[travis bickle]

Been away for a while and may have missed something.... but has anyone demanded preservation of the decrepit and derelict and all around nuisance and hindrance to developing a vital and vigorous downtown Greyhound bus station? wberg, if you have advocated support for that you're giving preservationists a bad name. That's the kind of ridiculous demand that colors every future cause and greatly diminishes your credibility.

If you haven't advocated that... well then... never mind.

[Majin]

I haven't been following this thread. When are the K street renovation projects suppose to start?

[wburg]

Been away for a while and may have missed something.... but has anyone demanded preservation of the decrepit and derelict and all around nuisance and hindrance to developing a vital and vigorous downtown Greyhound bus station? wberg, if you have advocated support for that you're giving preservationists a bad name. That's the kind of ridiculous demand that colors every future cause and greatly diminishes your credibility.

If you haven't advocated that... well then... never mind.

Bottom line is I like old buildings, period. I'd rather see them busy, vital and in good condition than run-down and disused, but I'll take that (which can be repaired) over a pile of rubble (which can't.)

If you're asking if I am in favor of preserving the nuisance (the drug activity, the deferred maintenance, etcetera) then no, I'm not. I like the building. Some seem to think that "preservation" means "keep everything exactly the same forever." They're wrong.

[travis bickle]

Bottom line is I like old buildings, period. I'd rather see them busy, vital and in good condition than run-down and disused, but I'll take that (which can be repaired) over a pile of rubble (which can't.)

If you're asking if I am in favor of preserving the nuisance (the drug activity, the deferred maintenance, etcetera) then no, I'm not. I like the building. Some seem to think that "preservation" means "keep everything exactly the same forever." They're wrong.

Well, I appreciate your appreciation of old buildings. But the Greyhound station looked like a temporary structure from the moment is was built. A couple of curved lines and lettering do not an Art Deco structure make. It appears to have built on the cheap and that part of it has stood the test of time. In my view there is little, if anything, worth preserving... Particularly if demands/threats by preservationists delay revitalizing that critical block of downtown.

Pick your battles wburg. Going to the mat on this issue damages your ability to fight the good fight later.

[wburg]

What about the Greyhound station suggests that it was built on the cheap? Streamline Moderne buildings tend to be minimalist, with simple lines--it's a highlight of the style, and a reaction to the overly ornamented nature of earlier building styles. But that isn't the same as "cheap." Maybe you could be more specific?

[wburg]

I haven't been following this thread. When are the K street renovation projects suppose to start?

The K Street renovation projects started nearly 50 years ago and have yet to end. That's part of the problem.

[travis bickle]

What about the Greyhound station suggests that it was built on the cheap? Streamline Moderne buildings tend to be minimalist, with simple lines--it's a highlight of the style, and a reaction to the overly ornamented nature of earlier building styles. But that isn't the same as "cheap." Maybe you could be more specific?

jeez - even the building's surface looks like papier mache.

[Deno]

Until the Greyhound station is moved and the area around cleaned up, that area will never improve.
When I was a young boy back in 1962 I took a Greyhound bus ride with my grandmother from San Diego to Seattle and we stopped in Sacramento. It was the first time I had ever been to Sacramento. We were able to get out of the bus and I walked out to the street to try to see the Capital. What I remember is that I thought that this was a dark and dirty city. There was trash all over the street and I saw some bums walking around. (we called them bums back then) A few years later my dad's job got transfered to Sacramento. I have been here ever since, but that area looks the same.

[BrianSac]

What about the Greyhound station suggests that it was built on the cheap? Streamline Moderne buildings tend to be minimalist, with simple lines--it's a highlight of the style, and a reaction to the overly ornamented nature of earlier building styles. But that isn't the same as "cheap." Maybe you could be more specific?

I don't think the building is cheap either. Whether or not it should be saved or not, I defer to the majority, although I do like the building.

[ozone]

The K Street renovation projects started nearly 50 years ago and have yet to end. That's part of the problem.

I disagree w.b. K Street's problem is not ongoing renovation - almost all the spaces what we now think of as great public places evolved over time -actually being continually 'tweaked with' until they reached their 'perfect' state -so it's not an ongoing process of renovation but rather a lack of renovations and restorations, insensitive remodels, cheap/poor design, and lack of maintenance that's the problem.

[wburg]

I did a bit of reading in the city's historic preservation ordinance, and these are the potential qualifiers for a building to be considered eligible for the Sacramento Register of historic buildings and cultural resources. A structure only needs to qualify under one of these conditions:

* Associated with historic events
* Associated with the lives of historically significant individuals
* Embodies the type, period or method of construction
* Work of a master
* High artistic value
* Has yielded, and is likely to yield more, archaeological information

Integrity of location, design and setting are lesser factors. These factors are also used for historic districts or contributing resources.

For the Greyhound station, the third category, "embodies type, period or method of construction" is the applicable category: I won't try to argue that the station is the work of a master or has high artistic value (although I'd say "moderate.")

By the way, currently a request for demolition for any building over 50 years old triggers a review by preservation staff to see if a building qualifies as a historic structure under any of these qualifiers. If a building does qualify, staff starts the nomination process. So a project that called for the demolition of the Greyhound depot could trigger the events that would preserve it...unless, of course, the building was integrated into a larger, adaptive-reuse sort of design.

[ozone]

The BIG problem I have with qualifiers for buildings to be considered "historic" is that a building only needs to meet for ONE of the conditions listed. That's ridiculous. It should have to meet at least two condtions. A lot of schlocky buildings embody a type, period or method of construction. The Greyound bus station may qualify as a type/period but it doesn't have high artistic value IMO.

As for Greyhound -the business. There's a lot more going on here than people trying to improve downtown aesthetics. Because bus travel is cheaper, it's mostly our poorer citizens (who lack the money to use other means of transport), that take Greyhound. Some people are against it because they don't want any association with "those people". It's a class and racial prejudice as much anything else. Some of the people who ride Greyound or hang out around the station are on the margins of society but the vast majority of riders are decent people and it fills a vital transportation need. As for the criminal activity around the station -you can't blame Greyhound or it's riders because it's in a run-down part of town. That whole section of L Street from 8th to 3rd has been a no man's land for years. It's empty at night and is poorly lit so it feels more dangerous than it really is.

[otnemarcaS]

This is from the 21 Q blog on Sacbee.com's website. Man, downtown plaza just keeps going downhill with it's tenant mix as they keep losing stores to Arden Fair and/or Roseville Galleria.


J.Crew on the move

I've blogged before about the new stores coming to Arden Fair mall, including Aeropostale, Skechers, M.A.C Cosmetics and Abercrombie Kids.

Well, now, I've finally snagged a date for the launch of the much-anticipated J.Crew store. It's set to open its doors on Tuesday, Aug. 7.

Here's something you might not know. I found out a couple of weeks ago that the J.Crew store in the Downtown Plaza is closing today in anticipation for the big move. (There's a J.Crew in the Galleria at Roseville.)

I don't know what all my shopping friends out there think, but it seems to me like it's going to be slim pickins' downtown - unless you do all your shopping at Macy's.

Many of the other stores in the plaza also can be found in other area malls. J.Crew was the exception for folks who live in the downtown area.

It will be interesting to see two things:

* What will happen to the shopping space at the Downtown Plaza?

* Will the Arden Fair J.Crew carry more of the clothing options (and accessories) that are found online and in the catalog? I'm hoping so.

I'll check out the new store after it opens and report back here at 21Q. But feel free to send me your thoughts!

Posted by Leigh Grogan at 02:02 PM | Send e-mail | Comments (0)

Source: 21Q (http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/ticket/)

[arod74]

:previous: Jeez that's not good. Could be the canary in the cave type moment for DTP. With that asswipe Mohana holding up the landswap deal for the forseable future, how long can the mall limp around by itself. It might not be long before we see check cashing businesses, nick-nack stores, and generic chinese fastfood places with the faded, lamented pictures of their "yum" offerings dominate the place.

[reggiesquared]

:previous: Jeez that's not good. Could be the canary in the cave type moment for DTP. With that asswipe Mohana holding up the landswap deal for the forseable future, how long can the mall limp around by itself. It might not be long before we see check cashing businesses, nick-nack stores, and generic chinese fastfood places with the faded, lamented pictures of their "yum" offerings dominate the place.

You just described Florin mall RIP. DTP is on its way! Being a frequent lunchtime customer of DTP I really don't think the venue is so much the problem as the people. Shoppers don't want to be bothered by gold teeth and pan handlers while they shop or relax. Even though W.F. is watching this mall die, I don't think much will change in terms of sales when they remodel if loiterers still occupy most of it. They will just have a fancier mall to bother people, talk to themselves and litter at. But who knows, maybe the if you build it (higher class stores and venue) they will come model will work but I don't see that happening until more normal people are living downtown to offset the bums. Hopefully that will start happening and the k-street mall will turn into something like the santa monica promenade where you have a pedestrian mall that leads up to a real mall/department stores. K Street could be another 5th street San Diego but gawd its amazing how hard it is to do things around here.

[BrianSac]

You just described Florin mall RIP. DTP is on its way! Being a frequent lunchtime customer of DTP I really don't think the venue is so much the problem as the people. Shoppers don't want to be bothered by gold teeth and pan handlers while they shop or relax. Even though W.F. is watching this mall die, I don't think much will change in terms of sales when they remodel if loiterers still occupy most of it. They will just have a fancier mall to bother people, talk to themselves and litter at. But who knows, maybe the if you build it (higher class stores and venue) they will come model will work but I don't see that happening until more normal people are living downtown to offset the bums. Hopefully that will start happening and the k-street mall will turn into something like the santa monica promenade where you have a pedestrian mall that leads up to a real mall/department stores. K Street could be another 5th street San Diego but gawd its amazing how hard it is to do things around here.

Yes it is very hard to get anything done here in Sacramento.

I avoid DTP mall. But, a co-worker friend of mine loves the mall despite being a tried and true suburbanite. She takes her family "down there" as if it were a "destination" mall. She's been doing this since the mall opened and her kids love it too. Her "kids" are in there early 20's.

In any big city, bums and "weird" people are par for the course. They are part of the fabric of the city. People just ignore them or are "entertained" by them. I dont know why Sacramentans seem to be so afraid and annoyed by them. Granted, when there are more of "them" than "us" it upsets the apple cart.

