HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 8:17 AM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,111
None of those places are in the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 10:42 PM
foxmtbr's Avatar
foxmtbr foxmtbr is offline
Finger Lickin' Good.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
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...
Yes, it's part of Rancho Cordova, and it has the same zip code. I know it doesn't border city limits (not even close), I was just putting that out there for fun, like the other people on here who wanted their respective neighborhoods annexed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 2:57 AM
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
San Luis Obispo County
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Arroyo Grande, California
Posts: 5,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmtbr View Post
I know it doesn't border city limits (not even close), I was just putting that out there for fun, like the other people on here who wanted their respective neighborhoods annexed.

So it would be kind of like Alaska or Hawaii, a remote territory???


O.K. I guess that could work....


__________________
Olim: Sacramento, Karlsruhe, San Antonio, Chicago, Arroyo Grande
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 3:02 AM
foxmtbr's Avatar
foxmtbr foxmtbr is offline
Finger Lickin' Good.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,656
That would be awkward on a map.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 5:08 AM
Schmoe's Avatar
Schmoe Schmoe is offline
NIMBY Hater
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 842
It would border the city if Sac annexed A-A, Carmichael and Fair Oaks too.
__________________
Be TRUE to YOU
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 6:30 AM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Snowflake
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St Paul, MN
Posts: 1,670
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 7:37 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuhickman79 View Post
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?
I have often thought those unincorporated areas you mentioned in Sac county should be part of the city of Sacramento. It would bring more recognition to Sacramento on a national scale, and perhaps more Federal dollars.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 2:16 PM
goldcntry's Avatar
goldcntry goldcntry is offline
West bench livin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Taylorsville, UT
Posts: 798
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.
__________________
Giant Meteor 2016
Just end it all already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 3:03 PM
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
San Luis Obispo County
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Arroyo Grande, California
Posts: 5,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuhickman79 View Post
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... 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.


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.
__________________
Olim: Sacramento, Karlsruhe, San Antonio, Chicago, Arroyo Grande
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 6:57 PM
goldcntry's Avatar
goldcntry goldcntry is offline
West bench livin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Taylorsville, UT
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
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.

Hey! You didn't include Rosemont in that statement! Ah well... we'll just mope around in the no-mans-land between Sacto and RC.
__________________
Giant Meteor 2016
Just end it all already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 7:18 PM
Michael Kramer Michael Kramer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 10:30 PM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
I don't live at 2300 El Camino Ave in Sacramento any more, now it's 2300 El Camino Ave, Arden-Arcade, CA. Yuck.....
Yep, that sounds so Stupid.

Just call it Arden, Ca.

Better yet, incorporate into Sacramento.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 2, 2007, 6:36 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The grid of course
Posts: 8,010
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.
__________________
Rubicon Brewing Co. 1987 - 2017
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 21, 2007, 12:03 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,036
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2007, 6:04 PM
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
San Luis Obispo County
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Arroyo Grande, California
Posts: 5,557
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.
__________________
Olim: Sacramento, Karlsruhe, San Antonio, Chicago, Arroyo Grande
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 9:28 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,926


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.

Last edited by innov8; Jul 19, 2007 at 9:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 10:30 PM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is online now
kurdish independence plz
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: the base of Mount Diablo, CA
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post


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.
Anybody have guesses on what the updated population would be? We could jump ahead of fresno and long beach!
__________________
nobody cares about your city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 11:02 PM
JeffZurn's Avatar
JeffZurn JeffZurn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 126
Great news, glad to see some progression on the annexation. Lets hope everyone is in favor
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 11:31 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,376
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2007, 11:53 PM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The grid of course
Posts: 8,010
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.
__________________
Rubicon Brewing Co. 1987 - 2017
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:07 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.