Am I the only one that's bothered by Fresno being slightly bigger? (Sacramento: new home, taxes)

[wburg]

North Sacramento had been an independent city for 40 years when Sacramento annexed it. Basically, you're demonizing Sacramento, not for failing to expand, which they certainly did, but for not expanding as much as you think they should have. Which is nice and all, but kind of counterproductive to curse city councilmembers and mayors and city managers who have been dead for a while. I'm not even sure why I am being berated for this failure--I wasn't even born yet, and don't mind the idea of annexing surrounding suburbs, but don't share the same enthusiasm as NickB. Apparently because I'm not actively picketing the graves of those dead city leaders demanding that they should have done things differently, I have committed some sort of enormous crime. Trust me, there are plenty of bad decisions of city government in Sacramento's history, some of which I have spent considerable ink discussing. Apparently my crime against humanity is considering the demolition of downtown to be a greater affront than the failure to annex the entire county into the city limits. I don't think the city of Sacramento is hesitant to annex South Sacramento for racial reasons--the reasons are more based in economics, in that they consider the cost of annexation to be greater than the benefit received. Their experience annexing to the south (which they also did, just not to the level of NickB's expectations) was not a positive one from the standpoint of city revenue--continued annexation of poorer neighborhoods hurts the city's balance sheet, even if it lets people crow louder about how our total population is larger. On the other hand, the wealthier residents of the "uncity" wanted no part of Sacramento's ethnically mixed neighborhoods, then or now. Nor do they want their own city government. But somehow NickB considers them immune from criticism or critical examination. Cesar Chavez came to San Jose to find work. Although one wonders why he would move *to* a neighborhood called "Get Out If You Can" to raise his kids...

[ojaguila]

As previously mentioned, it only makes sense that Sacramento incorporates these areas just as successful cities like San Jose did.

[sacite]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Only after you build a new arena, a skate park, tennis courts, a Olympic pool, a ball park...

Build them and they will come. Just ask KJ.

And they have. Investors already buying several old buildings in downtown to renovate them for commercial use. Then again, that was a given. AKA, we told you so.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by CeJeH

Anybody that has spent any time in Sacramento and Fresno knows unquestionably that Sacramento is the bigger city. Our metropolitan population is 2.5 times bigger than Fresno. We have more big city amenities and more of a big city feel. Even our fledgling under-developed downtown blows downtown Fresno out of the water. But for the last 2 decades or so, Fresno city limits has been just slightly larger than Sacramento's, and it bugs me.

The most recent Census Data from 2010 shows Sacramento as having a population of around 467k people in an area of just over 100 sq miles. Fresno is listed at around 495k people in about 112 sq miles. This gives Fresno the edge as being the largest inland city in California and the largest city in the Central Valley. Fresno overtook Sacramento in population in the 2000 census and has maintained a lead of about 30,000 people since then.

I know that this is a dubious honor and is relatively meaningless, but it annoys me that Fresno of all places has this distinction over Sacramento, which is in my opinion the superior city. Can't we just annex Arden/Arcade and South Sac and get this over with?

Bakersfield is larger.

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Bakersfield is larger.

Nope. Where did you get that?

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by mrsltd

Nope. Where did you get that?

Indeed. Bakersfield is still smaller. Moreover, Bakersfield appears to have a similar if smaller "Un-City" situation, with an Un-City of Oildale to the north, an Un-City of Rosedale to the west and an Un-City of East Bakersfield.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by mrsltd

Nope. Where did you get that?

Sacramento, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bakersfield, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bakersfield is ~40% larger. Of course, Wikipedia could be wrong. I didn't actually check the Census data that's given as the source material.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Sacramento, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bakersfield, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bakersfield is ~40% larger. Of course, Wikipedia could be wrong. I didn't actually check the Census data that's given as the source material.

They mean population.....

[CeJeH]

Yeah we're talking about population here, but this is yet another example of how far behind Sacramento is with regards to annexation. There's no reason why Bakersfield should be 40% larger in terms of area when Sacramento has sooo much unincorporated land surrounding it.

[pdizo916]

Originally Posted by CeJeH

Yeah we're talking about population here, but this is yet another example of how far behind Sacramento is with regards to annexation. There's no reason why Bakersfield should be 40% larger in terms of area when Sacramento has sooo much unincorporated land surrounding it.

So how big is sacramento should be. It's weird that they don't include florin area into sacramento's stats.