|
Sacramento exploring annexation of Arden-Arcade, Natomas and South Sacramento
City exploring annexation of Arden Arcade
Despite incorporation bid, a councilman says merger would be a better option. By Ed Fletcher - Bee Staff Writer Last Updated 6:33 am PDT Monday, April 23, 2007 Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1 Arden Arcade is a popular place. Some residents are fighting to incorporate it. County officials desperately want to keep the revenue generated there. And now, some city of Sacramento elected leaders say the city should consider annexing the unincorporated county turf. Sacramento City Councilman Steve Cohn said he respects cityhood backers' desire to break from the county but said he has an alternative. "There is a an even better option, and that is annexing into the city of Sacramento," Cohn said. Earlier this month, cityhood advocates were told their petition drive was successful, clearing the way for an intensive incorporation study and keeping a November 2008 election in sight. Because Sacramento borders Arden Arcade to the east, north and south, annexing the 13.3-square-mile area east of the Arden Fair mall would create a "more seamless efficient government," Cohn said. The city hasn't officially launched an annexation effort, but the council did authorize staff members to study the issue. It also asked staff members to consider for annexation some areas of Natomas and south Sacramento. The discussion about what's best for Arden Arcade illuminates a larger debate over whether the region is best served by larger regionally thinking governments or smaller governments with a careful eye on local neighborhoods. Joel Archer, chairman of the cityhood campaign, said Arden Arcade residents aren't interested in I Street City Hall running things. "Arden Arcade does not want to be a part of the city of Sacramento. The community does not want another downtown government," Archer said. "What Arden Arcade wants is to be safer, cleaner (streets) and a more responsive government." But that feeling is not absolute among residents. Steve Eggert, a recent addition to the Arden Arcade community council, says small governments can result in parochial decision-making that doesn't take the wider community into account. "I'm against Balkanization. I strongly favor annexation," Eggert said. Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said he doesn't want to lose Arden Arcade to either self-incorporation or annexation into the city. "It continues to make sense for Arden Arcade to continue to be part of the unincorporated part of the county," Dickinson said. He said the cost effectiveness for providing police protection, fixing streets and picking up garbage is diminished as chunks of the unincorporated area are removed. Still, if Arden Arcade were determined to change governance, Dickinson said, he finds annexation would be less onerous than incorporation. "If we keep chopping up the county into more and more jurisdictions, it will have an adverse effect on the ability of the county and the region as a whole to come to agreement on issues." As a former member of the local intergovernmental agency in charge of the incorporation process, Sacramento City Councilwoman Lauren Hammond said she helped clear the way for two of the region's new cities -- and doesn't regret her actions. All the same, she said she's "growing increasingly concerned about the number of new cities." She said cities need to work together. "We are going to have to learn to be more regional, from water to solid waste," Hammond said. As for Arden Arcade, Hammond said annexation might make sense. "You talk to folks in Arden Arcade, and many don't know they don't live in the city," Hammond said. "It might be better to just annex and square off our borders over time." Cohn suggests the environmental study and fiscal analysis triggered by the incorporation petition also should study the merits and cost of annexation as an alternative. But annexation requires separate action. Sacramento County Executive Terry Schutten said in a statement released last week that given the city's possible interest, "it stands to reason" that annexation should be studied as an alternative. Peter Brundage, executive director of the Local Agency Formation Commission, said it's not clear how thoroughly the annex- ation possibility will be examined as part of the current process. He didn't know how much such a study would increase costs and who would pick up the tab. He stressed, however, that annexation requires a separate proposal before LAFCO considers it. "The proposal is an incorporation. It's not one or the other," Brundage said. But while incorporation re- quires a vote of the people, annexation -- once revenue agreements between the city and county are made -- could proceed without an election. Archer said cityhood backers shouldn't have to pay to study annexation. "Why should we have to pay to research an alternative that the community doesn't want?" he said. |
And once again... Rosemont, the red-headed step-children that we are, is unwanted for annexation by anyone...:shuffle:
Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place... Rosemont: Stuck between Sacramento and Rancho Cordova :borg: |
Quote:
I think the city council is exploring all unicorporated urbanized areas within the city's sphere of influence (and i would bet that Rosemont would be included in that study.) I don't think that Rosemont is within the Rancho Cordova's sphere of influence as recognized by LAFCO.. I'm just curious why they didn't move to study annexation a lot sooner?? Frankly I'm surprised that the city is interested in doing this now. Since North Sacramento was last annexed, (I believe) the city had moved away from annexing older urbanized areas of the county and only seemed to show interest in newer neighborhoods and undeveloped land (ie.. the "Northern Territories")... |
What kind of population increase would result of a hypothetical annexation of arden-arcade? And or north / south sac (What areas does that even mean?)
|
Of course, as you know I'm very interested in this topic. I don't think simple annexation is acceptable to anyone -considering the fate of North Sacramento. However the balkinization of Sacramento County will only hurt the region IMO and it means that Sacramento will end up no different than LA of San Jose. That's why I think we need a restructuring of the city and not simple annexation.
|
According to everyone's favorite source, Wikipedia, the population of Arden-Arcade is around 83,000.
|
Quote:
Sacramento County total population 1,374,724 (2006) City of Sacramento 458,00 City of Elk Grove 120,000 (+) City of Citrus Heights 85,400 (+) City of Folsom 51,300 (+) City of Galt 19,550 (+) City of Isleton 840 (+) Rancho Cordova 55,000 (+) 2000 census information for the unincorporated parts of the county...
Arden Arcade had approximately 96,205 residents in 2000, so i would assume they are nearly around the same (maybe right at 100,000?), South Sacramento (Parkway and Florin combined): 64,121 So that's approximmately 164,121 (+) residents in Arden Arcade and South Sacramento, not inlcuding Rosemont or any other locales within the county, that could become city residents. By annexing Arden-Arcade and South Sacramento, the City of Sacramento would instantly become the fourth largest municipailty in the state with an adjusted population of 621,121 (and assuming no other unincorporated neighborhoods are included) I did place in bold letters, those unicorporated parts of the county that could be looked at by the city for annexation due to their proximity to the city or because they have already been part of the pseudo city for a long time (like North Highlands, La Riveria and Foothill Farms).. Another alternative to more balkanization would be for Sacramento County to incorporate itself into a Metro City (Think Metro Dade).. That would allow it to collect Vehicle Licensing Fees that cities traditonally collect (i think that's still the case in California). Although we would effectively have two cities of Sacramento. Though this senario is highly unlikely since it would make more sense for the existing municipalities to annex the remaining urbanized areas of the County. I think that unless Sacramento is going to be carved up into more competitive jurisdictions, Sacramento City is going to have to start annexing. I think they've watched Elk Grove and Folsom stake their claims in LAFCO for long enough and now the city has finally decided to study the idea. |
Quote:
I think that if the city were to annex Arden-Arcade and South Sacramento you would deifinitely see restructuring of the city. Most likely you would see one or two additional Council members to represent the new population and i think that the city would have to guarantee an increased level of service to the new city residents, since that's why they're looking at incorporation. You could probably expect the City to contract with the County Sheriff to provide law enforcement service until the size of the City Police force could be beffed up. Sacramento Metro Fire would also probably continue covering fire protection until Sacramento City Fire could assume fire protection and County waste services would probably continue to provide trash collection. Equipment and personell would probably simply change logos and uniforms and would simply be abosorbed into the city. The City would probably be asked to compensate the County to some degree. Finances might be the stubbling block to this anyway. Can the City of Sacramento afford to assume responsibility for another 164,121 new residents??? BTW the new Sacramento City Council Chambers was built to accomodate a few addtional Council members... |
When I lived across from Cal Expo several years ago, I really had no idea that Arden-Arcade was not in the city of Sacramento even though I was somewhere in AA almost every day. Like Hammond said in the artcle, there's probably a whole lot of folks living in AA that don't know either. While it is a pretty dense area population wise, the size (21 sq miles) and boundaries of Arden-Arcade really makes me feel that the community should be annexed as part of Sacramento.
|
Quote:
That's the same problem with parts of South Sacramento/Florin and Fruitridge. In fact I had to inform a couple of my friends who bought a house over off of 40th Avenue last year that they lived in the county and not the city. They were quite surprised, but honestly i don't think that they care one way or the other. They live in one the unincorporated pockets, that if you were to head in just about any direction (north/south/east or west) you cross back into the city limits. |
Bee Editorial supporting annexation of Fruitridge (South Sacramento)
Editorial: Fruitridge's Uncity
Water problems point to neglected 'pocket' Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, April 23, 2007 Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B4 An old water main broke the other day in a neighborhood known as Fruitridge Vista, outside Sacramento's city limits. The gushing water started to flood nearby yards and garages. The Sacramento Fire Department showed up, but it didn't know how to turn off the water mains. Firefighters called the small private water company that provides water to the area. They had to leave a message. Eventually the Fruitridge Vista Water Co. realized it had a problem. Once again, the company and firefighters pledge better communications. Yes, the incident exposed a glitch in the water company's 24-hour customer service system but, more important, the problems of government boundaries and government services. This community, part of what is known as the Fruitridge Pocket, belongs in the city of Sacramento. Its services, including water, should be provided by the city. Its leader should be a member of the Sacramento City Council fighting hard for the community, just as Bonnie Pannell does for Meadowview and Lauren Hammond for Oak Park. On a map, the area juts like a strange finger surrounded largely on three sides by Sacramento. The tip is to the north, at 14th Avenue. And then it jigs southward, bordered at times by Stockton Boulevard to the east and the old Western Pacific railroad tracks to the west. If city limits were drawn sensibly for residents, fire departments and water providers, this pocket wouldn't exist. A key southern boundary for Sacramento would be moved, possibly to Florin Road or beyond. It would take some experts at the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission to help figure that out. In any unincorporated community, there are longtime residents who don't want to join anything. The turf of the water company and some small government districts would be challenged. The same goes for Sacramento County, nominally in charge of that area. It is far easier to neglect the struggling neighborhoods of the Fruitridge Pocket than for Sacramento to try to adopt them. Maybe, however, Sacramento leaders will find the gumption to take on this project. The city is reviewing its growth document, known as the general plan. So it's the right time to consider boundary changes. The Fruitridge Pocket neither makes sense on a map nor in reality. When the Fire Department doesn't know how to turn off a water main or whom to call, that is a sign of a dysfunctional community. This community needs a home and a government looking after the people who live there. |
I can't believe this has taken this long to come back to the attention of the City of Sacramento (or can I :rolleyes: ). This, along with the other areas talked about in the article, should have been annexed 10+ years ago. Now they'll have a fight on their hands from provincial-thinking homeowners.
Quote:
|
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...nter/2city.jpg
Map of current city limits. Map of possible annexation (city study area). Arden-Arcade, N. Natomas and South Sacramento (shaded in black) btw this was my handy work so the city could explore additional unicorproated portions of these areas or less. But at least it will give everyone idea where exactly the city is looking at. http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ricts_Map3.jpg Mike I agree with you that the city has been too indecisive for so many years and has essentially sat back and allowed smaller and newer cities to go on a territorial feeding frenzy. The City at one time had eyed West Laguna, but because of the way things move in Sacramento government, Elk Grove laid quick claim to that area. The cities of Folsom and Elk Grove are seeking to move unincorporated areas of the county into their spheres of influence in LAFCO (the first step to annexation) and Sacramento City leaders may want a piece of th pie themselves. I think they really see it as an opportunity to "square off" the "borders" of the city as Lauren Hammond said. In any case, I believe that Arden-Arcade will probably end up incorporating into their own city. But in the case of South Sacramento and the unincorporated areas of North Natomas, I think you may see those areas annexed into the city within the next 5 years... (Or that's my prediction).. Now if the cityhood drive were to fail in Arden-Arcade, then that might open the door for Sacramento to annex that area. But it would be the height of arrogance for Sacramento to move to annex them, while they're trying to incorporate. Of course were Arden-Arcade a Chicago neighborhood, then they could kiss their incorporation efforts goodbye, because they would be annexed one night while they slept and wake up Chicagoans..... :haha: |
:haha: That's what I want Sacramento to do.
Originally, when Sacramento was fumbling around with annexation talks, the south eastern city limits would be bound by Calvine to the south, and Bradshaw to the east. I agree with the guys in Rosemont that they should also be thought of in this round of talk, but who knows if it will happen. |
^ I wouldn't mind if they snagged Gold River while they're at it. :P
|
Naw, that's Rancho's job. ;)
|
Quote:
ltsmotorsport's right, Gold River (if memory serves me correctly is in Rancho Cordova's sphere of influence as recognized by LAFCO. Also Gold River doesn't border Sacramento's City limits... |
Is Carmichael not a city?? Because I know people write Carmichael on mail whereas you would write Sacramento if you lived in an unincorporated area of Sacramento County. In any case, I really think Watt ave. would provide a good eastern boundary for the city. Just seems less arbitrary I guess.
Random thought: Is anyone else annoyed by the inherently unurban sound of "Elk Grove". I mean it has 120,000 people. (yes I realize its really suburban btw) |
Yeah, Watt Ave always seemed like a natural eastern limit to me too.
And no Carmichael isn't a city. Just like Fair Oaks, Orangevale, and Rio Linda. |
are those places you listed in the city? I see them everyday at work (UPS)
good to know that I'm actually in the city (south pocket/greenhaven) |
None of those places are in the city.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
So it would be kind of like Alaska or Hawaii, a remote territory??? O.K. I guess that could work.... ;) |
:haha: That would be awkward on a map.
|
It would border the city if Sac annexed A-A, Carmichael and Fair Oaks too.
|
613,000 people------135 sq mi------4,541 people per sq mi. That is what we would have if Sacramento annexed Arden-Arcade, South Sacramento-Parkway, Florin, La Riviera, and Rosemont. Sacramento would instantly become the 20th largest city in the country...a pretty good jump coming from number 37...and finally beating Fresno...(I don't know which would be better...being #20 or finally beating Fresno). I think part of what makes Sacramento so underrated is the fact that we have a city with over 2 million in the Metro area and less than 500,000 in the city. Other cities with small population and large metros have to have really tall buildings (and lots of them) to garner respect from some people. (ie. Atlanta and Miami) Annexation is the way to go. If we were talking annexation of Carmichael, Orangevale, or Antelope, it might look silly. But, these places already identify fully with Sacramento because they ALL have Sacramento mailing addresses. Bring them into the city where they belong. Having said that, I now wonder what people in Arden-Arcade or Rosemont would think of smart, dense urban growth...with a more suburban lifestyle, would they really be for allowing TOD's and more rail transit. Would they really vote for the kinds of leaders that would keep these urban principles at the forefront? I actually may have to debate myself over this one now that I think of it! Hmmmm...thoughts?
|
Quote:
Regarding TOD's and smart dense growth, I dont think it would matter much. Many parts of the current city of Sacramento are only slightly more dense than those areas mentioned. The pocket, natomas, east Sac, and north Sac are not exactly that friendly towards smart dense growth. Perhaps Arden-Arcade, South Sacramento-Parkway, Florin, La Riviera, and Rosemont would be just as inclined or dis-inclined to vote for TOD"s and smart growth. |
In regards to La Riviera and Rosemont, my gut feeling is that we would be favorable to smart dense growth. As it is, La Riv and Rosemont are almost fully developed with only small little pockets left. Any further growth would of a necessity need to be more dense as evidenced by Kensington Square over by the new Juvenile Hall and Rosemont High; more upright, compact, zero-lot line homes that, while gorgeous inside, don't have much yard room outside.
|
Quote:
Well I agree with some of what you said. However whether or not the areas are annexed really doesn't matter except on paper and the amount of state revenue Sacramento collects. I mean the Census Bureau, says that Sacramento (city) has 458,000 people, but i think anyone who has any knowledge of Sacramento understands that it is a much larger city. Sacramento has one of the largest unicorporated populations of any county in the country (second to L.A. I believe). But when your driving around Arden Fair or South Sacramento, it's difficult to know where the city ends and the unincorporated areas begin. Population by itself doesn't make a city. As you noted Minneapolis, Atlanta, Miami, St. Louis (for starters) have equal or smaller populations than Sacramento city. The tall building will come (are coming). The population is already there. What people remember though is what Sacramento is like on the ground. It's culture and arts, academics, transportation, waterfront and nightlife. That's what will shape Sacramento. Like I said, I think you will see South Sacramento (Florin/Fruitridge/Parkway), La Riveria, and areas of North Natomas annexed eventually; and without a doubt they should be. Arden Arcade will probably decide to form their own city however. In the end that's their choice. But if cooler heads prevail, they will look seriously at allowing Sacramento to annex, so as to provide a continuation of services. |
Quote:
Hey! You didn't include Rosemont in that statement!:drowning: Ah well... we'll just mope around in the no-mans-land between Sacto and RC. :slob: |
Don't Forget Vinyard and Foothill Farms. Also, Antellope and perhaps North Highlands. NH is really blighted (but improving) and would flounder on it's own.
Vinyard is slated for develepment and already has a Sacramento address. So does Foothill Farms. AResidents in Antelope used to use a Sacramento address until the 90's. All in all, with all of the new development , annexing all of the mentioned CDPs, including Carmichael and Fair Oaks would bolt Sacramento past San Francisco in population. Personally, I think Organgevale would be better off connected to Citrus Heights or Folsom. With all of these incorporations, Sacramento County will have to get out the minicipal service business out of economic necessity. Almost all of the unincorporated areas will have to be in an incorporated city. I believe rules like that exist in Yolo and Solano counties. It's my opinion that things haven't change much in Arden-Arcade becuase of apathy and ambivalance. What percentage of residents in "Arden Arcade" were unaware that they we're not in the city of Sacramento already (prior to the incorporation drive). I can see the confusion when giving their address out. Gee...I don't live at 2300 El Camino Ave in Sacramento any more, now it's 2300 El Camino Ave, Arden-Arcade, CA. Yuck..... Michael Kramer Los Angeles formerly from... San Francisco Sacramento San Mateo |
Quote:
Just call it Arden, Ca. Better yet, incorporate into Sacramento. :yes: |
Nothing about annexation, but I figured an article about population numbers could go here. Really makes me want this annexation to hurry up so we could have the number 5 spot by next year. ;)
Lincoln no longer state's fastest-growing city By Bobby Caina Calvan, Loretta Kalb and Jennifer K. Morita - Bee Staff Writers Published 8:16 pm PDT Tuesday, May 1, 2007 Lincoln, the state's fastest growing city per capita last year, has been knocked from its perch atop the heap, tumbling to sixth on the list, according to population estimates released Tuesday by the state Department of Finance. Beaumont - a city of 28,250 in Riverside County - is now California's fastest-growing, logging a 21.2 percent spike, state statistics show. With a population of 37,410, Lincoln posted a still-robust 11 percent increase - the fastest growth rate of any city in the capital region - but less than half the 22.6 percent growth from the previous year. The softening housing market kept the region's growth at modest rates. Sacramento, the state's 7th most populous city, grew by 2 percent and now has a population of 467,343. Overall, Sacramento County grew by 1.4 percent to nearly 1.41 million. Elk Grove grew by a healthy 4 percent - but well below the 7.8 percent of the previous year. Its population is now 136,318 and it's California's 41st largest city. Rancho Cordova posted 4.6 percent growth with 59,056 residents. Statewide, the number of residents grew by 1.3 percent, adding nearly 470,000 residents to the state's population. Los Angeles, the state's largest city, passed the 4 million mark with a population of nearly 4.02 million. |
This weekend I visited Sacramento for the first time, other than a pass-through on I-5 once... My uncle turned 70 and it was a family reunion.
The (north) Natomas area is growing at an amazing pace. Though I don't favor suburbia, I have to say its embrace was quite welcoming in this context, with dozens of people at the house, and someone always shuttling us somewhere. I stayed at the Holiday Inn just east of I-5 near Del Paso. Others stayed at the Hampton across the street -- turns out they were built from the same plans aside from minor variations. My uncle lives a mile northeast. Everywhere, more suburban construction. Pretty amazing -- sort of an insta-suburb. Also visited Rocklin, where a cousin has a big house and a pool. Got toasted. |
North Natomas panhandle decision postponed until June 14th
Planners postpone decision on annexation
By Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writer Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, June 1, 2007 Story appeared in METRO section, Page B3 Even though a local school district faces an $11 million penalty if a complicated proposal to annex land into Sacramento isn't speedily approved, both Planning Commission and City Council members said Thursday that they won't be rushed. Sacramento Planning Commission members surprised a crowded audience Thursday night when they voted 4-1 to continue a recommendation on whether to bring the 1,430-acre "panhandle" area near North Natomas into city boundaries. Commissioner John Boyd said he felt "extremely pressured" to push through approval of the plan because the Grant Joint Union High School District could pay a hefty fee if ground hasn't been broken for its new education complex in the panhandle by Sept. 30. For construction to begin, the panhandle land must be annexed into the city. A vote on the issue Thursday -- two weeks after it went to the commission -- would have left inadequate time for members to absorb material on the complex plan, Boyd said. "I'm not comfortable moving forward, even though it may be inconvenient," Boyd said. "We need to deliver the most solid, the most well-thought-out plan as possible." The commission continued the issue until June 14. Commissioner D.E. "Red" Banes was the only member to vote against the continuance. Two other commissioners were absent, and two recused themselves, saying they had clients who owned land in the panhandle. The panhandle is a vertical swath of land bordered on the north by Elkhorn Boulevard and on the south by Interstate 80. It is bisected by Del Paso Road. A proposal to annex the area was introduced in 2000 and has slowly been making its way through the approval process. Commissioners at last week's meeting said they were stunned to learn about Grant's construction timeline problem and of the need for a fast-track decision on annexation. After Thursday's meeting, however, John Raymond, Grant's assistant superintendent of facilities, said the commission "did the right thing." Raymond said he'd had several meetings with city and county officials over the past few days and there seemed to be the will to work out a schedule that could allow better consideration of the issue and not place Grant in financial jeopardy. "I'm hoping there are some options to meet our schedule," Raymond said. "Will we be able to start construction in September? I don't know. But I know there has been increased dialogue about working out a solution." The Grant district purchased 70 acres of agricultural land in the panhandle in 2005 from Kenneth Cayocca and his family, paying less than $200,000 an acre, Raymond said. The district looked at several parcels for a potential school site. The district chose to consider only land slated for annexation into the city so it could operate under the city's habitat conservation plan and avoid having to seek federal and state building permits for environmentally sensitive land on its own. "We made a conscious decision not to buy something out of the sphere of influence," Raymond said. "It would be difficult to negotiate for utilities, and we'd be accused of leapfrog development, something the city wasn't prepared to do." Despite the slow progress of the project, Raymond said in meetings with city planners he was confident enough of the annexation timeline to sign off on a construction deadline starting this summer. Grading work had to start then, he said, to avoid disturbing giant garter snake hibernation from fall to late spring. Raymond also said he'd contacted representatives of Mayor Heather Fargo, Councilman Ray Tretheway and Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy. Raymond was surprised last week, he said, when he realized the commission was only then taking its first look at the annexation proposal. Members from Fargo, Tretheway and Sheedy's offices said this week they knew nothing about Grant's deadline pressures. Sheedy said the three leaders met today and agreed to call a meeting with Grant officials. Sheedy said they'll be asking to see Grant's contract with its contractor. "This is putting us into a position we don't want to be in; you'd think if they were going to lose $11 million, they'd put up a red flag," Sheedy said Thursday. "We need to be very diligent about this and what we do, and we are not going to be pushed into anything." Raymond said he would not comment about previous discussions with those elected officials. |
http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/248...lan2007rh5.jpg
Current Sacramento Overview of Annexation Process and Projects http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/...t_07-19-07.pdf Panhandle Camino Norte Greenbriar Westlake Town of Freeport Arden Arcade Rosemont South Watt Ave. Fruitridge-Florin All these annexation projects are going to be heard tonight before the Sacramento Planning Commission for review and comment. |
Quote:
|
Great news, glad to see some progression on the annexation. Lets hope everyone is in favor
|
Annexation was one process that kept Sacramento healthy: we were originally just the downtown grid from the river to Alhambra (then 31st Street) and from the railroad tracks to Broadway (then Y Street.) Over the years we annexed the 19th century and early 20th century suburbs, the separate city of North Sacramento, and lots of surrounding former farmland.
Suburbs tend to form outside of city limits in an effort to avoid city taxes, but they end up taking from city services anyhow (because people work in the city and commute home.) Absorbing the "uncity" area makes economic sense to Sacramento in that we'd stop some of that loss. Small municipalities around a big city have an easier time engaging in practices like wilfully excluding things they'd rather not have (like low-income housing) which tends to place that burden back on the nearest big city. Besides, it's just ridiculous to have a K-shaped city, with several "county" regions surrounded on three sides by Sacramento. |
It was always strange to me that Fruitridge and Floring were never part of the city proper.
It's still hilarious to me that Arden-Arcade thinks they should be their own city, when all they have is residents (hardly any job base) and would be surrounded by Sacramento on three sides. |
Updated population would be approximately.............650,000!!!! We would be the 19th largest city in the country!!!!!!!!
|
after reading that, it seems as though the planning commission will wait to see if the incorporation effort fails before they consider incorporating the arden arcade area...
regardless of the outcome, there should be a vote to incorporate every piece of unincorporated county land into the city of sacramento... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I know there used to be a large retail base there, but I thought a lot of the businesses "escaped" to the exurbs. As for office, now that I think about it, I have seen quite a few off Arden and Fulton.
|
The Arden-Arcade city map would include the auto dealerships along Fulton and Auburn, the Watt Avenue retail corridor and at least three shopping mall/shopping center districts. Not much open space in any of it, although I can see how one could easily take a spot formerly occupied by strip malls and build mid-rise or even high-rise structures. The problem would be, how would they draw the kind of businesses that would require such buildings? (Answer: Tax breaks and sweetening incentives, which an independent Arden/Arcade probably couldn't afford anyhow.)
Transportation would be a real problem: the only highway access is via BR-80, already impacted, and the other corridors are already busy surface avenues. I'd wager that at least some of the cityhood drive is people who don't want increased public transit in the neighborhood, like the planned BRT corridor along Watt Avenue, because of the old "Increased Public Transit = More Minorities" stereotype. I'm sure that some of the folks supporting this are the people with half-acre or larger lots in the area who want to oppose placement of denser development (like quarter-acre single family homes) adjacent to their own lots. Of course, if the cityhood campaign does succeed, fiscal realities will catch up with them, and they'll follow up with whatever brings them the most sales tax/land use tax revenue in order to pay for city operations. The only "win" for the new city will be the ability to claim empty pockets for things they don't want and afraid they might have to deal with if they were annexed. |
Quote:
The City is in the process on annexing the panhandle as we speak so N. Sac is mostly a done deal. Delta Shores is next and possibly the town of Freeport, but that's always a sticky situation. I totally support the annexation of AA from a geographical standpoint. It borders the City on 3 sides. Additionally, if they incorporated where would the town center be? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Rancho Cordova's new town center is on a former Wienerschnitzel site. Old Wienerschnitzels are where ALL the new town centers are going! |
Donation lifts Arden Arcade cityhood bid
By Stan Oklobdzija - Bee Staff Writer Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, July 27, 2007 Story appeared in METRO section, Page B2 A last-minute donation from Citrus Heights has given the Arden Arcade incorporation drive a push, but whether cityhood backers can keep the effort in motion remains to be seen. Today, proponents of Arden Arcade cityhood are scheduled to meet with Sacramento's Local Agency Formation Commission -- the local body charged with drawing political boundaries and handling the incorporation of new cities -- to hash out a critical contract that may make or break the chances of a cityhood vote making the November 2008 ballot. On July 19, the Citrus Heights City Council directed staff to donate $10,000 to the group's incorporation effort. The money came after the group missed a key July 1 deadline to come up with a deposit of about $28,000 to fund fiscal and environmental studies needed before the cityhood issue could be put to a vote. But the studies can't start until a funding agreement is signed that spells out how the costly Environmental Impact Review and Comprehensive Financial Analysis will be paid for, said Peter Brundage, LAFCO executive director. "Time is critical," Brundage said. "It's important to get the studies under way, we're already two months behind." The studies are expected to take six to eight months. "We'll make our best efforts, but that's provided they can continue making the payments as expected," he said. Joel Archer, chairman of the incorporation effort, was more upbeat. "We're excited to continue on with the process," Archer said. "It's a long road, and it'll continue to be a long road, but we're excited that people and other cities want to help us succeed." On Wednesday, Brundage confirmed that cityhood backers provided a check for $11,889, the balance of the deposit. But backers didn't bring the signed funding agreement, instead setting up today's meeting so their attorneys could review it. Archer said he expected the meeting to be routine. "We plan to have it final on Friday," he said. Brundage said he wasn't sure. "(Archer) said he had some questions (about the agreement), but he didn't tell me what they were," Brundage said. "So we'll see." In order to keep the studies going, the consultants will need an average of $25,000 per month, Brundage said. The total cost could be about $300,000, with the incorporation backers' share expected to be about $200,000 and the LAFCO share about $100,000. The terms of the funding agreement say LAFCO will be paid on the first day of each month, according to the document. If cityhood backers fail to pay within five days after that, the agreement says, LAFCO can cease work on the project, terminating it completely if the payment is not made in 30 days. Archer said he's confident his group can raise the money. "There's enough of a pipeline," he said. "It's never a certainty, but it's enough to believe that we can keep going." Archer refused to say how much money the incorporation effort has on hand, only that he "believes it's sufficient," to carry the committee to a November 2008 cityhood vote. Citrus Heights, which became a city in 1997, was the first of three cities in Sacramento County to incorporate over the last decade. It donated money to the incorporation efforts of Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova, which became cities in 2000 and 2003, respectively. Rancho Cordova has donated $25,000 to the Arden Arcade incorporation effort, said city spokeswoman Alexandra Miller. Elk Grove has not donated any money, a city spokeswoman there said. Arden Arcade cityhood petitioners first went before the Citrus Heights City Council in March, when they asked for $35,000. The council unanimously denied that request. Mayor Jeff Slowey said his change of heart was due to a better developed presentation by the group and a clearer idea of their financial picture. Cityhood, he said, is "worth a vote of the people." Councilman Steve Miller agreed. Though disappointed by the group's so-far bleak financial situation, he said he saw many similarities between Citrus Heights and the potential city-to-be. "With Citrus Heights, the deck was stacked against us, and it took a long time to get to the vote," he said. "But I truly believe we're a success story. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 9:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev