K Street Pedestrian Mall Renovation

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by wburg

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.

What the law states and what you need to do for project approval are often completely different realities. But thanks for the Sacramento relocation primer. Even with those figures that becomes a potentially prohibitive number.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

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.

travis bickle the one thing I'm not is an ideolog. You call it a cheap and ignorant shot at our prez and I call it telling the truth as I see it. Remember you were the one who interjected the spending/government thing into the debate. Since I'm not a ideolog on either the right or the left I feel I have more freedom to look at each situation and make up my own mind on it without resorting to a 'playbook', 'good book', ' little red book' or whatever. Honestly I see no difference between the Neo-con and the Marxist's approach when it comes to creating false consciousness or "group think". Ideology just offers simplified explanations for complex questions and in the end doesn't really solve anything. On one issue I may be very liberal and on another very conservative. I'm sorry but I don't feel the need to subscribe to a single belief system. I know that upsets the ideolog because for them it's all or nothing; you are either for them or against them. To me that's just dumb. Pragmatism is far better. So don't worry about me my friend. I understand you don't agree with me on every issue and I'm fine with that. I'm not the one you should have pity on. Ideology just causes division because while we probably agree on this one issue, by insisting on bringing in a whole host of other issues, the debate gets muddled.

I'm not saying government spending should not be looked at and curtailed. But I'm also not dogmatic in saying that taxes are a creation of the devil and no good has ever come from raising taxes because history proves that wrong.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by ozone

travis bickle the one thing I'm not is an ideolog. You call it a cheap and ignorant shot at our prez and I call it telling the truth as I see it. Remember you were the one who interjected the spending/government thing into the debate. Since I'm not a ideolog on either the right or the left I feel I have more freedom to look at each situation and make up my own mind on it without resorting to a 'playbook', 'good book', ' little red book' or whatever. Honestly I see no difference between the Neo-con and the Marxist's approach when it comes to creating false consciousness or "group think". Ideology just offers simplified explanations for complex questions and in the end doesn't really solve anything. On one issue I may be very liberal and on another very conservative. I'm sorry but I don't feel the need to subscribe to a single belief system. I know that upsets the ideolog because for them it's all or nothing; you are either for them or against them. To me that's just dumb. Pragmatism is far better. So don't worry about me my friend. I understand you don't agree with me on every issue and I'm fine with that. I'm not the one you should have pity on. Ideology just causes division because we probably agree on this one issue but by insisting on bringing in a whole host of other issues the debate is muddled.

Oh ozone ... that was just too easy. You've heard of Pavlov... right? and BTW - none of your latest ingno "rant" changes the fact that tax revenues are at an all time high.

Remember you were the one who interjected the spending/government thing into the debate.

Um... I was responding to complaints about Prop. 13. You do know what responding means... right?

Thanks for playing ozone.. we have some lovely parting gifts for you

[ozone]

You in here just to waste time huh?

I'm actually talking to people doing these projects. I have a business in Midtown and live in Midtown and I'm active in the community so it's not just a exercise, a game, a debate or whatever you like to think of it, for me. I am actually trying do something in my community. I no longer have time for your silly slackergeek nonsense.

[squintstopher]

Travis Bickle, there is no need for ad hominem attacks or patronizing sarcasm on this board.

[snfenoc]

Please, Ozone. I personally believe nobody US-Americans wants to discuss what is going on in The Irack. Keep the topic to U.S. - Americans, especially, like, such as, regarding The California and even more like, such as, regarding, irregarding The Sacramento. If you do this, the children will be are fyoucher.

Sincerely,
Miss South Carolina

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by squintstopher

Travis Bickle, there is no need for ad hominem attacks or patronizing sarcasm on this board.

Gee... thanks for the tip.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Please, Ozone. I personally believe nobody US-Americans wants to discuss what is going on in The Irack. Keep the topic to U.S. - Americans, especially, like, such as, regarding The California and even more like, such as, regarding, irregarding The Sacramento. If you do this, the children will be are fyoucher.

