Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The x factor is income. That more or less determines how well the homes will hold up. Old Folsom will not hit the skids, because it neve really hit the skids to begin with (like say, oldtown Livermore aka little Mexico). Old town Folsom will be similar to downtown Pleasanton, just not as wealthy. But same purpose, older and more affordable homes with character, that are not as pricey is the neighborhood tracts.
Isn't it sad that Solidigm or a similar high-tech company can not or will not set up shop in the Railyards. If the infrastructure was there and the logistics were right for such a company, I still think the City of Sacramento and its loud constituents would fight it because the last thing they want is highly educated "rich folks" moving in. The tiny fraction of Oak Park that got "gentrified" in the last two decades didn't bode well with most of Sacramento's powerful political class.
The Broadway corridor and Alhambra corridor and parts of Land park and McKinnley Park are looking bad, the worst I've ever seen it. If this continues, the burbs will continue to grow while the central city turns into mostly low-income. Its so sad what has happened to downtown/midtown, who would want to pay market rate to live in those new apt/condos so they can walk to a 10% filled State office building, while 50% of the nice shops/restaurants in the grid have closed-boarded up. The reason you live in a non-suburban environment is for the shops and restaurants and parks, but when they all look like crap....why live downtown, Im worried for Sacramento's Grid, and this applies to even the wealthiest of central cities. But Sacramento's Grid is more vunerable to deterioration than places like NYC, SF, SD, Austin, even Portland at least Portland was able to create a very vibrant grid, waterfront in the last 20 yrs, Sacramento never quite got there; its feels like its regressing despite all the new multi-story housing that got built and continues. Hell, even Santa Barbara is looking a bit shabby, I remember when it was very high-end, very very clean, zero vagrants, now it has an LA/Santa Monica look and feel, in a bad way. Santa Barbara used to feel special, not so much anymore. It's still nice because they controlled the growth; it has not really grown in 25 years. Sorry for the late night rant...Lol.
Presumably as a spinoff company of Intel, Solidigm wanted to retain proximity to existing Intel facilities and assets, and they're also moving to an already-existing office campus off of White Rock Road; relocating to the Railyards would have to be preceded by building new office space first, instead of just being able to move in & start rolling in 2023. There is a proposed office development, the Foundry, in the Railyards that might have sufficient capacity at 300,000 square feet, but it won't begin construction until 2023 and won't be completed until 2025. I imagine that Solidigm's decision to rent in Rancho Cordova vs. the Railyards, in addition to proximity to Intel, had to do with wanting to move into a building immediately vs. waiting for new construction or, I dunno, setting up in an open field.
While the Broadway and Alhambra corridors on the outer edges of the central city have their challenges, anyone claiming that the Folsom Boulevard corridor through Rancho Cordova is in better shape hasn't been there lately. While there is some seriously excellent Korean and Mexican food and some fun thrift stores in the decaying strip malls and mostly-vacant shopping centers, it's mostly a reality check that homelessness is in no way solely a "downtown" problem, or even a Sacramento problem (considering that 95% of Sacramento isn't downtown.)
However, I'm sure that not all of Rancho Cordova looks like Folsom Boulevard, while critics of Sacramento naively assume that all of Sacramento must look like the parts of Broadway that frightened them to drive through once, so much so that they have to wonder who is buying and renting the market rate housing in the central city instead of asking them! For-sale property tends to get snapped up and occupied very quickly, and while I know there's a limit to higher-end/market-rate apartments, the rentals seem to be sufficiently occupied to give the impression of human activity to passersby. The grid and the "toast" (Railyards & Richards) grew by nearly a third from 2010-2020, twice the rate of the region as a whole, and there's plenty more where that came from.
I'm not sure where anyone is hearing hostility to educated or wealthy people moving to Sacramento from city leaders, but the issue isn't so much people moving in as the issue of people who aren't wealthy having to move out because of rising rents--especially service workers, who now often have to commute from the suburbs to work at relatively low-salary restaurant jobs, and because those jobs are outside regular office/commute hours for the most part, they have to drive to do it. Building more affordable housing, which doom-sayers consider the worst possible outcome for the grid, would be its salvation, in part because it would provide closer proximity to work for thousands of service workers, entry-level office workers, and students, but because it would also provide desperately needed housing for those who have been displaced by skyrocketing market rate rents--often, because the demand for housing has far exceeded supply even in the suburbs, to the streets.
The Grid's residential neighborhoods aren't more vulnerable than the suburbs--if anything, it's a remarkably resilient groups of neighborhoods that weathered the housing crash of the early 2000s and the events of 2020-2021 quite robustly; while a few places closed, residents and community groups took active steps to patronize their favorite neighborhood restaurants via take-out or outside seating once those options became available, and plenty of new restaurants and shops have opened to take the place of those that closed. The other totally unexpected development of the past few years has been a profusion of small record stores and bookstores, previously considered endangered species in the age of big-box stores--but in fact the small and nimble local businesses have survived, while the big boxes on suburban commercial boulevards are more often the ones that now sit vacant, like the dinosaurs! And those who have survived did so by opening smaller, more neighborhood-friendly stores, like the Midtown Target on J Street, taking over a recently closed Office Depot store. R Street, which was long a vacant corridor of closed-down industrial uses and "spite lots" squatted on by developers frustrated by residents and activists' desire to create a neighborhood focused on housing, art, and reuse of historic buildings instead of bland office buildings and parking lots, is a lively and densely populated neighborhood--the thousands of new homes along R Street means a built-in customer base who invite their friends from the suburbs to enjoy what the city has to offer, whether it's a big festival or just, y'know, Saturday.
And that's why, as mentioned above, if we start to attract a larger number of tech workers, a lot of them will likely look for places in Sacramento's central city, and commute to Rancho Cordova via car, light rail, or some iteration of "tech bus" in the same way that many Silicon Valley tech workers eschewed the wealthy and comfortable suburban neighborhoods of San Jose for places like the Mission and the Tenderloin in San Francisco--which, I think anyone would agree, face even greater challenges in terms of social problems than K Street, Broadway or Land Park--or even Folsom Boulevard!
The x factor is income. That more or less determines how well the homes will hold up. Old Folsom will not hit the skids, because it neve really hit the skids to begin with (like say, oldtown Livermore aka little Mexico). Old town Folsom will be similar to downtown Pleasanton, just not as wealthy. But same purpose, older and more affordable homes with character, that are not as pricey is the neighborhood tracts.
But yeah, the feeder schools in old town Folsom are the lowest ranked in town. Because there is still some of that old school, blue collar/lower middle class vibe that Folsom had before the 90's. Cirtus Heights and half of Arden hit the skids, because they built far too many apartments that are no longer filled with young single aerospace workers. Now they are filled with low income families. And the low income families send tons of kids to the schools. But the white middle class types are aging and many are empty nesters. And that changed the dynamic of the schools.
What saved Elk Grove is the steadily booming Asian middle class. I know a lot of people wrote off Elk Grove during The Great Recession, but the Asian middle class really took over west of 99. And the schools improved. Even Monterey Trail High, which is a South Sac and Elk Grove mix on the border ranks 7/10! You can see similar at Arroyo High in San Leadro or Logan High in Union City. And pretty much all the new housing in Elk Grove post recession had been more up market. I don't think anyone is building workforce housing anymore.
I am not really sure why more of the Asian middle class didn't really transform the Stockton Blvd corridor, but you are right they moved both to the Pocket, Laguna West and Elk Grove which are close to the Stockton Blvd corridor but not really part of it.
Isn't it sad that Solidigm or a similar high-tech company can not or will not set up shop in the Railyards. If the infrastructure was there and the logistics were right for such a company, I still think the City of Sacramento and its loud constituents would fight it because the last thing they want is highly educated "rich folks" moving in. The tiny fraction of Oak Park that got "gentrified" in the last two decades didn't bode well with most of Sacramento's powerful political class.
