saca said: "I believe the city lived up to all the commitments they made to us, but unfortunately it failed."

No one disputes Mohanna's right to buy property in the path of downtown development. It's a fundamental way landowners make money. Mohanna owns 14 properties in his name, and by his count, is a partner in up to "20 or 30" buildings.

Has he ever developed anything on that land? No. He's repainted, done minor fixes to dated storefronts, taken on a collection of threadbare tenants.

"I'm ashamed of myself to delay the good work of the city but I'm not the cause, I'm the victim," he said. "I keep hearing we don't want those people. I'm one of those people. There are more homeless and mentally ill people who know me and hug me on the street." [OMG this is classic Moe bullsh't]

LeRoy Chatfield, the former director of Loaves & Fishes, the downtown charity for the homeless, said Mohanna is a friend of poor people. "Those high-rises and visions of downtown don't incorporate poor people. They displace them, and no one cares except Moe," Chatfield said. :yuck: [Should we start calling him "Saint Moe"?]

That's great. But with significant land ownings and the ability to hire teams of lawyers, Mohanna is not a downtrodden little guy.

Maybe city officials wronged him on other fronts. He wouldn't be the first. Maybe Mohanna sees himself as such an outsider, he can't trust anyone and that's why he hasn't made this deal or developed new projects on his properties.

One way or the other, he's going to get paid -- even if he loses an eminent domain fight. If that's the ultimate objective, it comes at a heavy price to a community Mohanna claims to love.

[greenmidtown]

Marcos Bretón: A poke in the eye from Moe
By Marcos Bretón - Bee Columnist
Sunday, July 1, 2007

"I'm ashamed of myself to delay the good work of the city but I'm not the cause, I'm the victim," he said. "I keep hearing we don't want those people. I'm one of those people. There are more homeless and mentally ill people who know me and hug me on the street."

LeRoy Chatfield, the former director of Loaves & Fishes, the downtown charity for the homeless, said Mohanna is a friend of poor people. "Those high-rises and visions of downtown don't incorporate poor people. They displace them, and no one cares except Moe," Chatfield said.

:lmao: this is more entertaining than any celebrity gossip! the newschannels are missing an opportunity to film some gripping local drama.

[travis bickle]

Opps. Well maybe I'm just so turned off by the physical appearance of the stores that I just assume they are "poverty pimps" (love that term). I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with naming these buisness off. It doesn't mean they don't cater to the poor and/or tasteless. But come now you know there are more down-at-heel shops in the K Street area than any place in Midtown.

As far as flophouses, SRO's, missions, etc.. are concerned- I just think the more of them you have -the more homeless/drug addicts you'll have around. I can't believe that liberal me is saying this but I've talked to enough homeless to know that many come to Sacramento because of the available handouts & cheap digs. I mean they aren't coming to Sacramento because they landed a great job now are they? I have known enough homeless people and in fact come in contact with them every day- where I work and live. Most homeless people have 'burned a lot of bridges' to get where they are. Many of them are not nice people. They are scam artists who became slaves to drugs and alcohol and turned down help so many times in the past that they are at the point of no return. What do we do? Well start by not feeling sorry for them and making it "easy" to be homeless. Every city in the world has homeless and beggers but here in America they seem more agressive and rude. What gives them the right to sleep on a public sidewalk or in a public park? That sounds cruel but that's how I feel.

In my experience, the problem is two-fold. 1) Concentration of "services" is a problem. A neighborhood might be able to absorb an SRO or treatment facility or feeding shelter with little disruption, but you can't ask one to absorb all three. With a concentration of services, you inevitably get a concentration of problems. A prime example of this is the notorious area just south of downtown LA (I think it's Fourth Street). Good God... it is right out of a George Romero movie. Block after block of lost souls ten deep to a side. Yellow eyes, sallow complexions all shuffling toward your car. I haven't completely stopped at a red light there in ten years. It is breathtaking and a kind of hopeless poverty you never would have thought could possibly exist in America. But there it is in all of its wretched glory. Truly a nation's shame, but part of the problem is that all necessary services are located within a few blocks. They never have any reason to leave.

And this leads us to the second part of the problem: an enabling government. Telling people they have no responsibility to try to raise themselves out of poverty is a recipe for precisely the disastrous homeless problem we see in city after city. I am all for spending the necessary funds to lift people out of misery, but they must help themselves.

I don't think it's too much to demand that while on assistance, they must stay drug and alcohol free. I completely support any effort to publicly finance appropriate rehab centers (but just try getting one of those located in a "nice" area. Liberal largesse only goes so far...) and supoort groups. Many cities do place some requirements for this kind of help, but not enough to solve - or even come close to solving - the catastrophy we see today.

We've spent billions - and we spend additional billions every year. The problem's worse than ever. Perhaps we should try a less enabling approach.

[wburg]

I've seen that area of Los Angeles: it's a classic example of what happens when an entire region's homeless policy consists of "ship them to the big city," and the big city's response is to bulldoze them into one area and not provide housing. If there are services there, they are scarcely visible: it's more like human warehousing, because the city can't afford (or doesn't have the political will, more likely) to do more than that.

The problem isn't that the approach is enabling, it's that it is backwards. If someone is not housed, treatment (for substance abuse or mental illness) becomes dramatically more difficult. Even if there are clinics or rehab centers, their work becomes minimized and diluted simply because upon conclusion of treatment, you end up dumping the person back onto the streets because there aren't enough housing options. Even the most stable person suffers immensely in that environment: if you think it's scary driving through that neighborhood, just imagine living in it, on the street.

By providing housing first, then providing treatment, you take away the single greatest factor that keeps people unstable: the dangerous, drug-infested, insanity-inducing life on the street. We're throwing away money not because we're enabling, but because we're spending money in the wrong direction.
Someone enters a program, starts to get better, and at the end of the program they're out on the street because there is still no place for them to call home. They relapse because drug use is all around them, their mental health suffers because they're surrounded by insanity and stress. Before long they are back where they started.

The cycle can be broken when people enter one of the handful of programs that provide permanent housing and supportive services. Suddenly, the client is no longer a "homeless person" but a person with a home: not just a shelter bed in a dormitory, but a home that is theirs alone, potentially a permanent home. It is at this point when they realize they now have something, and therefore something to lose. And if they have support, especially the sort that comes to them, they aren't simply being warehoused. It's not a guarantee that they'll succeed, but the odds are a lot better.

