HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2007, 9:34 PM
JeffZurn's Avatar
JeffZurn JeffZurn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 126
Marcos Bretón: A leader for city -- please stand up
By Marcos Bretón - Bee Columnist
Last Updated 12:09 am PDT Sunday, August 19, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

Print | E-Mail | Comments (25)| Digg it | del.icio.us

Leadership.

Where is it in Sacramento? Who has vision and political clout?

Sadly, the answer is nobody.

Apparently, local political leadership is a bridge too far. Or in this case, it's a new Sacramento Kings arena too far. It's a 53-story downtown skyscraper too far. It's a revitalized K Street mall too far.

One by one, the big civic projects that gave Sacramento reason to hope have failed or been endlessly delayed.

The latest was a legal setback related to K Street, vital downtown real estate condemned to being slumlike, maybe for years to come.

City officials want to redevelop the 700 block of K Street by installing the Z Gallerie furniture chain. Joe Zeiden, owner of Z Gallerie, had pledged to attract other high-end businesses to transform the entire block of decayed, though historic buildings.

But the owner of huge swaths of K Street -- a gentleman named Moe Mohanna -- is standing in the way, prevailing over the city in court last week, promising further legal battles.

Meanwhile, parts of K Street remain a toilet where potential is getting flushed.

Yes. One man with impeccable manners is mightier than Sacramento City Hall.

Mohanna initially agreed to a K Street deal but later backed out, claiming he'd be getting a raw deal financially. Developers such as David Taylor say this is a pattern, killing deals at the last minute out of nerves or mistrust.

Mohanna hasn't developed a single new project in 20 years. He poses as a champion of downtrodden tenants in these threadbare buildings, but employs multiple lawyers for his City Hall battles.

But it gets better. The city is spending $5 million to renovate the Berry Hotel, next to the Greyhound station at L and Eighth streets.

In doing so, the city is forgiving $1 million in loan payments from the current owners. Guess who is getting $1 million for his option on the Berry?

You betcha. Is Mr. Mohanna using that million to feed the homeless? Or to fund his legal fight with the city?

Good questions. The Bee had many related to Mohanna for Mayor Heather Fargo last week.

But we were told that she couldn't comment because she hadn't been briefed yet.

Briefed? For the love of Joe Serna. Do you see what we're talking about here?

Can you hear the deafening silence from the rest of Sacramento's elected officials?

In the vacuum of that silence, people like Mohanna flourish. And now he could become a poster child in a statewide eminent domain fight.

If the city pursues eminent domain against Mohanna, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association might use him as the face of the little guy fighting City Hall in a statewide ballot measure campaign.

Talk about building a righteous house on a shaky foundation. And think of the briefings Mayor Fargo would require if that happens.

A leader would have dealt with Mohanna long ago. A leader would have had the stature to soothe the volatile Kings owners during failed arena negotiations. A leader would have bought time for the now-shelved 53-story towers on Third and Capitol Mall.

Maybe even the late Mayor Serna, who died in 1999, would have struggled on these fronts.

But on critical issues facing Sacramento, he didn't need a briefing to know how to lead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2007, 10:51 PM
arod74's Avatar
arod74 arod74 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: east Sac
Posts: 358
Its hard to argue with Breton that too often the mayor is missing in action. Not many know what truely goes on with the wheeling and dealing behind the scenes at city hall but it seems that every major project or initiative has a go-to-person other than the mayor whether it be Rob Fong, Roger Dickinson, or even Michael Ault. The only time you see Fargo is in the background of a press conference. In addition to Sacramento needing a skilled politician which Fargo may or may not be, the city needs someone dynamic. Can we trade west sac mayor Calderon for Fargo?
__________________
Damn you Robert Horry!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 12:55 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Breton's comments are right on. I've been saying this for a couple of years and saying so on this forum only to be told by some fellow forumers that it doesn't matter what the mayor or other councilmembers say and do. But having lived in a some big cities and seeing the power of the 'bully pulpit' I know that it does matter and that an agressive and vocal mayor is what is needed in Sacramento.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 1:13 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The tattoo shop, piercing studio and comic shop that were in the building also relocated: the tattoo shop to J and 23rd, the comic shop to J and 17th, and Sub-Q piercing/tattooing to I and 17th. The record shop wasn't actually "bought out" but they did get some relocation funds and a good deal on the new location. Joe Sun laughed all the way to the bank, albeit a bit sadly considering they had to close a family business open for something like 70 years for pretty much no reason.