Sincerely,
Miss South Carolina

I just watched it on Youtube. OMG I thought I was dumb. At least she's cute so she won't starve. And thank god I have a map.

[ozone]

OK getting back to the topic. I'm very sorry I didn't have the time to go down and at least push the D&R and council to include steel arbors in the plan. As I have mentioned before I think one of the problems with K Street is that it's design does not take into account the Sacramento climate. We live in an age of central AC/heat from house-to-car-to-office/shopping/school and that has made us less tollerant of even slight temperature extremes. If we want pedestrians en masse on the K then we need to make people comfortable. The trees along K Street do not provide enough shade in the summer and nor any protection from the cold and rain in winter.

I think a number linear steel arbors along K would really help keep people on the street. If they are covered with dec. vines the arbor would shade the sidwalks in summer while still allowing light and air and leaves from the trees to pass through. In the winter although the vines would be mostly bare, the metal and vine structures would possibly deflect a little of the rain and retain a some warmth.

Another benefit to these arbors is that would be an de facto extension of the buildings -out to the edge of the sidewalks. This means that it's semi-private space and certain type of behavior would not have to be tolleranted.

This is an example of a metal arbor going up in San Francisco but there are mutitude of design posibilities.

[sugit]

I really wanted to see this building get turned back into a department store of some kinda, but I guess anything is better than the state building it was. There are a few other buildings on K Street in the same boat, old state office buildings now vacant, like the Kress and the old Wards building.

At least they are getting a good firm to set up shop in the building and they are turning the ground floor into retail.

Slowly (very slowly), but surely...700 and 800 is still the key...

________________________________________________________________

Developer raises its bet on downtown revival
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, September 5, 2007

The company developing a boutique hotel at 10th and J streets is placing another bet on Sacramento's downtown core.

Rubicon Partners is acquiring an interest in the former J.C. Penney building at 630 K St. -- across from the Hard Rock Cafe at Downtown Plaza's eastern entrance. Rubicon is planning to rehab the now vacant, five-story building into office and retail space.

Most of the upper floors will be leased to environmental consulting firm Jones & Stokes, which will move its corporate headquarters from midtown next year.

The ground floor will become retail space, says Peter Thompson, a principal with Sacramento-based Rubicon, which is developing the Citizens Hotel at 10th and J and also owns the historic Forum Building at Ninth and K streets.

Thompson says the arrival of Jones & Stokes is some good news for a part of downtown that's struggled but is gradually showing signs of a revival. He cites Downtown Plaza's plans for a redesign and the recent opening of the Three Monkeys restaurant at 723 K St.

"We're long-term bettors and we feel this area is going to continue to improve," he says.

Rubicon, a partnership of Thompson and Kipp Blewett, is expected to complete the K Street building deal this week. Current owner Buzz Oates will continue to have an interest in the property and Rubicon will manage it, Thompson says.

The building, constructed in the 1950s, originally was a J.C. Penney store. It was converted to office use in 1978 and most recently served as state offices.

Jones & Stokes has been considering the site for about six months, says Ron Thomas, member of a Colliers International team of office brokers that represented the consulting firm.

He says Jones & Stokes ran out of room at its current site, 2600 V St., and liked the "urban" feel of the downtown location.

"It's perfect for them," Thomas says. "They're right on the doorstep of the mall and there's a light-rail stop in front of the building."

He said the 180-person J&S office is slated to move into its new headquarters during the second quarter of next year.

[creamcityleo79]

Between this news, the arena news, and the article on Sacramento being a green city, I'd say it's a pretty good day to be a Sacramentan (which is not unlike most days!) !!!

[wburg]

Interesting indeed...which leads one to wonder what the plans would be for the Newton Booth School, the current site of the Jones & Stokes office!

I do know that J&S are pretty good neighbors. Adding ground floor retail will help make the building more than a blank wall to passersby, too.

[ozone]

I agree neuhickman79. This is great news. I've been waiting for this building to be turned into something other than a boring brown SOB box. With the DWNT Plaza remodel, The St. Rose Park remodel, the Marshall Hotel remodel, a new light-rail station on 7th we just might be seeing real progress in this area!

I love the fact that while everyone is obsessing about the Greyhound Bus station and Moe things are still getting done (I hope).

[sugit]

Hey Ozone - I figured it was the Marshall you were referring to early when you said there was a SRO in the process if be renovated just off of K Street.

I know you said they are having some issues they need to work though, but do they have any time line they are looking at?

[Los_Lobo]

Editorial: It's Mohanna's move
The door is open for K Street settlement

Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 13, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B6

Print | E-Mail | Comments (3) | Digg it | del.icio.us

In the city of Sacramento's fight over the stalled redevelopment of a blighted but crucial stretch of downtown's K Street Mall, the ball is back in Moe Mohanna's court.

On Aug. 31, downtown property owner Mohanna sent a letter to city attorney Eileen Teichert asking her to help settle his dispute with the city's redevelopment agency.

The agency has sued Mohanna because he refuses to go forward on a deal to swap property he owns or controls on the blighted 700 block of K street for land the city owns or controls on the 800 block. Mohanna countersued. Unless a settlement is reached soon, a long court battle looms. All the while, K Street continues to decay.

In her response to Mohanna, the city attorney declined to mediate the dispute now, because she already represents the city in a separate California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit Mohanna has filed. That suit seeks to prevent Sacramento from moving a light-rail stop from the K Street Mall around the corner to congested 7th Street. (In this particular dispute, Mohanna is on the right side. The city is seeking to shove transit aside to please a developer who doesn't want people who use transit loitering in front of his property. But K Street is the safest and most convenient place for the stop. It should remain there.)

Teichert says she cannot mediate the dispute between the redevelopment agency and Mohanna. It would be, she wrote, an "ethical conflict of interest." But that doesn't preclude Mohanna from seeking a settlement. In her letter, Teichert calls upon Mohanna to "sharpen your pencil and place in writing fair and reasonable terms upon which a win-win settlement may be based and send those terms to Redevelopment Agency counsel."

That's good advice. If the redevelopment counsel accepts those terms, Teichert says she'd be happy to participate in "global settlement discussions," to settle both the land swap dispute and the CEQA lawsuit.

So, Moe Mohanna. What's your response?

[Web]

he has none.....he just wants rent....

[Fusey]

Not suprising...
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/384492.html

Judge orders city to pay attorneys fees to K Street property owner

By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Published 5:53 pm PDT Monday, September 17, 2007
A Sacramento Superior Court judge has ordered the city of Sacramento to pay $42,052 in attorneys fees to K Street property owner Moe Mohanna.

Mohanna on Monday issued a press release trumpeting the ruling last week as another significant victory in his legal battle with the city. The city's redevelopment agency has sued him for backing out of a complicated property swap agreement aimed at allowing redevelopment on the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street.

But David Levin, counsel for the redevelopment agency, described the judge's decision on attorneys fees as routine.

Judge Loren McMaster tentatively ruled in August that the city did not have the right to place a "lis pendens" on Mohanna's K Street properties, which makes it difficult to obtain financing, sell property or lease it. In a final ruling issued Thursday, McMaster also awarded attorneys fees to Mohanna in relation to the lis pendens issue.

The city's larger lawsuit against Mohanna is proceeding, Levin said, and it will likely be assigned to a different judge than McMaster.

In his August decision, McMaster opined that the city was unlikely to win on the merits of its larger case because the properties Mohanna was receiving had undergone a "material adverse change" because of a fire and subsequent demolitions.

[Web]

see all Moe wants is money!

[arod74]

As much as we all can't stand Mohanna, you gotta almost laugh at the way this 2 bit guy is just pimp slapping the city around in court. He has everyone by the small hairs and now the city has to pretty much do whatever he asks if they want K street to move forward anytime soon. Sure would be great to have a mayor who could jump in there and get something resolved.

[Majin]

It's already been said on here many times but its worth just buying him out.

He won, now lets just pay him off and get him out of here.