[Grimnebulin]

I've seen that area of Los Angeles: it's a classic example of what happens when an entire region's homeless policy consists of "ship them to the big city," and the big city's response is to bulldoze them into one area and not provide housing. If there are services there, they are scarcely visible: it's more like human warehousing, because the city can't afford (or doesn't have the political will, more likely) to do more than that.

The problem isn't that the approach is enabling, it's that it is backwards. If someone is not housed, treatment (for substance abuse or mental illness) becomes dramatically more difficult. Even if there are clinics or rehab centers, their work becomes minimized and diluted simply because upon conclusion of treatment, you end up dumping the person back onto the streets because there aren't enough housing options. Even the most stable person suffers immensely in that environment: if you think it's scary driving through that neighborhood, just imagine living in it, on the street.

By providing housing first, then providing treatment, you take away the single greatest factor that keeps people unstable: the dangerous, drug-infested, insanity-inducing life on the street. We're throwing away money not because we're enabling, but because we're spending money in the wrong direction.
Someone enters a program, starts to get better, and at the end of the program they're out on the street because there is still no place for them to call home. They relapse because drug use is all around them, their mental health suffers because they're surrounded by insanity and stress. Before long they are back where they started.

The cycle can be broken when people enter one of the handful of programs that provide permanent housing and supportive services. Suddenly, the client is no longer a "homeless person" but a person with a home: not just a shelter bed in a dormitory, but a home that is theirs alone, potentially a permanent home. It is at this point when they realize they now have something, and therefore something to lose. And if they have support, especially the sort that comes to them, they aren't simply being warehoused. It's not a guarantee that they'll succeed, but the odds are a lot better.

Very well put, wburg. :tup:

[greenmidtown]

I've seen that area of Los Angeles: it's a classic example of what happens when an entire region's homeless policy consists of "ship them to the big city," and the big city's response is to bulldoze them into one area and not provide housing. If there are services there, they are scarcely visible: it's more like human warehousing, because the city can't afford (or doesn't have the political will, more likely) to do more than that.
...

I agree. European countries with their "welfare societies" have smaller and in several countries non-existent homeless populations. Even in New Zealand there is free housing for the destitute. You can't blame some people for suffering mental illness and losing control of their lives. I understand the frustration with those causing trouble downtown and I think that shouldn't be tolerated. But at the same time many of these people need help, real help. Not loaves and fishes but in many cases psychiatry and rehab. I mean we're the only developed country in the world that refuses psychiatric and medical services to those who can't afford it, all 45 million! As long as we have this fundamentalist attitude of "everyone for themselves" and the poor can manage with our bread crumbs the homeless problem will only get worse. Look at England during the Industrial Revolution where a huge portion of society was homeless and abused (think Charles Dickens novels) that's capitalism. Only Socialist policies can tame some of the ravages of unrestrained capitalism.

[travis bickle]

I've seen that area of Los Angeles: it's a classic example of what happens when an entire region's homeless policy consists of "ship them to the big city," and the big city's response is to bulldoze them into one area and not provide housing. If there are services there, they are scarcely visible: it's more like human warehousing, because the city can't afford (or doesn't have the political will, more likely) to do more than that.

The problem isn't that the approach is enabling, it's that it is backwards. If someone is not housed, treatment (for substance abuse or mental illness) becomes dramatically more difficult. Even if there are clinics or rehab centers, their work becomes minimized and diluted simply because upon conclusion of treatment, you end up dumping the person back onto the streets because there aren't enough housing options. Even the most stable person suffers immensely in that environment: if you think it's scary driving through that neighborhood, just imagine living in it, on the street.

By providing housing first, then providing treatment, you take away the single greatest factor that keeps people unstable: the dangerous, drug-infested, insanity-inducing life on the street. We're throwing away money not because we're enabling, but because we're spending money in the wrong direction.
Someone enters a program, starts to get better, and at the end of the program they're out on the street because there is still no place for them to call home. They relapse because drug use is all around them, their mental health suffers because they're surrounded by insanity and stress. Before long they are back where they started.

The cycle can be broken when people enter one of the handful of programs that provide permanent housing and supportive services. Suddenly, the client is no longer a "homeless person" but a person with a home: not just a shelter bed in a dormitory, but a home that is theirs alone, potentially a permanent home. It is at this point when they realize they now have something, and therefore something to lose. And if they have support, especially the sort that comes to them, they aren't simply being warehoused. It's not a guarantee that they'll succeed, but the odds are a lot better.

No program in the world is going to work without some requirement for personal accountability. The Los Angeles Homeless Authority is located in the heart of this area. By no one's definition can that be called "scarcely visible." It provides food, shelter, counseling and drug/alcohol rehab services. A quick look in the eyes of anyone in this area tells you some of these services are used far more often that others.

LA does suffer disproportionately than many cities because their benefits are far more generous that those of surrounding cities, but another part of the problem is that many services are provided with few strings attached. So LA's homeless problem has just as much to do with lifestyle and other carrots as it does bulldozers, busses and other sticks, .

Giving people services with no requirement to break the cycle that leads to their misery is indeed enabling. That is backwards. Giving them a home with no lifestyle change requirement will change nothing. One could argue that a home itself is a lifestyle change. I agree, but not one that by itself can be expected to solve the problem.

I can enthusiastically support your proposal above with the caveat that measurable performance goals are articulated and achieved and that drug testing is required and one must pass to continue in the program.

Most people are where they are, for good or ill, because of personal choices. Most of us a just a series of bad decisions from the street. Any system or program that enables a person to continue making bad decisions is doomed to failure.

wburg - you've mentioned successful homeless programs before. Where are they and what are their common characteristics? How do they measure success? Do they follow the model you outline above? What is their cost per resident and how does it compare with other programs?

We've spent billions on this problem and continue to spend billions (more than any country on earth) and it's only gotten worse. You can see the futility of these programs by taking a walk through any city in the country. In every city, the overwhelming contributing factor is drug/alcohol abuse.

Unless that changes, all the housing in the world won't make a difference.

[wburg]

Only Socialist policies can tame some of the ravages of unrestrained capitalism.

Hey now, no need to get carried away! There's a big difference between policies that attempt to solve, rather than ignore or punish, social problems, and socialism. In fact, the Eastern Bloc's track record for treatment of mental illness and substance abuse was less than abysmal.