[wburg]

I don't mind Downtown Plaza, although I pretty much only go to Macy's or pass through on my way to Old Sacramento. It certainly doesn't seem dead to me, and the last time I went to Arden Fair Mall there were just as many young toughs puttering around there as at Downtown Plaza.

I agree with BrianSac that an urban mall is going to have a more tolerant atmosphere for the poor and weird. Speaking as one of the weird and until fairly recently poor, it seems silly that Sacramento can't be a "real city" until the poor and weird are...dealt with...somehow, while other cities seem to succeed despite these apparent handicaps. Heck, have any of you ever been to Union Square in San Francisco and *not* been spare-changed?

Although, I must admit, Downtown Plaza has never been my favorite place: it is, very deliberately, a slice of suburbia plopped in the middle of a city. It is a holdover from an era when cities, tall buildings and people living downtown were considered very bad things, and trying to emulate suburbia in an urban setting was considered a very good thing, even if it was economically unviable.

Malls are retail versions of the suburban home: low to the ground and interior-centric, surrounded by open space to suggest dominion over a wide territory and provide space for the automobile. The focus is on the inside, while the outside is bunker-like. For the urban dweller, who likes walking around and experiencing the outside of buildings, malls are always going to be disappointments.

While shopping downtown is nice, a downtown shopping mall is kind of a loser idea. It has taken a few decades for this lesson to sink in.

[reggiesquared]

I don't mind Downtown Plaza, although I pretty much only go to Macy's or pass through on my way to Old Sacramento. It certainly doesn't seem dead to me, and the last time I went to Arden Fair Mall there were just as many young toughs puttering around there as at Downtown Plaza.

I agree with BrianSac that an urban mall is going to have a more tolerant atmosphere for the poor and weird. Speaking as one of the weird and until fairly recently poor, it seems silly that Sacramento can't be a "real city" until the poor and weird are...dealt with...somehow, while other cities seem to succeed despite these apparent handicaps. Heck, have any of you ever been to Union Square in San Francisco and *not* been spare-changed?

Although, I must admit, Downtown Plaza has never been my favorite place: it is, very deliberately, a slice of suburbia plopped in the middle of a city. It is a holdover from an era when cities, tall buildings and people living downtown were considered very bad things, and trying to emulate suburbia in an urban setting was considered a very good thing, even if it was economically unviable.

Malls are retail versions of the suburban home: low to the ground and interior-centric, surrounded by open space to suggest dominion over a wide territory and provide space for the automobile. The focus is on the inside, while the outside is bunker-like. For the urban dweller, who likes walking around and experiencing the outside of buildings, malls are always going to be disappointments.

While shopping downtown is nice, a downtown shopping mall is kind of a loser idea. It has taken a few decades for this lesson to sink in.

Agreed. Most our malls have a mall-rat-thug problem. Didn't someone get shot at Arden not that long ago?

[reggiesquared]

A little off topic but this is what happens when you argue on the Internt. Good reason to stop haha...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_re_us/internet_feud;_ylt=AhjIym5ig_HQYtuUtagBBa9vzwcF

[Web]

:previous: Jeez that's not good. Could be the canary in the cave type moment for DTP. With that asswipe Mohana holding up the landswap deal for the forseable future, how long can the mall limp around by itself. It might not be long before we see check cashing businesses, nick-nack stores, and generic chinese fastfood places with the faded, lamented pictures of their "yum" offerings dominate the place.

but remember Moe has said he is the good guy here and is being bullyied.....
hmmmm has Moe ever eveloped anything or is he just a slum lord driving big cars off of cheap rent??

[Web]

:previous: Jeez that's not good. Could be the canary in the cave type moment for DTP. With that asswipe Mohana holding up the landswap deal for the forseable future, how long can the mall limp around by itself. It might not be long before we see check cashing businesses, nick-nack stores, and generic chinese fastfood places with the faded, lamented pictures of their "yum" offerings dominate the place.

but remember Moe has said he is the good guy here and is being bullyied.....
hmmmm has Moe ever developed anything or is he just a slum lord driving big cars off of cheap rent??:slob:

[sugit]

Great....

K Street land owners win round one
Sacramento Business Journal - 12:04 PM PDT Wednesday, August 15, 2007
by Michael Shaw

Downtown property owner Mohammed "Moe" Mohanna and an affiliated group of developers have won an initial round in a dispute with Sacramento's redevelopment agency over a stalled land swap of property along K Street that had been slated for redevelopment.

The judge in a lawsuit filed by the city in February has issued a preliminary ruling that the city was not justified in recording what's known as a "lis pendens" on property owned by Mohanna and others in the 700 block of K Street -- essentially a notice that the property is tied up in litigation and buyers or investors should be wary.

The city is suing Mohanna and others, trying to enforce a land swap that has been stalled since a fire gutted properties on the 800 block and others were demolished. Mohanna filed to have the lis pendens notice expunged.

The land swap would've allowed Zeiden Properties LLC to build a Z Gallerie furniture store and other retail shops on the 700 block on four properties currently owned by other developers, in exchange for giving those developers property in the 800 block. Property owners then balked at a transfer, saying they would receive property of lesser value after the fire and demolition.

Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster plans to hear arguments at 2 p.m. Wednesday on the matter, but has issued a preliminary ruling that the city has not shown it would win on the merits of the case. McMaster wrote that the developers expected a "value-for-value" transaction, but that the value of the property was affected by the fire and subsequent demolition. A condition of the land exchange agreement was that Mohanna and others receive value for value.

Mohanna and others are also seeking attorney's fees for having the lis pendens notice expunged, but the judge has not ruled on that issue.

The overall court case is still pending.

[arod74]

:previous: I guess the city was just a wee bit overly optimistic that stretches of a redeveloped K street would be shopable in time for Christmas this year. I wouldn't go making plans to holiday shop anywhere on K street other than DTP anytime in the next 5 years or so.

[innov8]

From what I have heard from someone who owns a restaurant just off of K Street
is that several well known restaurants in the area are not doing well. As it was
explained to me, they are hanging on month to month. Business has dropped
off dramatically from the year before.

NOT a good sign :(

[Majin]

Sadly it seems like K steet improvements are going to get stalled into eternity...

The city REALLY needs to expedite the K street pedestrian improvements. That will go along way to increasing the desireablity of the area for business owners and customers.

What is the status of the K street improvements anyway? Why havent they started? Lack of money?

[Fusey]

It'll probably be easier just to pay this bastard off.

[arod74]

Yeah, I don't see the city wanting to go through the protracted time or legal wrangling trying to ED all of Mohanna's rag tag collection of buildings. It might be a different story if we were talking about one building here. It looks like Mohanna has the city right where he wants. Forced to pay whatever inflated pricetag to move K street forward.

[sugit]

K Street land deal hits legal setback
Sacramento is unlikely to succeed in bid to force developer to swap property, judge finds.
By Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, August 16, 2007

A judge's ruling Wednesday dealt a major blow to development of two critical blocks on the K Street mall in downtown Sacramento, setting the stage for a potentially lengthy legal battle or an eminent domain fight.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster found that the city wasn't likely to prevail in a lawsuit to force a development team headed by property owner Moe Mohanna to go through with an agreed-upon land swap.

The city wanted the exchange so that a development team fronted by Joe Zeiden, owner of the Z Gallerie furniture retail chain, could revamp the historic buildings in the 700 block of K Street and install them with well-known retailers.

The exchange would have paved the way for Mohanna's team to transform the street's 800 block with condos and retail.

But McMaster found that a fire and demolition of buildings in the 800 block lowered the property value and wouldn't have resulted in a fair exchange.

The city's lawsuit still is pending, but the ruling will trigger discussions on the next steps, said James Gilpin, the private attorney representing the city. Options include the city using its powers of eminent domain, he said.

"We're at a fork in the road," Gilpin said. "We have to decide which way to go to get K Street redeveloped."

Gilpin said it was possible to go forward with the lawsuit, and noted that not all evidence had gone to McMasters before he made his ruling.

Mayor Heather Fargo, through a spokeswoman, said she hadn't been briefed on the ruling and could not comment.

The attorney representing the Mohanna team called the lawsuit "frivolous" and said the victory Wednesday all but kills the land swap. And, they said they are preparing for a fight.

"If they try it (eminent domain) we'll be ready for that, said Myron Moskovitz, attorney for Mohanna and his team.

"My clients want to see the redevelopment of K Street. They have the ability to redevelop the 700 block themselves, and they'd still like to do that."

If the case goes forward, it would likely take a year to go to trial, Moskovitz said.

City officials have said the land swap is crucial to make redevelopment possible in the area. The city already has spent more than $24 million to speed up the process by buying property in the area from other owners and relocating merchants.

"At this point we're left with scattered parcels of ownership," said Leslie Fritzche, the city's downtown development manager. "We're left to explore our options. Do we fold our tent, lick our wounds and go home? I don't know."

Wednesday's setback could also mean developer Zeiden pulls out of the project. Fritzche said Zeiden has so far remained committed, but they would have to look now at whether he wants to go forward if land can't be consolidated.

Zeiden's spokeswoman, Wendy Hoyt, did not return a call for comment.

Redeveloping the 700 and 800 blocks, among downtown's most blighted blocks, is crucial and the main concern for the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, said executive director Michael Ault.

"Whatever the ruling, progress has got to be the priority," Ault said. "Further legal wrangling impacts our ability to move forward."

Movement has been slow in coming. In January 2005, the city took a get-tough approach.

It gave property owners of the run-down businesses and empty lots a tight deadline to produce viable redevelopment plans or face the possibility that the city would appropriate the property under the power known as eminent domain.

In court Wednesday, the Mohanna team's attorney complained to the judge about the tactics, and said his clients didn't like the land swap deal.

"(The city) said 'you're not good enough, we're going to take it away from you and if you don't like it we'll use eminent domain,' " Moskovitz said. "They were under pressure, under threats."

After a fire in November and subsequent demolition, Mohanna has said banks have been unwilling to transfer $4 million in loans he has on property in the 700 block to the 800 block. Mohanna went to the city to ask for more financial help but that was rejected, he said.

"My client was left with rubble," Moskovitz said.

At issue in Wednesday's hearing was a legal document the city filed against the properties that were to be part of the exchange. The "lis pendens" warn the land is tied up in litigation and make it difficult for properties to be sold or for money to be borrowed on the land.

The judge ruled that the lis pendens be removed.

Mohanna also has filed a countersuit against the city, seeking to recover damages. His attorney said he's losing $40,000 in monthly rent from tenants the city evicted.

