[brandon12]

Dateline: Sacramento, USA

Tonight, Brandon12 officially announces that he will seek the office of city council member for district 4. He plans to pull the requistite papers necessary for election to the city council on Tuesday, Feb 19th. In order to qualify as a candidate for said office, he will need at least 20, but no more than 30 signatures of registered voters in said district. councilman Robert King Fong is the incumbent.

The election for this office will occur in November, 2008. Said brandon12 (who will reveal his true identity later this week): "There is good news and bad news. The bad news is that I will be running against arguably the most popular city councilman, Robert Fong. Given his popularity, he will certainly have a distinct advantage over those who choose to run against him. But there is good news as well. I believe this election will allow me and others who run for city council an invaluable platform in which to bring several issues to the forefront of the electorate's consiousness, including, in no particular order, and not limited to: the arrogance of the incumbent city council; the inabilty to effect real change in all things Sacrament city government; a strong voice of the issues most dear to the residents and business owners of the central city; a clear and distinct vision for the future of the central city.

brandon12 states that soon after his candidacy is official, a series of campaign events will be announced. These will more than likely include beer, the formation of an advisory team and good fun. Please stay tuned for further information regarding these events. If you are interested in learning more about these events, please send brandon12 your contact information and he will add you to the brandon12 for city council mailing list.

In addition, in order to get things started, any readers of this forum who live within the boundaries of distric 4 and would wish to sign brandon12's nomination petion, are incouraged to contact him at your convenience, either as a public post to this forum or as a private message. He will contact you asap in order to arrange for obtaining your signature on said petition.

To those who might support me, please allow me to publicly thank you in advance. To those that have questions regarding my positions on the various issues, please feel free to contact me. I will respond as best I can immediately, but questions regarding some issues may require me to formulate my official, public opinion after proper consultation with my future advisory team.

Thank You!

brandon12

[ltsmotorsport]

Alright Brandon! I wish I lived in D4, or even Sacramento for that matter. ;)

I think I will have to attend one of these campaign events. Good luck. :cheers:

[neuhickman79]

Whoa! Good luck, Brandon! I will be supporting you from out here in the unincorporated lands! :)

[Majin]

I'd love to sign your petition but I don't live in district 4.

Can you give us your platform in detail, what issues you want to challenge the council on?

[brandon12]

to neuhickman79, thanks for your support. you don't have to wish me luck while otherwise standing on the sidelines. you can (and I hope that you do) become an active member in my campaign. that could be anything from saying nice things about me to potential voters to attending one of my parties to sending a campaing contribution that is comfortable for you. for the latter two, if you're interested, send me your contact info.

majin, I will come out with a platform in the near term. In the interim, if you have a question regarding my stance on a particular issue, post it here or send me a private communication. I will answer your question as best I can.

Thanks!

b

[Majin]

I'll look forward to your full platform later, but I'd like your stance on these following issues for now:

1. City annexation/consolidation
2. Height/Density limits - not just in the central city, but also your district and the rest of the city.
3. Development/Entitlement process and beuracracy
4. The need for design/planning commisions.
5. Where TOD needs to go, your guidelines to TOD, and how adamant you will be on pushing TOD.
6. Most important projects the city needs to spend its money besides subsidies.
7. Infill areas you want the city to focus it's attention on.
8. Suburban city development standards that need to changed.
9. Parking in the central city.
10. Parking outside the central city.

[brandon12]

see my responses in CAPSI'll look forward to your full platform later, but I'd like your stance on these following issues for now:

