K Street Pedestrian Mall Renovation

[travis bickle]

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

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

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

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

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

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by wburg

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

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

http://www.jointogether.org/news/hea...ing-first.html

http://psychservices.psychiatryonlin...ull/56/10/1303

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

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

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by greenmidtown

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

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

That's just nonsense.

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

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

Originally Posted by greenmidtown

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

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

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

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

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

[wburg]

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

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

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

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

[travis bickle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by wburg

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

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

Originally Posted by wburg

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

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

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

Originally Posted by wburg

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

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

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

[wburg]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

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

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

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

[greenmidtown]

Originally Posted by wburg

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

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

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

[greenmidtown]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

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

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

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

[BrianSac]

Care of Sacramento Bee: July 4, 2007:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Care of Sacramento Bee: July 4, 2007:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

double post

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Care of Sacramento Bee: July 4, 2007:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

double post

[wburg]

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

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

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

[Majin]

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

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

[Schmoe]

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

[greenmidtown]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Care of Sacramento Bee: July 4, 2007:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

[wburg]

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

[greenmidtown]

Originally Posted by wburg

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

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

[jsf8278]

Originally Posted by greenmidtown

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

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

[wburg]

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

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

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