In my mind, the American people (via its government) started social-welfare programs because we disliked the idea of seeing Americans starve to death on the street even less than the idea of increased taxation to address social concerns. If the public is to be expected to support such programs with their tax dollars, it makes the most sense to ensure that these programs are cost-effective, and programs that provide housing and case management are a lot more cost-effective than the current "treatment by crisis" approach, where we ignore the homeless until they end up in jail, in an emergency room bed, or in a psychiatric treatment center. They also result in fewer people on the street. Think of it like regular maintenance on your car: while you may consider it an inconvenience to have to change your oil, filters, etcetera, the regular expense of maintenance costs less than the eventual bill for an engine destroyed due to lack of maintenance.

Calling it "socialism" justifies socialist ends, and that is certainly not my intent.

[wburg]

There are "Housing First" programs running in Portland and New York (as well as other cities) that target chronic homeless. They aren't without consequences, although a certain level of relapse is tolerated.

The "requirement to break the cycle" is making permanent housing available. That's not something that a homeless person can generally do. So, in asking a homeless person to "break the cycle" when the key problem is something out of their control, you inherently set them up for failure. By providing housing, then attacking other problems, you present the person with a way to break the cycle, then they can start to address other problems. This sets them up for success.

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/communitystories/2003/housing-first.html

http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/56/10/1303

Although I'm still not sure how this applies to K Street, because there aren't any homeless shelters in the central business district...

We've spent billions on this problem and continue to spend billions (more than any country on earth) and it's only gotten worse. You can see the futility of these programs by taking a walk through any city in the country. In every city, the overwhelming contributing factor is drug/alcohol abuse.
In many countries, those in poverty are simply tolerated, stepped over, allowed to die in the street. We don't have massive "mushroom" cities made of shanties of tin and cardboard around every urban area like South America or Africa, we don't have families who pass down their two-square-meter spot on the sidewalk to their children like South Asia...and, more to the point, we don't have the kinds of programs that make homelessness such a small problem in Europe. So, really, we're more somewhere in the middle. And if we're spending more money than Europe, it's a pretty safe bet that the problem is that we're spending the money the wrong way.

[travis bickle]

Look at England during the Industrial Revolution where a huge portion of society was homeless and abused (think Charles Dickens novels) that's capitalism. Only Socialist policies can tame some of the ravages of unrestrained capitalism.

Oh man. The ranting liberal speaks. You know you do have the right to remain silent... That attitude is breathtakingly ignorant.:haha: You must work for the state.

Capitalism has provided more prosperity for more people than any economic system in history... including socialism and communism. Let's not get too focused on England of the 1880s. Let's try to stay with our world in the 21st Century. Capitalist America's unemployment rate is below 5%. Socialist France is nearly double. You can find accurate and pertinent stats like that all day long.

Certainly there have been abuses and we must keep a vigilant eye out for them. But people vote with their feet. No one risks their life to get on a rickety, overstuffed boat and sail across the ocean to escape capitalist America for Cuba. No - all that traffic is one-way... the other way. Millions chose the same path when South Vietnam fell. Millions of them still do. They are joined by thousands of Chinese every year. Get the picture yet? The traffic is all from socialist/communists societies to capitalist America.

When people abuse the greatest economic system in history - I want them punished harshly too. But to claim socialism is the answer (for anything) is amusing to say the least. What's not so amusing is that you are ignorant enough to believe it.

[travis bickle]

There are "Housing First" programs running in Portland and New York (as well as other cities) that target chronic homeless. They aren't without consequences, although a certain level of relapse is tolerated.

The "requirement to break the cycle" is making permanent housing available. That's not something that a homeless person can generally do. So, in asking a homeless person to "break the cycle" when the key problem is something out of their control, you inherently set them up for failure. By providing housing, then attacking other problems, you present the person with a way to break the cycle, then they can start to address other problems. This sets them up for success.

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/communitystories/2003/housing-first.html

http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/56/10/1303

Although I'm still not sure how this applies to K Street, because there aren't any homeless shelters in the central business district...

Thanks wburg; I'll take a look at them. I think we both want the same thing: An effective solution to a chronic and shameful problem. I think the homeless problem is one of our nation's great shames. If this helps break the cycle, I'm all for it.

[urban_encounter]

:lmao: this is more entertaining than any celebrity gossip! the newschannels are missing an opportunity to film some gripping local drama.



While i admire the work of LeRoy Chatfield, the former director of Loaves & Fishes, I certainly take issue with Mr. Chatfield's false assertions that highrises "displace the homeless"..

That's just nonsense.

What he fails to grasp is that highrises also equate to more propery tax revenue coming into the city; which then flow to into social services provided by the city.

I've spent the last year working in a Chicago soup kitchen and prior to that worked with the homeless in Sacramento. It's silly for anyone to suggest that highrises displace the homeless. The only way that could be true is if the homeless are forced to camp in the path of development, and if that's the case then those providing services, need to look at what they might do differently.

:
"Those high-rises and visions of downtown don't incorporate poor people. They displace them, and no one cares except Moe," Chatfield said. "


Without a vibrant enconomic mix downtown, Sacramento stands to lose property and sales tax revenue to surrounding cities and the county. When that happens, city revenue falls and programs to help those in need are cut.

As far as Mr. Chatfield's statement that "nobody cares excpet Moe", I would love to aks him when the last time Moe Mohanna worked a meal line or washed dishes for the homeless. Moe might very well be concerned for the poor; but his actions in regards to K street for the past 20 years, suggests that he's not willing to spend the time, money or energy to improve his properties, so that downtown Sacramento is a safe environment for everyone.

Sacramento needs to redouble it's efforts to help curb homelessness. But that's not easily accomplished by putting off redevelopment efforts in the downtown area, (as Mr. Chatfield seems to suggest). In fact by ignoring redevelopment and allowing the K street mall to languish, more harm will be needlessly inflicted on those depending on the city for help.

Again I admire Mr. Chatfield's commitment to working with the poor. But i part company with him when it comes to how best to help those most in need.

[wburg]

urban encounter: Many here seem to be conflating the term "homeless" and "the poor." Not every poor person is homeless. While high-rises don't necessarily displace the homeless, rising housing prices (which is often co-occurring with rising high-rises) do displace the poor--most specifically, they displace poor people who still have homes by raising rents beyond what they can pay. This has an end result of making more homeless people, as the limited number of low-cost housing units (and just plain ol' cheap apartments) is overloaded.

The free-market solution to homelessness is to have no solution. It's all supply and demand, after all, and the only way everyone can afford housing is if there is plenty of supply, which drops prices. By limiting supply, and ensuring that those who cannot afford to pay are seriously stigmatized, prices for housing rise. The homeless themselves become walking advertisements for why people should tolerate rising rents--play along, or you could end up like these poor saps!

While this does create social problems which have to be relieved through tax dollars, the solutions themselves (successful or not) are blamed on the "liberal" government. Now, admittedly, it's pretty much impossible for housing affordable to everyone to be built without some kind of public subsidy, but providing that subsidy might be cheaper (both in dollas and in human misery) than the current subsidy provided in the form of emergency services.

Oh yeah, one thing about much of the current development, high-rise wise: Tax increment from redevelopment that is done in an official "redevelopment district" (which includes J/K/L and Capitol Mall, plus other areas) does NOT go into the general fund: it gets pumped back into the funding of the redevelopment district.

[travis bickle]

Oh yeah, one thing about much of the current development, high-rise wise: Tax increment from redevelopment that is done in an official "redevelopment district" (which includes J/K/L and Capitol Mall, plus other areas) does NOT go into the general fund: it gets pumped back into the funding of the redevelopment district.

Is that the case in Sacramento? I was under the impression that most of the projects we have been discussing here are not part of redevelopment districts. If I'm wrong, then yes, most of the tax money goes off to repay the initial public investment at a tax increment rate that is higher because the new investment results in higher property values.

Regarding the rest of the post. As a rule, liberals look to government for solutions first; conservatives think government should be the last resort. That doesn't mean that the solution isn't found in the public arena, just that we should seek private solutions first.

My current project is in essence redoing thousands of what had been government constructed public housing. In most cases we have had to start from scratch. We are really building an entire city with a main street (apartments over retail), open space, parks, schools, SFM and MFH. Including worker (not residents), about 20,000 will inhabit it during the day. We work under an authority signed by President Clinton in 1996. The idea was to bring free market efficiencies to a form of public housing.

The difference in product is startling and stunning. The government alone portion is decrepit and derelict. It came in over budget and behind schedule. Our portion would proudly fit in in any community in the United States. Beautiful and spacious, it embraces many new urbanist philosophies and for many people, it is the best home they have ever lived in.

It would never have been possible without the government getting out of the way and letting the private sector do what it does best... get things done. We are held to standards the government never holds itself to. We have no problem with it, but the it points out that more government is rarely the answer.

[urban_encounter]

urban encounter: Many here seem to be conflating the term "homeless" and "the poor."

I work with the poor, homeless, hungry and sick wburg, so i assure you that i'm quite familiar with at least some of the issues facing them, including gentrification.


While high-rises don't necessarily displace the homeless, rising housing prices (which is often co-occurring with rising high-rises) do displace the poor--most specifically, they displace poor people who still have homes by raising rents beyond what they can pay.

A percentage of all redevelopment tax dollars spent on housing is required to ensure that new housing developments provide affordable housing for low and very low incomes. Housing that might not otherwise exisit, without redevelopment.

Further the city has adotpted a policy to ensure a "No Net Loss" of low income housing in the central city to prevent gentrification.


Oh yeah, one thing about much of the current development, high-rise wise: Tax increment from redevelopment that is done in an official "redevelopment district" (which includes J/K/L and Capitol Mall, plus other areas) does NOT go into the general fund: it gets pumped back into the funding of the redevelopment district.

You are correct that redeveloment tax revenue goes back into the redevelopment area, to spur more economic growth. However sales tax revenue does go to the city, while redevelopment dollars are used to subisdize housing for people of low income; who might otherwise be forced to live in substandard housing.

Redevelopment is a win win for everyone, if the city is actively involved with trying to craft a solution so that people of low and very low income are not left out of the picture. Sacramento can have a vibrant central city with a mix of incomes. I think everyone agress that is the most desirable outcome.

[wburg]

Redevelopment is a win win for everyone, if the city is actively involved with trying to craft a solution so that people of low and very low income are not left out of the picture. Sacramento can have a vibrant central city with a mix of incomes. I think everyone agress that is the most desirable outcome.

If that is, in fact, the outcome. The last time downtown was redeveloped, downtown's inhabitants got the royal shaft and only a tiny fraction of the affordable housing that should have been built was built. We're still dealing with the consequences of that mistake. Considering the current state of affairs (such as central city infill projects not having to provide low-income elements) I think that a repeat of the past is a legitimate concern.

Oh yeah: the "no net loss" ordinance does not apply to low-income housing in general downtown, it only applies to the 715 SRO units.

[greenmidtown]

Hey now, no need to get carried away! There's a big difference between policies that attempt to solve, rather than ignore or punish, social problems, and socialism. In fact, the Eastern Bloc's track record for treatment of mental illness and substance abuse was less than abysmal.

Calling it "socialism" justifies socialist ends, and that is certainly not my intent.

You can call it what you will but it is Socialist. Anything the government fully funds and fully controls is Socialist. That includes the police force, fire department, postal service, and even the parks we want more of. Only in America and ex-Soviet Bloc countries in Eastern Europe is Socialism a "devil" term. I'm not saying I want this country to be mostly socialist, certainly not. But we need a better balance in this country. There are many countries that are much worse with nearly no social protections and unrestrained capitalism run amok. Anyone who's been to the third world has seen the effects of this whether it be horrific poverty next to extreme wealth or extreme environmental degradation. I fear that we're heading in that direction. Many big cities already are with a disappearing middle class and a servant class catering to the rich. The gap between the rich and poor is growing dramatically in this country.
The Soviet Union was an autocratic nightmare, I agree. That was pure communism and I'm completely opposed to that. What I'm arguing is that we should emulate some of Western Europe's socialist policies like universal healthcare, better labor rights, and better planned cities. This alone would go a long way to solving the problem of homelessness.

[greenmidtown]

Regarding the rest of the post. As a rule, liberals look to government for solutions first; conservatives think government should be the last resort. That doesn't mean that the solution isn't found in the public arena, just that we should seek private solutions first.

It would never have been possible without the government getting out of the way and letting the private sector do what it does best... get things done. We are held to standards the government never holds itself to. We have no problem with it, but the it points out that more government is rarely the answer.