And Mohanna is suing Zeiden, claiming the developer was negligent in his oversight of his buildings, leading to the fire.

Despite these complaints, Mohanna's team hasn't said officially it won't accept the land swap.

"We're not claiming the agreement is terminated," Moskovitz told the judge. "Maybe we will, and maybe we won't."

[goldcntry]

What we really need is an F-5 twister that runs directly down K from St.Rose to the Cathedral and just suck it all out of there. Mo would be happy with all the FEMA money he would fraudulently claim, the city could pick up all the lots for dirt cheap, and the rubble could be used for construction materials of a "sea wall" for the riverfront development!

:tomato: ;) :tomato:

[TowerDistrict]

What we really need is an F-5 twister that runs directly down K from St.Rose to the Cathedral and just suck it all out of there. Mo would be happy with all the FEMA money he would fraudulently claim, the city could pick up all the lots for dirt cheap, and the rubble could be used for construction materials of a "sea wall" for the riverfront development!

and who says Sacramentans can't think BIG????

:tomato: Gold Country for Mayor!!! :tomato:

[Web]

Moe is why......at least the 7th and 8th street issues


btw? I have eaten lunch on k street for 8 yrs.......a few places are busier than ever.....a few have changed hands and a few need to close(just plain bad food and serv etc).

[goldcntry]

and who says Sacramentans can't think BIG????

:tomato: Gold Country for Mayor!!! :tomato:

I'm flattered Tower :blush: however, I live in the no-one-wants-it land between Sacramento and Rancho better known as Rosemont... Get us annexed and I'll consider it! ;)

And would it kill the city to disinfect the alley by St. Rose Park? Summertime heat does not react well with that open air latrine... Blech! I have to hold my breath walking through that section of K...

:tomato:

[sugit]

At this point, I really have no idea what Mohanna wants. I thought he just wanted to get bought out..but the more and more it looks like he just wants to keep his property and keep being a slumlord in the area. If he wanted to get bought, I can't see how that couldn't have happen by now.

Anti-tax group eyes K Street
If eminent domain is used by city, it would be issue in a state ballot measure.
By Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writer

A push for the renovation of K Street has turned ugly, pitting the city against Moe Mohanna, the owner of several blighted downtown properties.

If the city were to use its biggest stick and try to forcibly take Mohanna's land, it could set up an unintended result: turning Mohanna into the poster child for a ballot initiative looking to crack down on the use of eminent domain.

Mohanna's legal fight with the city, according to sponsors of the statewide ballot initiative, would certainly be prime fodder for their campaign.

"Moe Mohanna's case won't just be a local issue then, it will be a statewide issue," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Organization, one of the initiative's sponsors.

Already, Coupal said, Mohanna has contacted him about his legal wrangling with the city.

The city is suing Mohanna and his development team to force them to go through with an agreed-upon land swap with another developer. The deal was devised to allow the revitalization of two of K Street's worst stretches -- the 700 and 800 blocks.

A court ruling this week put the success of the city's suit in question when a judge found Sacramento wasn't likely to prevail at trial. Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster found that a fire and demolition of buildings in the 800 block lowered its value, making it an unfair trade for Mohanna and his team.

City officials have said consolidation of the land is crucial to the redevelopment plan. To speed the process, the city has spent at least $24 million to buy portions of the blocks and to relocate merchants.

The property exchange would allow Mohanna and his development team to revitalize the 800 block of K Street. And it would mean a development team fronted by Joe Zeiden, owner of the Z Gallerie furniture retail chain, could revamp the historic buildings on the 700 block of K Street and install retailers in them.

John Dangberg, assistant city manager for economic development, said city officials had yet to determine the implications of McMaster's ruling. He said he believed the lawsuit, still in its early stages, would continue.

Dangberg said he believed the city could continue with the suit and pursue eminent domain at the same time. Any decision to go through with eminent domain would be a public process, with a final vote made by the City Council.

"Eminent domain is a tool of last resort, but that said, our goal is to get K Street developed," Dangberg said. "We are prepared to recommend to the council that we use every tool available to get us to that end."

City Councilman Ray Tretheway, whose district includes K Street, said the council has yet to be briefed. However, he said he thinks the city should continue with the lawsuit, even if it takes a year or more to come to trial.

"I think we should stay the course," Tretheway said.

Myron Moskovitz, the attorney representing Mohanna's development team, said his clients are preparing to fend off an eminent domain push.

"That's the word we get back from the city," Moskovitz said. "They haven't formally begun the procedure, but they're absolutely considering it."

For years, some properties in the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street have been allowed to fall into disrepair, even collapse. At the beginning of 2005, the city took a get-tough policy saying if property owners in those blocks didn't submit workable redevelopment plans, the city would take the land through eminent domain.

The city then awarded Mohanna and his team the right to develop the 800 block and Zeiden the opportunity to redo the 700 block.

The city has been forced to use eminent domain to take possession of crime-ridden properties it could not obtain through other means, said Lisa Bates, director of housing and development for the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

The Franklin Villa housing area in south Sacramento was turned into affordable housing owned by a nonprofit agency. Washington Market, a liquor store in Oak Park, was seized through eminent domain and torn down. The store had been a magnet for drug crimes, robberies and prostitution, police said.

Dangberg said the city would lose a vital tool if local governments lost the right to use eminent domain for economic development.

In response to the Howard Jarvis eminent domain initiative, the Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 has been proposed. Both are still gathering signatures to qualify for the June 8 statewide ballot.

ACA 8, like the Howard Jarvis measure, would prohibit the state or local government from taking land from a homeowner if it is to be transferred to a private party. But ACA 8 would not prohibit taking property from small business owners. Instead, it would require the owner first be given a chance to participate in a revitalization plan.

[Fusey]

At this point, I really have no idea what Mohanna wants. I thought he just wanted to get bought out..but the more and more it looks like he just wants to keep his property and keep being a slumlord in the area. If he wanted to get bought, I can't see how that couldn't have happen by now.

Mohanna he's doing Sacramento a favor by holding onto these properties. He's also got a spin-doctor over on the Sac Bee comments; some weirdo named Mazi1120 (in one comment he says, "Mr. Mohanna has remodeled the buildings on 700 and 800 block for the past 20 years or so" :haha: ). It's ridiculous. At least the gang members who hang out in front of his property can admit they're thugs.

[sugit]

Yeah, some of the comments are there are pretty suspect. If you take a look at some of the other comments some of those people have made, it's only on articles about K Street or Mohanna, and they are all saying he's a saint.

[Deno]

Besides owning land in downtown Sacramento what major projects has Mohanna done to improve the area? I was just curious.

[Web]

That Record place which was bought out and now is in the old tower records on broadway AND Joe Sun are laughing all the way to the bank.......

the city did get to close out the tatoo place but now some other places are moving in......

Moe for Mayor!

alas Moe has basically done nothing but claim he is a saint and collect rent.
what does this man actually do?? Is he Nassi's valet or something?

[ozone]

I say forget about the land swap for the moment. Offer Zeiden a big ass subsidy to develop the 800 blk property then rezone Moe's block for manufacturing only, declare all the buildings historical landmarks and get on his ass about keeping up to code. Because it's zoned for industry the publik needs to be kept away from a 'hazard' area so a wall is going to have to be built around his buildings with limited access.

[ozone]

If that dosen't work maybe someone should "encourage" a pyro tweaker from San Diego to indulge his obession at Moe's prized possessions. Opps..Don't blame us Moe: "We Didn't Start the Fire". :cool:

[wburg]

The tattoo shop, piercing studio and comic shop that were in the building also relocated: the tattoo shop to J and 23rd, the comic shop to J and 17th, and Sub-Q piercing/tattooing to I and 17th. The record shop wasn't actually "bought out" but they did get some relocation funds and a good deal on the new location. Joe Sun laughed all the way to the bank, albeit a bit sadly considering they had to close a family business open for something like 70 years for pretty much no reason.

The buildings on the 700 block are already listed as historic buildings in the Sacramento historic structures register, but that actually means very little when it comes to enforcing minimum maintenance standards. I'm all for a far stricter interpretation of those standards, as well as a "carrot" in the form of Mills Act tax subsidies for historic properties, but right now owners of historic properties can pretty much let their buildings fall apart with little or no repercussions from the city. It's called "demolition by neglect."

[JeffZurn]

Marcos Bretón: A leader for city -- please stand up
By Marcos Bretón - Bee Columnist
Last Updated 12:09 am PDT Sunday, August 19, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

Print | E-Mail | Comments (25)| Digg it | del.icio.us

Leadership.

Where is it in Sacramento? Who has vision and political clout?

Sadly, the answer is nobody.

Apparently, local political leadership is a bridge too far. Or in this case, it's a new Sacramento Kings arena too far. It's a 53-story downtown skyscraper too far. It's a revitalized K Street mall too far.

One by one, the big civic projects that gave Sacramento reason to hope have failed or been endlessly delayed.

The latest was a legal setback related to K Street, vital downtown real estate condemned to being slumlike, maybe for years to come.

City officials want to redevelop the 700 block of K Street by installing the Z Gallerie furniture chain. Joe Zeiden, owner of Z Gallerie, had pledged to attract other high-end businesses to transform the entire block of decayed, though historic buildings.

But the owner of huge swaths of K Street -- a gentleman named Moe Mohanna -- is standing in the way, prevailing over the city in court last week, promising further legal battles.

Meanwhile, parts of K Street remain a toilet where potential is getting flushed.

Yes. One man with impeccable manners is mightier than Sacramento City Hall.

Mohanna initially agreed to a K Street deal but later backed out, claiming he'd be getting a raw deal financially. Developers such as David Taylor say this is a pattern, killing deals at the last minute out of nerves or mistrust.

Mohanna hasn't developed a single new project in 20 years. He poses as a champion of downtrodden tenants in these threadbare buildings, but employs multiple lawyers for his City Hall battles.

But it gets better. The city is spending $5 million to renovate the Berry Hotel, next to the Greyhound station at L and Eighth streets.

In doing so, the city is forgiving $1 million in loan payments from the current owners. Guess who is getting $1 million for his option on the Berry?

You betcha. Is Mr. Mohanna using that million to feed the homeless? Or to fund his legal fight with the city?

Good questions. The Bee had many related to Mohanna for Mayor Heather Fargo last week.

But we were told that she couldn't comment because she hadn't been briefed yet.

