HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2010, 7:09 AM
SactownTom SactownTom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 94
Doesn't seem like Sacramento county has learned anything from the environmental and economic disaster these types of development brought this last decade.


Sacramento County may open 20,000 acres to development
rlewis@sacbee.com

PUBLISHED TUESDAY, JUL. 27, 2010


Despite a home construction collapse caused by the recession, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors is considering opening 20,000 acres of land to future development.

When combined with existing open parcels, the expansion could hold a city two-thirds the size of Sacramento. Even county planners have warned that the plan would provide a "substantial excess supply" of land.

Supporters say supervisors are being sage, freeing space for the region and its economy to grow. Detractors say they are abdicating their primary responsibility: to engineer transit-friendly "smart growth" over sprawl.

They also point out that the move could hand a hefty profit to landowners, many of whom have contributed generously to supervisors' campaigns.

"It's going to enrich a handful of people ridiculously, filthily, to the detriment of thousands," charged David Mogavero, a local architect and spokesman for the Environmental Council of Sacramento, a coalition of environmental and civic groups.

Three landowners – Teichert Land Co.; Angelo G. Tsakopoulos; and Conwy LLC, run by Charles Somers and Ron Alvarado – own about 40 percent of the two proposed growth areas.

After years in the works, the general plan update to guide county growth through 2030 appears to be just months from a vote. Approval by county supervisors would open 8,000 acres of land east of Grant Line Road and 12,000 acres along Jackson Road to development.

But the draft plan update is based largely on pre-recession growth projections that the county would need an additional 100,000 housing units by 2030.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments now predicts demand could be half that, said Mike McKeever, executive director of SACOG, which helps coordinate transportation planning and funding in the region.

Development proponents say that if recent history is an indicator, projections fluctuate wildly and could easily spike again, said John Costa, the North State Building Industry Association's senior legislative advocate.

"We're planning a strategy of growth for the next 25 years in this county," Costa said. "We don't want to be caught in a position where demand goes up and we don't have supply."

Environmentalists and smart-growth backers argue there is more than enough capacity within the current Urban Policy Area – the general plan boundary for growth. Opening up so much more, they say, would promote sprawl and would burden the county with added infrastructure costs.

"It will just be a whole bunch of new houses with no infrastructure," said Stuart Helfand, chairman of the Vineyard Area Community Planning Advisory Council and a 40-year resident of the Vineyard area, adjacent to the new growth areas.

Mass transportation options already are limited, Helfand pointed out. "There's no money to do all this stuff."

But since developers must pay for infrastructure, the market itself will limit the sprawl, Costa countered. "In this county, we haven't seen projects that are in the middle of nowhere," Costa said. "The county is not going to allow that growth tomorrow."

A landowner bonanza

If the expanded general plan passes and the board opens the 20,000 acres to development, the value of that land – a mix of grazing grounds and mining property – will increase exponentially overnight.
The three biggest potential winners – Conwy, Teichert, Tsakopoulos, along with affiliates, employees and family members – together have donated at least $46,325 to supervisors since January 2007. Most of that went to Supervisor Roger Dickinson, records show.

Other companies and individuals that own sizable amounts of land in the areas under review – such as the Sacramento Rendering Co. and Granite Construction – also have given to supervisors.

Consultant Michelle Smira is working with Conwy LLC on a proposed development east of Grant Line Road. It would roll out over several years based on market demand, she said, and only after a lengthy environmental review.

Smira also said everyone involved in the Cordova Hills project has adhered to campaign finance limits.

Teichert officials noted their land would be the least controversial to develop. The nearly 4,000 acres Teichert mines just south of Jackson Road is adjacent to existing development. Environmentalists agree it would be the most logical place for growth.

Angelo G. Tsakopoulos – nephew of one of the region's largest land speculators, Angelo K. Tsakopoulos – did not return calls for comment.