I give you props for crafting a persuasive argument and not resorting to ad hominem attacks (I know that's hard for you) but you're confusing the issue. In a true democracy the government represents the people and thus is a useful instrument for gaining rights, benefits, and protections the private sector alone would never willingly provide. The problem is the undue influence of the private sector on the government, essentially buying off the government to adhere to its demands instead of the people. When this causes the government to be inept, ineffective, and counter-productive Republicans claim the problem lies in government. But they're the ones who cause government to be such a corrupt and inept joke to begin with. What we need is government reform not less government.

[BrianSac]

Care of Sacramento Bee: July 4, 2007:


Beat goes on: The Beat, a popular midtown music outlet for new and used CDs and vinyl, may be moving to Roseville. Or maybe not.

"We're in flux," says store owner Robert Fauble, whose lease expires at the end of the year. Figuring he wouldn't be able to afford the higher rents sought by his landlord, Fauble looked around and found a site in a Roseville shopping center.

But talks have resumed with his landlord. Fauble could end up with a new lease at 17th and J streets. Or he could leave.

If he does move the 25-year-old business, Fauble knows a lot of regular customers would be disappointed and he'd miss the "young, trendy" people who flock to his store.

But there are things he wouldn't miss. Like the shortage of parking, occasional break-ins to customers' cars and graffiti assaults on the building.

Also, despite all the hype about midtown's housing growth, he says the area lacks the high-income residents needed to support retail ventures.

"The demographics just aren't there yet," he says.

* * *

Seems like Sacramento cant keep up with Roseville: Not only does Roseville have the best shopping mall, box box retail of every sort, all the high-end department stores and other high-end retail, but they are taking Sacramento's small mom and pop businesses too. Geez.

The unexpected closure of east Sac's Philipp's Bakery is another loss.

[BrianSac]

Care of Sacramento Bee: July 4, 2007:


Beat goes on: The Beat, a popular midtown music outlet for new and used CDs and vinyl, may be moving to Roseville. Or maybe not.

"We're in flux," says store owner Robert Fauble, whose lease expires at the end of the year. Figuring he wouldn't be able to afford the higher rents sought by his landlord, Fauble looked around and found a site in a Roseville shopping center.

But talks have resumed with his landlord. Fauble could end up with a new lease at 17th and J streets. Or he could leave.

If he does move the 25-year-old business, Fauble knows a lot of regular customers would be disappointed and he'd miss the "young, trendy" people who flock to his store.

But there are things he wouldn't miss. Like the shortage of parking, occasional break-ins to customers' cars and graffiti assaults on the building.

Also, despite all the hype about midtown's housing growth, he says the area lacks the high-income residents needed to support retail ventures.

"The demographics just aren't there yet," he says.

* * *

Seems like Sacramento cant keep up with Roseville: Not only does Roseville have the best shopping mall, box box retail of every sort, all the high-end department stores and other high-end retail, but they are taking Sacramento's small mom and pop businesses too. Geez.

The unexpected closure of east Sac's Philipp's Bakery is another loss.

double post

[BrianSac]

Care of Sacramento Bee: July 4, 2007:


Beat goes on: The Beat, a popular midtown music outlet for new and used CDs and vinyl, may be moving to Roseville. Or maybe not.

"We're in flux," says store owner Robert Fauble, whose lease expires at the end of the year. Figuring he wouldn't be able to afford the higher rents sought by his landlord, Fauble looked around and found a site in a Roseville shopping center.

But talks have resumed with his landlord. Fauble could end up with a new lease at 17th and J streets. Or he could leave.

If he does move the 25-year-old business, Fauble knows a lot of regular customers would be disappointed and he'd miss the "young, trendy" people who flock to his store.

But there are things he wouldn't miss. Like the shortage of parking, occasional break-ins to customers' cars and graffiti assaults on the building.

Also, despite all the hype about midtown's housing growth, he says the area lacks the high-income residents needed to support retail ventures.

"The demographics just aren't there yet," he says.

* * *

Seems like Sacramento cant keep up with Roseville: Not only does Roseville have the best shopping mall, box box retail of every sort, all the high-end department stores and other high-end retail, but they are taking Sacramento's small mom and pop businesses too. Geez.

The unexpected closure of east Sac's Philipp's Bakery is another loss.

double post

[wburg]

Losing the Beat would be a huge blow to midtown: it would mean NO record stores worth a damn in midtown! Considering that there used to be quite a few, that's a shame. Admittedly, we have Records on Broadway and the Russ Solomon thing on Bway and 15th, but I can't even imagine J Street without a record store.

Of course, the Beat wasn't always there--they used to be on Folsom and 33rd (where the thrift store is now) until the early nineties, before that they were in East Sac down on J and 59th or thereabouts (?)

Roseville can have the damn mall and box box retail, it is local cutting-edge businesses (like record stores, boutique clothiers, cafes and music venues) that make midtown what it is.

[Majin]

Downtown and Midtown does need more higher income residence but with all the new high end apartments and condos under construction and in planning I dont think thats going to be a problem in the near future.

Just like roseville, the high end store and shopping mall didnt come to roseville until long after the high income people moved there. Same will happen in downtown/midtown.

[Schmoe]

I really think that despite the lack of high income residents nearby--if they don't go half-ass--they could make K Street a destination. People would travel to shop there...but only if it's done similar to 16th Street in Denver or Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica.

[greenmidtown]

Care of Sacramento Bee: July 4, 2007:


Beat goes on: The Beat, a popular midtown music outlet for new and used CDs and vinyl, may be moving to Roseville. Or maybe not.

"We're in flux," says store owner Robert Fauble, whose lease expires at the end of the year. Figuring he wouldn't be able to afford the higher rents sought by his landlord, Fauble looked around and found a site in a Roseville shopping center.

But talks have resumed with his landlord. Fauble could end up with a new lease at 17th and J streets. Or he could leave.

If he does move the 25-year-old business, Fauble knows a lot of regular customers would be disappointed and he'd miss the "young, trendy" people who flock to his store.

But there are things he wouldn't miss. Like the shortage of parking, occasional break-ins to customers' cars and graffiti assaults on the building.

Also, despite all the hype about midtown's housing growth, he says the area lacks the high-income residents needed to support retail ventures.

"The demographics just aren't there yet," he says.

* * *

Seems like Sacramento cant keep up with Roseville: Not only does Roseville have the best shopping mall, box box retail of every sort, all the high-end department stores and other high-end retail, but they are taking Sacramento's small mom and pop businesses too. Geez.