The Broadway corridor and Alhambra corridor and parts of Land park and McKinnley Park are looking bad, the worst I've ever seen it. If this continues, the burbs will continue to grow while the central city turns into mostly low-income. Its so sad what has happened to downtown/midtown, who would want to pay market rate to live in those new apt/condos so they can walk to a 10% filled State office building, while 50% of the nice shops/restaurants in the grid have closed-boarded up. The reason you live in a non-suburban environment is for the shops and restaurants and parks, but when they all look like crap....why live downtown, Im worried for Sacramento's Grid, and this applies to even the wealthiest of central cities. But Sacramento's Grid is more vunerable to deterioration than places like NYC, SF, SD, Austin, even Portland at least Portland was able to create a very vibrant grid, waterfront in the last 20 yrs, Sacramento never quite got there; its feels like its regressing despite all the new multi-story housing that got built and continues. Hell, even Santa Barbara is looking a bit shabby, I remember when it was very high-end, very very clean, zero vagrants, now it has an LA/Santa Monica look and feel, in a bad way. Santa Barbara used to feel special, not so much anymore. It's still nice because they controlled the growth; it has not really grown in 25 years. Sorry for the late night rant...Lol.
A large chunk of the people who live and work downtown, in the grid and in Oak Park don't actually own the place where they live or where they work. They are the people who work in low paid service work at bars and restaurants. If the area gets nicer, they will just get priced out of the neighborhood and don't actually benefit from the area improving.
When I lived in Del Dayo, one of my neighbor's owned 25%-50% of 3 or 4 bars and restaurants downtown. Another owned the both the law firm where she worked and the office building that her law firm and other law firms worked out of. At least these owners lived in the Sacramento region, but a lot of downtown offices and apartments are owned by out of area real estate investment trusts or pension funds. But the point I am making is that benefits of gentrification often don't fall to the current residents of the neighborhood, but the current residents do vote the incumbent politicians into office.
So I think that is one issue.
Second covid scrambled the office market. A lot more people now work from home and some of this is permanent. I suspect a lot of the office jobs downtown aren't coming back including at the state and that currently means that there are fewer people eating at stores and restaurants downtown right now. But there is also likely going to be a transition period. I wouldn't be surprised if the state sold off some of its office buildings downtown and I would not be surprised if those offices than were bought by developers and turned into more housing downtown. So I think some of the problems downtown are transitory, as the office space is recycled back into more housing, I think some of the problems downtown will sort themselves out. But that might take a few years to get through the regulatory process.
Third fentanyl, and meth were already a problem but covid made dealing successfully with addiction a much bigger problem. Homelessness exploded statewide and I think a lot of the reforms made in response to BLM protests made the situation worse. I think drugs are screwing up downtown, but not just downtown.
If someone proposed building a bike path in your neighborhood would you want it? Initially I thought the network of bike paths in both Davis and Folsom were nice amenities that made their communties nicer and until covid I believed that. But right now I am not so sure. The lower American River between Ethan Ave to Discovery Park doesn't feel real safe. As that gets turned into a giant homeless encampment and court decisions end up preventing anyone from doing anything about that, I think lots of people are going to want to keep parks and bike paths and other public spaces out of their communties.
Initially I thought it was a mistake that Rancho Cordova didn't go for bike paths the way Folsom did, now I am thinking that is probably an advantage. Public space is California, now just means site of future favela. Who wants that?
I am not really sure why more of the Asian middle class didn't really transform the Stockton Blvd corridor, but you are right they moved both to the Pocket, Laguna West and Elk Grove which are close to the Stockton Blvd corridor but not really part of it.
A large chunk of the people who live and work downtown, in the grid and in Oak Park don't actually own the place where they live or where they work. They are the people who work in low paid service work at bars and restaurants. If the area gets nicer, they will just get priced out of the neighborhood and don't actually benefit from the area improving.
When I lived in Del Dayo, one of my neighbor's owned 25%-50% of 3 or 4 bars and restaurants downtown. Another owned the both the law firm where she worked and the office building that her law firm and other law firms worked out of. At least these owners lived in the Sacramento region, but a lot of downtown offices and apartments are owned by out of area real estate investment trusts or pension funds. But the point I am making is that benefits of gentrification often don't fall to the current residents of the neighborhood, but the current residents do vote the incumbent politicians into office.
So I think that is one issue.
Second covid scrambled the office market. A lot more people now work from home and some of this is permanent. I suspect a lot of the office jobs downtown aren't coming back including at the state and that currently means that there are fewer people eating at stores and restaurants downtown right now. But there is also likely going to be a transition period. I wouldn't be surprised if the state sold off some of its office buildings downtown and I would not be surprised if those offices than were bought by developers and turned into more housing downtown. So I think some of the problems downtown are transitory, as the office space is recycled back into more housing, I think some of the problems downtown will sort themselves out. But that might take a few years to get through the regulatory process.
Third fentanyl, and meth were already a problem but covid made dealing successfully with addiction a much bigger problem. Homelessness exploded statewide and I think a lot of the reforms made in response to BLM protests made the situation worse. I think drugs are screwing up downtown, but not just downtown.
If someone proposed building a bike path in your neighborhood would you want it? Initially I thought the network of bike paths in both Davis and Folsom were nice amenities that made their communties nicer and until covid I believed that. But right now I am not so sure. The lower American River between Ethan Ave to Discovery Park doesn't feel real safe. As that gets turned into a giant homeless encampment and court decisions end up preventing anyone from doing anything about that, I think lots of people are going to want to keep parks and bike paths and other public spaces out of their communties.
Initially I thought it was a mistake that Rancho Cordova didn't go for bike paths the way Folsom did, now I am thinking that is probably an advantage. Public space is California, now just means site of future favela. Who wants that?
Some good points, Shelato. But the net effect is the grid is uglier, delapidated, filthy, zero pride of ownership because you really don't own anything. Who pays for it all...the most hard-working middle and upper middle class, they say the super rich don't pay for it, nor the low income...in fact, I think...lower income folk pay zero tax, right? I have several friends in the lower income bracket and because taxes come out of their income monthly they think they pay tax, but they get all or most of it back once a year when they file. Ingenious plan. They actually think they pay taxes, and are net financial contributors.
Drug abuse is a killer in more ways than one, in life, in spirit, in energy. I've had personal experience with family members it takes its toll on everyone involved. Yet, we never hear how we got here as opposed to prior generations, or how our ideologies of the past 25 years have actually contributed to drug use and abuse. Although a lack of affordable housing or education is a cause; its about so much more than that. We aren't asking the right questions, actually, folks are too afraid to voice an unpopular or dissenting opinion or ideology regarding the topic.
If someone proposed building a bike path in your neighborhood would you want it?
Unequivocally yes. My neighborhood's main street has a bike lane that stops just before the neighborhood on one end and re-starts on the other end, but through our neighborhood it's a "sharrow" where bikes have to share the road with cars, and the car lanes are very wide so autos can generate quite a bit of speed! Adding bike lanes (protected or traditional) would narrow the auto lanes, slowing down traffic, which makes traversing the neighborhood safer for bicycles, and also for pedestrians! So I hope to advocate to the city and add bike lanes to that stretch of street, along with some other traffic-calming furniture like pedestrian bump-outs at corners and islands in mid-street, so it will be easier for me and my neighbors to get around by bike, and to walk. We already have plenty of bike traffic, from individual riders to families out for a ride to big crowds on pleasure rides like Bike Party Sacramento!
At my old place, the adjacent streets were narrowed from 3-lane one-way de facto highways to 2-lane streets (still one way, sadly, because the city $ to convert them to 2 way was spent on putting cars on K Street instead) and the result was reduced traffic speeds and dramatically increased bicycle traffic. Traffic wasn't more congested (it still got busy during rush hour but then cleared up) but when drivers don't feel safe, they slow down and are more careful. A dedicated bikeway with no vehicular access (like I assume you're talking about) would be even more welcome--perhaps by taking auto traffic off of some streets in the central city and "streetcar suburb" neighborhoods.
Land Park seems quite enthusiastic about the idea of converting the old Sacramento Southern right-of-way into a bicycle and pedestrian path, although personally I think that has more to do with unfounded fears about tourist trains running through their backyards than an enthusiasm for active transportation, but I think if they do get it completed it will see plenty of use--neighborhoods outside the grid are not so well appointed with bike lanes, so there's a greater need there, especially for those who want to safely bike commute downtown.
Bike lanes are a real civic amenity, and our central city is very well equipped with protected and traditional bike lanes, if somewhat spotty in application. It would really help citywide mobility to add more bike lanes (and protected bike paths) in other parts of the city, to facilitate getting around by bike in other neighborhoods! COVID-19 certainly didn't stop people from biking, so I'm not sure what may have changed in your mind to turn you off of the idea.
The Southern Pacific Railyards began environmental remediation in the 1980's - that was 42 years ago.
From about 1996 to 1999, Southern Pacific stopped operations in the Railyards - that was 23-26 years ago.
You would think they would have some type of infrastructure ready and able to meet the needs of Solidigm or a similar company by now. Another missed opportunity. I guess ValleyBoy is right, gov't/healthcare is the best we can hope for in the central city.
Wow, I had to force myself to read that crap, more excuses, awesome, there is a new "urban" Target surrounded by homeless, while more than half of the small businesses across the street closed for good, and the new businesses taking their place.......lets see how long they last, they can always get more tax supported loans or grants to keep them going, is any of this sustainable, and at whose expense, someone is paying for all of this. Funny thing is the "crap" I just read is what I would to tell wealthy coastal Southern Californians on why they should spend their money visiting Sacramento.
Seriously, I hope it is all goes well, its in their hands, I gave up years ago, they can keep on keep on, keep on with their policies. But honestly, does the Grid look better to you than just 2-3 years ago. I force myself to go down there and I purposely frequent small business only to be disappointed; its depressing.
Yes, suburban Folsom Blvd sucks, it took a major nose dive 2-3 years ago. Older suburbia has its challenges and the new and current policies are not helping. I'l be happy to admit my current sentiments were incorrect and in 10 years Downtown looks clean, healthy and prosperous for all...it actually looked better in the 90's despite the "urban" growth, how ironic is that.
Some good points, Shelato. But the net effect is the grid is uglier, delapidated, filthy, zero pride of ownership because you really don't own anything. Who pays for it all...the most hard-working middle and upper middle class, they say the super rich don't pay for it, nor the low income...in fact, I think...lower income folk pay zero tax, right? I have several friends in the lower income bracket and because taxes come out of their income monthly they think they pay tax, but they get all or most of it back once a year when they file. Ingenious plan. They actually think they pay taxes, and are net financial contributors.
But this is also why its tough to turn around older existing neighborhoods. In newer neighborhoods, a much higher percentage of the residents actually own the places they live in, so voters have the right incentives to improve there community and keep it nice.
Drug abuse is a killer in more ways than one, in life, in spirit, in energy. I've had personal experience with family members it takes its toll on everyone involved. Yet, we never hear how we got here as opposed to prior generations, or how our ideologies of the past 25 years have actually contributed to drug use and abuse. Although a lack of affordable housing or education is a cause; its about so much more than that. We aren't asking the right questions, actually, folks are too afraid to voice an unpopular or dissenting opinion or ideology regarding the topic.
Different neighborhoods draw people with different values. The grid is never going to be as well policed as Roseville because voters in both communties have different ideas of what constitutes being well policed.
Sometimes that is good, sometimes that is bad. If you want to make noise at 2 am, it probably easier to that in the grid than Roseville. If you want to make sure its quiet so your baby can get to sleep, that is probably easier in Roseville.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Unequivocally yes. My neighborhood's main street has a bike lane that stops just before the neighborhood on one end and re-starts on the other end, but through our neighborhood it's a "sharrow" where bikes have to share the road with cars, and the car lanes are very wide so autos can generate quite a bit of speed! Adding bike lanes (protected or traditional) would narrow the auto lanes, slowing down traffic, which makes traversing the neighborhood safer for bicycles, and also for pedestrians! So I hope to advocate to the city and add bike lanes to that stretch of street, along with some other traffic-calming furniture like pedestrian bump-outs at corners and islands in mid-street, so it will be easier for me and my neighbors to get around by bike, and to walk. We already have plenty of bike traffic, from individual riders to families out for a ride to big crowds on pleasure rides like Bike Party Sacramento!
At my old place, the adjacent streets were narrowed from 3-lane one-way de facto highways to 2-lane streets (still one way, sadly, because the city $ to convert them to 2 way was spent on putting cars on K Street instead) and the result was reduced traffic speeds and dramatically increased bicycle traffic. Traffic wasn't more congested (it still got busy during rush hour but then cleared up) but when drivers don't feel safe, they slow down and are more careful. A dedicated bikeway with no vehicular access (like I assume you're talking about) would be even more welcome--perhaps by taking auto traffic off of some streets in the central city and "streetcar suburb" neighborhoods.
Land Park seems quite enthusiastic about the idea of converting the old Sacramento Southern right-of-way into a bicycle and pedestrian path, although personally I think that has more to do with unfounded fears about tourist trains running through their backyards than an enthusiasm for active transportation, but I think if they do get it completed it will see plenty of use--neighborhoods outside the grid are not so well appointed with bike lanes, so there's a greater need there, especially for those who want to safely bike commute downtown.
Bike lanes are a real civic amenity, and our central city is very well equipped with protected and traditional bike lanes, if somewhat spotty in application. It would really help citywide mobility to add more bike lanes (and protected bike paths) in other parts of the city, to facilitate getting around by bike in other neighborhoods! COVID-19 certainly didn't stop people from biking, so I'm not sure what may have changed in your mind to turn you off of the idea.
That is not what I am getting at. I said bike path, not bike lane and the issue isn't the bicycle infrastructure as much as the public space element of bike paths and how public spaces are being converted into favelas. Right now public spaces are being occupied by homeless people. I wouldn't want a bike path for the same reason I would be wary of having a park near where I live nor a public bathroom in a park. All of that is inviting the creation of new favelas in your neighborhood.
The Southern Pacific Railyards began environmental remediation in the 1980's - that was 42 years ago.
From about 1996 to 1999, Southern Pacific stopped operations in the Railyards - that was 23-26 years ago.
You would think they would have some type of infrastructure ready and able to meet the needs of Solidigm or a similar company by now. Another missed opportunity. I guess ValleyBoy is right, gov't/healthcare is the best we can hope for in the central city.
Employment tends to cluster where the existing workers are. Intel, HP and Oracle are in Folsom, Roseville and Rocklin, so areas closer to those locations are going to get more of those types of employers. What is the draw of downtown? That would convince employees to job switch to a downtown location that is going to just increase their commute times?
Second there is just the larger problem that local government really doesn't work in California. Problems don't get fixed, and it takes forever to get anything done. For how long have we been waiting for light rail to go to the airport? When if ever will high speed rail get built?
The businesses across the street from the "urban Target" are a BevMo that's been open for years (while some lamented the loss of the Beat, it was poorly run and overpriced, and there are plenty of new Midtown indie music shops filling the need), Goldfield, a busy music venue, a Burgers & Brew, and a site that's only vacant because there are proposals to convert the entire half-block into another midrise apartment building (like the one recently completed at 18th & K or the other at 19th & J); there are a variety of local businesses up & down the block behind it, including a cannabis dispensary, which while not popular with everyone, Sacramento's willingness to dive into the cannabis industry has certainly been an economic windfall for the city, and popular with regional residents whose local governments are less comfortable with that industry.
Does the Grid look better to me than the summer/fall of 2020? Yes, definitely! The resilience through a crisis that I mentioned was in its own way inspiring (restaurants turning into ersatz bodegas and feeding their staff with their stock of in-house kitchen supplies, improvised drive-through restaurants and contactless delivery, neighborhood organizations planning regular rushes of favorite restaurants), but there was a lot more window plywood & a lot more uncertainty in 2020. This was followed by a period of experimentation in 2021 where streets were blocked off and filled with tents for outdoor dining, which soon filled up with customers!2022 has been a year of rebirth, with festivals and crowds and events and celebrations and parades once again a regular feature of Midtown and Downtown life. The Midtown farmer's market, not a big annual festival but just a routine, every-Saturday gathering, has grown from filling just 1 block of Midtown (20th Street from J to K) to 5 city blocks, from J to Capitol on 20th and 19th to 21st on K, with produce, vendors, crafters, food trucks, live entertainment and celebration, free for anyone who wants to walk by. And the special events are enormous--well over 10,000 people at big festivals like Chalk It Up! and the R Street Night Market (both free of charge and filled with Sacramentans of all ages and backgrounds.) They may seem unsettling or scary to some, but for thousands of people from all over the city and region, it's a homecoming.
The ongoing crisis of the unhoused is saddening but our local councilmember is taking the lead in efforts to address the issue through creation of more affordable housing, and challenging the more conservative and stodgy members of the Council to step up their game regarding long-term solutions. It's going to take some activism and a lot of work, but I think we can get close to a central city population of 50,000, a number we haven't seen since the mid 1950s, by the 2030 census. I imagine that some of the younger and more creative workers at industries like Solidigm will prefer that sort of environment to a nice, quiet 1970s ranch house in Fair Oaks.
But this is also why its tough to turn around older existing neighborhoods. In newer neighborhoods, a much higher percentage of the residents actually own the places they live in, so voters have the right incentives to improve there community and keep it nice.
In the central city, we've got plenty of experience turning around older existing neighborhoods, but Sacramento has plenty of older neighborhoods with high ownership percentages, like Land Park, Curtis Park and East Sacramento. The challenge there is getting them to accept new growth when traditionally they have depended on their economic status to resist change, unlike the dynamic neighborhoods of the grid and Oak Park.
Quote:
Different neighborhoods draw people with different values. The grid is never going to be as well policed as Roseville because voters in both communties have different ideas of what constitutes being well policed.
Based on my experiences growing up adjacent to Roseville, I'll pass on what the average Rosevillian considers "well-policed," thankyouverymuch.
Quote:
Sometimes that is good, sometimes that is bad. If you want to make noise at 2 am, it probably easier to that in the grid than Roseville. If you want to make sure its quiet so your baby can get to sleep, that is probably easier in Roseville.
Depends on what part of the grid; some parts are very lively, others are quite quiet. One thing that happened during the last 2 years is some long-time central city residents were reminded just how nice it could be to be in a quiet neighborhood, and as neighborhood numbers increase, the power of those neighborhoods to organize and advocate also grows, even in a majority-renter neighborhood. Meanwhile, I have a feeling that downtown Roseville is just going to become more urban over the next few decades, which will mean a livelier Vernon Street than some may be used to.
Quote:
That is not what I am getting at. I said bike path, not bike lane and the issue isn't the bicycle infrastructure as much as the public space element of bike paths and how public spaces are being converted into favelas. Right now public spaces are being occupied by homeless people. I wouldn't want a bike path for the same reason I would be wary of having a park near where I live nor a public bathroom in a park. All of that is inviting the creation of new favelas in your neighborhood.
The public infrastructure that seems most attractive for unauthorized camp sites in the central city are highways, not bike paths, and if you recommended getting rid of the highways I'm 110% in support of that idea! In fact, they'd be great places to build new affordable housing on currently state owned property. As with so many other urban features, many people no doubt can't help but fear public infrastructure because they are terrified that a poor person might take advantage of them, but those of us who live in cities know that those resources are for everyone, regardless of economic or social status--and if we want to address the issue of the unhoused utilizing them to a greater extent, the most logical alternative is to provide more dignified places for them to reside and take comfort.
Quote:
Employment tends to cluster where the existing workers are. Intel, HP and Oracle are in Folsom, Roseville and Rocklin, so areas closer to those locations are going to get more of those types of employers. What is the draw of downtown? That would convince employees to job switch to a downtown location that is going to just increase their commute times?
You'll have to ask all the tech workers who moved to San Francisco and took 2 hour commutes down the Peninsula to work in Silicon Valley, until Silicon Valley saw the writing on the wall and just started locating their offices where the workers were in San Francisco. Although, as implied with my note about Roseville above, our regional suburbs are likely to grow into edge cities of their own.
Quote:
Second there is just the larger problem that local government really doesn't work in California. Problems don't get fixed, and it takes forever to get anything done. For how long have we been waiting for light rail to go to the airport? When if ever will high speed rail get built?
Neither of those are local government issues; light rail is dependent on regional funding from a county electorate that doesn't want to fund transit, high speed rail is a state/federal project that faced enormous resistance and obstacles from more conservative elements of the state. Fortunately, the power of those whose sole strategy is obstruction and resistance based on fear of "big government" is waning in California.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