The buildings on the 700 block are already listed as historic buildings in the Sacramento historic structures register, but that actually means very little when it comes to enforcing minimum maintenance standards. I'm all for a far stricter interpretation of those standards, as well as a "carrot" in the form of Mills Act tax subsidies for historic properties, but right now owners of historic properties can pretty much let their buildings fall apart with little or no repercussions from the city. It's called "demolition by neglect."
If the city wanted to, they could have done a lot more to hold Moe's feet to fire. The problem is that they didn't and that is why we are in the mess we are in today. I'm all for the city being hands off if the property owner and merchant is making an effort but Moe never did so screw the bastard. Do whatever it takes to get rid of him. As for the shops along K Street. I'm not going to miss any of them. They might be great business but they did not belong at that location. The Record store for one smelled of moldy album covers and Joe Sun...oh boo hoo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 5:54 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Hooray for more holding bastards' feet to the fire, then!

I'm going to miss most of those businesses, although fortunately I can still visit most of them in midtown. I'm not a tattoo/piercing guy (although many of my friends are,) but record stores and comic shops are some of my favorite places, as are independent clothing stores intended for working joes like Joe Sun, which are getting scarce in the age of Wal-Mart. And it was the building, not the records, that smelled funny: the new location lacks the old Records funk, resulting from the leaky roof and rodent infestations.

On the other hand, when people were boo-hooing about J. Crew moving out of Downtown Plaza, I had absolutely no idea what J. Crew actually sold. I have a feeling that you and I occupy completely different retail universes, ozone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 7:07 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Hooray for more holding bastards' feet to the fire, then!

I'm going to miss most of those businesses, although fortunately I can still visit most of them in midtown. I'm not a tattoo/piercing guy (although many of my friends are,) but record stores and comic shops are some of my favorite places, as are independent clothing stores intended for working joes like Joe Sun, which are getting scarce in the age of Wal-Mart. And it was the building, not the records, that smelled funny: the new location lacks the old Records funk, resulting from the leaky roof and rodent infestations.

On the other hand, when people were boo-hooing about J. Crew moving out of Downtown Plaza, I had absolutely no idea what J. Crew actually sold. I have a feeling that you and I occupy completely different retail universes, ozone.
No my friend some of those record covers or the cabinets or something in that store was moldy becuase I don't smell it now. I'm sure in the move they got rid of what ever it it was. But I don't doubt the building stinks too. Speaking of stinking- across the street it really stinks and I think it might be caused by the trees (no I'm not joking).

wburg you might surprised. Actually I do know what J Crew carries but that doesn't mean I shopped there. I prefer independent shops and buy a lot online. Yes I do buy some high-end items from time to time but I also shop at thrift stores too and try to be eco-responsible when I can. I'm not a aberzombie and in general I'm not a big consumer. I've never bought one thing at Walmart and will avoid Starbucks if there's a local alternative nearby.

As a business owner myself I do however have a standard by which I judge certain types of stores and locations by and if the merchant does not meet that standard I think either they just don't give a damn or are pretty stupid. So many of the businesses on the K Street Mall simply do not meet my standard -sorry.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 11:01 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
I was talking to a friend today who owns a controlling interest in one the major SRO hotels just off K Street. They want to convert it into a hotel or market rate housing but here's the problem they have come up against. They are required to pay a fee to relocate the current residents (I think they said something like over 200 grand) and then they still have to find new homes for like 90% of the residents. Its not easy to find homes for some of these people as you can imagine. Plus it's asking real estate developers to become social workers -which they are not and something they know nothing about. It's not their job nor their passion. SHRA and the avocates for the poor/homeless expect other people to share the same interest as they do. They really do not understand business and think that if you have money to buy and renovate a hotel then you must have unlimited funds and time to fix complex social problems. It's no wonder that nothing gets done.

The city asked the owners to sit across the table from the homeless avocates and people from Loaves and Fishes -who were very nasty and made it quite clear that they do not like or respect them and think they are just a bunch of greedy bastards. Not a pleasant experience for someone who is willing to spend time and money renovating a run down sh't hole is it? Now these investors are local and will stick it out but out-of-town investors would probably say the hell with you Sacramento. We have change this if we are going to move forward.

Of course, the 'nickle and dimers' who don't understand full-circle ecomonics hate to raise taxes but I think it's about time we raised the local tax to fund infrastructure projects and public-subsized housing and social services. Look someone is going end up paying- somehow. I understand making developers out in the suburbs pay for infrastucture but I just don't see why investors in our downtown should bare the burden of homeless, poverty and all sorts of social ill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 11:50 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Well, the new owners do have the option to find a social service agency they can pay to do the relocation work for them (a percentage of the relocation fees can be set aside to do that very thing.) Real estate developers often have to pay outside consultants to solve special problems for them: if the site has toxics issues, for example, they have to pay an environmental cleanup company to do remediation--they can't just dig out the toxic soil and dump it in the street. This works much the same way.

Part of this is because there really is no replacement equivalent for SRO rooms: as unacceptable as most of them are, where else will they find a place to rent for about $400 a month, close to public transit? Lacking any alternatives, these folks will end up on the street.

Why should these developers bear the burden of homelessness? Because eviction of their tenants would effectively add about a hundred people to the number of homeless on the streets!

This being said, I'm all in favor of public housing projects built along modern lines (not the "human warehouse" model of Cabrini Green) as a solution. The problem is that nobody wants to pay for it. One other thing to keep in mind: SHRA currently has $10 million in redevelopment funds specifically earmarked for SRO replacement housing, specifically 100 efficiency units. If some developer wanted to take on such a project, the money's there--obviously $10 million wouldn't be enough, but it's a start.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 4:23 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
wburg -Yes they did hire a social service agency and they knew this going in and therefore set aside the money for it. It's not like they are not willing to work with the city. (I personally just don't see why they have to pay a relocation fees in the first place.) And yes real estate developers do often have to pay consultants to solve "special" problems like toxic cleanup but this is NOT the same thing -but it interesting that you equated removing toxic waste with moving certain humans. But do you really think they should have to be subjected to a lot of self-important, holier-that-thou @$#%& from Loaves and Fishes crowd? Maybe you are making the same assumptions that the these people make -that every developer has unlimited amount of funds and time to deal with these complex social issues. So many people have no clue. Beside i's not their "thing" so why force it on them? Geez why can't people get it through their head? If they would K Street would a very different place.

OK so they are going to evict the tenants. Even with the fee and hiring a service they have to make sure these people have places to go. That would be no problem IF there were replacement SRO rooms -which there are not (as you pointed out) and IF most of these people were not so f'ked up. But again, is it really the responsibilty of the developer? If my landlord came and said he was selling the place and I have a month to find a new home I would not expect him to find me that new home. I'm responsible for my life -no one else.

You are right. The problem is that nobody wants to pay for it. So as long as it stays around K Street and they don't go 'downtown'-out of sight-out of mind -then joe and joanna citizen doesn't really care. OR if someone is crazy enough to want to improve downtown then let them pay for 'cleaning up the mess'.

What is unacceptable is that so many SRO's exist around our "main street". People seem to think all developers are the same and all have tons of cash to throw around to fix society's problems. Well they don't. Nor is it their mission in life. If the city lacks alternatives then the city (meaning all of us) should bare the burden and not inhibit people who are willing to invest in downtown. What is our downtown for...just a place for state employees to work and near-homeless to live?

Even though there's money for SROs -you must realize that it takes a very special developer who would put up with the bs from the Poverty Nazis. Why doesn't 'Saint Moe' the so-called friend of the poor build the SROs?

Look I'm not some right-wing bastard and I too have been poor (flour and water biscuits w/ jam- mmm) and for years I volunteered at a mission/shelter so I know both sides of this issue. I just treat the poor and homeless as I would anyone else - and that's my problem I quess. To be honest from my experience a lot of the people "helping" the poor are doing so for self-serving reasons and a lot of the homeless are shysters who have burned a lot of bridges.

Last edited by ozone; Aug 25, 2007 at 4:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 8:29 AM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
^well said ozone. This is America still, isn't it? Even only 40 years ago, it was so socially unacceptable to be a bum that there were hardly any. Now, it's treated as a "lifestyle choice" that must be respected and condoned. Why the hell should a good, law-abiding, tax-paying, contributing member of society be responsible for subsidizing housing and services for someone who is more interested in getting high and begging for change than they are taking care of themselves? I have no shame in admitting that I don't care one rat's ass for anyone that doesn't care for themselves, but expects me to. The only reason there is an abundance of homeless people today is that we cater to them and accept their lifestyle as an acceptable alternative. I work my ass off to get what I have. Too many homeless people and their enablers expect me and others like me to pay for the poor decisions and lack of effort in their own lives. That's ridiculous. They just need to get a job and take care of themselves. Sure, there are exceptions...mentally retarted, physically handicapped. But laziness and/or drug addiction on their part does not constitute a responsibility on my part. Every single person born in this country has an amazing opportunity to achieve their potential (more so here than anywhere else in the world). If they fail, it's their own fault, not mine. It's ridiculous that we spend so much effort appeasing them. If we stopped doing so, the problem would eventually go away. It's similar to the argument that more roads and freeway capacity eases traffic congestion: It just allows more cars! Appeasing the homeless just causes more homeless people!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 12:01 PM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
wburg -Yes they did hire a social service agency and they knew this going in and therefore set aside the money for it. It's not like they are not willing to work with the city. (I personally just don't see why they have to pay a relocation fees in the first place.) And yes real estate developers do often have to pay consultants to solve "special" problems like toxic cleanup but this is NOT the same thing -but it interesting that you equated removing toxic waste with moving certain humans. But do you really think they should have to be subjected to a lot of self-important, holier-that-thou @$#%& from Loaves and Fishes crowd? Maybe you are making the same assumptions that the these people make -that every developer has unlimited amount of funds and time to deal with these complex social issues. So many people have no clue. Beside i's not their "thing" so why force it on them? Geez why can't people get it through their head? If they would K Street would a very different place.

OK so they are going to evict the tenants. Even with the fee and hiring a service they have to make sure these people have places to go. That would be no problem IF there were replacement SRO rooms -which there are not (as you pointed out) and IF most of these people were not so f'ked up. But again, is it really the responsibilty of the developer? If my landlord came and said he was selling the place and I have a month to find a new home I would not expect him to find me that new home. I'm responsible for my life -no one else.

You are right. The problem is that nobody wants to pay for it. So as long as it stays around K Street and they don't go 'downtown'-out of sight-out of mind -then joe and joanna citizen doesn't really care. OR if someone is crazy enough to want to improve downtown then let them pay for 'cleaning up the mess'.

What is unacceptable is that so many SRO's exist around our "main street". People seem to think all developers are the same and all have tons of cash to throw around to fix society's problems. Well they don't. Nor is it their mission in life. If the city lacks alternatives then the city (meaning all of us) should bare the burden and not inhibit people who are willing to invest in downtown. What is our downtown for...just a place for state employees to work and near-homeless to live?

Even though there's money for SROs -you must realize that it takes a very special developer who would put up with the bs from the Poverty Nazis. Why doesn't 'Saint Moe' the so-called friend of the poor build the SROs?

Look I'm not some right-wing bastard and I too have been poor (flour and water biscuits w/ jam- mmm) and for years I volunteered at a mission/shelter so I know both sides of this issue. I just treat the poor and homeless as I would anyone else - and that's my problem I quess. To be honest from my experience a lot of the people "helping" the poor are doing so for self-serving reasons and a lot of the homeless are shysters who have burned a lot of bridges.
well said, ozone, maybe you should run for mayor. I agree with everything you said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 4:18 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
wburg -Yes they did hire a social service agency and they knew this going in and therefore set aside the money for it.
If they have hired someone to take care of the relocation, then what's the problem?

Quote:
Maybe you are making the same assumptions that the these people make -that every developer has unlimited amount of funds and time to deal with these complex social issues.
Put it this way: Thomas Enterprises knew going in that they were buying a toxic site that would need serious remediation. But they didn't gripe about it, they were aware of the problems and instead of crying about how they shouldn't have to pay for things they rolled up their sleeves and are solving the problem. I don't assume they have unlimited money--but they damn well should have enough money to pay the predictable expenses of the project (you said they knew this going in), or they shouldn't have embarked on it in the first place. Besides, by suggesting that government pay for it, you're suggesting that government has unlimited money for this sort of thing--it doesn't! Nor do social services.

Quote:
Beside i's not their "thing" so why force it on them?
Doing dishes isn't my "thing" either but sooner or later my sink gets full and I have to go do them. It became their responsibility when they bought the property. If these were folks who could afford to relocate, or could do so easily, it wouldn't be an issue--but they aren't, so it is.

Quote:
OK so they are going to evict the tenants. Even with the fee and hiring a service they have to make sure these people have places to go. That would be no problem IF there were replacement SRO rooms -which there are not (as you pointed out) and IF most of these people were not so f'ked up. But again, is it really the responsibilty of the developer?
The fact that there are no replacement SRO rooms IS THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM. See, we've done this before. When the city redeveloped the West End, now known as Old Sacramento, there were a couple of dozen SRO hotels and boarding houses, as well as a couple of homeless missions, down there. There were thousands of transients, despite Brandon12's claim that homelessness didn't exist 40 years ago. When these buildings were demolished, no replacement housing was provided. Instead of simply vanishing into thin air, the occupants of these SRO hotels moved eastward into what we now known as the K Street Mall area. The hotels they moved into were not always SROs (the Marshall, the Berry, etc., were tourist hotels for the most part) but business was already slow and they essentially became the new SROs. If no replacement housing is provided somehow, the problem isn't going to go away, it will just move around.

Quote:
You are right. The problem is that nobody wants to pay for it. So as long as it stays around K Street and they don't go 'downtown'-out of sight-out of mind -then joe and joanna citizen doesn't really care. OR if someone is crazy enough to want to improve downtown then let them pay for 'cleaning up the mess'.
Exactly! Nobody wants to pay for it, so yes, the people who want to improve downtown are responsible for improving downtown--which often means cleaning up some messes that they didn't cause, but if nobody cleans them up, they won't go anywhere. Turning the Marshall Hotel into a boutique hotel probably won't go over too well if there are still tons of homeless in the neighborhood--including its former tenants.

Quote:
Even though there's money for SROs -you must realize that it takes a very special developer who would put up with the bs from the Poverty Nazis. Why doesn't 'Saint Moe' the so-called friend of the poor build the SROs?
I know those people you're calling "Poverty Nazis." I don't appreciate the remark. Moe won't build SROs because he's an idiot, and nobody in the social services sector likes him any better than you do. But there are developers willing to do the work: AF Evans, for example, just bought the Berry Hotel a block away. They're going to refurbish the building, provide a social services coordinator, and maintain the building as an SRO. It's not as though nobody does this: in the Bay Area and Seattle and many other places people do this, often very successfully. Our strategy of ignoring the problem has been a dismal failure for half a century. Why not try to solve it instead?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 6:11 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Post

Let me first say that my friend was not crying and griping about having to pay out this money and they have in fact "rolled up their sleeves" and are solving the problem. I'm the one who who is griping.

Also there were things that some city officals have done that I feel were counter productive (to put it mildly) that I didn't mention.

wburg I'm not suggesting that the "government" pay for it. I saying that if the people of this city are convinced of the need then they/we should pay for it.

Quote: "Doing dishes isn't my "thing" either but sooner or later my sink gets full and I have to go do them. It became their responsibility when they bought the property."

Humm. Who made the mess in your sink in the first place wburg? And what do you do with a dish that refuses to come clean?
I'm saying it should NOT be their responsibilty when they bought the property. It's not like in SF when a new owner buys out rent controlled tenants. The new owners are not required to also find a new home for said tenants.

Quote: "...so yes, the people who want to improve downtown are responsible for improving downtown--which often means cleaning up some messes that they didn't cause.."

This attitude is exactly why so much of downtown Sacramento looks like a ghetto. And I think it's a bit disingenuous or just a real lack of understanding on your part to equate Thomas Enterprises and the Railyards with conversion of a single slum hotel. The people who are trying to renovate the hotel are good people, people who really believe in downtown/midtown. They are exactly the type of people we should be encouraging by removing as many obstacles as possible. Not a lot of outsiders are going to come in and see this place as a good investment. If we go by your logic- the only people who have have the right to renovate or run business are those who have a large enough of an organzation and capital to "pay off the mafia" -business like the Wallmarts and McDonalds.

Of course, calling these people "Poverty Nazis" was harsh- but intentional in order to make a point. So many do in fact come across as self-important and holier-than-thou. Some are just as fanatic/zealous as the rabid anti-tax people and no amount of reason will convince them that their approach may not in fact we the best way to deal with the problem.

I never said people are not out there who are willing to develop SROs. I'm originally from San Diego and they have been fortunate to have such people.
That should be the focus -finding such people to do here in Sacramento what has been done elsewhere and not forcing people who do not have that passion or desire to deal with this issue.

And I do agree with you that our strategy of ignoring the problem has been a dismal failure. But I still contend that holding a group of people (who want to renovate a slum hotel) responsible for solving the problem is NOT the answer.
It only perpetuates the problem because it discourages such people from investing in our downtown. This means the city loses money (to help pay for social services) and downtown will never be able to attract a mixture of incomes and lifestyles. So in a 'round about way it perpetuates suburban sprawl as well. I just think it's a totally wrong approach to the problem but I do understand how the people who's mission/job it is to deal with these problems see this as reasonable compromise especially if they don't have many other options. Its unfortunate that I've never met one of them that even tried to understand the other side.

Having lived in a country that was not as much of a nannystate as the US is I came to appreciate the value of taking responsibilty for one's own life. Bottom line is that many (maybe the majority) of the people who live in these places just refuse to do that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2007, 1:27 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
And I do agree with you that our strategy of ignoring the problem has been a dismal failure. But I still contend that holding a group of people (who want to renovate a slum hotel) responsible for solving the problem is NOT the answer.
It only perpetuates the problem because it discourages such people from investing in our downtown. This means the city loses money (to help pay for social services) and downtown will never be able to attract a mixture of incomes and lifestyles. So in a 'round about way it perpetuates suburban sprawl as well. I just think it's a totally wrong approach to the problem but I do understand how the people who's mission/job it is to deal with these problems see this as reasonable compromise especially if they don't have many other options. Its unfortunate that I've never met one of them that even tried to understand the other side.
Again, the people who want to clear slums become, by definition, the ones who are responsible for solving the problem, because the people who live in the slums are the focus of the problem. If the developer isn't willing to solve that problem, they aren't clearing the slum, they're just moving the problem someplace else. The city decided to enact the SRO ordinance because it felt that losing an SRO without some effort to relocate the occupants would be more of a problem for the city than the disincentive to developers.

Again, one just has to look at other cities to see that vibrant downtowns and SROs are not mutually exclusive: in San Francisco there are SROs in the shadows of the swanky hotels near Union Square, for example. In that city, some of the new hotels near the Tenderloin literally pay to subsidize several residential hotels nearby, to protect them from real estate speculation and conversion into something other than low-income housing. This is called an "exaction" and it is part of a local government's police power. The SRO relocation funds are a similar sort of exaction, and in fact a lot milder form than Sacramento's SRO ordinance.

Part of why the developers pay exactions, rather than cities using taxes to pay for these programs, is due to the limitations on taxation imposed by Proposition 13. Prop 13, while it's great for property owners, has caused a whole lot of havoc in other arenas and caused many California local governments to turn to other sources for funding, such as exactions. So maybe the bottom line is that you have a problem with Proposition 13, and I certainly can't fault you for that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2007, 12:25 AM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Double post

Last edited by travis bickle; Aug 28, 2007 at 12:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2007, 12:39 AM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
oops! having some server problems.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2007, 12:43 AM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Although my expertise re. SRO renovation/redevelopment is limited, I do know that relocation fees have become a tangible hindrance to redevelopment efforts. It's similar to trying to replace a trailer park. Try that sometime. I worked on a project near San Diego's Mission Bay. The ultimate relocation costs eventually ran well into seven figures and the time frame (assuming we were successful at all and with the litigation we were facing, that was not at all a given) stretched out to nearly six years.

We had incorporated an affordable housing element that surpassed our legal responsibility, placed retail along the main street, contributed sorely needed millions to the local schools through fees, established a fund to maintain a new park we were required to build and countless other improvements to the local neighborhood.

But we couldn't get around the obscene relocation costs. We realized that this would be a shock for some people and that some kind of reasonable contribution to moving expenses (like 100%) and some kind contribution for transitional housing (2 mos. rent - not 9 mos.) were the right things to do.

But it wasn't enough. The relocation costs and schedules were the deal breakers.

You can go by there today. It's in the Bay Park area of San Diego right on Morena Blvd. just north of Tecolote Road. It's still a decrepit, drug infested trailer slum that is a crime magnet for the entire neighborhood.

It didn't have to be that way. So many of today's development/planning laws were written for yesterday's developers. It could have been a thriving community for people of all income levels that would have been such a net gain for the entire area. But the activists and others who feel that government should dictate all housing issues prevailed. We couldn't get these activists to get beyond their own prejudices and see us as partners instead of adversaries. The kicker? Few of them actually lived in the neighborhood.

Such a shame...

BTW - re. the typical whining against Prop. 13. It's important to remember a few things:

Some people truly were being taxed out of their homes and needed relief.

Revenues for local governments are at all time highs.

Cities don't have a revenue/taxes problem. They have a spending problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2007, 4:42 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
travis bickle thanks for clearly illustrating the problem.

The only part I disagree with is your contention that revenues for local governments are at all time highs. That's just not true. Local governments are now forced to pay 100% for things that were either paid for entirely or in part by state and federal money. Also the costs for everything has gone up. The Feds are spending more money than ever before -on a war that has lasted longer than World War II and cannot be won, and even if we did "win" most people are unsure of exactly what we would have won. So in one reguard I agree with you that we have a spending problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2007, 4:59 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis bickle View Post
But we couldn't get around the obscene relocation costs. We realized that this would be a shock for some people and that some kind of reasonable contribution to moving expenses (like 100%) and some kind contribution for transitional housing (2 mos. rent - not 9 mos.) were the right things to do.
Relocation funding under the current ordinance are about $2500 per person. Assuming they can find something for about $600/month (the going rate for rooming houses or the cheaper tier of studio apartments, outside the central city) that's about two months' rent and deposit, plus a small amount for moving expenses and furniture. The reason why it adds up to close to a quarter million is, if it's the hotel I think it is, the relocation involves 95 people--thus, close to a quarter-million in relocation funds.

The reason why the ordinance specifies that replacement housing must be offered is that the money isn't supposed to be in the form of a check dropped into the hand of the resident: they wanted to avoid having people get the check and take a trip to Reno, or to their drug dealer, and end up broke and homeless without options. This is exactly what happened when the residents of the Biltmore were similarly relocated: a handful moved to other SROs, but many others ended up on the streets.

And yes, sure, they ended up on the streets because of their own poor choices, but if a little forethought can prevent that from happening, and thus save the city money in the long run (not to mention fewer people on the street) isn't it worth it? Remember, the people in SRO hotels ARE NOT HOMELESS. The purpose of the relocation funds and policy is to prevent them from becoming homeless, which will, in the long term, save the city money and limit that spending problem. It's that ounce of prevention that saves a pound of cure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2007, 5:37 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
travis bickle thanks for clearly illustrating the problem.

The only part I disagree with is your contention that revenues for local governments are at all time highs. That's just not true. Local governments are now forced to pay 100% for things that were either paid for entirely or in part by state and federal money. Also the costs for everything has gone up. The Feds are spending more money than ever before -on a war that has lasted longer than World War II and cannot be won, and even if we did "win" most people are unsure of exactly what we would have won. So in one regard I agree with you that we have a spending problem.
Oh ozone, you'd been doing so well too. You almost made it for weeks before taking a "cheap" and ignorant shot at this president and our valiant battle against fascism. I will refrain from addressing those issues as that is not what we (well, at least some of us) are here for. But it must be a strain to have hatred of one person be such a powerful influence in one's life. Pity.

Also - we were talking about Prop. 13. Strictly a state revenue issue completely unrelated to Federal spending so let's first separate federal funds from local funds. What the defense department spends on global issues has little to do with providing services at the local level. Even at the Federal level, according to the Tax Foundation, corporate taxes are at 2.3% of GDP for 2005 - the last year for which detailed figures are available. This is an all-time high. For 2006, the trend is up. Individual tax revenues are up 11.2 percent in the first seven months of FY 2006 over the same period in FY 2005, which in turn was a year when revenues surged 14.6%. Revenues are back up to nearly 18% of GDP and growing. So far this year, According to the Treasury Department, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record.

Again, as this was in response to a comment re. Prop. 13 - a State revenue issue. At the state level, revenues climbed by 8% in 2004 and nearly 9% in 2005, according to the Census Bureau. For 2006 - the trend is again up.

According to the Franchise Tax Board - California took in $11.3 billion in personal income tax payments this April (just one month), an amount larger than the $10.5 billion the state received in April 2001 at the height of the high-tech stock market boom. Again - an all time high.

As the housing crises worsens, revenues will drop at the local level and this will cause funding problems. I expect we'll be hearing a great deal of whining about service cuts in the near future. In a city like Chula Vista (mid-size city - closing in on 200k), 80% of revenue goes to wards salaries and pensions (according to David Garcia - Chula Vista City Manager). I wonder what it is for Sacramento? But chew on that a while and ask yourselves if you're getting value. I would suggest this has far more to do with service cuts than federal spending in a time of war.

This is just what I got from our political/financial division in the last ten minutes. I'm sure I could get a far more detailed report if necessary. But it wouldn't change the results one iota.

Government revenues, at every level, are at all-time highs. The problem is spending, not revenues.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program:

Thanks for the kind words re. relocation costs.

Last edited by travis bickle; Aug 28, 2007 at 5:48 PM.
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 12:48 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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