The unexpected closure of east Sac's Philipp's Bakery is another loss.

I'm skeptical about this. I think the Beat is doing bad because it just can't compete. The Beat looks great but most people I know in Midtown including myself avoid it because the selection is nothing to write home about and their prices are steep. Sounds like he's slamming on Midtown as an excuse. The demographics here are as good as they get for a record store. He'll get cheaper rent in Roseville but doubtfully better business. It's easy for anyone to just blame bad business on the area and not their own shortcomings. I don't buy it.

[wburg]

greenmidtown: You have a point there. They aim for something more like Amoeba or Rasputin's but miss the mark, both in product selection and price. Still, I'd definitely miss them.

[greenmidtown]

greenmidtown: You have a point there. They aim for something more like Amoeba or Rasputin's but miss the mark, both in product selection and price. Still, I'd definitely miss them.

that's what I was getting at. and I don't like the owner's attitude. he's blaming "not enough high-income residents." come on, it's a record store not upscale retail. he has no competition and all the residents, visitors, and workers of downtown/midtown to attract yet the "demographics aren't there yet." I'm liking R5, Russ Solomon's new record store on Broadway. I won't miss the Beat. If he leaves something better will come in.

[jsf8278]

I'm skeptical about this. I think the Beat is doing bad because it just can't compete. The Beat looks great but most people I know in Midtown including myself avoid it because the selection is nothing to write home about and their prices are steep. Sounds like he's slamming on Midtown as an excuse. The demographics here are as good as they get for a record store. He'll get cheaper rent in Roseville but doubtfully better business. It's easy for anyone to just blame bad business on the area and not their own shortcomings. I don't buy it.


I love this record store, and I agree and disagree with you. I think the store's selection is great because they carry artists that chain stores wouldn't touch. The problem is that many people (including myself) just don't buy music like they used to. The lure of free downloads is hard to pass up. That, more than the owner’s ill-founded excuse about income levels in midtown, is the reason for his lack of sales.
Does this guy really think a hippie record store would perform better in the suburbs; what a moron.
In addition, record stores in general are on the demise...E.g. Tower Records!

[wburg]

There are plenty of record stores that are doing well: music downloading STIMULATES record sales, because people get to "try out" artists they don't hear on the radio. So, while it's tougher to have an okay record store, it's easier to have a really good record store. I go to the Beat sometimes, but generally don't find what I'm looking for--for that, I normally have to hit Rasputin or Amoeba these days. Tower used to have that kind of "long tail" breadth of catalog.

Record stores in the suburbs around Sacramento are doing okay: Dimple is thriving, mostly by appealing to niche markets and selling used CDs and games. Tower's demise had more to do with gross mismanagement and institutionalized pilferage than music downloading.

Records on Broadway (formerly Records on K Street) is also doing well: they carry a lot of vinyl (in other words, things you generally can't download) as well as CDs and DVDs.

[jsf8278]

There are plenty of record stores that are doing well: music downloading STIMULATES record sales, because people get to "try out" artists they don't hear on the radio. So, while it's tougher to have an okay record store, it's easier to have a really good record store. I go to the Beat sometimes, but generally don't find what I'm looking for--for that, I normally have to hit Rasputin or Amoeba these days. Tower used to have that kind of "long tail" breadth of catalog.

Record stores in the suburbs around Sacramento are doing okay: Dimple is thriving, mostly by appealing to niche markets and selling used CDs and games. Tower's demise had more to do with gross mismanagement and institutionalized pilferage than music downloading.

Records on Broadway (formerly Records on K Street) is also doing well: they carry a lot of vinyl (in other words, things you generally can't download) as well as CDs and DVDs.

Wburg:

You are way off on the record sales hypothesis. I would challenge you to cite a credible statistic that shows increased (stiumulated) record sales over the past few years. Additionally, it just so happens Rolling Stone is following this topic.

"About 2,700 record stores have closed across the country since 2003, according to the research group Almighty Institute of Music Retail. Last year the eighty-nine-store Tower Records chain, which represented 2.5 percent of overall retail sales, went out of business, and Musicland, which operated more than 800 stores under the Sam Goody brand, among others, filed for bankruptcy. Around sixty-five percent of all music sales now take place in big-box stores such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy, which carry fewer titles than specialty stores and put less effort behind promoting new artists."

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/15137581/the_record_industrys_decline

[wburg]

jsf: actually, the last year with record CD sales was the year before Napster (in its original incarnation) was shut down.

Taking a look at that RS article, it seems like they blame big-box retailers, not file sharing, for the decline in CD sales, and record companies' failure to recognize the ability of file-sharing to promote albums:

many in the industry see the last seven years as a series of botched opportunities. And among the biggest, they say, was the labels' failure to address online piracy at the beginning by making peace with the first file-sharing service, Napster. "They left billions and billions of dollars on the table by suing Napster -- that was the moment that the labels killed themselves," says Jeff Kwatinetz, CEO of management company the Firm. "The record business had an unbelievable opportunity there. They were all using the same service. It was as if everybody was listening to the same radio station. Then Napster shut down, and all those 30 or 40 million people went to other [file-sharing services]."

By trying to squash file sharing services, instead of embracing them, the labels cut themselves out of a massive shift in the market, and are still suffering for it.

I will repeat: Tower's woes came from its own mismanagement, not file sharing. Policies like giving every store manager a no-limit credit card, paid back by corporate (which resulted in massive abuse by store managers) and their unofficial "pilferage is a fringe benefit" policy (to make up for Tower's stingy pay scale and lack of benefits, employee theft of merchandise was generally ignored) ended up sinking Tower's ship.

As to the music industry as a whole, the demise of the Big Music Label, with its arbitrary selection of bland, broad-appeal artists, is natural and way overdue. The existing networks of small labels, self-producing artists, and other businesses willing to adapt to the new model will step in and take over.

http://www.amazon.com/Long-Tail-Future-Business-Selling/dp/1401302378/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1227232-7313648?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183678602&sr=8-1

End result for local record stores: The ones I see doing the best are the ones that sell local music, obscure stuff, used titles, and other things that big-box retailers simply won't touch because they can't sell enough units: in other words, the deep catalog rather than the chartbusters. And people find out about those artists these days, generally, because they downloaded an MP3 or heard it on an obscure Internet radio station, not because they heard it on Top 40 radio and saw it advertised on TV.

