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 city of Sacramento annexed quite a lot, NickB1969 just pretends it didn't. Sacramento grew rather enormously after World War II, just not enough to suit some people. No conspiracy is necessary--you can still see the same group's descendants in power today, expressed in groups like "Valley Vision" who are still working to prevent expansion of local governments, because they would rather see government weak enough to be leveraged however the private sector wants. Which is something I assume conservatives like NickB would like, but somehow he uses the efforts to resist annexation as an excuse to bash Sacramento as not progressive because we don't have enough sprawl for his taste.
It's not an article, it's a Master's thesis that was never published. It's in the basement at the Sac State library.
There are plenty of other factors that shift the story of San Jose's expansion--postwar military expansion was an even bigger factor in southern California, leading to the creation of Silicon Valley, the Bay Area already having a larger population base that was expanding rapidly southward, it was among the last undeveloped land in the Bay Area during a period of prodigious wealth, and of course weather. Same with Los Angeles: they grew so big because they already had a huge population advantage and the distorting economics that oil wealth brings.
The city of Sacramento annexed quite a lot, NickB1967 just pretends it didn't. Sacramento grew rather enormously after World War II, just not enough to suit some people. No conspiracy is necessary--you can still see the same group's descendants in power today, expressed in groups like "Valley Vision" who are still working to prevent expansion of local governments, because they would rather see government weak enough to be leveraged however the private sector wants. Which is something I assume conservatives like NickB would like, but somehow he uses the efforts to resist annexation as an excuse to bash Sacramento as not progressive because we don't have enough sprawl for his taste.
Then give me another plausible reason why Sacramento County has so much "Un-City", which no other California county does. Sacramento annexed? Not bloody enough, or they alienated enough developers who turned to the county instead.
If there was *ever* a "government weak enough to be leveraged however the private sector wants", it was the City of San Jose 1950-1969, where Dutch Hamann and his allies were allowed to go hog wild and do all the development they could, as long as it was under one municipal roof.
Nor did I ever bash Sacramento as "not progressive enough" CeJeH may have used that wording, but I try to avoid that loaded (and today, frankly misleading) term like the plague.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Dan Walters is usually wrong about everything.
Sez you. Walters has been at it for decades, nor is he particularly right leaning. If anything, he is a tad left of center. Then again, in today's California, that may make him far right!
Sacramento went from 14 square miles after World War II to 98 square miles today, and is still playing catch-up with some of those annexed neighborhoods. Annexing more would have added up to more problems--Los Angeles takes up 400 square miles, but they have nearly ten times our population with a subsequently larger tax base (finding oil under your city typically helps tax rolls just a little bit.) Annexing poor areas to the city, in the long run, hurts the city but aids the more affluent areas of the unincorporated county, which is why folks in wealthy parts of the county don't object to the city annexing poor areas or floodplain, but don't want their own neighborhood included--the more poor neighborhoods the city annexes, the less the county has to spend on them and the more they can get the county government to provide in ersatz city services to the wealthier unincorporated parts.
Dutch Hamann allowed developers to go hog wild as long as they did it in the city limits? How dare he exercise such extreme, statist, authoritarian control with an additional, unnecessary layer of government! That's how it would have been perceived (and marketed) in Sacramento.
Walters is only "left of center" if you define the center as, say, Michelle Bachman.
The original "progressives" of the early 20th century were the ones pushing for suburban development, both as ways to avoid the pollution of cities but also because they advocated for segregation of uses (and races.) The Progressives of the early 20th century were the Republican party, while the Democrats were the party of union labor. The auto suburbs of the mid-20th century, based on public-funded roads, were a Republican/Progressive experiment in social engineering. In Sacramento, the Republicans were the agrarian "gentry" and middle class, who may have owned farmland but seldom got their hands dirty, and the Democrats were both the union bosses and the railroad interests, centered around the immigrant neighborhoods downtown and the heavy industries in the urban core.
No conspiracy theory is necessary for all this..."conspiracy" implies secrecy. Organizations like Valley Vision are still pushing the same agenda today: Valley Vision
But that begs the question of why Arden was even allowed to sprout up in the 1950's without being annexed by the City of Sacramento to begin with. True, Folsom was its own incorporated town long before 1950 (from the Gold Rush days even?). But other areas decidedly were not. And little hamlets and communties of 1950 like Carmichael, Fair Oaks, McLellan, Mather, Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, Rio Linda, and Elk Grove could have been annexed if the political will had been there.