1. City annexation/consolidation. I SUPPORT BOTH, BUT NEITHER ARE LIKELY TO HAPPEN. HERE'S WHY: ANNEXATION: I ASSUME YOU MEAN NATOMAS LAND THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED. IT'S IN THE FLOOD ZONE. IT'S A REALLY BAD POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT TO BE TRYING TO ANNEX A FLOOD PLAIN. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ANNEXING THE LAND, BUT NOT FOR SHORT-TERM DEVELOPEMENT-FEE GAIN. I'D FAVOR IT FOR THE LONG-TERM SENSE THAT IT MAKES. RE: ARDEN-ARCADE, IN CONCEPT, I SUPPORT IT, BUT I SERIOUSLY DOUBT WHETHER THE A-A NIMMBY'S WANT TO BE ANNEXED. IF THEY DON'T WANT IT, I DON'T WANT IT. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL EFFICIENCIES AND ADVANTAGES.
2. Height/Density limits - not just in the central city, but also your district and the rest of the city. I WOULD NOT SUPPORT ANY HEIGHT RESTRICTION ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. INSTEAD, I'D SUPPORT LETTING THE DEVELOPER DECIDE WHAT IS FEASIBLE AND WHAT IS NOT. (ALTHOUGH WHOLESALE CHANGE TO HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS IS NOT LIKELY TO CHANGE). AS FAR AS DENSITY IS CONCERNED, I BELIEVE THAT EACH CASE SHOULD BE REVIEWED INDIVIDUALLY, WITH CURRENT ZONING TAKING PRESEDENCE. THE EXCEPTION WOULD BE: NO DENSITY RESTRICTIONS ANYWHERE IN THE CENTRAL CITY. IN FACT, I WOULD ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE HIGHEST DENSITY FOR ANY PARCEL TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE CENTRAL CITY. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE INTERESTS WHO WOULD ARGUE FOR HEIGHT LIMITS AT 301 CM OR 10TH AND J. IT WILL ALWAYS BE A CONSTANT, LONG-TERM BATTLE BETWEEN PEOPLE LIKE THAT AND ME. BUT I'LL NEVER BACK DOWN...
3. Development/Entitlement process and beuracracy. I'LL DEFER TO EXPERTS FOR THE DETAILS FOR NOW, BUT IN GENERAL, I'D DO WHATEVER I COULD TO FURTHER STREAMLINE THE DEVELOPMENT/ENTITLEMENT PROCESS. IN ADDITION, I WOULD SUPPORT FURTHER INCENTIVES FOR NEW BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CENTRAL CITY. THERE'S PLENTY OF CREATIVE WAYS FOR THE CITY TO GET OUT OF THE WAY AND YET BENEFIT FROM QUALITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE CENTRAL CITY. OBVIOUSLY YOU SHOULD EXPECT AND I WILL DELIVER MORE DETAILS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
4. The need for design/planning commisions. STILL NEEDED, BUT STAFFED WITH REAL PEOPLE, NOT IVORY-TOWER, HOLIER-THAN-THOU ACADEMIC ASS HOLES. IT NEEDS TO BE A CITIZENS' COMMON SENSE COMMISION. IF A PROJECT WOULD BLOCK MY VIEW OF THE CATHEDRAL FROM MY OFFICE, I DON'T GIVE A FUC$. THE GOOD OF THE CITY WOULD ALWAYS BE PARAMOUNT TO ME.
5. Where TOD needs to go, your guidelines to TOD, and how adamant you will be on pushing TOD. THERE'S PLENTY OF WAYS TO ENCOURAGE TOD FROM A LOCAL STAND POINT. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE FED AND STATE INVESTMENT, I WOULD CREATE AN AD-HOC COMMITTE WHO'S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO MAXIMIZE STATE/FED CONTRIBUTIONS TO TOD PROJECTS. I THINK IT JUST TAKES COMMITMENT. IN GENERAL, (NOT JUST TOD) I WOULD SUPPORT ANY CITY SUBSIDY TO A DEVELOPER IF AN INDEPENDENT, THIRD-PARTY AUDITOR SUGGESTED THERE WAS MORE THAN A TWO-THIRDS CHANCE THE CITY WOULD RECOUP IT'S INVESTMENT PLUS A 20% ANNUAL RETURN WITHIN 5 YEARS. IE, I WOULD SUPPORT A PLAN WHERE BY IF THE CITY GIVES AWAY $1M IN TAX REVENUE AT THE ONSET OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THEN WITHIN FIVE YEARS, THE PROJECT WILL HAVE GENERATED $1M TIMES 20% TIMES 5 YEARS. IF IT DOESN'T WORK OUT, THEN HELL, THE CITY LOOSES. BUT IF IT DOES (AND AUDITING FIRMS ARE NOTORIOUSLY CONSERVATIVE), THEN THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER WIN. THIS MENTALITY WOULD HELP WEEN THE CITY FROM SUBURBAN-SPRAWL PROJECTS THAT NEVER PENCIL OUT IN THE LONG-TERM. I WOULD AWARD A $10M "X PRIZE" IN FREE MONEY TO ANY DEVELOPER THAT CAN PUT HIGH-RISE CONDOS AT 601 OR 301 CM, OR ANY OTHER LOCATION WITHIN THE CENTRAL CITY WITHIN 2 YEARS. THE NEW PROPERTY TAXES ALONE WOULD PAY FOR THE PRIZE, LET ALONE THE INCREASED LAND VALUE FOR EVERY SUROUNDING PARCEL, AND THE PROPERTY TAXES THAT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED EACH TIME A PARCEL IS SOLD. ALSO, BENEFITS WOULD INCLUDE INCREASED FOOT TRAFFIC TO WP AND K STREET. BOTH OF THESE SITES ARE TRANSIT FRIENDLY AND COULD BE EVEN MORE SO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TROLLY LINE ALONG CAPITOL MALL. I WOULD SUPPORT A TROLLY LINE, BUT DEMAND THAT WEST SAC PAY MORE THAN IT'S FAIR SHARE. I BELIEVE THEY WOULD, BECAUSE THEY WILL BENEFIT DISPROPORTIONATELY FROM SUCH A LINE ACROSS THE RIVER. WE WOULD HAVE THEM BY THE BALLS. BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THEY DON'T HAVE US BY THE BALLS WITH OTHER ISSUES, IE RIVER-FRONT DEVELOPMENT. IT TAKES TWO BANKS TO DEVELOP A RIVER. WEST SAC KNOWS WE NEED THEIR HELP...
6. Most important projects the city needs to spend its money besides subsidies. I WOULD SUPPORT A MANDATE THAT SACRAMENTO NEVER FALL BELOW THE STATEWIDE-MEDIAN FOR PER CAPITA (GEOGRAPHIC PRICE INDEX ADJUSTED) SPENDING ON POLICE. I WOULD SUPPORT AN EFFORT TO RELOCATE GREYHOUND ASAP, OR START CHARGING THEM $10,000/HR FOR THE NECESSARY POLICE PRESENCE IF THEY DID NOT AGREE TO A MOVE WITHIN MY FIRST HUNDRED DAYS IN OFFICE. IF NOT, I WOULD NOT HESITATE FOR A SECOND TO UTLIZE EMINENT DOMAIN. IF THEY FAILED TO COOPERATE BY MOVING, I WOULD ALSO SUPPORT NOT RENEWING THEIR LICENSE TO OPERATE WITHIN THE CITY LIMIT. GREYHOUND NEEDS SACRAMENTO MORE THAN SACRAMENTO NEEDS GREYHOUND. THEY'LL MOVE. YOU JUST HAVE TO HELP THEM SEE WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM...
7. Infill areas you want the city to focus it's attention on. 301, 601, K STREET, RAILYARDS. YOU KNOW THE USUAL SUSPECTS. I WOULD SET UP A FORMULA BY WHICH A DEVELOPER EARNS CREDITS FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL UNIT DELIVERED IN THE CRENTRAL CITY. AFTER 5 YEARS, I WOULD AWARD THE WINNER WITH A CHOICE CITY-OWNED CENTRAL-CITY PARCEL AS A REWARD FOR BEING THE MOST PROLIFIC CENTRAL-CITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER.
8. Suburban city development standards that need to changed. I'LL LOOK INTO IT.
9. Parking in the central city. I DON'T SEE WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT. WHENEVER I GO OUT (WHICH IS OFTEN) THERE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE BARELY ENOUGH PARKING. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, BARELY ENOUGH IS THE PERFECT AMOUNT. ALMOST EVERY SPOT ON THE STREET TAKEN, BUT STILL POSSIBLE TO FIND A SPOT IN ORDER TO LURE IN THE FOLKS FROM EG AND ROSEVILLE ON THUR-SAT NIGHT.
10. Parking outside the central city. HONESTLY, WHO CARES. I'LL JUST CONSIDER THESE ISSUES ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. BUT BASICALLY, I'LL JUST STEP OUT OF THE WAY OF THE DEVELOPER IF SHE WANTS TO MAKE A FINANCIAL STAKE INTO WHAT THE CONSUMER PUBLIC WANTS/NEEDS FOR PARKING. WHY THE HELL SHOULD A CITY-COUNCIL MEMBER TRY TO TELL A REAL-ESTATE DEVELOPER HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE NEEDED FOR A STRIP MALL IN GREENHAVEN? THAT'S JUST CRAZY. THE OWNER OF THE LAND SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD ANYTHING HE/SHE WANTS THAT IS GENERALLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF EXISTING CODE, AND POSSIBLY EVEN IF IT'S NOT. I WOULD SUPPORT CHANGING THE ZONING LAWS, ALTHOUGH THIS IS AN UPHILL BATTLE FOR SURE.


IN THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS, I'LL OFFER DISTINCT CONTRASTS BETWEEN THE OPINIONS OF FONG (AND THE REST OF THE COUNCIL) AND I. I HOPE THIS AT LEAST WENT TOWARD ANSWERING YOUR INITIAL QUESTIONS, IF ONLY IN VERY GENERAL TERMS.

[urban_encounter]

unfortunately i live in Councilman Cohn's district and can't vote for you.

But I will defnitely plan on attending some of the events and town forums.

[travis bickle]

I'm with you Brandon. Even if I don't agree with a candidate on an issue-by-issue basis, I want his/her general philosophy to be consistent with my values. Remember, it's always far easier to be a critic on the outside than it is to implement your vision from within (it marks the transition from candidate to "politician"), but that is when you need to have a star by which to guide your ship.

Brandon - I know you have that star. Best of luck.

Obviously I can't vote for you, but let me know when you have the papers filed and I'll contribute... that is, unless you don't want to be tainted with some "greedy developer's" money...;)

How about this for a slogan? "Values and Vision"

[urban_encounter]

I'll look forward to your full platform later, but I'd like your stance on these following issues for now:

1. City annexation/consolidation
2. Height/Density limits - not just in the central city, but also your district and the rest of the city.
3. Development/Entitlement process and beuracracy
4. The need for design/planning commisions.
5. Where TOD needs to go, your guidelines to TOD, and how adamant you will be on pushing TOD.
6. Most important projects the city needs to spend its money besides subsidies.
7. Infill areas you want the city to focus it's attention on.
8. Suburban city development standards that need to changed.
9. Parking in the central city.
10. Parking outside the central city.


Majin the only thing missing from your wish list, is a full scale invasion of Solano County in order to give Sacramento some lebensraum.

I'm surprised that you didn't ask Brandon his stance on the deforestation of the grid.

[innov8]

WOW Brandon, your really stepping up here... 2008 will be a busy year for
you my friend. Count me in as one of your supporters even though I don't
live in your district. Nice dateline piece :yes:

[wburg]

Brandon: Would your push for maximum height/density also apply to neighborhoods adjacent to the central city that are served by light rail (and thus prime TOD locations) like Land Park/Curtis Park and East Sacramento?

[TowerDistrict]

I live in District 4 and would be happy to sign the petition and give full
support of your campaign. Let me know how I can be of assistance to you.

I should admit I have almost nothing against Rob Fong, but I don't feel
anyone should get too comfortable in their seat either. If there is one
thing that is poisoning this city, it's complacency.

[TowerDistrict]

I'd like it if you could share your perspective of the Broadway and Alhambra
corridors. The way I see these areas, is that they are prime locations with
heavy pedestrian and auto traffic. There are ample proposals for projects
and some meet or exceed community expectations, and others opt for status
quo or below.

Example:

I'd like to know how you would handle a situation like the Target renovation,
where the plan was originally a very simple nip and tuck and turned into
a full scale rebuild with heavy neighborhood association intervention and
involvement.

Would you push for more, or be content with the landowner's initial concept
and investment? In other words, would any development or improvement be
considered better than nothing?

*******

I just saw you'd offer an outline of views later - so don't worry about answering
the above questions - just consider it a point of potential controversy within the
district.

[brandon12]

thanks for the thoughts so far everyone. It's a funny thing, running against Rob Fong. I really don't know what I have against him in particular. I see my running for the district 4 seat more as an indictment of the city council as a whole, not really Rob Fong in particular. I have a lot of work ahead of me. I need to educate myself more on Fong's positions on the issues so that I can identify contrasts where they exist. If nothing else, my running might provide an opportunity to publicize several key issues that most everyone here cares about.

I was a bit drunk last night when I began responding to particular questions. I'd like to take a step back, get my ducks in a row and then go forward with a clear, coherant platform and strategy.

Also, let me say this: I don't really intend to be able to win the seat, although I would like to see how well I can compete. Although district 4 emcompasses much more than parts of the central city, I do plan to make issues related to the grid the foundation of my candidacy. I will measure my success by how well I do with voters in the grid.

Finally, in a way, I also think of this as a real-life lesson in civics. I know that I share a lot of common ground with many people who read this thread and I would like you to consider this (if you're interested) a group project. There are so many people who contribute to this forum that I have the greatest respect for. Real, intelligent, involved, hopeful people. In fact, sometimes I can't help but feel a bit dumb when I read the interesting, insightful things that are posted here. Please let me know your thoughts and ideas, even if you don't intend to (or can't) vote for me. Maybe we can continue to develop a list of issues that people here are interested in.

Finally, this last question will surely expose an ignorance on my part, but can anyone here confirm that council members have day jobs? I can't afford to leave my job and I want to make sure that if hell does in fact freeze over and I was to win, that I'd be able to accept the position and still keep my regular job!

[brandon12]

Brandon: Would your push for maximum height/density also apply to neighborhoods adjacent to the central city that are served by light rail (and thus prime TOD locations) like Land Park/Curtis Park and East Sacramento?

supporting maximum heights and density in LP/CP and East Sac is like being in favor of the Kings winning the championship this year. I could support it all I want, but it's not going to happen, so I won't waste my time. I'll focus on things in which I may be able to make a difference.

I will say this: almost any infill development within the city's established neighborhoods in close proximity to public transit is TOD. It doesn't have to be tall or especially dense in order to fit that description. There are plenty of prime locations within the grid for highrises; we don't need to force a high-rise mentality on residents of the established, close-in neighborhoods that surround the grid.

[travis bickle]

I was a bit drunk last night when I began responding to particular questions.

A man who responds to policy questions while drunk...

What was it Kaspar Gutman (the legendary Sydney Greenstreet) said in The Maltese Falcon? "I distrust a man who says "when." If he's got to be careful not to drink too much, it's because he's not to be trusted when he does."

Brandon - you just keep getting better. :tup:

Get those papers filed sir.

[wburg]

brandon12: Would you even consider advice/assistance from ivory-tower holier-than-thou academic ass holes?

City council seats are considered part-time jobs, although generally it helps if you have the sort of job that you can schedule around, as opposed to a regular 9-5 monday-friday gig. They do get paid around $40,000 a year, so if you can live off of that it could be your day job.

[neuhickman79]

Well, I definitely support you and your vision for the city! I will try to convince my husband on monetary support. Keep us posted on your progress and I'll try to help where I can!

[Majin]

Majin the only thing missing from your wish list, is a full scale invasion of Solano County in order to give Sacramento some lebensraum.

One step at a time ;)

[Majin]

I SUPPORT BOTH, BUT NEITHER ARE LIKELY TO HAPPEN. HERE'S WHY: ANNEXATION: I ASSUME YOU MEAN NATOMAS LAND THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED. IT'S IN THE FLOOD ZONE. IT'S A REALLY BAD POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT TO BE TRYING TO ANNEX A FLOOD PLAIN. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ANNEXING THE LAND, BUT NOT FOR SHORT-TERM DEVELOPEMENT-FEE GAIN. I'D FAVOR IT FOR THE LONG-TERM SENSE THAT IT MAKES. RE: ARDEN-ARCADE, IN CONCEPT, I SUPPORT IT, BUT I SERIOUSLY DOUBT WHETHER THE A-A NIMMBY'S WANT TO BE ANNEXED. IF THEY DON'T WANT IT, I DON'T WANT IT. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL EFFICIENCIES AND ADVANTAGES.

When I said Annexation/Consolidation I didn't mean the new annexation proposal on undeveloped land, I mean incorporating older already built out parts like Arden/South Sac/etc. Regardless of NIMBY opposition I feel this needs to be pushed and I would be great if we can get someone in the council to push this move.

I WOULD NOT SUPPORT ANY HEIGHT RESTRICTION ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. INSTEAD, I'D SUPPORT LETTING THE DEVELOPER DECIDE WHAT IS FEASIBLE AND WHAT IS NOT. (ALTHOUGH WHOLESALE CHANGE TO HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS IS NOT LIKELY TO CHANGE). AS FAR AS DENSITY IS CONCERNED, I BELIEVE THAT EACH CASE SHOULD BE REVIEWED INDIVIDUALLY, WITH CURRENT ZONING TAKING PRESEDENCE. THE EXCEPTION WOULD BE: NO DENSITY RESTRICTIONS ANYWHERE IN THE CENTRAL CITY. IN FACT, I WOULD ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE HIGHEST DENSITY FOR ANY PARCEL TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE CENTRAL CITY. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE INTERESTS WHO WOULD ARGUE FOR HEIGHT LIMITS AT 301 CM OR 10TH AND J. IT WILL ALWAYS BE A CONSTANT, LONG-TERM BATTLE BETWEEN PEOPLE LIKE THAT AND ME. BUT I'LL NEVER BACK DOWN...

Thats great, as I said above we really need new people in the council who don't back down and pander to NIMBYs and special interests.

I'LL DEFER TO EXPERTS FOR THE DETAILS FOR NOW, BUT IN GENERAL, I'D DO WHATEVER I COULD TO FURTHER STREAMLINE THE DEVELOPMENT/ENTITLEMENT PROCESS. IN ADDITION, I WOULD SUPPORT FURTHER INCENTIVES FOR NEW BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CENTRAL CITY. THERE'S PLENTY OF CREATIVE WAYS FOR THE CITY TO GET OUT OF THE WAY AND YET BENEFIT FROM QUALITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE CENTRAL CITY. OBVIOUSLY YOU SHOULD EXPECT AND I WILL DELIVER MORE DETAILS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

It's hard to tell if the problems with current approval and entitlement process is the people running it or the system itself, but I would appretiate it if this would be something you'd look into and possibly use this as part of your platform.

STILL NEEDED, BUT STAFFED WITH REAL PEOPLE, NOT IVORY-TOWER, HOLIER-THAN-THOU ACADEMIC ASS HOLES. IT NEEDS TO BE A CITIZENS' COMMON SENSE COMMISION. IF A PROJECT WOULD BLOCK MY VIEW OF THE CATHEDRAL FROM MY OFFICE, I DON'T GIVE A FUC$. THE GOOD OF THE CITY WOULD ALWAYS BE PARAMOUNT TO ME.

I would seriously question if the amount of planning commissions current in place is really needed, but I will agree that some are needed. Maybe a staff change is all that is needed, but I will appretiate you looking into this too, as we all can agree that there are entirely too many reviews and input from the community. Too much discussion and not enough action, how many times do we need to go over the K street streetscape plan before it gets started?

HERE'S PLENTY OF WAYS TO ENCOURAGE TOD FROM A LOCAL STAND POINT. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE FED AND STATE INVESTMENT, I WOULD CREATE AN AD-HOC COMMITTE WHO'S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO MAXIMIZE STATE/FED CONTRIBUTIONS TO TOD PROJECTS. I THINK IT JUST TAKES COMMITMENT. IN GENERAL, (NOT JUST TOD) I WOULD SUPPORT ANY CITY SUBSIDY TO A DEVELOPER IF AN INDEPENDENT, THIRD-PARTY AUDITOR SUGGESTED THERE WAS MORE THAN A TWO-THIRDS CHANCE THE CITY WOULD RECOUP IT'S INVESTMENT PLUS A 20% ANNUAL RETURN WITHIN 5 YEARS. IE, I WOULD SUPPORT A PLAN WHERE BY IF THE CITY GIVES AWAY $1M IN TAX REVENUE AT THE ONSET OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THEN WITHIN FIVE YEARS, THE PROJECT WILL HAVE GENERATED $1M TIMES 20% TIMES 5 YEARS. IF IT DOESN'T WORK OUT, THEN HELL, THE CITY LOOSES. BUT IF IT DOES (AND AUDITING FIRMS ARE NOTORIOUSLY CONSERVATIVE), THEN THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER WIN. THIS MENTALITY WOULD HELP WEEN THE CITY FROM SUBURBAN-SPRAWL PROJECTS THAT NEVER PENCIL OUT IN THE LONG-TERM. I WOULD AWARD A $10M "X PRIZE" IN FREE MONEY TO ANY DEVELOPER THAT CAN PUT HIGH-RISE CONDOS AT 601 OR 301 CM, OR ANY OTHER LOCATION WITHIN THE CENTRAL CITY WITHIN 2 YEARS. THE NEW PROPERTY TAXES ALONE WOULD PAY FOR THE PRIZE, LET ALONE THE INCREASED LAND VALUE FOR EVERY SUROUNDING PARCEL, AND THE PROPERTY TAXES THAT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED EACH TIME A PARCEL IS SOLD. ALSO, BENEFITS WOULD INCLUDE INCREASED FOOT TRAFFIC TO WP AND K STREET. BOTH OF THESE SITES ARE TRANSIT FRIENDLY AND COULD BE EVEN MORE SO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TROLLY LINE ALONG CAPITOL MALL. I WOULD SUPPORT A TROLLY LINE, BUT DEMAND THAT WEST SAC PAY MORE THAN IT'S FAIR SHARE. I BELIEVE THEY WOULD, BECAUSE THEY WILL BENEFIT DISPROPORTIONATELY FROM SUCH A LINE ACROSS THE RIVER. WE WOULD HAVE THEM BY THE BALLS. BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THEY DON'T HAVE US BY THE BALLS WITH OTHER ISSUES, IE RIVER-FRONT DEVELOPMENT. IT TAKES TWO BANKS TO DEVELOP A RIVER. WEST SAC KNOWS WE NEED THEIR HELP...

Everything you said here sounds good to me. Run with it :tup:

I WOULD SUPPORT A MANDATE THAT SACRAMENTO NEVER FALL BELOW THE STATEWIDE-MEDIAN FOR PER CAPITA (GEOGRAPHIC PRICE INDEX ADJUSTED) SPENDING ON POLICE. I WOULD SUPPORT AN EFFORT TO RELOCATE GREYHOUND ASAP, OR START CHARGING THEM $10,000/HR FOR THE NECESSARY POLICE PRESENCE IF THEY DID NOT AGREE TO A MOVE WITHIN MY FIRST HUNDRED DAYS IN OFFICE. IF NOT, I WOULD NOT HESITATE FOR A SECOND TO UTLIZE EMINENT DOMAIN. IF THEY FAILED TO COOPERATE BY MOVING, I WOULD ALSO SUPPORT NOT RENEWING THEIR LICENSE TO OPERATE WITHIN THE CITY LIMIT. GREYHOUND NEEDS SACRAMENTO MORE THAN SACRAMENTO NEEDS GREYHOUND. THEY'LL MOVE. YOU JUST HAVE TO HELP THEM SEE WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM...

Greyhound, yes I think that should be a top priority. However, I think there are some fundamental things the city needs to spend some money on such as a massive streetscape improvement project all over the city, especially in the grid and adjacent neighorhoods. I also think some money also needs to be spent on adding a lot more street lights. I also think long term there needs to be some discussions about how to fund more bridges over the American River. Just some ideas.

301, 601, K STREET, RAILYARDS. YOU KNOW THE USUAL SUSPECTS. I WOULD SET UP A FORMULA BY WHICH A DEVELOPER EARNS CREDITS FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL UNIT DELIVERED IN THE CRENTRAL CITY. AFTER 5 YEARS, I WOULD AWARD THE WINNER WITH A CHOICE CITY-OWNED CENTRAL-CITY PARCEL AS A REWARD FOR BEING THE MOST PROLIFIC CENTRAL-CITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER.

This also sounds good to me.

I'LL LOOK INTO IT.

What I meant is that I think there needs to be a major overhaul on how suburban neighorhoods are designed and laid out. Streets are too side, not enough intersections and pedestrian crossings, shops needs to front the street instead of parking lots, etc.

[brandon12]

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/721595.html

above is a link to the story in today's bee re: the proposed bridge connecting broadway with west sac. Fong has stated his opposition to it. nimbyism at its worst. I will try to appeal to sensible broadway business owners ;)

[brandon12]

Official Brandon12 for Dist. 4 City Council Campain Status Update: Just got back back from meeting with the city clerk and "pulling papers".

[ltsmotorsport]

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/721595.html

above is a link to the story in today's bee re: the proposed bridge connecting broadway with west sac. Fong has stated his opposition to it. nimbyism at its worst. I will try to appeal to sensible broadway business owners ;)



Careful though, the article alludes that Fong might be supportive of a bridge, as long as it didn't include automobiles.

Opponents of the Broadway bridge want it removed from the plan while alternatives are studied, such as a crossing for bicycles, pedestrians and streetcars. State Sen. Darrell Steinberg and Assemblyman Dave Jones, both Democrats from Sacramento, have joined the cause, along with the Sierra Club Sacramento Group, several neighborhood groups and Sacramento City Councilman Rob Fong, who represents communities near Broadway. All are concerned not only about disruption to neighborhoods, but that a new bridge would encourage more automobile trips when fewer would be better for the environment.


Would be great actually if someone was able to go to the SACOG meeting next month.

[brandon12]

it's funny. I consider myself to be an environmentalist. I hear a lot of people who claim to be environmentalists oppose EVERY SINGLE project designed to accomodate autos. In my opinion, this doesn't always make sense. In some cases, new roads, bridges, etc won't increase over-all auto traffic, just redistribute it more effectively and efficiently. I would think bridges in particular would result in resdistribution of traffic. Especially in Sacramento's case. A metro area the size of ours with so few bridges over our rivers makes us succeptable to lengthy traffic jams. there's nothing more polluting than thousands of cars idling bumper to bumper because there's no where else for them to go.

People aren't going to run out and buy a new car and start driving more because additional bridges are built. that's silly.

[wburg]

Mayor Fargo likes the bridge too. I'm okay with it, although I'd like it better if there were streetcar tracks along with automobile lanes--like the Tower Bridge was before they stopped running trains over it.

[ltsmotorsport]

Yeah I definitely support a bridge with cars being part of it. As the article and Brandon stated, it would do more to redistribute traffic than create more.

[urban_encounter]

it's funny. I consider myself to be an environmentalist. I hear a lot of people who claim to be environmentalists oppose EVERY SINGLE project designed to accomodate autos. In my opinion, this doesn't always make sense. In some cases, new roads, bridges, etc won't increase over-all auto traffic, just redistribute it more effectively and efficiently. I would think bridges in particular would result in resdistribution of traffic. Especially in Sacramento's case. A metro area the size of ours with so few bridges over our rivers makes us succeptable to lengthy traffic jams. there's nothing more polluting than thousands of cars idling bumper to bumper because there's no where else for them to go.

People aren't going to run out and buy a new car and start driving more because additional bridges are built. that's silly.



I agree 100%..

The argument that additional bridge capactiy leads to more cars is a contradiction and silly assertion.

In fact cars sitting and idling pour more particulate pollution..


I think NIMBYs use the environmental cloak to hide their true motivations.

[Cynikal]

The opposition to the bridge is primarily the LPNA and Roxanne Miller. I'm actually surprised to hear that Fong is siding with them. You would think that the Tower District folks would want that bridge to bring more people to the commercial area. This would only help thier efforts at rebuilding this area.

[Majin]

The opposition to the bridge is primarily the LPNA and Roxanne Miller. I'm actually surprised to hear that Fong is siding with them. You would think that the Tower District folks would want that bridge to bring more people to the commercial area. This would only help thier efforts at rebuilding this area.

NIMBYs aren't logical people, don't expect them to do things that make sense.

The NIMBY voice really needs to be limited, the problem is our ciy council members are NIMBYs themselves :rolleyes:

[Cynikal]

And I'm sure that labeling people as nimbys is the first step to making a better city. Not every nieghborhood activist is a nimby. You tend to paint with a broad brush. Hopefully this will be a trait that you outgrow.

[ltsmotorsport]

Well, I think Fong is going political on this one cause it's election time. The city has been wanting this for a while.

[sugit]

The term NIMBY is waaaay over used, even though it does fit some people, labeling anyone who opposes something a NIMBY doesn't make sense to me...

but anytime I hear Roxanne Miller talk, I wanna run to the nearest chalk board and run my nails down it to stop my hears from hurting so much. All I ever hear that women do is whine.

[brandon12]

^funniesth thing I've ever heard you say Sugit... :)

[sugit]

:cheers::notacrook:

[urban_encounter]

The term NIMBY is waaaay over used, even though it does fit some people, labeling anyone who opposes something a NIMBY doesn't make sense to me...

but anytime I hear Roxanne Miller talk, I wanna run to the nearest chalk board and run my nails down it to stop my hears from hurting so much. All I ever hear that women do is whine.



You and i don't disagree often, but i would disagree with you on this. Sacramento does have an overabundance of NIMBYs, each with their own selfish reasons why they don't want to see something built..

Fairy Shrimp, snakes, hawks, neighborhood associations, self proclaimed homeless advocates, railroad buffs, self proclaimed historical preservationists, (not referring to you Wburg, because i know you have a passion for this city's historical treasures and have vested real time and energy)...


My point being that i have never lived anywhere in which there were so many groups backed up by parochial councilmembers and state representatives.

Smart growth is so expensive and cost prohibitive in this city because of all the whacko challenges. We're lucky that we've seen any new housing built in the central city.


There will never be another automobile bridge built in the city of Sacramento proper; because the city council will cave just like the Board of Supervisors did in regards to more American River crossings. Supervisors where affraid of taking on neighborhood associations along the American River Drive and so consequently today we have Howe Avenue, Watt and Sunrise river crossings (and one that the city of Folsom had built (and now they're working on another)..

[wburg]

Fairy Shrimp, snakes, hawks, neighborhood associations, self proclaimed homeless advocates, railroad buffs, self proclaimed historical preservationists, (not referring to you Wburg, because i know you have a passion for this city's historical treasures and have vested real time and energy)...


So, not me in particular, just my friends and organizations I belong to. Thanks.

Well, I've never been a snake or a hawk or a fairy shrimp. But all the rest are definitely my peer group, and they all tend to have real passion, and some of them have invested more time and energy than I have by a wide margin.

Grump #1 is "railroad buffs." You're talking about paid employees of one of the finest institutions of its kind in the world. Are the staff of the Crocker "art buffs"? Are the Kings "basketball buffs"? Is Angelo Tsakopoulis a "sprawl buff"?

Grump #2 is "self-proclaimed." A bit less of a diminuitive than "buffs," but by calling them "self-proclaimed" you're ruling out that any of them are professionals, members of organizations, or even have anything legitimate to say.

Which is bold talk for a bunch of self-proclaimed skyscraper buffs.

[sugit]

Don't get me wrong, Urban. There are plenty of NIMBYs out there. What I think is wrong is automatically labeling each and every person one if they don't like something. Sometimes there are legitimate concerns.

[Majin]

^^ There are no legitimate concerns for a broadway bridge or more American River bridge crossings.

[Cynikal]

Well said Sugit. :tup:

[Cynikal]

^^ There are no legitimate concerns for a broadway bridge or more American River bridge crossings.


To you. There are legitimate concerns for others. Think beyond yourself, I know it's hard but I'm sure you can stretch a bit.

[sugit]

I agree, Majin. The traffic concers for the Broadway Bridge don't hold much weight for me.


Think beyond yourself, I know it's hard but I'm sure you can stretch a bit.
The LPNA need think beyond themselves as well though.

[sugit]

by the way, do you think we have hijacked Brandon thread enough yet?

[Majin]

Seriously Cynikal, you have some serious blinders on when you attempt to defend NIMBYs, especially on issues like the Broadway bridge.

No one opposing the bridge to my knowledge has brought anything legitimate to the table as to why the bridge shouldn't be build. The default reason of traffic NIMBYs overuse is always a stupid reason that people seem to fall for way too much.

Don't want more traffic? Ok, lets start building some TOD density around your neighorhood so people will stop using their car and walk. Don't like high density in your neighborhood? Ok then lets build a bridge to other neighorhoods to make road use efficient to reduce traffic and streamline economic boom for the broadway corridor. Don't like bridges either?

What NIMBYs really want is to build nothing.

[wburg]

sugit: TAKE THIS THREAD TO CUBA!!!

[Cynikal]

Seriously Cynikal, you have some serious blinders on when you attempt to defend NIMBYs, especially on issues like the Broadway bridge.

No one opposing the bridge to my knowledge has brought anything legitimate to the table as to why the bridge shouldn't be build. The default reason of traffic NIMBYs overuse is always a stupid reason that people seem to fall for way too much.

Don't want more traffic? Ok, lets start building some TOD density around your neighorhood so people will stop using their car and walk. Don't like high density in your neighborhood? Ok then lets build a bridge to other neighorhoods to make road use efficient to reduce traffic and streamline economic boom for the broadway corridor. Don't like bridges either?

What NIMBYs really want is to build nothing.

My point, which you clearly missed, was to broaden your thinking past your current blinders.

While I agree about the Broadway bridge I may disagree about others across the American. Actually, my only issue with the Broadway bridge is that it shouldn't be at Broadway. It should be at Sutterville but there is no way in hell that will ever get built. A bridge at Broadway is on the wrong side of the locks in W.Sac to sufficiantly handle the flow from the southport area.

I am in no way defending "NIMBYs" as you call them. Simply letting you know there are other perspectives to yours. Until you realize this, you are just part of the problem.

What I really don't understand about you Majin is that you don't want any parking in Downtown but you are happy to build infrastructure to allow more people to drive to Downtown. This is a disconnect to me.

Do I want more traffic? Hell yes I do! I also want expensive gas. I want people to look at other ways to get around and to make it cost effective for that to happen.


Oh yeah, sorry Brandon for the hijack and good luck with the election.

[Dakotasteve66]

I think you guys are pointing the finger at the wrong group regarding NIMBYs. I don't have any problem with NIMBYs. This country was founded on free speech and it is well within the rights of NIMBYs to speak their mind. There will always be NIMBYs and in actuality, they hold no real power.

Now, if you are dissatisfied with this city's progress, you need to be looking to those that are in power. To those that make the decisions to do, not do or stall. To those that listen to closely to the NIMBYs. And to those that allow too many charettes, too many public input meetings, too many lawsuits that progress is stalled.

NIMBYs are right sometime. Charettes and Public input are valuable. And lawsuits are at times warranted. It is our desire that those we empower, in public office or positions of influence, know how to balance these forces to make substantive progress.

[Majin]

I think you guys are pointing the finger at the wrong group regarding NIMBYs. I don't have any problem with NIMBYs. This country was founded on free speech and it is well within the rights of NIMBYs to speak their mind. There will always be NIMBYs and in actuality, they hold no real power.

Now, if you are dissatisfied with this city's progress, you need to be looking to those that are in power. To those that make the decisions to do, not do or stall. To those that listen to closely to the NIMBYs. And to those that allow too many charettes, too many public input meetings, too many lawsuits that progress is stalled.

NIMBYs are right sometime. Charettes and Public input are valuable. And lawsuits are at times warranted. It is our desire that those we empower, in public office or positions of influence, know how to balance these forces to make substantive progress.

I totally agree, and I've stated many times and I think we all can agree that the real problem comes from the city themselves caving to NIMBYs and holding too many public meetings and not enough action, such as K street.

Thats why i've been trying to push a regime change in the city council for so long. I'm glad brandon (and likely KJ) is stepping up to the plate.

[wburg]

Remember that everyone is somebody's N____...if Majin wants to get rid of parking lots, if he hates seeing single-family homes and low-density garden apartments in the central city, if he wants to see Greyhound on Richards instead of Seventh and L, if he'd rather see the occupants of SRO hotels in other neighborhoods instead of his own, it's because he doesn't want them in his backyard. So what does that make you, Majin?

[Majin]

Remember that everyone is somebody's N____...if Majin wants to get rid of parking lots, if he hates seeing single-family homes and low-density garden apartments in the central city, if he wants to see Greyhound on Richards instead of Seventh and L, if he'd rather see the occupants of SRO hotels in other neighborhoods instead of his own, it's because he doesn't want them in his backyard. So what does that make you, Majin?

Nice try, but no.

I think I clearly pointed out the difference in the above post between the typical NIMBYs and myself (and most people on the forum). NIMBYs typically oppose any development in their neighborhood no matter how much the development benefits the neighborhood's economy, environment, and status. They simple oppose everything just to oppose it.

On the other hand, I and others on this forum are the complete opposite. We want development that will benefit the economy, improve traffic, help the environment, and make our city live up to the maximum potential it can. Building a parking lot not a development, The Towers at Capitol Mall is development. The Greyhound station is a crime magnet and a economic deterent to the area. This is not NIMBYism, this is the real facts. People in Land Park don't have real fact to oppose the Broadway bridge.

These are just straight up selfish people who are not looking out for the interests of the city, or even their neighborhood. I'm sick and tired of people trying to defend them. There is nothing to defend, period. They are a parasite to the city and everything we try to become.

Yes we all have different views on what consitutes becoming a world class city, but at least we all agree that there needs to be changes. These people want things to say exactly the same as they are now, forever. Thats not progress in any sort of way. Thats just NIMBYism at its worst.

[innov8]

This argument about the proposed Broadway Bridge could may make or
break your chances of taking Fong’s seat in the city council Brandon.
From the people I have talked to who live in the Land Park area, they don’t
view the bridge as something that will benefit the neighborhood. I would not
even bring it up in conversation if you can… since you support building the
bridge and it's the current hot topic of discussion.

[wburg]

I'm not going to defend Land Park, but I'm not talking about Land Park. I'm talking about your backyard, Majin, and what you don't want in it.

You don't seem to have any understanding that people might have values or ideas that don't match exactly what you think--you just write it off as irrational because you personally don't understand it. Your opinions, on the other hand, as laughable as some of them are, are apparently beyond question--not because they're actually defensible, but because they're yours, and when your fallacies are pointed out you just brush them off. It's very nice that you'd like to live in a super-urban Neo-Tokyo instead of Sacramento, but you can't even acknowledge that most of your urban aspirations aren't even physically possible, let alone probable. You dictate from the mountain what you think the city should do, but have no understanding of how it runs, who runs it, or who pays for things, and don't seem to want to learn anything about it.

You're just a N____ of another kind, majin.

[Majin]

Wburg I'm trying to engage in an discussion about how NIMBYs impact this city but instead of furthering the discussion you are personally attacking me. Instead of personally attacking me and calling me a NIMBY for no apparent reason, how about we discuss the issue instead?

By the way, I would like you to explain how I am a NIMBY when I have never attempted to block any development of anything in my entire life? How does that fit into the definition of a NIMBY?

[Majin]

This argument about the proposed Broadway Bridge could may make or
break your chances of taking Fong’s seat in the city council Brandon.
From the people I have talked to who live in the Land Park area, they don’t
view the bridge as something that will benefit the neighborhood. I would not
even bring it up in conversation if you can… since you support building the
bridge and it's the current hot topic of discussion.

Actually I would suggest that you don't sell out and instead put forth you real beliefs. Even if you don't get elected, you can use this opprotunity to give a voice to the (maybe) silient majority. Maybe instead of relying on NIMBYs to get you into office, you will get new voters out that are inspired by change you can bring into the current system.

[urban_encounter]

Vote for Brandon District IV


:fruit:

[urban_encounter]

I'm not going to defend Land Park, but I'm not talking about Land Park. I'm talking about your backyard, Majin, and what you don't want in it.


When I owned my last home in Hollywood Park I remember the discussion among those of us who belonged to the Holloywood Park Neighborhood Association was how light rail would impact Holloywood Park, once they put in a station at Fruitridge. I was stunned how many people came out against it; though an equally large number saw this as a benefit to the neighborhood and the entire city.

Sometimes there's a bigger picture..

[brandon12]

There is a really interesting article in the SN&R tonight re: the city hall elections. Anyone reading this thread might enjoy picking up a copy of this week's edition to take a look.

re: the broadway bridge and how my support of it might impact my popularity in Land Park, I have to say that I would disregard the negative impact it would have on my chances (whatever they are) and just speak my mind and try to make the most logical argument in favor that I can. I won't run just to win if it means not taking every opportunity a campaign affords me to make the points that I feel need to be made.

on another note, I have my annual performance review at work tomorrow. I plan to ask my boss if he or my employer would object to me running. I'll explain to my boss that I still intend to keep my job and that anyway, my chances of actually winning are slim, but rather that I'd run for what I see as a greater purpose: civic responsibility. I really don't know what he'll say, but I should know more tomorrow. But with his endorsement (so to speak) I'll get my petition signatures and submit asap.

Interestingly, I have already been asked to sit for an interview by a certain neighborhood newspaper and I told the reporter that I would graciously accept her invitation as soon as I knew my employer was comfortable with the situation...

[sugit]

Very good, Brandon. Speak your mind and let people decide. That in itself is going to be admired by people, I sure as hell do.

P.S. Make sure you let them tell you how much your raise first before you tell them about running!..lol

[brandon12]

^lol! good point...

[Cynikal]

Brandon..I think you should bring up the bridge and bring all the data to support why it should be built. I think bring this topic into a full public debate would be good for everyone. I applaud your reasons for running.

[innov8]

You should of course speak your mind, but if your going to be a politician it
will be in your best interest not to discuss a topic that immediately pegs you
as the person who "wants that bridge" or whatever. If the topic were to
come up I would do as you said which is to make the most logical argument
you can in favor of it. There are dozens of other topics that you can engage
people in that won't label you as someone who wants to change the present
neighborhood which is seen by many as a negative. The Broadway Bridge
could be the third rail topic, and sometimes it's better to leave it alone
if you can. From what I gather, it’s a touché subject in Land Park.

Good luck with that :tup:

[TowerDistrict]

You could leave the topic alone on the basis that it won't happen during your tenure.

And for the record, as a D4 resident, I support a bridge on certain terms. I'd like to
see it one-lane each way and/or an extensive plan for public transit usage. Wide
sidewalks, bike lanes and forethought into potential street car usage.

Before the shit starts flying, consider the massive retrofitting that had and will have
to be done for the Tower Bridge. Think of the non-existant plan to cross the American
River with the DNA line, and consider the lengthy, costly studies and conversion
projects to thin roads down in the central city area.

[TowerDistrict]

oh yeah... i also want it designed by Santiago Calatrava.

http://www.hellobubba.com/images/sundial-03.jpg

http://www.hellobubba.com/images/sundial-04.jpg

[wburg]

If it was a pedestrian-only toy bridge like the Sundial, Land Park would probably support it--at least that's what Jim Randlett thinks. Unfortunately, a pedestrian-only bridge isn't much use from a transportation perspective. The Sundial is something people drive to, visit by walking across, and then drive away from. Majin would be horrified at the fact that the bridge has a parking lot.

The great comedy about the Tower Bridge is that it originally had train tracks in the middle--not for streetcars, but for freight and interurban passenger trains. A streetcar line over the Tower would just put back what was originally there. It sounds like TD and I are of a mind that such a bridge should be planned for streetcar as well as auto use.

And yeah, even if the bridge did go through it would take quite a bit of discussion, environmental-impact reports, planning sessions, and perhaps *shudder* public input! I suppose I'm not so horrified by the prospect of public participation in the development process as many here, so I'm okay with that.

[TowerDistrict]

Yeah, the Sundial Bridge is an attraction, not a functional traffic artery, and
Mr. Randlett is out of his mind if he sees this as an opportunity to get a neato
toy bridge for the neighborhood to play on. There's already a pedestrian bridge
"planned" for the end of R Street anyway. And that's where it would make
more sense in terms having of a continuous stretch of pedestrian oriented
land/streetscape... that you can actually get to.

[urban_encounter]

You could leave the topic alone on the basis that it won't happen during your tenure.

And for the record, as a D4 resident, I support a bridge on certain terms. I'd like to
see it one-lane each way and/or an extensive plan for public transit usage. Wide
sidewalks, bike lanes and forethought into potential street car usage.

Before the shit starts flying, consider the massive retrofitting that had and will have
to be done for the Tower Bridge. Think of the non-existant plan to cross the American
River with the DNA line, and consider the lengthy, costly studies and conversion
projects to thin roads down in the central city area.


I think one of the best thing's that Brandon can do (assuming you get the chance to debate Fong at least once) is to turn the tables on Fong and say, 'o.k. Councilman, we understand your opposition to the Broadway Bridge, but can you tell us what your alternative is? What will Fong do to support other river crossings? Steinberg and Jones should be asked to provide their alternative as well.

For the record i can understand the concern among some residents that a bridge (at Sutterville) would bring increased traffic. But Broadway is not a residentail corrdior and i think any opposition is unjustified.


And Brandon be prepared with your own alternatives....

[Majin]

Brandon, any update on what your boss said?

[Majin]

I just read the Land Park paper and there was an article about Fong's re-election and there was no mention of brandon at all. It also said that any opposition canidate has to file by March 7th.

Brandon, have you filed yet? You only have 2 more days...

[Cynikal]

He has pulled the papers but not submitted from what I know.

[wburg]

So is Brandon still running for city council? I hadn't seen any updates--perhaps the first advice he got was "stop posting to Internet forums"?

[TowerDistrict]

no.. looks like he didn't file the papers. i'm pretty sure the deadline was March 7th.

here's the list from the City's website:

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/clerk/election%5Finfo/candidates/

[Majin]

I have lost respect for brandon.

[TowerDistrict]

yeah... him and the other +51,000 people in District 4 that aren't running.

[Majin]

It's everybodys civic duty to serve their city.

[neuhickman79]

I have lost respect for brandon.
Who knows what the reasons were?! At least he started the process! Where was your name in all this "Oh High and Mighty One!"?

[goldcntry]

Who knows what the reasons were?! At least he started the process! Where was your name in all this "Oh High and Mighty One!"?

I believe it is "Oh High and Mijan One."

Thank you for your input.



That is all.
<end transmission>

:tomato:

[wburg]

It's everybodys civic duty to serve their city.
There's a great campaign idea for you...mandatory participation in the "Sacramento Skyscraper Corps" forced labor divisions for all Sacramento residents, knocking down trees and Victorians and building high-rises and wine bars!

[econgrad]

^ I have no problem with that...there are some drab ugly Victorians that need to go big time!

[neuhickman79]

^ I have no problem with that...there are some drab ugly Victorians that need to go big time!

those are fighting words!!! I think las vegas is more the place for you. Tons of skyscrapers, a nice suburban scene, and not much architectural history or character.

[econgrad]

^ LOL!
Would you believe, I have traveled to Japan, China, Europe, Mexico, Canada and soon to be going to Israel and Lebanon, and I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO LAS VEGAS!! I just have no urge to go....but since you say everything is new, maybe I will see what it is like someday soon. Is it like Reno at all? People always say a big "NO!" when I ask that...

[wburg]

Nothing like Reno at all. Las Vegas actively hates its history, they knock down the older casinos on the Strip at the drop of a hat to make something bigger and flashier. I went there once, it was kind of amusing but I'm not much of a gambler. It was funny that they had slot machines and video poker everywhere, even in the strip-mall laundromats.

[urban_encounter]

There's a great campaign idea for you...mandatory participation in the "Sacramento Skyscraper Corps" forced labor divisions for all Sacramento residents, knocking down trees and Victorians and building high-rises and wine bars!



:haha:


My personal priority list


Save the trees and plant more...

Save the painted ladys (tied with encouraging more wine bars)


Then we can think about skyscrapers




What good are skyscrapers without a glass of California Cabernet, an old Valley Oak to cool your heels under; and a beautiful Painted Lady??

[Web]

Dutch elm is claiming the big elms every day!! Lots of areas wont have many trees left!