Dickinson disputed any notion that big campaign contributors sway land use decisions.

The District 1 supervisor has received significant support from developers in races for both local and state office, including at least $21,599 in contributions from Angelo G. Tsakopoulos and affiliates since 2007, and $6,600 from Teichert and affiliates.

"You can't simply say, 'So and so gave me a bunch of money; therefore, so and so gets whatever he wants from me,' " Dickinson said.

The longtime supervisor said he does have concerns about the acreage the update would open to development, particularly agricultural land.

Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan said those who complain about developer influence often overlook the strict contribution limits for Sacramento County supervisors: a maximum of $20,000 in non-election years.

"The amount of money any of us can receive from any particular developer is very limited," MacGlashan said.

Individuals can give up to $500 to supervisor candidates; companies with 25 or more employees can donate $1,000 in election years. In non-election years the cap for both individuals and companies is $250, according to the county elections department.

Dickinson raised more because limits for statewide office are more generous.

Expansion seems certain

Debate in the weeks and months to come might not focus so much on the amount of land the county could open to development. Supervisor Don Nottoli was among those who acknowledged he hasn't heard any recent discussion about paring down the Urban Policy Area expansion proposal.
If true, the debate would shift from changing the boundary to the policies that should guide development within the new development area.

"The real key here will be in the shaping of the growth management policy," said Robert Sherry, the county's planning director.

Planning staff already are talking with developers about three possible projects in the proposed growth areas.

Conwy LLC is the furthest along. The firm has applied to develop Cordova Hills on 2,700 acres east of Grant Line Road. The rollout would include up to 8,000 housing units and a 6,000-student campus for the new, private University of Sacramento, said Smira, Conwy's consultant.

Two other projects are in a "pre-application" stage: New Brighton by Stonebridge Properties, a Teichert subsidiary, and Newbridge on the site of the Sacramento Rendering Co. plant.

Teichert's plans include turning nearly 4,000 acres the company has mined for sand and gravel since the early 1930s into a community of almost 6,500 housing units, according to county documents.

The rendering company tried to file an application to develop its 810 acres at Kiefer and Sunrise boulevards, but that application was rejected by planning staff pending an update of the general plan.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.



http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/27/291...pen-20000.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2010, 5:09 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Suburban expansion is the only game they know--during the decades when California did nothing but grow, it was easy to justify turning cheap farmland into expensive subdivisions, which made money for developers and made money for municipalities by raising tax revenue and collecting permit fees.

But as cities have grown and infrastructure costs increase over this vast, sprawling area, the economic benefit of continued growth reaches a point of diminishing returns. Eventually, new growth costs more than it provides. But because the real estate developers can still make money selling houses, and they have a vested interest in creating more suburbs, they work to elect representatives that will promote more sprawl.

The worst-case scenario is when a sprawling area can't support its infrastructure through tax revenues, and a down housing market means those tax revenues drop. A drop in demand also means less need for new housing developments, making sprawl even less profitable. But if it's the only game in town, they can't stop playing. The only other way to make up for lost revenue is to raise taxes--a sure bet to get someone kicked out of office--unless, of course, your city is in a state that doesn't allow cities to raise taxes. Then you can raise fees and work towards limits on suburban development--a sure bet to lose campaign contributions from the same suburban developers who were your pal when the city was still expanding. Then you're out of a job, and the guy who promised the developers more expansion has it.

And remember, all this suburban expansion takes energy and price pressure away from development in the city center, and the increased auto traffic means we have to dedicate more space and public funds to spaces for automobiles to drive and park. That makes things like residential towers in the central city much less practical.

Basically, we can take our pick--skyscrapers downtown or "landscrapers" on our remaining open land. It is pretty clear what the Board of Supervisors prefers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2010, 6:59 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
The thing I don't understand is how in the hell do they think this level of expansion is viable without ANY real infrastructure to support it? Sacramento is ALREADY under served with the lack of freeways and cross town boulevards that link the different areas in the region. Not to mention the lack of American River crossings.

Look at this map:



There is, literally, NOTHING there. No interconnecting streets. The only major aterials are Power Inn and Watt and they are MILES apart. No freeways in the area to speak of. Why in the hell would they even THINK of opening up this area for development when it would need 5 years at minimum of infrastructure improvement (water, sewer, etc), and ANOTHER 5-10 years to pave NEW aterials across town?

WASTE of money. Leave the land as it is.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 4:08 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
yes big business is always for the people....give me a break
this whole thing reaks of a giveaway to a few RICH landowners/businesses/people

typical these days(I bet if this land was not mostly owned by the big 12 or so this wouldnt even see the light of day. Not like anything is going to happen for a bit anyways
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 5:51 AM
Korey Korey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 183
They should fill those gravel/whatever pits with water and stock them with fish. Import some sand and put in a nice park. No crappy burb developments...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 6:06 PM
Ghost of Econgrad Ghost of Econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 298
Sactown Tom: The cause of the Economic "disaster" was bad loans, not suburban development. Suburban development has been going on for 100 years and never "caused" any economic disatsers. Suburbs create jobs, room to breath and live outside the dirty crime ridden inner city. Midtown is a suburb, so is the fab 40's, so is the pocket, UC Davis Med Center area, Oak Park, etc. Yet every one of you never critisize those residents. Some, like Wburg himself, try to save suburban developments by preserving old suburban homes such as old Victorians. Yes, Victorians are suburban developments as well.
Please do not bring up Global Warming, in the middle of the coldest summer we have experienced in Sacramento in 60 or so years.

Majin, Web, and Korey: The Unions and Enviromentalists have raised the costs of developing the inner city, therefore more tax dollars, have to go to subsidizing inner-city developments, and right now CA is broke, so bring on more suburbs, or end the regulations that keep the free market from working. Wburg is extremely incorrect about the Tax base running out, as I am proving right here with articles backed up by facts.

http://cei.org/studies-issue-analysi...t-urban-sprawl



Also, the Suburban Residents whom are in a higher tax bracket, pay most of the taxes, taxes for programs for inner city kids, subsidized living for all inner-city residents are also paid for by State Taxes, which are 85 - 95% paid for by people outside the inner city (people who live in the Suburbs).

Therefore, the truth is, the people who live in suburbs, are paying for people living in the cities. In ways of state taxes, programs, and now spending their money in inner-cities propping up the inner-core's economy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 7:17 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Interesting how that article doesn't seem to consider highways "government planning." And by not defining sprawl, they create a moving target that they can redefine in mid-argument. The central city's problems, including their economic ones, are caused by the suburbanites' expansion into the suburbs--so why shouldn't they pay for it? Unfortunately, that isn't true either, because the middle class in cities is paying just as much for suburbanites' sprawl, and dealing with the consequences of suburban unwillingness to clean up their own messes too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2010, 9:36 PM
Ghost of Econgrad Ghost of Econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Interesting how that article doesn't seem to consider highways "government planning." And by not defining sprawl, they create a moving target that they can redefine in mid-argument. The central city's problems, including their economic ones, are caused by the suburbanites' expansion into the suburbs--so why shouldn't they pay for it? Unfortunately, that isn't true either, because the middle class in cities is paying just as much for suburbanites' sprawl, and dealing with the consequences of suburban unwillingness to clean up their own messes too.
Class Warfare statements like these, especially without facts to support, just lead to more class-warefare.

These "suburbinites" as you call them, are just people who pay taxes (the taxes that pay for the inner-cities subsidies), as well as pay completely for their dwelling places with their mortgages.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2010, 12:40 AM
Ghost of Econgrad Ghost of Econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 298
http://www.stopncannexation.com/Suburbvcity.pdf

Excerpts from the Article:

All Suburbanites and the City
(1) Using data from the 1950's on the thirty-six largest metropolitan areas, Margolis
found that indicators of city conditions reflecting a beneficial suburban influence (total
retail sales, for example) were of a higher magnitude than indicators of a suburban
burden. For that reason, he characterized the argument that suburbs exploited central
cities as "not well established" (1961: pp. 257-259).
(2) In a pioneering study of whether cities subsidized suburbs through the actions of
overlapping governments, Banovetz estimated city and suburban benefits from county
expenditures relative to county taxes paid by city residents and suburbanites. His data
were from the Twin Cities. Regarding welfare, Banovetz discovered evidence of
suburban subsidization of cities through the counties. Regarding a combination of several
less costly county services, he found city subsidization of suburbs. The amounts of
subsidization were small in both cases, and he concluded that neither city nor suburb was
subsidizing the other to any appreciable extent. He called charges of subsidy "ill-
founded" (1965).
(3) Kee, using data from 1953 to 1962 on the nation's twenty-two largest metropolitan
areas, found that suburban growth did not correlate with increases in overall or non-
education city spending (1967). In another study using some of the same data, Kee
correlated nonresident work force with city property values, incomes, value added by
manufacturing, and retail sales per capita (1962 data). He found a significant positive
correlation between nonresident work force and city retail sales (.676) but "virtually no
statistical relationship" with city income, property value, or value added (1968).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2010, 2:37 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
And of course, nothing has changed in the 45 or so years since those studies were done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2010, 7:29 PM
Ghost of Econgrad Ghost of Econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
And of course, nothing has changed in the 45 or so years since those studies were done.
What has changed is increasing development costs due to enviromental regulations, preservationists like you (SPECIAL-Interest Groups), and Unions that increased the costs even more. That is why the city will never compete with the suburbs without subsidies (the suburbanites, the truest middle-class we have, their hard earned tax dollars).
People are beginning to wake up about all of this as we will begin to see in the coming elections, especially local elections.

Last edited by Ghost of Econgrad; Aug 7, 2010 at 9:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2010, 7:47 PM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
Well, when you have no or lax environmental regulation implementation, you get developments like Broadstone and Serrano. Can't wait to see how Folsom is gonna destroy the area south of Hwy 50 in a few years.
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2010, 8:46 PM
Ghost of Econgrad Ghost of Econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport View Post
Well, when you have no or lax environmental regulation implementation, you get developments like Broadstone and Serrano. Can't wait to see how Folsom is gonna destroy the area south of Hwy 50 in a few years.

What's wrong with these developments? Everyone I know loves living in these wonderful communities, especially how safe and clean Folsom is. For a successful city like Folsom to expand in our region, we should all rejoice! Especially celebrate for having that waste land south of HWY50 in the hands of Folsom, instead of the county. It will be a great addition to the area.

Last edited by Ghost of Econgrad; Aug 7, 2010 at 9:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2010, 2:16 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
It's all a matter of perspective.

I personally don't think rolling grasslands and oak woodlands are a waste of land. I see them as great open space that can connect a community to it's past.

As for the developments themselves, I have friends that live in them too, and that's what they like. For me, I find the monotony of suburbia mind numbing. Every house is in the same style for acre upon acre, and you find the same kind of shopping centers all around (EDH has done a little better with their "town center").

Back to Folsom; it's really just a way for the city to make some quick money with developer fees and some sales tax. There really isn't a need for another regional shopping center, with 4 just on the other side of the freeway. It feels like they're trying to force a product on people instead of reacting to any actual demand, especially with all the vacant homes and as yet unfinished shopping center there already.

That's my view anyway.
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2010, 9:11 PM
Ghost of Econgrad Ghost of Econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport View Post
It's all a matter of perspective.

I personally don't think rolling grasslands and oak woodlands are a waste of land. I see them as great open space that can connect a community to it's past.

As for the developments themselves, I have friends that live in them too, and that's what they like. For me, I find the monotony of suburbia mind numbing. Every house is in the same style for acre upon acre, and you find the same kind of shopping centers all around (EDH has done a little better with their "town center").

Back to Folsom; it's really just a way for the city to make some quick money with developer fees and some sales tax. There really isn't a need for another regional shopping center, with 4 just on the other side of the freeway. It feels like they're trying to force a product on people instead of reacting to any actual demand, especially with all the vacant homes and as yet unfinished shopping center there already.

That's my view anyway.
Its not just a way for the city to make money, if there was no demand for developing that land, then the city would not find tenants and not make any money. So there has been an established demand for the use of that land for a long time now.
I have no idea what your "community connection to the past" sentence means at all. Can you elaborate on that sometime?
I have been hearing that "Monotony of Suburbs" "suburbs look the same" and all those opinions for years and years and years. Then when challenged, I get the same answer "Well, I just don't prefer it, but it is cool if others do".
Then, enough with the Urban Elitism, its silly and really makes no sense. Especially when Sacramento is far from being Urban.
Lawyers and Special Interest groups make lots and lots of $$$$$ profits by forcing cities to redevelop and preserve old buildings using terms like "community" and "history" and "preservation" but what is really behind it all is serious serious PROFIT, for a small few.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2010, 1:29 AM
ThatDarnSacramentan ThatDarnSacramentan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,047
All I can say is Sacramento could take a few lessons from a neighbor of ours to the north, Portland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2010, 8:02 PM
Ghost of Econgrad Ghost of Econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan View Post
All I can say is Sacramento could take a few lessons from a neighbor of ours to the north, Portland.
Highlights:

Similar impacts were found in Portland, Oregon where a regional-growth boundary hems in 24 cities and three counties. A review of research and housing data found:

* Portland now ranks among the 10 percent least affordable housing markets in the nation;
* The average housing density has increased from five homes per acre to eight homes per acre while multifamily housing units makeup about half of all new building permits;
* Even with these increases in density, the Portland area is expected to have a housing deficit of almost 9,000 housing units by 2040;
* High rates of infill and redevelopment were associated with low overall levels of housing production; and
* More than 80,000 single-family homes became “unaffordable” to Portland residents as a result of housing-price inflation.

SOURCES:

http://reason.org/news/show/urban-gr...ndaries-and-ho

That's right! We can learn to NOT do what Portland did. Here is why:

Urban Boundary Truth
http://www.demographia.com/db-portlandugb.htm

Debunking Portland
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8463
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2010, 8:31 PM
ThatDarnSacramentan ThatDarnSacramentan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,047
Yeah, just wishful thinking on my part. Californians would never go for their model of development anyways. We're too stubborn and in love with our McMansions out in the foothills surrounded by strip malls and empty surface lots as far as the eye can see to ever consider building up the actual cities all these cookie-cutter burbs surround. And when I say cookie-cutter, I mean that if I lived in the burbs (which I wouldn't, and you couldn't pay me to either), I would get lost the moment I left my house because, well, every single home looks the same. One of my friends lives in Folsom. His house is on a long, winding street that ends in a cul-de-sac. The only way I can find his house is because they recently painted it blue. Every other house is the same light beige color, and they're all the exact same model.

I'll admit, I hate the suburbs. They're architecturally boring, and I find them wasteful. Californians, and Americans in general, are terrible at prioritizing want and need. When I see a family of six kids being driven in an Escalade, that's need because the family needs a car that big. When I see some 60-something driving an empty Escalade, that's want, and simply greedy materialism. I personally think most Americans son't actually need the giant, open lawns, four car garages, and three bathroom/four bathroom McMansions out in the burbs. Most people would probably do just fine in a one or two bedroom apartment or condo. Unfortunately, people feel entitled (my main problem with Americans is this entitlement to all this garbage because, well, they're American!) to all this. And that, my fellow Sacramentans, is my two cents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2010, 12:31 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Well, the one thing suburbs have over the city are better schools. It's something
most people don't consider this till they have their own kids and want the best
education the public system has to offer. Sure, in the city you can pay
for a private school, but vary few families can afford that so they end up
moving to a district that has a higher percentage of graduates going to college
and highest ranking percentage among other cities.

Those who are parents understand this, and until I was one I never
even consider this as a reason to leave the city. As a parent you only
get one chance to raise your child the best you can, so moving to where
you'll get the greatest success is the suburbs. If the Sac school district
could improve their standing as a school system, I'm sure more families
would stay, but until then, most will move out of the city to raise a family.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2010, 7:52 AM
Ghost of Econgrad Ghost of Econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 298
Quote:
(MyPost)
Highlights:

Similar impacts were found in Portland, Oregon where a regional-growth boundary hems in 24 cities and three counties. A review of research and housing data found:

* Portland now ranks among the 10 percent least affordable housing markets in the nation;
* The average housing density has increased from five homes per acre to eight homes per acre while multifamily housing units makeup about half of all new building permits;
* Even with these increases in density, the Portland area is expected to have a housing deficit of almost 9,000 housing units by 2040;
* High rates of infill and redevelopment were associated with low overall levels of housing production; and
* More than 80,000 single-family homes became “unaffordable” to Portland residents as a result of housing-price inflation.

SOURCES:

http://reason.org/news/show/urban-gr...ndaries-and-ho

That's right! We can learn to NOT do what Portland did. Here is why:

Urban Boundary Truth
http://www.demographia.com/db-portlandugb.htm

Debunking Portland
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8463
Yesterday 01:29 AM


Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan View Post
Yeah, just wishful thinking on my part. Californians would never go for their model of development anyways. We're too stubborn and in love with our McMansions out in the foothills surrounded by strip malls and empty surface lots as far as the eye can see to ever consider building up the actual cities all these cookie-cutter burbs surround. And when I say cookie-cutter, I mean that if I lived in the burbs (which I wouldn't, and you couldn't pay me to either), I would get lost the moment I left my house because, well, every single home looks the same. One of my friends lives in Folsom. His house is on a long, winding street that ends in a cul-de-sac. The only way I can find his house is because they recently painted it blue. Every other house is the same light beige color, and they're all the exact same model.

I'll admit, I hate the suburbs. They're architecturally boring, and I find them wasteful. Californians, and Americans in general, are terrible at prioritizing want and need. When I see a family of six kids being driven in an Escalade, that's need because the family needs a car that big. When I see some 60-something driving an empty Escalade, that's want, and simply greedy materialism. I personally think most Americans son't actually need the giant, open lawns, four car garages, and three bathroom/four bathroom McMansions out in the burbs. Most people would probably do just fine in a one or two bedroom apartment or condo. Unfortunately, people feel entitled (my main problem with Americans is this entitlement to all this garbage because, well, they're American!) to all this. And that, my fellow Sacramentans, is my two cents.
Entitlements? If someone earns their money, it is their God given right to do whatever they want with it, as long as it does not harm anyone else (or break reasonable laws). Interesting you bring up such a term used everyday by conservative talk show hosts critisizing their opposition. I do not think anyone should be "Entitled" to dictate how someone else should spend their money. You may think it is ok to tell a person not to live in a McMasnion, and be happy with a Condo, I will fight for the freedom to choose how one should use their own income.

This is the problem, you guys want to down people who decide not to live in the inner city. This will never work, and will just amount to more elitism and more class social warfare. If all Urbanists where so happy with where they live, and confident about it, they wouldn't even think about downing the suburbs, they wouldn't even care. It speaks volumes of those who do. I do not down Midtown or Downtown (except to push buttons) to make myself feel better about choosing to live in Folsom. Why the opposite? It is very apparent on this site, all over the place.
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 1:37 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.