Again, I think of San Jose, which threw out its city limits 20 miles or more to annex historic little hamlet communities from Alviso to Almaden and from Westmont to Eastridge/Evergreen and from Cambrian Park to Coyote, and even tried to annex already incorporated small cities like Milpitas, Campbell, and Cupertino, although this was resisted. City Manager A.P. "Dutch" Hammann and various mayors were vilified for paving over the pretty orchards. However, as we see in Sacramento, the growth of Western cities after Pearl Harbor was inevitable, and Mr. Hammann wisely saw that if there was growth to be had, his city would claim as much of it as it could.
One wonders why the Sacramento City gentry of 1950 didn't see the same plain reality.
Again, those communities were "out there" beyond the suburbs at the time. There was open space between Arden and Sacramento. That is the space that was filled with malls and retail space. Typically, undeveloped areas are annexed for development. Although there was open space in Citrus Heights, Orangevale, Carmichael and other communities, there were quite a few people out there and the communities were already established. Established communities don't seek to be annexed unless there is some direct benefit. The City of Sacramento doesn't have anything to offer any of these communities, except the unincorporated areas of Fruitridge and Florin. However, the city isn't interested in annexing those communities.
On the topic of San Jose, there were several large annexations of undeveloped land. One of them was along E Capital Expressway and east of US-101. At the time it was all about "sphere of influence." It didn't take long for car dealerships, retail and houses to fill in. The "sphere of influence" was simply a way to grab land for development.
I wouldn't say that there's no interest in annexing South Sac they just haven't seemed to have got around to it yet. There's plenty of open space in that area, plenty of empty lots, plenty of room for infill development along with residential and industrial growth. They just are stuck in suburb mode for the time being and focus on empty land. That is why I think they will eventually target u I corporates land south and east of the current city limits.
Vineyard is an area that is ripe of growth and presents plenty of future opportunities for expansion. The area is already in Sacramento's sphere of influence. I think that area will eventually be a big target for annexation, and they would have to go thru South Sac, Fruitridge, Florin, and potentially Rosemont/La Riviera to get there.
My understanding is that sacramento did annex a ton of land. They annexed north sac which was incorporated as its own city. All the farm land that is now natomas as well.
Then you got the massive land grab to the south. South land park, pocket, meadow view.
Look at sacramento maps pre 1950. Pretty much everything from land park (the actual park) to florin rd got gobbled up.
East of 99 did not get gobbled up the same way. Once you get south of oak park and trillac village or what ever it is called, you hit unincorporated areas.
During the late sixties and early seventies, minorities moving to meadowview were more blue collar and lower middle class. Minorities moving east of 99 tended to be much poorer.
So sacramento was hesitant to incorporate out of fear that the area would decline, like oak park.
They had no idea middle-upper middle class minorities would flee to elk grove and vineyard, beacause those places were rural at the time.
Back then white collar minorities were moving to the pocket. Racial housing covenants had been done away with.
The pocket was a new neighborhood and thus had less hostile, racist, long time home owners. It was the only logical place to go. The long time owners in tahoe park, curtis park, east sac, and land park were quite bitter and hostile. And these areas remain mostly white to tjhis day, while the pocket remains diverse and nice.
White collar minorities have mostly gone southward in the sac metro.
My understanding is that sacramento did annex a ton of land. They annexed north sac which was incorporated as its own city. All the farm land that is now natomas as well.
Then you got the massive land grab to the south. South land park, pocket, meadow view.
Look at sacramento maps pre 1950. Pretty much everything from land park (the actual park) to florin rd got gobbled up.
East of 99 did not get gobbled up the same way. Once you get south of oak park and trillac village or what ever it is called, you hit unincorporated areas.
During the late sixties and early seventies, minorities moving to meadowview were more blue collar and lower middle class. Minorities moving east of 99 tended to be much poorer.
So sacramento was hesitant to incorporate out of fear that the area would decline, like oak park.
They had no idea middle-upper middle class minorities would flee to elk grove and vineyard, beacause those places were rural at the time.
Back then white collar minorities were moving to the pocket. Racial housing covenants had been done away with.
The pocket was a new neighborhood and thus had less hostile, racist, long time home owners. It was the only logical place to go. The long time owners in tahoe park, curtis park, east sac, and land park were quite bitter and hostile. And these areas remain mostly white to tjhis day, while the pocket remains diverse and nice.
White collar minorities have mostly gone southward in the sac metro.
The accusation that white people living in those neighborhoods are hostile and racist is a bit much. Minorities didn't move there because the cost of living in those areas was high.
Much of the Pocket has had a lot of Japanese-Americans move there because it was in close proximity to older neighborhoods along Freeport Blvd that had a lot of Japanese living in them, and they have always been middle-class neighborhoods.
But back to the topic of annexation: There are a few people on the forums who constantly gripe about the communities from Arden eastward not being within the city limits. They are established communities that have little to do with the City of Sacramento. Annexing these areas isn't going to cost anyone less money. It would only move jurisdictional control from the county to the city. It would bring a bunch of headaches regarding zoning and business regulations to those areas from a city that pays more attention to shoving things like Arenas on the back of the taxpayers while the residents are struggling for something that resembles real employment that comes from a broad economic base.
The accusation that white people living in those neighborhoods are hostile and racist is a bit much. Minorities didn't move there because the cost of living in those areas was high.
Much of the Pocket has had a lot of Japanese-Americans move there because it was in close proximity to older neighborhoods along Freeport Blvd that had a lot of Japanese living in them, and they have always been middle-class neighborhoods.
But back to the topic of annexation: There are a few people on the forums who constantly gripe about the communities from Arden eastward not being within the city limits. They are established communities that have little to do with the City of Sacramento. Annexing these areas isn't going to cost anyone less money. It would only move jurisdictional control from the county to the city. It would bring a bunch of headaches regarding zoning and business regulations to those areas from a city that pays more attention to shoving things like Arenas on the back of the taxpayers while the residents are struggling for something that resembles real employment that comes from a broad economic base.
The accusation is not a bit much at all. These people willingly set up racial housing covenants that the federal govt and supreme court had to throw out. Its not like they took it upon themselves to welcome people with open arms. They were forced to, and they were bitter.
Cost has nothing to do with it. Plenty of minorities living in large 600k homes in vineyard and the pocket, yet no minorities in 500k bungalows in land park. This is because folks in land park tend to be insular and clanish. Maybe not in the old school archie bunker way, more like a subtle marin county type of way
The pocket was origionally intended to be racially restrictive too. But civil rights happend before most of the neighborhood got built in the mid sixties and seventies.
Japanese were not concentrated along freeport. Most japanese were long gone by the time that area was tracted out and built In the fifties. Census figures show that area was pretty much all white at the time. Area south of the airport had no racial covenants because they were considerd far outskirts at the time. The most common minorities found along freeport in mid 20th century were blacks and latinos. Asians at that time were still heavily concentrated downtown by southside park.
I've never seen a single census figure showing a significant asian population between 1945 and 1975 in that area.
Last edited by NorCal Dude; 08-12-2013 at 07:15 PM..
The accusation is not a bit much at all. These people willingly set up racial housing covenants that the federal govt and supreme court had to throw out. Its not like they took it upon themselves to welcome people with open arms. They were forced to, and they were bitter.
Cost has nothing to do with it. Plenty of minorities living in large 600k homes in vineyard and the pocket, yet no minorities in 500k bungalows in land park. This is because folks in land park tend to be insular and clanish. Maybe not in the old school archie bunker way, more like a subtle marin county type of way
The pocket was origionally intended to be racially restrictive too. But civil rights happend before most of the neighborhood got built in the mid sixties and seventies.
Japanese were not concentrated along freeport. Most japanese were long gone by the time that area was tracted out and built In the fifties. Census figures show that area was pretty much all white at the time. Area south of the airport had no racial covenants because they were considerd far outskirts at the time. The most common minorities found along freeport in mid 20th century were blacks and latinos. Asians at that time were still heavily concentrated downtown by southside park.
I've never seen a single census figure showing a significant asian population between 1945 and 1975 in that area.
The people living there didn't set up the deed restrictions. That was done by the people who subdivided and developed the properties, and it was more the norm than the exception throughout the country. It has nothing to do with the people living there.
I haven't taken a look at the cost of real estate in any of those neighborhoods recently, but housing was much cheaper in the Pocket ten years ago. Another important difference between those neighborhoods is the number of apartments. There aren't many apartments in Land Park. There are apartment complexes in the Pocket. Furthermore, most of the minorities in the Pocket are Asian. They tend to live close to relatives, which goes back to my explanation in my last post.
If you go take a close look at South Land Park you will find a fair number of elderly Japanese-Americans living in that neighborhood.
Um LOL. Fresno is a PIT. Its a slightly less dry Bakersfield but surrounded by irrigated farms rather than oil fields.
We have the 'bangers and the homeless on K Street in downtown Sac, but ALL of downtown Fresno has those people wandering around and every other block is either empty, or boarded up. The entire city has moved to the burbs. At least Sacramento proper has plenty of healthy pockets.
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.