[Phillip]

I was walking up K Street this afternoon, about 4:45pm, and two guys were handing out leaflets in front of the old Tower Outlet store at 726 K. I took one and it said:

"After work on Wednesday the public is invited to a K Street Forum on street life and public safety, featuring open discussion and public input, walking tour of streetscape changes (including redesign of Rose of Lima Park and relocation of 7th and K light rail station), live music and refreshments. Please attend if you work, shop, or live Downtown."

The forum was starting in a few minutes in the old Tower store and I hung around out of curiosity. The leaflet didn't say who was sponsoring the forum. There was music, a guy playing guitar and singing on the sidewalk in front and there were chips and drinks. Also four Sacramento police officers on horses about 30 feet away on K Street plus three more officers on foot, all milling around. I don't know if they were expecting trouble at this forum. I didn't see anything else happening in the vicinity.

By the time the forum started there were about 15 people there, plus the moderator and a young lady writing notes on a big easel up front. Without identifying his position or affiliation (not that I heard anyhow) the moderator started by soliciting general opinions about the state of K Street, downtown crime, and the effect that moving the light rail station off of K Street might have on crime and safety.

I was only able to stay 15 minutes and the people I heard speak were mostly Downtown/Midtown residents expressing concerns about crime and blight and bad behavior on the mall.

I never really got a handle on who was sponsoring the thing or what the purpose was. Or if the organizers were in favor of moving the light rail station or against it, or neutral. I expect that would have become clearer if I'd been able to stay longer.

When I left I walked past the mounted police I heard one say to another that nothing was happening and they might as well leave, and a couple of them trotted off.

There's no real punchline, but I thought maybe someone here knows who sponsored the event and what the purpose was? It seemed to be a "give feedback" event, but who was soliciting the feedback? It didn't seem to be city sponsored or RT sponsored.

My own feeling on moving the lightrail station off the mall is that by itself it won't improve K Street. If K Street is where people want to hang out and it's conducive to doing that then they'll just walk the block from the relocated RT station.

[wburg]

Weird...didn't hear a thing about that. I do know that Mohanna has started renting out some of his spaces on the 700 block, including one previously vacated by the expected land transfer. It sounds like he's trying to find more ways to dig in his heels.

[ozone]

Phillip I was at the 'K Street Forum' and it was an open discussion on street life and public safety however there was no presentation of the city's streetscape plan, let alone a walking tour. My neighbor was the moderator and the sponsors were supposedly a coalition of diffferent advocacy groups. I've worked with the moderator to try to create a corner park here in Midtown and I know his heart is in the right place however I think we disagree on the issue of moving the station. Although no one came out and said so I believe the group putting the forum on were against moving the station.

A representative from Councilmember Tretheway's office spoke explaining the city's reasoning for relocating the station and also doing a good job of clearing up some misconceptions about who is responsible for what on K Street. He did not mention Mr. Mohanna by name but did allude to him when talking about the responsibility of K Street property owners. He made it pretty clear that the city has already made it's decision to move the station and that it's unlikely they will reverse that decision. The city rep explained that the city looked into a number of station relocation options and that 7th Street turned out to be the one that various interest groups (including TRAC and ADA) could agree upon. Moving the station to 7th Street will create a single point where passengers can board both the gold and the blue lines without crossing the street and it will greatly improve a dark, blighted and dangerous (feeling) stretch of downtown by adding lights and security cameras. I pointed out that it will also make room for outdoor seating and addtional landscaping features on the 700 blk which would pretty much be impossible unless the station is moved. The relocated station would have less space for kids to hang out and since it will have less visabilty they are less likely to deliberately 'make a scene' to get attention.

Once it was clear that the issue of relocating the station was pretty much a done deal the discussion turned mostly to public safety.

It's funny you should mention the cops. It was noted by the group that if we had as much police presence on K Street everyday that we had during a small public gathering we wouldn't have a problem with public safety on the mall. It was ridiculously Mayberry-esque of the SPD.

I believe there was an 'unoffical spokesperson' for Moe Mohanna there however he never divulged his connection. From some of the statments (about wasteful city lawsuits) made by that guy and the moderator it was clear to me that Moe's hand was in this somehow. And of course, it was held in a building Moe owns. I'll talk to my neighbor about it when I see him.

[Phillip]

Thanks for that update, ozone. If I'd known you were there I would have said hello. :hi:

I admit I don't follow the light rail relocation story closely and I didn't know the station relocation was a done deal, or nearly so. The ease of transferring trains argument makes sense. But minus a strong and sustained police presence I don't think moving the station will do much to improve K Street's atmosphere.

Why does Mohanna object to moving the light rail station? Is he supposed to help pay for it?

[ozone]

We talked about having a greater police presence on K Street and someone suggested adding a mini-police station (somthing like a Japanese Koban) to the mall -maybe in an empty storefront. Maybe more police would help but what would really improve things on K street is more people and a greater diversity of people. That's what the city is trying to accomplish with the renovation of the 700 blk/St Rose.

Why does Moe Mohanna object to moving the light rail station? Well it's not because he's paying for any of the streetscape or station move. At this point I don't care to figure out why Moe does what he does. Maybe he's got a strange messiah complex? Maybe he's a greedy bastard? Maybe he's a saint? Whatever he is I just want him GONE. He is the one of main reasons K Street is so messed up. It's too bad that the group that put on this forum doesn't see that. It amazes me that people who claimed to be 'experts' have only a superficial knowledge of the thing they were talking about. The more I attend these community meetings the more I'm finding out how parochial people are and really quite ignorant of how city and business works.

[BrianSac]

We talked about having a greater police presence on K Street and someone suggested adding a mini-police station (somthing like a Japanese Koban) to the mall -maybe in an empty storefront. Maybe more police would help but what would really improve things on K street is more people and a greater diversity of people. That's what the city is trying to accomplish with the renovation of the 700 blk/St Rose.

Why does Moe Mohanna object to moving the light rail station? Well it's not because he's paying for any of the streetscape or station move. At this point I don't care to figure out why Moe does what he does. Maybe he's got a strange messiah complex? Maybe he's a greedy bastard? Maybe he's a saint? Whatever he is I just want him GONE. He is the one of main reasons K Street is so messed up. It's too bad that the group that put on this forum doesn't see that. It amazes me that people who claimed to be 'experts' have only a superficial knowledge of the thing they were talking about. The more I attend these community meetings the more I'm finding out how parochial people are and really quite ignorant of how city and business works.