Briefed? For the love of Joe Serna. Do you see what we're talking about here?

Can you hear the deafening silence from the rest of Sacramento's elected officials?

In the vacuum of that silence, people like Mohanna flourish. And now he could become a poster child in a statewide eminent domain fight.

If the city pursues eminent domain against Mohanna, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association might use him as the face of the little guy fighting City Hall in a statewide ballot measure campaign.

Talk about building a righteous house on a shaky foundation. And think of the briefings Mayor Fargo would require if that happens.

A leader would have dealt with Mohanna long ago. A leader would have had the stature to soothe the volatile Kings owners during failed arena negotiations. A leader would have bought time for the now-shelved 53-story towers on Third and Capitol Mall.

Maybe even the late Mayor Serna, who died in 1999, would have struggled on these fronts.

But on critical issues facing Sacramento, he didn't need a briefing to know how to lead.

[arod74]

Its hard to argue with Breton that too often the mayor is missing in action. Not many know what truely goes on with the wheeling and dealing behind the scenes at city hall but it seems that every major project or initiative has a go-to-person other than the mayor whether it be Rob Fong, Roger Dickinson, or even Michael Ault. The only time you see Fargo is in the background of a press conference. In addition to Sacramento needing a skilled politician which Fargo may or may not be, the city needs someone dynamic. Can we trade west sac mayor Calderon for Fargo?

[ozone]

Breton's comments are right on. I've been saying this for a couple of years and saying so on this forum only to be told by some fellow forumers that it doesn't matter what the mayor or other councilmembers say and do. But having lived in a some big cities and seeing the power of the 'bully pulpit' I know that it does matter and that an agressive and vocal mayor is what is needed in Sacramento.

[ozone]

The tattoo shop, piercing studio and comic shop that were in the building also relocated: the tattoo shop to J and 23rd, the comic shop to J and 17th, and Sub-Q piercing/tattooing to I and 17th. The record shop wasn't actually "bought out" but they did get some relocation funds and a good deal on the new location. Joe Sun laughed all the way to the bank, albeit a bit sadly considering they had to close a family business open for something like 70 years for pretty much no reason.

The buildings on the 700 block are already listed as historic buildings in the Sacramento historic structures register, but that actually means very little when it comes to enforcing minimum maintenance standards. I'm all for a far stricter interpretation of those standards, as well as a "carrot" in the form of Mills Act tax subsidies for historic properties, but right now owners of historic properties can pretty much let their buildings fall apart with little or no repercussions from the city. It's called "demolition by neglect."

If the city wanted to, they could have done a lot more to hold Moe's feet to fire. The problem is that they didn't and that is why we are in the mess we are in today. I'm all for the city being hands off if the property owner and merchant is making an effort but Moe never did so screw the bastard. Do whatever it takes to get rid of him. As for the shops along K Street. I'm not going to miss any of them. They might be great business but they did not belong at that location. The Record store for one smelled of moldy album covers and Joe Sun...oh boo hoo.

[wburg]

Hooray for more holding bastards' feet to the fire, then!

I'm going to miss most of those businesses, although fortunately I can still visit most of them in midtown. I'm not a tattoo/piercing guy (although many of my friends are,) but record stores and comic shops are some of my favorite places, as are independent clothing stores intended for working joes like Joe Sun, which are getting scarce in the age of Wal-Mart. And it was the building, not the records, that smelled funny: the new location lacks the old Records funk, resulting from the leaky roof and rodent infestations.

On the other hand, when people were boo-hooing about J. Crew moving out of Downtown Plaza, I had absolutely no idea what J. Crew actually sold. I have a feeling that you and I occupy completely different retail universes, ozone.

[ozone]

Hooray for more holding bastards' feet to the fire, then!

I'm going to miss most of those businesses, although fortunately I can still visit most of them in midtown. I'm not a tattoo/piercing guy (although many of my friends are,) but record stores and comic shops are some of my favorite places, as are independent clothing stores intended for working joes like Joe Sun, which are getting scarce in the age of Wal-Mart. And it was the building, not the records, that smelled funny: the new location lacks the old Records funk, resulting from the leaky roof and rodent infestations.

On the other hand, when people were boo-hooing about J. Crew moving out of Downtown Plaza, I had absolutely no idea what J. Crew actually sold. I have a feeling that you and I occupy completely different retail universes, ozone.

No my friend some of those record covers or the cabinets or something in that store was moldy becuase I don't smell it now. I'm sure in the move they got rid of what ever it it was. But I don't doubt the building stinks too. Speaking of stinking- across the street it really stinks and I think it might be caused by the trees (no I'm not joking).

wburg you might surprised. Actually I do know what J Crew carries but that doesn't mean I shopped there. I prefer independent shops and buy a lot online. Yes I do buy some high-end items from time to time but I also shop at thrift stores too and try to be eco-responsible when I can. I'm not a aberzombie and in general I'm not a big consumer. I've never bought one thing at Walmart and will avoid Starbucks if there's a local alternative nearby.

As a business owner myself I do however have a standard by which I judge certain types of stores and locations by and if the merchant does not meet that standard I think either they just don't give a damn or are pretty stupid. So many of the businesses on the K Street Mall simply do not meet my standard -sorry.

[ozone]

I was talking to a friend today who owns a controlling interest in one the major SRO hotels just off K Street. They want to convert it into a hotel or market rate housing but here's the problem they have come up against. They are required to pay a fee to relocate the current residents (I think they said something like over 200 grand) and then they still have to find new homes for like 90% of the residents. Its not easy to find homes for some of these people as you can imagine. Plus it's asking real estate developers to become social workers -which they are not and something they know nothing about. It's not their job nor their passion. SHRA and the avocates for the poor/homeless expect other people to share the same interest as they do. They really do not understand business and think that if you have money to buy and renovate a hotel then you must have unlimited funds and time to fix complex social problems. It's no wonder that nothing gets done.

The city asked the owners to sit across the table from the homeless avocates and people from Loaves and Fishes -who were very nasty and made it quite clear that they do not like or respect them and think they are just a bunch of greedy bastards. Not a pleasant experience for someone who is willing to spend time and money renovating a run down sh't hole is it? Now these investors are local and will stick it out but out-of-town investors would probably say the hell with you Sacramento. We have change this if we are going to move forward.

Of course, the 'nickle and dimers' who don't understand full-circle ecomonics hate to raise taxes but I think it's about time we raised the local tax to fund infrastructure projects and public-subsized housing and social services. Look someone is going end up paying- somehow. I understand making developers out in the suburbs pay for infrastucture but I just don't see why investors in our downtown should bare the burden of homeless, poverty and all sorts of social ill.

[wburg]

Well, the new owners do have the option to find a social service agency they can pay to do the relocation work for them (a percentage of the relocation fees can be set aside to do that very thing.) Real estate developers often have to pay outside consultants to solve special problems for them: if the site has toxics issues, for example, they have to pay an environmental cleanup company to do remediation--they can't just dig out the toxic soil and dump it in the street. This works much the same way.

Part of this is because there really is no replacement equivalent for SRO rooms: as unacceptable as most of them are, where else will they find a place to rent for about $400 a month, close to public transit? Lacking any alternatives, these folks will end up on the street.

Why should these developers bear the burden of homelessness? Because eviction of their tenants would effectively add about a hundred people to the number of homeless on the streets!

This being said, I'm all in favor of public housing projects built along modern lines (not the "human warehouse" model of Cabrini Green) as a solution. The problem is that nobody wants to pay for it. One other thing to keep in mind: SHRA currently has $10 million in redevelopment funds specifically earmarked for SRO replacement housing, specifically 100 efficiency units. If some developer wanted to take on such a project, the money's there--obviously $10 million wouldn't be enough, but it's a start.

[ozone]

wburg -Yes they did hire a social service agency and they knew this going in and therefore set aside the money for it. It's not like they are not willing to work with the city. (I personally just don't see why they have to pay a relocation fees in the first place.) And yes real estate developers do often have to pay consultants to solve "special" problems like toxic cleanup but this is NOT the same thing -but it interesting that you equated removing toxic waste with moving certain humans. But do you really think they should have to be subjected to a lot of self-important, holier-that-thou @$#%& from Loaves and Fishes crowd? Maybe you are making the same assumptions that the these people make -that every developer has unlimited amount of funds and time to deal with these complex social issues. So many people have no clue. Beside i's not their "thing" so why force it on them? Geez why can't people get it through their head? If they would K Street would a very different place.

OK so they are going to evict the tenants. Even with the fee and hiring a service they have to make sure these people have places to go. That would be no problem IF there were replacement SRO rooms -which there are not (as you pointed out) and IF most of these people were not so f'ked up. But again, is it really the responsibilty of the developer? If my landlord came and said he was selling the place and I have a month to find a new home I would not expect him to find me that new home. I'm responsible for my life -no one else.

You are right. The problem is that nobody wants to pay for it. So as long as it stays around K Street and they don't go 'downtown'-out of sight-out of mind -then joe and joanna citizen doesn't really care. OR if someone is crazy enough to want to improve downtown then let them pay for 'cleaning up the mess'.

What is unacceptable is that so many SRO's exist around our "main street". People seem to think all developers are the same and all have tons of cash to throw around to fix society's problems. Well they don't. Nor is it their mission in life. If the city lacks alternatives then the city (meaning all of us) should bare the burden and not inhibit people who are willing to invest in downtown. What is our downtown for...just a place for state employees to work and near-homeless to live?

Even though there's money for SROs -you must realize that it takes a very special developer who would put up with the bs from the Poverty Nazis. Why doesn't 'Saint Moe' the so-called friend of the poor :yuck: build the SROs?

Look I'm not some right-wing bastard and I too have been poor (flour and water biscuits w/ jam- mmm) and for years I volunteered at a mission/shelter so I know both sides of this issue. I just treat the poor and homeless as I would anyone else - and that's my problem I quess. To be honest from my experience a lot of the people "helping" the poor are doing so for self-serving reasons and a lot of the homeless are shysters who have burned a lot of bridges.

[brandon12]

^well said ozone. This is America still, isn't it? Even only 40 years ago, it was so socially unacceptable to be a bum that there were hardly any. Now, it's treated as a "lifestyle choice" that must be respected and condoned. Why the hell should a good, law-abiding, tax-paying, contributing member of society be responsible for subsidizing housing and services for someone who is more interested in getting high and begging for change than they are taking care of themselves? I have no shame in admitting that I don't care one rat's ass for anyone that doesn't care for themselves, but expects me to. The only reason there is an abundance of homeless people today is that we cater to them and accept their lifestyle as an acceptable alternative. I work my ass off to get what I have. Too many homeless people and their enablers expect me and others like me to pay for the poor decisions and lack of effort in their own lives. That's ridiculous. They just need to get a job and take care of themselves. Sure, there are exceptions...mentally retarted, physically handicapped. But laziness and/or drug addiction on their part does not constitute a responsibility on my part. Every single person born in this country has an amazing opportunity to achieve their potential (more so here than anywhere else in the world). If they fail, it's their own fault, not mine. It's ridiculous that we spend so much effort appeasing them. If we stopped doing so, the problem would eventually go away. It's similar to the argument that more roads and freeway capacity eases traffic congestion: It just allows more cars! Appeasing the homeless just causes more homeless people!

[BrianSac]

wburg -Yes they did hire a social service agency and they knew this going in and therefore set aside the money for it. It's not like they are not willing to work with the city. (I personally just don't see why they have to pay a relocation fees in the first place.) And yes real estate developers do often have to pay consultants to solve "special" problems like toxic cleanup but this is NOT the same thing -but it interesting that you equated removing toxic waste with moving certain humans. But do you really think they should have to be subjected to a lot of self-important, holier-that-thou @$#%& from Loaves and Fishes crowd? Maybe you are making the same assumptions that the these people make -that every developer has unlimited amount of funds and time to deal with these complex social issues. So many people have no clue. Beside i's not their "thing" so why force it on them? Geez why can't people get it through their head? If they would K Street would a very different place.

OK so they are going to evict the tenants. Even with the fee and hiring a service they have to make sure these people have places to go. That would be no problem IF there were replacement SRO rooms -which there are not (as you pointed out) and IF most of these people were not so f'ked up. But again, is it really the responsibilty of the developer? If my landlord came and said he was selling the place and I have a month to find a new home I would not expect him to find me that new home. I'm responsible for my life -no one else.

You are right. The problem is that nobody wants to pay for it. So as long as it stays around K Street and they don't go 'downtown'-out of sight-out of mind -then joe and joanna citizen doesn't really care. OR if someone is crazy enough to want to improve downtown then let them pay for 'cleaning up the mess'.

What is unacceptable is that so many SRO's exist around our "main street". People seem to think all developers are the same and all have tons of cash to throw around to fix society's problems. Well they don't. Nor is it their mission in life. If the city lacks alternatives then the city (meaning all of us) should bare the burden and not inhibit people who are willing to invest in downtown. What is our downtown for...just a place for state employees to work and near-homeless to live?

Even though there's money for SROs -you must realize that it takes a very special developer who would put up with the bs from the Poverty Nazis. Why doesn't 'Saint Moe' the so-called friend of the poor :yuck: build the SROs?

Look I'm not some right-wing bastard and I too have been poor (flour and water biscuits w/ jam- mmm) and for years I volunteered at a mission/shelter so I know both sides of this issue. I just treat the poor and homeless as I would anyone else - and that's my problem I quess. To be honest from my experience a lot of the people "helping" the poor are doing so for self-serving reasons and a lot of the homeless are shysters who have burned a lot of bridges.

well said, ozone, maybe you should run for mayor. I agree with everything you said.

[wburg]

wburg -Yes they did hire a social service agency and they knew this going in and therefore set aside the money for it.

If they have hired someone to take care of the relocation, then what's the problem?


Maybe you are making the same assumptions that the these people make -that every developer has unlimited amount of funds and time to deal with these complex social issues.


Put it this way: Thomas Enterprises knew going in that they were buying a toxic site that would need serious remediation. But they didn't gripe about it, they were aware of the problems and instead of crying about how they shouldn't have to pay for things they rolled up their sleeves and are solving the problem. I don't assume they have unlimited money--but they damn well should have enough money to pay the predictable expenses of the project (you said they knew this going in), or they shouldn't have embarked on it in the first place. Besides, by suggesting that government pay for it, you're suggesting that government has unlimited money for this sort of thing--it doesn't! Nor do social services.


Beside i's not their "thing" so why force it on them?


Doing dishes isn't my "thing" either but sooner or later my sink gets full and I have to go do them. It became their responsibility when they bought the property. If these were folks who could afford to relocate, or could do so easily, it wouldn't be an issue--but they aren't, so it is.


OK so they are going to evict the tenants. Even with the fee and hiring a service they have to make sure these people have places to go. That would be no problem IF there were replacement SRO rooms -which there are not (as you pointed out) and IF most of these people were not so f'ked up. But again, is it really the responsibilty of the developer?


The fact that there are no replacement SRO rooms IS THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM. See, we've done this before. When the city redeveloped the West End, now known as Old Sacramento, there were a couple of dozen SRO hotels and boarding houses, as well as a couple of homeless missions, down there. There were thousands of transients, despite Brandon12's claim that homelessness didn't exist 40 years ago. When these buildings were demolished, no replacement housing was provided. Instead of simply vanishing into thin air, the occupants of these SRO hotels moved eastward into what we now known as the K Street Mall area. The hotels they moved into were not always SROs (the Marshall, the Berry, etc., were tourist hotels for the most part) but business was already slow and they essentially became the new SROs. If no replacement housing is provided somehow, the problem isn't going to go away, it will just move around.


You are right. The problem is that nobody wants to pay for it. So as long as it stays around K Street and they don't go 'downtown'-out of sight-out of mind -then joe and joanna citizen doesn't really care. OR if someone is crazy enough to want to improve downtown then let them pay for 'cleaning up the mess'.


Exactly! Nobody wants to pay for it, so yes, the people who want to improve downtown are responsible for improving downtown--which often means cleaning up some messes that they didn't cause, but if nobody cleans them up, they won't go anywhere. Turning the Marshall Hotel into a boutique hotel probably won't go over too well if there are still tons of homeless in the neighborhood--including its former tenants.


Even though there's money for SROs -you must realize that it takes a very special developer who would put up with the bs from the Poverty Nazis. Why doesn't 'Saint Moe' the so-called friend of the poor :yuck: build the SROs?


I know those people you're calling "Poverty Nazis." I don't appreciate the remark. Moe won't build SROs because he's an idiot, and nobody in the social services sector likes him any better than you do. But there are developers willing to do the work: AF Evans, for example, just bought the Berry Hotel a block away. They're going to refurbish the building, provide a social services coordinator, and maintain the building as an SRO. It's not as though nobody does this: in the Bay Area and Seattle and many other places people do this, often very successfully. Our strategy of ignoring the problem has been a dismal failure for half a century. Why not try to solve it instead?

[ozone]

Let me first say that my friend was not crying and griping about having to pay out this money and they have in fact "rolled up their sleeves" and are solving the problem. I'm the one who who is griping.

Also there were things that some city officals have done that I feel were counter productive (to put it mildly) that I didn't mention.

wburg I'm not suggesting that the "government" pay for it. I saying that if the people of this city are convinced of the need then they/we should pay for it.

Quote: "Doing dishes isn't my "thing" either but sooner or later my sink gets full and I have to go do them. It became their responsibility when they bought the property."

Humm. Who made the mess in your sink in the first place wburg? And what do you do with a dish that refuses to come clean?
I'm saying it should NOT be their responsibilty when they bought the property. It's not like in SF when a new owner buys out rent controlled tenants. The new owners are not required to also find a new home for said tenants.

Quote: "...so yes, the people who want to improve downtown are responsible for improving downtown--which often means cleaning up some messes that they didn't cause.."

This attitude is exactly why so much of downtown Sacramento looks like a ghetto. And I think it's a bit disingenuous or just a real lack of understanding on your part to equate Thomas Enterprises and the Railyards with conversion of a single slum hotel. The people who are trying to renovate the hotel are good people, people who really believe in downtown/midtown. They are exactly the type of people we should be encouraging by removing as many obstacles as possible. Not a lot of outsiders are going to come in and see this place as a good investment. If we go by your logic- the only people who have have the right to renovate or run business are those who have a large enough of an organzation and capital to "pay off the mafia" -business like the Wallmarts and McDonalds.

Of course, calling these people "Poverty Nazis" was harsh- but intentional in order to make a point. So many do in fact come across as self-important and holier-than-thou. Some are just as fanatic/zealous as the rabid anti-tax people and no amount of reason will convince them that their approach may not in fact we the best way to deal with the problem.

I never said people are not out there who are willing to develop SROs. I'm originally from San Diego and they have been fortunate to have such people.
That should be the focus -finding such people to do here in Sacramento what has been done elsewhere and not forcing people who do not have that passion or desire to deal with this issue.

And I do agree with you that our strategy of ignoring the problem has been a dismal failure. But I still contend that holding a group of people (who want to renovate a slum hotel) responsible for solving the problem is NOT the answer.
It only perpetuates the problem because it discourages such people from investing in our downtown. This means the city loses money (to help pay for social services) and downtown will never be able to attract a mixture of incomes and lifestyles. So in a 'round about way it perpetuates suburban sprawl as well. I just think it's a totally wrong approach to the problem but I do understand how the people who's mission/job it is to deal with these problems see this as reasonable compromise especially if they don't have many other options. Its unfortunate that I've never met one of them that even tried to understand the other side.

Having lived in a country that was not as much of a nannystate as the US is I came to appreciate the value of taking responsibilty for one's own life. Bottom line is that many (maybe the majority) of the people who live in these places just refuse to do that.

[wburg]

And I do agree with you that our strategy of ignoring the problem has been a dismal failure. But I still contend that holding a group of people (who want to renovate a slum hotel) responsible for solving the problem is NOT the answer.
It only perpetuates the problem because it discourages such people from investing in our downtown. This means the city loses money (to help pay for social services) and downtown will never be able to attract a mixture of incomes and lifestyles. So in a 'round about way it perpetuates suburban sprawl as well. I just think it's a totally wrong approach to the problem but I do understand how the people who's mission/job it is to deal with these problems see this as reasonable compromise especially if they don't have many other options. Its unfortunate that I've never met one of them that even tried to understand the other side.


Again, the people who want to clear slums become, by definition, the ones who are responsible for solving the problem, because the people who live in the slums are the focus of the problem. If the developer isn't willing to solve that problem, they aren't clearing the slum, they're just moving the problem someplace else. The city decided to enact the SRO ordinance because it felt that losing an SRO without some effort to relocate the occupants would be more of a problem for the city than the disincentive to developers.

Again, one just has to look at other cities to see that vibrant downtowns and SROs are not mutually exclusive: in San Francisco there are SROs in the shadows of the swanky hotels near Union Square, for example. In that city, some of the new hotels near the Tenderloin literally pay to subsidize several residential hotels nearby, to protect them from real estate speculation and conversion into something other than low-income housing. This is called an "exaction" and it is part of a local government's police power. The SRO relocation funds are a similar sort of exaction, and in fact a lot milder form than Sacramento's SRO ordinance.

Part of why the developers pay exactions, rather than cities using taxes to pay for these programs, is due to the limitations on taxation imposed by Proposition 13. Prop 13, while it's great for property owners, has caused a whole lot of havoc in other arenas and caused many California local governments to turn to other sources for funding, such as exactions. So maybe the bottom line is that you have a problem with Proposition 13, and I certainly can't fault you for that.

[travis bickle]

Double post

[travis bickle]

oops! having some server problems.

[travis bickle]

Although my expertise re. SRO renovation/redevelopment is limited, I do know that relocation fees have become a tangible hindrance to redevelopment efforts. It's similar to trying to replace a trailer park. Try that sometime. I worked on a project near San Diego's Mission Bay. The ultimate relocation costs eventually ran well into seven figures and the time frame (assuming we were successful at all and with the litigation we were facing, that was not at all a given) stretched out to nearly six years.

We had incorporated an affordable housing element that surpassed our legal responsibility, placed retail along the main street, contributed sorely needed millions to the local schools through fees, established a fund to maintain a new park we were required to build and countless other improvements to the local neighborhood.

But we couldn't get around the obscene relocation costs. We realized that this would be a shock for some people and that some kind of reasonable contribution to moving expenses (like 100%) and some kind contribution for transitional housing (2 mos. rent - not 9 mos.) were the right things to do.

But it wasn't enough. The relocation costs and schedules were the deal breakers.

You can go by there today. It's in the Bay Park area of San Diego right on Morena Blvd. just north of Tecolote Road. It's still a decrepit, drug infested trailer slum that is a crime magnet for the entire neighborhood.

It didn't have to be that way. So many of today's development/planning laws were written for yesterday's developers. It could have been a thriving community for people of all income levels that would have been such a net gain for the entire area. But the activists and others who feel that government should dictate all housing issues prevailed. We couldn't get these activists to get beyond their own prejudices and see us as partners instead of adversaries. The kicker? Few of them actually lived in the neighborhood.

Such a shame...

BTW - re. the typical whining against Prop. 13. It's important to remember a few things:

Some people truly were being taxed out of their homes and needed relief.

Revenues for local governments are at all time highs.

Cities don't have a revenue/taxes problem. They have a spending problem.

[ozone]

travis bickle thanks for clearly illustrating the problem.

The only part I disagree with is your contention that revenues for local governments are at all time highs. That's just not true. Local governments are now forced to pay 100% for things that were either paid for entirely or in part by state and federal money. Also the costs for everything has gone up. The Feds are spending more money than ever before -on a war that has lasted longer than World War II and cannot be won, and even if we did "win" most people are unsure of exactly what we would have won. So in one reguard I agree with you that we have a spending problem.

[wburg]

But we couldn't get around the obscene relocation costs. We realized that this would be a shock for some people and that some kind of reasonable contribution to moving expenses (like 100%) and some kind contribution for transitional housing (2 mos. rent - not 9 mos.) were the right things to do.


Relocation funding under the current ordinance are about $2500 per person. Assuming they can find something for about $600/month (the going rate for rooming houses or the cheaper tier of studio apartments, outside the central city) that's about two months' rent and deposit, plus a small amount for moving expenses and furniture. The reason why it adds up to close to a quarter million is, if it's the hotel I think it is, the relocation involves 95 people--thus, close to a quarter-million in relocation funds.

The reason why the ordinance specifies that replacement housing must be offered is that the money isn't supposed to be in the form of a check dropped into the hand of the resident: they wanted to avoid having people get the check and take a trip to Reno, or to their drug dealer, and end up broke and homeless without options. This is exactly what happened when the residents of the Biltmore were similarly relocated: a handful moved to other SROs, but many others ended up on the streets.

And yes, sure, they ended up on the streets because of their own poor choices, but if a little forethought can prevent that from happening, and thus save the city money in the long run (not to mention fewer people on the street) isn't it worth it? Remember, the people in SRO hotels ARE NOT HOMELESS. The purpose of the relocation funds and policy is to prevent them from becoming homeless, which will, in the long term, save the city money and limit that spending problem. It's that ounce of prevention that saves a pound of cure.

[travis bickle]

travis bickle thanks for clearly illustrating the problem.

The only part I disagree with is your contention that revenues for local governments are at all time highs. That's just not true. Local governments are now forced to pay 100% for things that were either paid for entirely or in part by state and federal money. Also the costs for everything has gone up. The Feds are spending more money than ever before -on a war that has lasted longer than World War II and cannot be won, and even if we did "win" most people are unsure of exactly what we would have won. So in one regard I agree with you that we have a spending problem.

Oh ozone, you'd been doing so well too. You almost made it for weeks before taking a "cheap" and ignorant shot at this president and our valiant battle against fascism. I will refrain from addressing those issues as that is not what we (well, at least some of us) are here for. But it must be a strain to have hatred of one person be such a powerful influence in one's life. Pity.

Also - we were talking about Prop. 13. Strictly a state revenue issue completely unrelated to Federal spending so let's first separate federal funds from local funds. What the defense department spends on global issues has little to do with providing services at the local level. Even at the Federal level, according to the Tax Foundation, corporate taxes are at 2.3% of GDP for 2005 - the last year for which detailed figures are available. This is an all-time high. For 2006, the trend is up. Individual tax revenues are up 11.2 percent in the first seven months of FY 2006 over the same period in FY 2005, which in turn was a year when revenues surged 14.6%. Revenues are back up to nearly 18% of GDP and growing. So far this year, According to the Treasury Department, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record.

Again, as this was in response to a comment re. Prop. 13 - a State revenue issue. At the state level, revenues climbed by 8% in 2004 and nearly 9% in 2005, according to the Census Bureau. For 2006 - the trend is again up.

According to the Franchise Tax Board - California took in $11.3 billion in personal income tax payments this April (just one month), an amount larger than the $10.5 billion the state received in April 2001 at the height of the high-tech stock market boom. Again - an all time high.

As the housing crises worsens, revenues will drop at the local level and this will cause funding problems. I expect we'll be hearing a great deal of whining about service cuts in the near future. In a city like Chula Vista (mid-size city - closing in on 200k), 80% of revenue goes to wards salaries and pensions (according to David Garcia - Chula Vista City Manager). I wonder what it is for Sacramento? But chew on that a while and ask yourselves if you're getting value. I would suggest this has far more to do with service cuts than federal spending in a time of war.

This is just what I got from our political/financial division in the last ten minutes. I'm sure I could get a far more detailed report if necessary. But it wouldn't change the results one iota.

Government revenues, at every level, are at all-time highs. The problem is spending, not revenues.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program:

Thanks for the kind words re. relocation costs.

[travis bickle]

Relocation funding under the current ordinance are about $2500 per person. Assuming they can find something for about $600/month (the going rate for rooming houses or the cheaper tier of studio apartments, outside the central city) that's about two months' rent and deposit, plus a small amount for moving expenses and furniture. The reason why it adds up to close to a quarter million is, if it's the hotel I think it is, the relocation involves 95 people--thus, close to a quarter-million in relocation funds.

The reason why the ordinance specifies that replacement housing must be offered is that the money isn't supposed to be in the form of a check dropped into the hand of the resident: they wanted to avoid having people get the check and take a trip to Reno, or to their drug dealer, and end up broke and homeless without options. This is exactly what happened when the residents of the Biltmore were similarly relocated: a handful moved to other SROs, but many others ended up on the streets.

And yes, sure, they ended up on the streets because of their own poor choices, but if a little forethought can prevent that from happening, and thus save the city money in the long run (not to mention fewer people on the street) isn't it worth it? Remember, the people in SRO hotels ARE NOT HOMELESS. The purpose of the relocation funds and policy is to prevent them from becoming homeless, which will, in the long term, save the city money and limit that spending problem. It's that ounce of prevention that saves a pound of cure.

What the law states and what you need to do for project approval are often completely different realities. But thanks for the Sacramento relocation primer. Even with those figures that becomes a potentially prohibitive number.

[ozone]

Oh ozone, you'd been doing so well too. You almost made it for weeks before taking a "cheap" and ignorant shot at this president and our valiant battle against fascism. I will refrain from addressing those issues as that is not what we (well, at least some of us) are here for. But it must be a strain to have hatred of one person be such a powerful influence in one's life. Pity.

travis bickle the one thing I'm not is an ideolog. You call it a cheap and ignorant shot at our prez and I call it telling the truth as I see it. Remember you were the one who interjected the spending/government thing into the debate. Since I'm not a ideolog on either the right or the left I feel I have more freedom to look at each situation and make up my own mind on it without resorting to a 'playbook', 'good book', ' little red book' or whatever. Honestly I see no difference between the Neo-con and the Marxist's approach when it comes to creating false consciousness or "group think". Ideology just offers simplified explanations for complex questions and in the end doesn't really solve anything. On one issue I may be very liberal and on another very conservative. I'm sorry but I don't feel the need to subscribe to a single belief system. I know that upsets the ideolog because for them it's all or nothing; you are either for them or against them. To me that's just dumb. Pragmatism is far better. So don't worry about me my friend. I understand you don't agree with me on every issue and I'm fine with that. I'm not the one you should have pity on. Ideology just causes division because while we probably agree on this one issue, by insisting on bringing in a whole host of other issues, the debate gets muddled.

I'm not saying government spending should not be looked at and curtailed. But I'm also not dogmatic in saying that taxes are a creation of the devil and no good has ever come from raising taxes because history proves that wrong.

[travis bickle]

travis bickle the one thing I'm not is an ideolog. You call it a cheap and ignorant shot at our prez and I call it telling the truth as I see it. Remember you were the one who interjected the spending/government thing into the debate. Since I'm not a ideolog on either the right or the left I feel I have more freedom to look at each situation and make up my own mind on it without resorting to a 'playbook', 'good book', ' little red book' or whatever. Honestly I see no difference between the Neo-con and the Marxist's approach when it comes to creating false consciousness or "group think". Ideology just offers simplified explanations for complex questions and in the end doesn't really solve anything. On one issue I may be very liberal and on another very conservative. I'm sorry but I don't feel the need to subscribe to a single belief system. I know that upsets the ideolog because for them it's all or nothing; you are either for them or against them. To me that's just dumb. Pragmatism is far better. So don't worry about me my friend. I understand you don't agree with me on every issue and I'm fine with that. I'm not the one you should have pity on. Ideology just causes division because we probably agree on this one issue but by insisting on bringing in a whole host of other issues the debate is muddled.

Oh ozone ... that was just too easy. You've heard of Pavlov... right? and BTW - none of your latest ingno "rant" changes the fact that tax revenues are at an all time high.

Remember you were the one who interjected the spending/government thing into the debate.

Um... I was responding to complaints about Prop. 13. You do know what responding means... right?

Thanks for playing ozone.. we have some lovely parting gifts for you:D

[ozone]

You in here just to waste time huh?

I'm actually talking to people doing these projects. I have a business in Midtown and live in Midtown and I'm active in the community so it's not just a exercise, a game, a debate or whatever you like to think of it, for me. I am actually trying do something in my community. I no longer have time for your silly slackergeek nonsense.

[squintstopher]

Travis Bickle, there is no need for ad hominem attacks or patronizing sarcasm on this board.

[snfenoc]

Please, Ozone. I personally believe nobody US-Americans wants to discuss what is going on in The Irack. Keep the topic to U.S. - Americans, especially, like, such as, regarding The California and even more like, such as, regarding, irregarding The Sacramento. If you do this, the children will be are fyoucher.

Sincerely,
Miss South Carolina

[travis bickle]

Travis Bickle, there is no need for ad hominem attacks or patronizing sarcasm on this board.


Gee... thanks for the tip.

[ozone]

Please, Ozone. I personally believe nobody US-Americans wants to discuss what is going on in The Irack. Keep the topic to U.S. - Americans, especially, like, such as, regarding The California and even more like, such as, regarding, irregarding The Sacramento. If you do this, the children will be are fyoucher.

Sincerely,
Miss South Carolina

I just watched it on Youtube. OMG I thought I was dumb. At least she's cute so she won't starve. And thank god I have a map.

[ozone]

OK getting back to the topic. I'm very sorry I didn't have the time to go down and at least push the D&R and council to include steel arbors in the plan. As I have mentioned before I think one of the problems with K Street is that it's design does not take into account the Sacramento climate. We live in an age of central AC/heat from house-to-car-to-office/shopping/school and that has made us less tollerant of even slight temperature extremes. If we want pedestrians en masse on the K then we need to make people comfortable. The trees along K Street do not provide enough shade in the summer and nor any protection from the cold and rain in winter.

I think a number linear steel arbors along K would really help keep people on the street. If they are covered with dec. vines the arbor would shade the sidwalks in summer while still allowing light and air and leaves from the trees to pass through. In the winter although the vines would be mostly bare, the metal and vine structures would possibly deflect a little of the rain and retain a some warmth.

Another benefit to these arbors is that would be an de facto extension of the buildings -out to the edge of the sidewalks. This means that it's semi-private space and certain type of behavior would not have to be tolleranted.

This is an example of a metal arbor going up in San Francisco but there are mutitude of design posibilities.

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/1937/peterrothb23rv6.jpg

[sugit]

I really wanted to see this building get turned back into a department store of some kinda, but I guess anything is better than the state building it was. There are a few other buildings on K Street in the same boat, old state office buildings now vacant, like the Kress and the old Wards building.

At least they are getting a good firm to set up shop in the building and they are turning the ground floor into retail.

Slowly (very slowly), but surely...700 and 800 is still the key...

________________________________________________________________

Developer raises its bet on downtown revival
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, September 5, 2007

The company developing a boutique hotel at 10th and J streets is placing another bet on Sacramento's downtown core.

Rubicon Partners is acquiring an interest in the former J.C. Penney building at 630 K St. -- across from the Hard Rock Cafe at Downtown Plaza's eastern entrance. Rubicon is planning to rehab the now vacant, five-story building into office and retail space.

Most of the upper floors will be leased to environmental consulting firm Jones & Stokes, which will move its corporate headquarters from midtown next year.

The ground floor will become retail space, says Peter Thompson, a principal with Sacramento-based Rubicon, which is developing the Citizens Hotel at 10th and J and also owns the historic Forum Building at Ninth and K streets.

Thompson says the arrival of Jones & Stokes is some good news for a part of downtown that's struggled but is gradually showing signs of a revival. He cites Downtown Plaza's plans for a redesign and the recent opening of the Three Monkeys restaurant at 723 K St.

"We're long-term bettors and we feel this area is going to continue to improve," he says.

Rubicon, a partnership of Thompson and Kipp Blewett, is expected to complete the K Street building deal this week. Current owner Buzz Oates will continue to have an interest in the property and Rubicon will manage it, Thompson says.

The building, constructed in the 1950s, originally was a J.C. Penney store. It was converted to office use in 1978 and most recently served as state offices.

Jones & Stokes has been considering the site for about six months, says Ron Thomas, member of a Colliers International team of office brokers that represented the consulting firm.

He says Jones & Stokes ran out of room at its current site, 2600 V St., and liked the "urban" feel of the downtown location.

"It's perfect for them," Thomas says. "They're right on the doorstep of the mall and there's a light-rail stop in front of the building."

He said the 180-person J&S office is slated to move into its new headquarters during the second quarter of next year.

[neuhickman79]

Between this news, the arena news, and the article on Sacramento being a green city, I'd say it's a pretty good day to be a Sacramentan (which is not unlike most days!) !!! :)

[wburg]

Interesting indeed...which leads one to wonder what the plans would be for the Newton Booth School, the current site of the Jones & Stokes office!

I do know that J&S are pretty good neighbors. Adding ground floor retail will help make the building more than a blank wall to passersby, too.

[ozone]

I agree neuhickman79. This is great news. I've been waiting for this building to be turned into something other than a boring brown SOB box. With the DWNT Plaza remodel, The St. Rose Park remodel, the Marshall Hotel remodel, a new light-rail station on 7th we just might be seeing real progress in this area!

I love the fact that while everyone is obsessing about the Greyhound Bus station and Moe things are still getting done (I hope).

[sugit]

Hey Ozone - I figured it was the Marshall you were referring to early when you said there was a SRO in the process if be renovated just off of K Street.

I know you said they are having some issues they need to work though, but do they have any time line they are looking at?

[Los_Lobo]

Editorial: It's Mohanna's move
The door is open for K Street settlement

Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 13, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B6

Print | E-Mail | Comments (3) | Digg it | del.icio.us

In the city of Sacramento's fight over the stalled redevelopment of a blighted but crucial stretch of downtown's K Street Mall, the ball is back in Moe Mohanna's court.

On Aug. 31, downtown property owner Mohanna sent a letter to city attorney Eileen Teichert asking her to help settle his dispute with the city's redevelopment agency.

The agency has sued Mohanna because he refuses to go forward on a deal to swap property he owns or controls on the blighted 700 block of K street for land the city owns or controls on the 800 block. Mohanna countersued. Unless a settlement is reached soon, a long court battle looms. All the while, K Street continues to decay.

In her response to Mohanna, the city attorney declined to mediate the dispute now, because she already represents the city in a separate California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit Mohanna has filed. That suit seeks to prevent Sacramento from moving a light-rail stop from the K Street Mall around the corner to congested 7th Street. (In this particular dispute, Mohanna is on the right side. The city is seeking to shove transit aside to please a developer who doesn't want people who use transit loitering in front of his property. But K Street is the safest and most convenient place for the stop. It should remain there.)

Teichert says she cannot mediate the dispute between the redevelopment agency and Mohanna. It would be, she wrote, an "ethical conflict of interest." But that doesn't preclude Mohanna from seeking a settlement. In her letter, Teichert calls upon Mohanna to "sharpen your pencil and place in writing fair and reasonable terms upon which a win-win settlement may be based and send those terms to Redevelopment Agency counsel."

That's good advice. If the redevelopment counsel accepts those terms, Teichert says she'd be happy to participate in "global settlement discussions," to settle both the land swap dispute and the CEQA lawsuit.

So, Moe Mohanna. What's your response?

[Web]

he has none.....he just wants rent....

[Fusey]

:yuck: Not suprising...
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/384492.html

Judge orders city to pay attorneys fees to K Street property owner

By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Published 5:53 pm PDT Monday, September 17, 2007
A Sacramento Superior Court judge has ordered the city of Sacramento to pay $42,052 in attorneys fees to K Street property owner Moe Mohanna.

Mohanna on Monday issued a press release trumpeting the ruling last week as another significant victory in his legal battle with the city. The city's redevelopment agency has sued him for backing out of a complicated property swap agreement aimed at allowing redevelopment on the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street.

But David Levin, counsel for the redevelopment agency, described the judge's decision on attorneys fees as routine.

Judge Loren McMaster tentatively ruled in August that the city did not have the right to place a "lis pendens" on Mohanna's K Street properties, which makes it difficult to obtain financing, sell property or lease it. In a final ruling issued Thursday, McMaster also awarded attorneys fees to Mohanna in relation to the lis pendens issue.

The city's larger lawsuit against Mohanna is proceeding, Levin said, and it will likely be assigned to a different judge than McMaster.

In his August decision, McMaster opined that the city was unlikely to win on the merits of its larger case because the properties Mohanna was receiving had undergone a "material adverse change" because of a fire and subsequent demolitions.

[Web]

see all Moe wants is money!

[arod74]

As much as we all can't stand Mohanna, you gotta almost laugh at the way this 2 bit guy is just pimp slapping the city around in court. He has everyone by the small hairs and now the city has to pretty much do whatever he asks if they want K street to move forward anytime soon. Sure would be great to have a mayor who could jump in there and get something resolved.

[Majin]

It's already been said on here many times but its worth just buying him out.

He won, now lets just pay him off and get him out of here.

[TowerDistrict]

leroy95822 at 6:14 AM PST Tuesday, September 18, 2007 wrote:

THE CITY DOES NOT DEAL WITH PEOPLE

The city does not deal with people, it prefers to make demands and push them around. When a citizen pushes back, the city is outraged, and sues. Courts are historically very sympathetic to the city's demands - but not in this case!

Good for Moe! He represents us all.

9 out of 12 people found this comment helpful.

Bmanofthecity at 8:50 AM PST Tuesday, September 18, 2007 wrote:

Fine Job Fargo

Another job not so well done by Mayor Fargo and her fine City Manager. What a great vision they have for downtown, turn it into Portland Oregon. What is wrong with being Sacramento, CA?? Perhaps instead of pushing property and business owners around the cast of clowns down at city hall should consider helping those property owners and business owners willing to take a chance on investing in downtown. Oh no they want to hobnob with wealthy out of town developer types. What a great legacy for Fargo and her team, a giant hole on Capitol Mall, Small business pushed off of K Street and 40k squandered in a hopeless legal skirmish. Moe, the people of Sacramento are behind you. The folks at city hall should stop and think about their misguided vision for K Street and start helping the store and property owners already there. A good place to start would be to reduce the beaucratic development approval process required for improvements to downtown properties.

2 out of 3 people found this comment helpful.

:baby:

[Majin]

Moe, the people of Sacramento are behind you.

What exactly has this guy done to "invest" in downtown?

Do these people even know who this guy is?

[innov8]

Well, another vision for K Street has been dimmed. I think about a 1 1/2 ago
Lucky Strike Lanes was planning on opening up an ally on 10th & K... not now :( off to
the Arden area like Urban Outfitters.


A makeover to bowl you over
By Bob Shallit - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 8, 2007

Lucky Strike Lanes runs retro chic bowling alleys in 16 cities. Jeffrey Berger is building one as part of his $55 million remodel of the Red Lion Hotel on Arden Way.
Lucky Strike Lanes

Let's get the puns out of the way. Jeffrey Berger is bringing Sacramento into the fast lanes. He's "sparing" no expense. He's pulling an old game out of the gutter.

What he's doing, in fact, is bringing in one of the nation's hottest new entertainment companies -- the Southern California-based Lucky Strike Lanes -- as a central element of his $55 million remodel of the Red Lion Hotel on Arden Way.

Lucky Strike, now in 16 cities, operates upscale entertainment centers that are more hipster hangout than bowling alley. They feature modern art, designer lighting, plush sofas, DJs, movie memorabilia, gourmet food and a swanky bar. And bowling lanes with giant plasma TVs.

There's even a dress code, for gosh sakes. And no one under 21 is allowed in after 7 p.m.

"This is the Hard Rock Cafe of bowling," says Berger, president of University Capital Management Inc.

Bowling rates? They vary depending on the time of day. But generally bowlers pay about $6 per person per game, more if they're in the curtained-off VIP lanes. Rates there go much, much higher.

The super-chic, 25-lane bowling center will be in one of two buildings Burger is putting up near the Red Lion, which sits between Arden Fair Mall and the Capital City Freeway. Also included in the 376-room hotel's renovation: new restaurants, a health club, spa and salon.

The entire Arden Village project is due for completion in the first quarter of 2009.

Berger says he heard about Lucky Strike from his real estate broker, Stan T. Wong, who is related to Lucky Strike CFO Cheryl Oto Inouye (daughter of the founders of Sacramento's new Oto's Marketplace).

Before signing on, Berger checked out the three Lucky Strike centers in Southern California.

"I was sold," he says. "They had a very cool, hip, and at the same time, retro feel."

You might say it was right up his alley.

[Majin]

Remind me, where is Red Lion Hotel? Please don't tell me its that Hotel by Sears...

[snfenoc]

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/09/17/daily21.html?t=printable

Texas Mexican returns to K Street
Sacramento Business Journal - 9:30 AM PDT Tuesday, September 18, 2007
A tenant evicted from K Street to clear the way for redevelopment is returning to its former location. Texas Mexican restaurant and several other businesses were evicted by the city's redevelopment agency last year. But redevelopment plans on the street have stalled because of a dispute between the city and property owners, including landlord Mohammed "Moe" Mohanna.

The restaurant, a tenant of Mohanna's, will reopen in the 800 block of K Street after moving to the State Capitol basement.

[wburg]

I have noticed a lot of activity over there...there were workmen in the beauty salon next to Texas Mexican.

The problem, majin, is that you can't just pay the guy off. You pay him and then he turns around and asks for more money.

[otnemarcaS]

Remind me, where is Red Lion Hotel? Please don't tell me its that Hotel by Sears...

Yes, it is the hotel by Sears at Arden fair.

Regarding Mo, it is time for the city to get back to the negotiating table and just pay this guy off and move on. This thing will just continue to drag on for years. It's simply amazing how one guy has managed to cripple development of a critical stretch of downtown.

[Majin]

The problem, majin, is that you can't just pay the guy off. You pay him and then he turns around and asks for more money.

Has the city even officially made him an offer (not a property swap, straight out cash) on the property he owns on K street?

[ozone]

OK a client came up with a suggestion for K Street the other day (somewhat evil like -and I like it). Why doesn't the city put some money into creating a couple of day-care facilities and/or urban charter schools on the mall. After that just wait and see how many of those poor helpless residents staying in those fleabag hotels will legally be able to remain in the area.

[goldcntry]

I like it! I like it! :evil:

[econgrad]

OK a client came up with a suggestion for K Street the other day (somewhat evil like -and I like it). Why doesn't the city put some money into creating a couple of day-care facilities and/or urban charter schools on the mall. After that just wait and see how many of those poor helpless residents staying in those fleabag hotels will legally be able to remain in the area.

:yes: :sly: :righton:
That's a damn good idea....

[ozone]

There's an interesting article in the SNR about the Westfield DP. It shows very clearly how the Westfield people think. Let's just say they are definitely not urban mavericks types. According to them the only WWB (women with bank) in the region all live in Roseville.

Anyway, I generally support their upgrades and moving around things.
They want to open up 4th Street to traffic (between L and J) which I guess would be a good thing. I wonder if they'll have to move that power line-cum-clock tower art thing? If they do I would like to see it moved down in front of the Esquire IMAX Theatre and outlined with LED/neon lights.

[wburg]

I noticed that article too: normally I consider the SN&R to be a slightly more left-leaning version of Pravda, but that article was pretty good, and I figured it would have some appeal here.

There was also an article on the local "housing first" homeless programs, which included some specifics from Portland: a homeless person on the street costs more than $40,000 a year, while supportive housing costs about $16,000 a year--considerable potential savings, as also seen in Denver. The program will include quite a few purpose-built units throughout the city. It's not exactly the high-end development you guys talk about, but it's a proven solution that can actually get people off the streets and into housing, instead of just shoving them into another part of town.

[wburg]

The new Midtown Monthly is out, and it features an article on redevelopment efforts on K Street over the past 30 years or so, written by Scott Soriano. It's not online yet (the magazine's website at http://www.midtownmonthly.net features some stories online) but it's worth a read if you're someplace where you can pick up a copy.

[Fusey]

As the following editorial says, it's about time Fargo got actively involved with the K Street land swap (and calling on Mohanna to act in good faith). From today's Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/411445.html

Editorial: Mayor must lead to resolve K Street impasse
Fargo's response to key property owner sets stage for reviving stalled negotiations
-
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, October 3, 2007

It took far too long, but Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo finally has stepped into the K Street land swap fight.

Last week, Her Honor sent a letter to downtown business owner Moe Mohanna. In it, she accepted his request for a face-to-face meeting to help resolve the increasingly acrimonious dispute between Mohanna and the city's redevelopment agency. The dispute concerns the stalled land swap deal on the blighted 700 and 800 blocks of K.

Good. It's about time the mayor took the lead on this issue, which is crucial to downtown's future.

K Street is the vital spine that runs through the heart of downtown. From Esquire Plaza at 14th and K to the old Woolworth's building at 10th and K, there are signs that the street is beginning to come alive again: New restaurants, a nightclub and even some housing have been built either right on K or nearby. Construction has begun on a live theater complex and a boutique hotel.

But the 700 and 800 blocks remain wastelands, a drag on other parts of K Street. Those two blocks need the concentrated attention of the city's top leader.

No one expects Fargo to hammer out the gritty details of a complicated land deal, but she should use her position to bring all the parties -- including Mohanna, Joe Zeiden, the other major player in the stalled land swap deal and the city's redevelopment agency -- to the table.

In fact, given the current poisonous atmosphere between redevelopment officials and Mohanna, the mayor would be smart to bring in someone fresh to facilitate the negotiations, a high-profile professional who all sides trust to broker an agreement. The mayor's job is to cajole, to persuade and even to threaten if need be until a good deal is struck.

The alternatives to settlement -- either more-expensive litigation or protracted condemnation and eminent domain proceedings -- will not achieve the city's goal of expediting K Street redevelopment.

On the litigation front, there is no guarantee that the city could win its lawsuit against Mohanna. In a preliminary ruling, one judge said the city is "not likely to prevail" and ordered the redevelopment agency to back down from legal actions it had taken that made it difficult for Mohanna to lease or refinance his K Street properties.

With eminent domain, the city risks placing itself in the awkward position of taking property from one private landowner and giving it, along with millions of dollars in subsidies, to another. Such an action would likely embroil Sacramento in the upcoming statewide ballot fight over eminent domain in ways neither flattering to the city nor helpful to those seeking to retain this important governmental tool.

Of course, Fargo's efforts will be for naught if Mohanna doesn't negotiate in good faith. Mohanna owns some of the most troubled properties downtown. Over the years he has invested far too little in upgrades and maintenance. He insists that he really wants to settle the K Street dispute and help shape a revitalized downtown.

He can demonstrate that by responding positively to the mayor's letter, negotiating a fair deal and sticking by it. If he doesn't, the mayor will have to use different tools to resolve this impasse.

[ozone]

Yeah but they kept saying that Fargo is finally taking the lead.. isn't that oxymoronic?

[Web]

more businesses opening up on k between 7th and 8th.....a pizza place is now open as is a cell phone place.....Moe is back in the renting business.....

[BrianSac]

Yeah but they kept saying that Fargo is finally taking the lead.. isn't that oxymoronic?

No, its oxyCLEAN, just a little dab with get the dirt out! :haha:

[goldcntry]

All I know is that the thought of Mayor Do-Nothing taking the lead just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[arod74]

Yeah but they kept saying that Fargo is finally taking the lead.. isn't that oxymoronic?

Yes very much so... like jumbo shrimp or Moe Mohanna, Sacramento Grand high rise developer.