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.
Very rarely do you hear people use Arcade when referencing this area, it's almost exclusively Arden or Sacramento. Most of the people that live in Arden think they live in Sacramento, even though most of them technically don't. There's no real boundary between Arden and Sacramento, just like there's no real boundary between Sacramento and South Sacramento, or Florin, or Rosemont, or any of a number of other places that consider themselves to be part of Sacramento but lie just outside of the city limits. I think Arden-Arcade (which is just an awful name) and all of these other communities that already use Sacramento as their address and have for decades, should all be annexed into the City of Sacramento as well.
In fact, I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with this and especially people who live in Carmichael, but why doesn't the city attempt to extend the borders out to the max and end all of the unincorporated stuff once and for all? What are the main arguments/reasons for not extending the city limits out to the current extent of the sphere of influence and preventing new cities from popping up and further balkanizing the county or preventing existing smaller cities to expand into Sacramento's territory?
Would it be too far beyond the stretch of the imagination for the city limits to look something like:
North: Sacramento County line, extending east until the Citrus Heights city limit; would include Rio Linda, Elverta, North Highlands, Antelope, and Foothill Farms plus the remainder of North Natomas out past the airport and everything in between.
West: Sacramento River still
South: Elk Grove City limits; would go down to cover Freeport and areas south down to Stone Lake Wildlife Preserve West of I5, would cover communities of Parkway/South Sacramento, Florin, and Vineyard
East: Grant Line Road/Sunrise Blvd out to Rancho Cordova city limits south of the river, Sunrise Road north of the =American River up to Citrus Heights City limits; would cover Rosemont, La Riviera, Arden-Arcade, and Carmichael out to Fair Oaks.
I could also see the East boundary being Bradshaw Road or Excelsior Road below the river and perhaps Fair Oaks Blvd/Manzanita Ave North of the river. Nearly all of these places already use Sacramento as their address with a few exceptions. Does this sound ridiculous or does this make any sense? Yes the city would take on a lot of new residents in existing neighborhoods, but the city would also have complete control over what happens in these areas would could be beneficial to planning out the future of our city. This also covers a whole lot of undeveloped land that the city could regulate and develop as they see fit, and not wait until developers come in and build up their dream communities on unincorporated county land for cheap and leave the rest of the county to deal with what's left.
There was an attempt to consolidate the city and county under Serna, it failed. Residents of Arden-Arcade voted to oppose annexation. We don't annex the "Finger" (the part of Sac County along Stockton Blvd we surround on 3 sides) because it would cost the city more than the new revenue would generate. Freeport turned down an annexation offer--I think they're still upset at us for taking their railroad back in the 1860s.
It's not as simple as just deciding we're going to take over neighboring land. It all comes with costs and tradeoffs, and the cost of annexing these areas is currently pretty high, without a lot of practical benefit. Annexation would require reallocating resources to those areas, which would take away from resources being used in the current city limits--farther stretching our already minimal police force, parks budget, code enforcement staff, etcetera.
There was an attempt to consolidate the city and county under Serna, it failed. Residents of Arden-Arcade voted to oppose annexation. We don't annex the "Finger" (the part of Sac County along Stockton Blvd we surround on 3 sides) because it would cost the city more than the new revenue would generate. Freeport turned down an annexation offer--I think they're still upset at us for taking their railroad back in the 1860s.
It's not as simple as just deciding we're going to take over neighboring land. It all comes with costs and tradeoffs, and the cost of annexing these areas is currently pretty high, without a lot of practical benefit. Annexation would require reallocating resources to those areas, which would take away from resources being used in the current city limits--farther stretching our already minimal police force, parks budget, code enforcement staff, etcetera.
Theoretically, that also brings in more revenue too, but it never seems to work out. It's a messy business. Always strange to hear about the LAFCO studies that say that it doesn't make financial sense to annex or incorporate or whatever. The "finger", I get that. But Arden-Arcade? The finger seems like it would make sense by simple logistics, in that you could drive 3 miles east to west and have police, then sheriffs, then police responding to your crime; city, county, then city servicing the water mains, etc. Maybe that's not quite as confusing as I imagine it? Or maybe there's enough inertia that the initial hurdles are too high?
city, county, then city servicing the water mains, etc.
I think they actually share the same water supply and sewer/stormdrain utilities district.
To make matters more complicated on this issue, there are various local service and assessment districts (water, sewer, park, etc) which generally do not follow defined city boundaries. For example, the Sunrise Parks and Recreation District includes the City of Citrus Heights, but also the unincorporated areas of Antelope and Foothill Farms to the west of Citrus Heights.
I suppose one could argue a natural harmonious "fit" to annex Antelope and Foothill Farms to become parts of Citrus Heights and thus have Citrus Heights acquire an already-made city Parks and Rec Department, but there is no enthusiasm to annex mostly residential areas without enough commercial and industrial revenue goodies. For example, Citrus Heights drew its boundaries around Sunrise Mall and ignored neighboring residential areas, and Rancho Cordova drew its boundaries around auto malls and industrial areas and ignored neighboring residential areas like Gold River, even though Gold River would be a very commonsense fit into the City of Rancho Cordova.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryuns
Maybe that's not quite as confusing as I imagine it? Or maybe there's enough inertia that the initial hurdles are too high?
No, and yes. It is that confusing, and there is that much inertia.
For example, there was an incorporation drive for Arden Arcade, which failed in the face of a slogan "Stay Sacramento!", even though Arden Arcade never has been in the City of Sacramento proper.
As a disclaimer, I worked on the Arden Arcade incorporation campaign and was a booster.
Frankly, it *would* make good financial sense for the City of Sacramento to annex Arden Arcade, with its two malls and auto row revenue. Even groups like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, normally hostile to forming any new governments, gave their blessing to a proposed City of Arden Arcade for that reason.
Last edited by NickB1967; 11-14-2012 at 01:55 PM..
A lot of the problem is that very little of this suburban outgrowth was planned or coordinated in any way--it was done by private developers who didn't really worry about things like infill or urban growth boundaries or traffic patterns, other than what they had to do to get their projects approved. Suburban tract building was Sacramento's growth industry during the latter half of the 20th century. The job centers were mostly on nearby military bases, so there wasn't a lot of private industry in those parts of the county--and once the military bases closed, suddenly there's little or no economic support for the suburb, just a lot of residential and a little low-density commercial, which makes a tax base difficult to justify. We end up with a patchwork of neighborhoods that don't really fit very well with their neighbors and don't have much reason for existence.
Sacramento has annexed quite a bit over the years--most recently a few chunks on the north end, but note that North Natomas is a recent annexation/construction--prompted largely by that selfsame real estate industry, who promised to build a transit-oriented "urban village" neighborhood between downtown and the airport, on top of farmland, in return for building a spanking-new arena. Didn't quite turn out that way, but it's ours now. So maybe it's not so much "inertia" as a hesitance to get scammed yet again.
A lot of the problem is that very little of this suburban outgrowth was planned or coordinated in any way--it was done by private developers who didn't really worry about things like infill or urban growth boundaries or traffic patterns, other than what they had to do to get their projects approved. Suburban tract building was Sacramento's growth industry during the latter half of the 20th century. The job centers were mostly on nearby military bases, so there wasn't a lot of private industry in those parts of the county--and once the military bases closed, suddenly there's little or no economic support for the suburb, just a lot of residential and a little low-density commercial, which makes a tax base difficult to justify. We end up with a patchwork of neighborhoods that don't really fit very well with their neighbors and don't have much reason for existence.
That still doesn't explain *why* Sacramento County was so unique among California counties in having such a large proportion of unincorporated, yet urbanized or suburbanized, area. Suburban tract building was the norm among *nearly all* California counties, as the infrastructure necessary to win the Pacific Theatre of WW2, once put into place, set the framework for massive postwar California and West Coast growth.
Yet Sacramento County is unique in that the growth was largely unincorporated "Un-City", whereas in just about every other California county it was either (1) quickly annexed by an existing city or (2) was part of (or led to) the incorporation of a brand new city.
A distinct unwillingness of the people running Sacramento to accept the growth that was clearly on the way in the 1950's, led to Sacramento being hemmed in on all sides, save North Natomas, by other communities. Had Sacramento City proper thrown out its boundaries and eagerly annexed all the growth that occurred, like other cities did in their respective counties, Sacramento City proper would have the clout it needs for its bigger city ambitions.
Whoever was running Sacramento proper in the 1950's and 1960's refused to throw the city boundaries out enough and annex the growth that the county government and surrounding counties like Placer were approving anyway. Very foolish of them. Rather than becoming the "Colossus of the Region" that could have had the power and clout to have goodies like stadiums with ease, Sacramento proper can now only hope for "first among equals" in this region at best.
I wouldn't be surprised if Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova, which have the LAFCO in their favor, could even overtake Sac proper in population one day.
Last edited by NickB1967; 11-14-2012 at 02:04 PM..
One thing to keep in mind is that the same folks calling the shots in Sacramento city government were generally the same real estate developers building the suburbs--and annexing their own real estate developments would have meant paying higher city taxes and fees. For the most part, the descendants of those real estate developers still live in the unincorporated county, and tend to loom large in the background when efforts to incorporate their housing tracts occur. So, in a lot of cases, a hesitance to incorporate new tracts may have come from a desire to not put higher tax burdens on the same people who were running Sacramento's city government (as a part-time job that paid considerably less well than their real estate interests.)
Although if you're claiming that Sacramento did not expand during the 1950s and 60s, you're quite clearly incorrect--we annexed a lot of territory, including the City of North Sacramento (which was incorporated in the 1920s) so it's not as though we didn't annex anything at all.
One thing to keep in mind is that the same folks calling the shots in Sacramento city government were generally the same real estate developers building the suburbs--and annexing their own real estate developments would have meant paying higher city taxes and fees. For the most part, the descendants of those real estate developers still live in the unincorporated county, and tend to loom large in the background when efforts to incorporate their housing tracts occur. So, in a lot of cases, a hesitance to incorporate new tracts may have come from a desire to not put higher tax burdens on the same people who were running Sacramento's city government (as a part-time job that paid considerably less well than their real estate interests.).
But how does that explain every other county? Whether San Mateo or Orange counties, made up of lots of little cities, or LA, Fresno or Santa Clara counties, dominated by one big one, the urban areas and growth are just about entirely incorporated. Surely developers were calling the shots in those places, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Although if you're claiming that Sacramento did not expand during the 1950s and 60s, you're quite clearly incorrect--we annexed a lot of territory, including the City of North Sacramento (which was incorporated in the 1920s) so it's not as though we didn't annex anything at all.
Perhaps I should have highlighted the words "not enough".
Last edited by NickB1967; 11-14-2012 at 02:24 PM..
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.