I've often wondered if a few people on this forum are actually Nimbys themselves or anti-growth, anti-change, anti-build anything at all types.

This forum can give them a heads-up on potential projects. It could make their job of obstructing potential projects a little easier. Just a thought.

[innov8]

I've often wondered if a few people on this forum are actually Nimbys themselves or anti-growth, anti-change, anti-build anything at all types.

This forum can give them a heads-up on potential projects. It could make their job of obstructing potential projects a little easier. Just a thought.


Yeah, there is one I can think of *cough* berg *cough* that has showed all his cards as of late.

[ozone]

I'm not sure what in my post would trigger that statement but since it's been proven that historic preservation can have a very positive economic impact on a community not to mention giving a place it's unique character... I think its unfair and just plain wrong-headed to single out someone who is pro-preservation and label them as anti-growth, anti-change, NIMBYs.

Yeah I'm sure there are tons of NIMBYs lurking around this forum gathering important 'special inside information' that they will then use to foil the plans of developers. Getting a little paranoid are we? It's OK you'll come down after a while. Just remember it's only in your mind. It's not wise to PUI (post under the influence).

[ltsmotorsport]

It's not wise to PUI (post under the influence).

But didn't you hear? Everything is better UI. :notacrook:

[ozone]

I have no idea what you mean :shrug: ..really...honestly..:cool:

[BrianSac]

I'm not sure what in my post would trigger that statement but since it's been proven that historic preservation can have a very positive economic impact on a community not to mention giving a place it's unique character... I think its unfair and just plain wrong-headed to single out someone who is pro-preservation and label them as anti-growth, anti-change, NIMBYs.

Yeah I'm sure there are tons of NIMBYs lurking around this forum gathering important 'special inside information' that they will then use to foil the plans of developers. Getting a little paranoid are we? It's OK you'll come down after a while. Just remember it's only in your mind. It's not wise to PUI (post under the influence).

Just for the record, ozone, if you were referring to me, I personally have not named any names, nor have I made any recent comments about historic preservation, nor have I correlated pro-preservation with anti-growth or anti-change.

By your own admission, you state that there are tons of NIMBYs lurking around in this forum. I never said there were "tons", nor did I say I was paranoid about it.

I dont think innov8 was being paranoid either.

[ozone]

Only one person has mentioned a name and it wasn't you or I so don't worry about it. To be honest I don't take anything written on a skyscraper geek forum very serious. A bunch of people talking about skyscrapers and our built environment is different from people who are actually are doing somthing and actually living the life.

I do think it's kind of funny how people living in small towns or the suburbs want to tell people who actually live in downtown/midtown and who are actually are involved in building/improving our urban community how it should be. But as far as the paranoia thing is concerned I was just having a little fun. Please don't take me that serious.

[innov8]

Who would have thought that stating the obvious on who are anti-growth
unless it's reuse would make people defensive.

I enjoy reading what Wberg has to say about Sacramento's history and his
opinion on why a structure should not be torn down. But as of Friday Wberg
has stated that "a building can be considered historic simply because it is
old", this statement has defined what his views are, which means the
Grayhound should not be torn down. Unless new development is build on an
existing parking lot or reuses is done with the old structure, Wberg will not
support it. That is an extremest point of view if I ever heard one.

Historical preservation has keep many worthy structures standing in
Sacramento, but the Greyhound Station is cheap... and this cheap art deco
is in my opinion not a battle that preservationist should be fighting for.
These cries to save every old building around just because they "old" which
makes them "historic" actully sounds like the boy who cries wolf. How many
times can you state that this or that building needs to be saved because
it's "old" and have people care anymore? But that is the line I have been
hearing from Wberg. This sort of thinking would keep our city standing still
if Wberg's line of thinking prevailed... and thankfully it does not.

I'm glad Wberg is here to state his extremest point of view... because that
what it is. I have not heard him praise any new development downtown
unless it's done on an existing parking lot. After a while his anti growth or
reuse only statements will get really old.

I'll be right there with Wberg in the future to defend when a structure of real
importance is being targeted for demo... until then will just have to agree to disagree.

[Web]

Wow a lot of third person talk here.

Where is Wberg an extemist???

Remember this is the city which replaced the Alhambra Theatre with A safeway......

This place seems if you don't 100% agree with the majority you aren't welcome.

Change of subject: So where is Nassi and Co these days?????

Also Moe Mohanna in any other city would be called a slum lord.

All the redevelopment which built K st mall is the reason there is crap there today......so Maybe just tearing down buildings is not the solution.....Downtown malls are bad.

[innov8]

I apologize for calling Wberg an extremist in regard to saving all structures
against development… but his statement was a strong one. The idea that
“a building can be considered historic simply because it is old" is IMO way out there.

And no, there is plenty room here for everybody on the forum… but common,
you gotta know what your getting into when you join a highrise and pro-
urban construction forum like this and don’t cheer along as the city makes
progress. Seriously, your gonna catch some heat if you don’t.

Also, I read Wberg’s blog several times a month, he certainly knows his stuff.

[goldcntry]

Web! Lay off the caffeine! :D I don't even remember innov8 dropping the "E" bomb...

As with innob8, I don't always agree with wberg, however I have great respect for his informed passion! Even though we are usually diametrically opposed in our views, I can like him a lot because he's a one-man knowledge base of Sactown historical information. Thank goodness we have him here on the forum! Truly, I welcome everyone's comments here. Lord knows that I've had some visceral reactions to reading many posts here. I just make sure and step back before flaming back at someone's IMO wacked-out posts. Whether it's ozone, greenmidtown, towerdistrict, wburg, or innov8, I am glad for the diverse opinions!

Now back to my morning diet coke...

:tomato:

[wburg]

Unless new development is build on an
existing parking lot or reuses is done with the old structure, Wberg will not
support it. That is an extremest point of view if I ever heard one.


Hey now, that's not true...you can knock down as many Buzz-boxes as you like and you won't hear a peep from me!

[TowerDistrict]

Lord knows that I've had some visceral reactions to reading many posts here. I just make sure and step back before flaming back at someone's IMO wacked-out posts. Whether it's ozone, greenmidtown, towerdistrict, wburg, or innov8, I am glad for the diverse opinions!

I'm just flattered to have made your visceral reactions list. :breakcomp: