The future of growth along 50 east and 80 north (Los Angeles, Sacramento: middle-class, section 8)

[AwayAndBackToSac]

Well, hello all.

I was bred, born and grew up in this fair city, but then moved away for higher 'lerning and training on the East Coast and in the South...

...and all, I will say is it's good to be back. You truly do not know what you have until you lose it.

I have read this marvelous forum for a little bit (THANKS ALL). I was hoping to pick a few brains, especially of those who have resided in or near Sac for a while:

What do you think is the future of development along 50 east, and 80 north? Folsom/EDH/Cameron Air park grew first, and then fast with the tech industry that came in. Tech has since left, and this worries me for the longterm health of the region. Growth in Roseville/Rocklin/Lincoln came later and have been explosive (in fact, I am truly amazed as I clearly remember NOTHING being along either side of highway 65...). This later area has not suffered the loss of a large tax base as Folsom/EDH/Cameron air park has, but Roseville/Rocklin/Lincoln seems to have not had the same macro-structure community planning that Folsom/EDH/Cameron air park had. I'm wondering what all believe will be the future for the two regions, say in 10, 20, and 30 years.

Thanks in advance.

-Strange, a mayor, Sac has a MAYOR?

[CityGirl72]

I Honestly see Roseville turning into the Arden area - because of the Galleria and shopping - if Arden Faire closed and Downtown Plaza ever went under then more riff raff comes to Roseville for shopping

If they ever get that Elk Grove Mall up - this might not happen as the South Sac shoppers will probably go southward - which means even worse are for Elk Grove

(these are all just my guesses)

Folsom/EDH/Caermon Park will stay the same

[zen_klown]

In this region one of the limiting factors on growth is the availibility of water. In general if you are above the water line in Folsom, its more difficult and often more expensive to get water to a development than if the development is below the water line at Folsom. While this region will see some development, I doubt the area will see any developments on the scale of Folsom, Natomas, Lincoln or Elk Grove up there.

In general on lands where water is more expensive and less available than in surrounding communities, developers respond by building bigger homes on bigger lots to try to recover the higher water costs. I think this is a big reason that Caltrans is forecasting that incomes in El Dorado County are going to end up higher than in the surrounding counties.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio-economic.html
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio-economic_files/2008/El_Dorado.pdf
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio-economic_files/2008/Placer.pdf
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio-economic_files/2008/Sacramento.pdf

In the Sacramento region, growth is limited by something called the Sacramento regional blueprint. The blueprint was modeled on Natomas. Basically it requiring counties to add higher density mixed income developments or lose state transportation funds. Under the plan, counties have to zone for additional growth, but don't actually have to grow to comply with the plan. The higher water costs in El Dorado County are going to make developments in El Dorado County inherently more expensive than other areas and as a result probably less likely to actually get built under any county plan.

My experience has been the regions tend to be pro or anti growth based upon whether people think the new growth is good for local property owners. There was a time when Marin County and Santa Barbara were solidly Republican but when the residents realised constricting growth raised property values more than new growth, the locals became passionate situational advocates of those enviromental policies that had the effect of increasing property values. Now the wealthiest county in the state is among the least Republican. My hunch is that as this area is exposed to Natomas style growth and the social problems it is bringing to that area will become some of the strongest advocates of limiting growth because of "restricted" water supplies. In that situation turning down state transportation funds may seem like civic virtue.

http://www.sacregionblueprint.org/sacregionblueprint/home.cfm

Part of the reason the areas east of 50 in Sacramento County have been slow to grow up until now is that a lot of that land is owned by either Aerojet or was part of the McClellan AFB. Both of those places have water containimation issues on them including some EPA superfund sites. This is why growth has leapfrogged to places like Anatolia which were able to be certified as suitable for development faster.

I think Western Placer County is going to see a lot of the growth. The highway 65 corridor is going to continue to grow really fast. I also think Sutter or Yuba counties could be the site of large Natomas style and Natomas scope development. It could occur either off 99, or 70. Those regions are poor enough where the promise of new construction jobs could be reason enough to allow large scale development.

I also think any region in the area that builds a lot new growth under the Sac regional blueprint is probably going to end up a lot poorer. Right now 51% of the students at Natomas high are recieving free or reduced lunch prices. Its the combination of requiring high density living and the apartments and condos that are built to achieve those density levels plus the mixed income oridances, plus other anti poverty programs like section 8 that work together to create fairly high levels of poverty in a relatively new neighborhood like Natomas. If the region adopts plans similiar to the Natomas plan, it will probably have outcomes similiar to Natomas. In this region, I think the wealthier parts are going to become solidly leftish the way the wealthier are in the bay area and along the coasts.

2007 API Growth School Report

Perhaps when it does, it might have start seeing income growth numbers like Marin.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices...2008/Marin.pdf

[ubu]

I like Roseville a lot, right now I wished I have moved there instead of Natomas. With new development and the money from new development that area has really turned around. Even the formerly iffy places like the older parts of Roseville near the train tracks has been signficantly upgraded. That neighborhood used to have a lot biker bars and tattoo shops and now it has a lot of little boutiques selling antiques. Now its only in Roseville that you can find stores that are unique to the region like Tiffany's, Restoration Hardware, and Crate and Barrel. Between the Galleria and the Fountains and the shopping area with REI, Roseville has probably the best shopping in the region. Its got Fry's and Nordstrom. In the past, people in Roseville needed to go to Sacramento to go shopping, now people from through out the region are heading out to Roseville to do there shopping.

Functionally if you were to look at what constitutes a downtown or principal center of a community, in many respects Roseville is in the process of subsuming that roll from Sacramento. Its got the automall and the principal shopping district. It probably now has or will soon have the largest concentration of private sector jobs.

Sacramento County isn't holding up so well. Older suburban areas like Citrus Heights and Arden Arcade are starting to show there age and the newer areas like Elk Grove and Natomas never lived up to their potential.

You can find nice older communities in Sacramento like East Sac and midtown and older suburbs like Arden Park and Fair Oaks that have held up pretty well. But outside of Folsom, Sacramento County hasn't done so well at creating nicer neighborhoods that have been built out in the past 10 years. Given how much growth this region has had during that time, that probably isn't a good thing.

In the graduate Mr. Maguire has just one word of advice to the graduate, "Plastics". In this region, if I had one word to describe the future, I would say Placer County, well I guess that is two words, but you know what I mean.

[AwayAndBackToSac]

Thank you all for the replies. I had not thought of the possible negative effect that the Galleria could provide to Roseville. Very interesting. Thanks CityGirl72. And, I was not aware of the "water" issues. Thanks Zen-Klown.

I also am very concerned about future development not unlike the "Natomas" plan. Thanks Ubu.

Hmmm. I guess, then that the 50 corridor is relatively closed, and yet Folsom is talking about developing south of 50. I just don't understand, because most of the Tech-industry left. Anyone know why they left? I guess as long as wealthy people are willing to commute into Sac, or over the Roseville, it'll work out.

As to Roseville and Rocklin, I drove through looking at properties, and frankly the number of cramped zero-lots, right near apartments and mid/low-level retail reminded me of North Natomas. This worries me for the future, specifically for north Roseville.

I admit, I'm just nervous. I need to buy a home soon, and I just don't want to end up regretting my decision. Regardless, thanks all. I have gleaned a great amount of helpful knowledge from this forum.

[zen_klown]

One of the drivers for getting tech out to the Sacramento region in the first place was the Loma Prieta Earthquake. After that earthquake, a lot of tech companies in the bay area wanted to find a safe place to store data in an area that was less prone to earthquakes. That got several companies to set up offices in the region. Once they had offices in the region, it was easier to expand staff and add positions to those existing offices. Intially that helped the tech industry in the region to grow.

But this area never got big enough to start providing a lot of the support industries that the tech firms would need. If you needed intellectual property lawyers, you still needed to go to the bay area. If you were doing an ipo and needed securities lawyers with that type of experience, again you needed to go to the bay area. While their are accountants and cpas in Sacramento, the private sector here isn't very large considering the size of the region and the accounting offices here are somewhat limited in the services they provide. In this area the partners of the big accounting firms didn't have much experience handling ipos or much experience handling the other more complicated accounting treatments, again that is stuff companies would need to look to the bay area for. The big accounting firms here, also don't offer the same levels of management consulting services like you get in the bay area. This region never really developed or attracted any type of venture capital industry.

The tech region in this area never got big enough to support a lot of the high level services that would allow the region act as a high cost, high value added location. The tech industry that was here was easy to move and that industry was moved elsewhere as the lower cost places started recruiting for this type of work. So as this region got more expensive a lot of the tech work that could have been done here, moved to lower cost locations like Boise, Provo, Phx or just abroad to places like India.

This region suffers from a brain drain. A lot of the smart and ambitious leave this area and don't return. If you are young and single, this region doesn't offer the attractions like a beach or a strong urban experience like SF, LA or SD, so companies located here have trouble recruiting the bright and unmarried from out of the region who would prefer to live someplace more glamorous. But it also isn't doing such a good job right now of attracting the well educated young couples hoping to start a family either. Its costs more to buy into a home in a good neighborhood with good schools in Sacramento than in other places like Boise, Provo, Atlanta or Phx. A mixed income ordinance doesn't lower the cost of building a home in the Sacramento region, it just shifts the costs around and makes housing more expensive for those people who aren't protected by the mixed income ordinance. The mixed income ordinance is essentially a private tax on smart people which those smart people can avoid by moving elsewhere.

Falling housing price levels and opening more universities in the region at some point will mitigate a lot of these problems. But until it does, this area will continue to suffer from the brain drain as those who can flea to better opportunties do so.

[justducky2]

Originally Posted by zen_klown

In this region one of the limiting factors on growth is the availibility of water. In general if you are above the water line in Folsom, its more difficult and often more expensive to get water to a development than if the development is below the water line at Folsom. While this region will see some development, I doubt the area will see any developments on the scale of Folsom, Natomas, Lincoln or Elk Grove up there.

In general on lands where water is more expensive and less available than in surrounding communities, developers respond by building bigger homes on bigger lots to try to recover the higher water costs. I think this is a big reason that Caltrans is forecasting that incomes in El Dorado County are going to end up higher than in the surrounding counties.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio-economic.html
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio-economic_files/2008/El_Dorado.pdf
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio-economic_files/2008/Placer.pdf
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio-economic_files/2008/Sacramento.pdf

In the Sacramento region, growth is limited by something called the Sacramento regional blueprint. The blueprint was modeled on Natomas. Basically it requiring counties to add higher density mixed income developments or lose state transportation funds. Under the plan, counties have to zone for additional growth, but don't actually have to grow to comply with the plan. The higher water costs in El Dorado County are going to make developments in El Dorado County inherently more expensive than other areas and as a result probably less likely to actually get built under any county plan.

My experience has been the regions tend to be pro or anti growth based upon whether people think the new growth is good for local property owners. There was a time when Marin County and Santa Barbara were solidly Republican but when the residents realised constricting growth raised property values more than new growth, the locals became passionate situational advocates of those enviromental policies that had the effect of increasing property values. Now the wealthiest county in the state is among the least Republican. My hunch is that as this area is exposed to Natomas style growth and the social problems it is bringing to that area will become some of the strongest advocates of limiting growth because of "restricted" water supplies. In that situation turning down state transportation funds may seem like civic virtue.

http://www.sacregionblueprint.org/sacregionblueprint/home.cfm

Part of the reason the areas east of 50 in Sacramento County have been slow to grow up until now is that a lot of that land is owned by either Aerojet or was part of the McClellan AFB. Both of those places have water containimation issues on them including some EPA superfund sites. This is why growth has leapfrogged to places like Anatolia which were able to be certified as suitable for development faster.

I think Western Placer County is going to see a lot of the growth. The highway 65 corridor is going to continue to grow really fast. I also think Sutter or Yuba counties could be the site of large Natomas style and Natomas scope development. It could occur either off 99, or 70. Those regions are poor enough where the promise of new construction jobs could be reason enough to allow large scale development.

I also think any region in the area that builds a lot new growth under the Sac regional blueprint is probably going to end up a lot poorer. Right now 51% of the students at Natomas high are recieving free or reduced lunch prices. Its the combination of requiring high density living and the apartments and condos that are built to achieve those density levels plus the mixed income oridances, plus other anti poverty programs like section 8 that work together to create fairly high levels of poverty in a relatively new neighborhood like Natomas. If the region adopts plans similiar to the Natomas plan, it will probably have outcomes similiar to Natomas. In this region, I think the wealthier parts are going to become solidly leftish the way the wealthier are in the bay area and along the coasts.

2007 API Growth School Report

Perhaps when it does, it might have start seeing income growth numbers like Marin.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices...2008/Marin.pdf

zen_klown, methinks you are a Planner

[zen_klown]

I am not a planner. I am fearful of the Sacramento Blueprint.

Under the Sacramento Blueprint, the hope is that growth is going to be channeled into existing regions. The goal is that by increasing the density of the region, more people will start using mass transit and will reduce sprawl.

The problem comes from increasing density. The best way for developers to increase density is to build more multi family units, ie apartment buildings. Remember 87% of all single family homes are owner occupied. 87% of all building with more than 5 units are occupied by renters.

Foreclosing the Crisis

This is a mash up of a google maps and the 2000 census data. The zipcode with the highest population density in Sacramento is foothill farms. Drive down Hillsdale and Walegra and what do you see, lot of mc cuen townhomes and lots of apartment complexs. Its all of those multi family units that have driven the population density so high in foothill farms.

City Ranks - Population Density Mashup
Here is a zip code map.

Click for a Zip Code Boundary Map.

Now look at the density of Citrus Heights.

City Ranks - Population Density Mashup heights;searchState=CA;limit=500;scale=1;units=mi; minX=-130;minY=20;maxX=-60;maxY=48.51660434886747

You will notice that parts of Citrus Heights (95621) 6,224.38 has a higher population density than midtown (95816) 5,846.64. For single family homes, the lots in midtown are smaller than in Citrus Heights. But because there are a lot more condos, and big apartment complexes in Citrus Heights that area has a higher density.

In selling the appeal of high density living, the people advocating it, always point to Portland and locally to midtown. But the San Fernando Valley has a higher population density than Portland in the same way that Citrus Heights has a higher population density than Midtown.

When I read about the recent history of the San Fernando Valley here, I think of the future of the Sacramento region under the Sacramento Regional Blueprint. I think there are going to be a lot of existing neighborhoods that are going to be destroyed by it.

Los Angeles News - Middle-Class Flight From San Fernando Valley - page 1

In the San Fernando Valley, they increased the density of the region by adding high density infill. That basically means they built a lot of apartments. That changed the composition of the neighborhood. The local schools got worse and the middle class fled. My hunch is that will happen here as well.

Moreover, infill housing is much more expensive. It much more difficult to get locals to approve new development in their neighborhood. Enviromentally sprawl might have its problems, but socially its a good thing. If you are developing lot of cheap land on the edge of your community, it means that its easy and cheap to build single family homes. If you are limiting how much greenfield development that will occur, you are going to build a lot less single family homes and the ones that are built are going to be much more expensive. Instead you are going to provide more housing by building a lot more high density apartment complexes.

Look at the record of smart growth plans in the Sacramento region. First there was Laguna West, which was hailed as a triumph of smart growth planning. The planner of the community won multiple awards and it was the basis of Phil Angilides claim of being the enviromentalist developer. The goal was to build another East Sac. Drive through it. Does it seem to be another East Sac to you?

The next triumph locally of smart growth planning was supposed to be Natomas. It too was supposed to be another East Sac. Here is the N. Natomas Plan.

http://www.sacsites.com/online_libra...tomas_full.pdf

The community was built fairly closely to the plan. But it was never another East Sac. Instead it was pretty close to what Natomas is today -another smart growth planning disaster.

I would be less fearful of the Sacramento Blueprint (which was based upon the Natomas Plan) if I thought this area was doing a good job with smart growth.

I think the major consequence of the Sacramento Regional Blueprint will be a lot more areas looking and feeling like Citrus Heights and Foothill Farms or like the San Fernando Valley. I think a big part of the reason Natomas is having so many problems today is that they built too many apartment complexes and condos, that plus the mixed income ordinance laid the foundation for disaster.

[dogmom]

Originally Posted by AwayAndBackToSac

Thank you all for the replies. I had not thought of the possible negative effect that the Galleria could provide to Roseville. Very interesting. Thanks CityGirl72. And, I was not aware of the "water" issues. Thanks Zen-Klown.

I also am very concerned about future development not unlike the "Natomas" plan. Thanks Ubu.

Hmmm. I guess, then that the 50 corridor is relatively closed, and yet Folsom is talking about developing south of 50. I just don't understand, because most of the Tech-industry left. Anyone know why they left? I guess as long as wealthy people are willing to commute into Sac, or over the Roseville, it'll work out.

As to Roseville and Rocklin, I drove through looking at properties, and frankly the number of cramped zero-lots, right near apartments and mid/low-level retail reminded me of North Natomas. This worries me for the future, specifically for north Roseville.

I admit, I'm just nervous. I need to buy a home soon, and I just don't want to end up regretting my decision. Regardless, thanks all. I have gleaned a great amount of helpful knowledge from this forum.

I honestly don't think you can go wrong in Placer County...we lived in Newcastle previously and are closing on a home in Lincoln this week...I love how convenient everything is, yet not so 'big city'. Closer to the foothills for hikes and walks and biking if you do that, closer freeway access to the 80 to get just about anywhere..some of the areas in PC are higher density, others are not, there is a lot of diversity in property there..Just my opinion..

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by zen_klown

I am not a planner. I am fearful of the Sacramento Blueprint.

Under the Sacramento Blueprint, the hope is that growth is going to be channeled into existing regions. The goal is that by increasing the density of the region, more people will start using mass transit and will reduce sprawl.

The problem comes from increasing density. The best way for developers to increase density is to build more multi family units, ie apartment buildings. Remember 87% of all single family homes are owner occupied. 87% of all building with more than 5 units are occupied by renters.

Foreclosing the Crisis

This is a mash up of a google maps and the 2000 census data. The zipcode with the highest population density in Sacramento is foothill farms. Drive down Hillsdale and Walegra and what do you see, lot of mc cuen townhomes and lots of apartment complexs. Its all of those multi family units that have driven the population density so high in foothill farms.

City Ranks - Population Density Mashup
Here is a zip code map.

Click for a Zip Code Boundary Map.

Now look at the density of Citrus Heights.

City Ranks - Population Density Mashup heights;searchState=CA;limit=500;scale=1;units=mi; minX=-130;minY=20;maxX=-60;maxY=48.51660434886747

You will notice that parts of Citrus Heights (95621) 6,224.38 has a higher population density than midtown (95816) 5,846.64. For single family homes, the lots in midtown are smaller than in Citrus Heights. But because there are a lot more condos, and big apartment complexes in Citrus Heights that area has a higher density.

In selling the appeal of high density living, the people advocating it, always point to Portland and locally to midtown. But the San Fernando Valley has a higher population density than Portland in the same way that Citrus Heights has a higher population density than Midtown.

When I read about the recent history of the San Fernando Valley here, I think of the future of the Sacramento region under the Sacramento Regional Blueprint. I think there are going to be a lot of existing neighborhoods that are going to be destroyed by it.

Los Angeles News - Middle-Class Flight From San Fernando Valley - page 1

In the San Fernando Valley, they increased the density of the region by adding high density infill. That basically means they built a lot of apartments. That changed the composition of the neighborhood. The local schools got worse and the middle class fled. My hunch is that will happen here as well.

Moreover, infill housing is much more expensive. It much more difficult to get locals to approve new development in their neighborhood. Enviromentally sprawl might have its problems, but socially its a good thing. If you are developing lot of cheap land on the edge of your community, it means that its easy and cheap to build single family homes. If you are limiting how much greenfield development that will occur, you are going to build a lot less single family homes and the ones that are built are going to be much more expensive. Instead you are going to provide more housing by building a lot more high density apartment complexes.

Look at the record of smart growth plans in the Sacramento region. First there was Laguna West, which was hailed as a triumph of smart growth planning. The planner of the community won multiple awards and it was the basis of Phil Angilides claim of being the enviromentalist developer. The goal was to build another East Sac. Drive through it. Does it seem to be another East Sac to you?

The next triumph locally of smart growth planning was supposed to be Natomas. It too was supposed to be another East Sac. Here is the N. Natomas Plan.

http://www.sacsites.com/online_libra...tomas_full.pdf

The community was built fairly closely to the plan. But it was never another East Sac. Instead it was pretty close to what Natomas is today -another smart growth planning disaster.

I would be less fearful of the Sacramento Blueprint (which was based upon the Natomas Plan) if I thought this area was doing a good job with smart growth.

I think the major consequence of the Sacramento Regional Blueprint will be a lot more areas looking and feeling like Citrus Heights and Foothill Farms or like the San Fernando Valley. I think a big part of the reason Natomas is having so many problems today is that they built too many apartment complexes and condos, that plus the mixed income ordinance laid the foundation for disaster.

zen_klown,

You always have great information and insight to share. Thanks for taking the time to post it all.