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.
Sure it will because it is and has been the reality for decades in the central city. What fantasy town and un-reality are/have you been living in? Might I suggest a few courses in cultural anthropology?
I'm not living in some fantasy. Do you even live in Sacramento, or even frequent downtown on a regular basis. It's weird how you and burg seem to want or desire the same thing for downtown but from a different political bent. At least burg wants to save historical old residential buildings, which I whole-heartedly agree with it. The difference between me and burg regarding that issue is I believe downtown and the market can and should accommodate a larger share of middle to upper middle class housing downtown, obviously, so does this investment company per the Bee article.
I still don't understand your bent, you seem to be obsessed with keeping Sacramento down from afar and enjoy any failed attempt by anyone to better or promote Sacramento. If there is any success you seem to be the first to criticize it as well. Might I suggest a few beers at the beer garden, and a night out on the town at one of Sacramento's great music venues, in case you don't know - Ace of Spades, Harlows - for starters, they welcome old people too.
Wow. Good threads guys. Let's run down the checklist. We have: sarcasm. People misunderstanding sarcasm. Ad hominem. Some gentle racism.
But I think the winner of today's thread goes to pointing out that apparently Kevin Johnson is a white liberal, which might surprise him. "People like him [KJ] and all the other white liberals..."
I'm not living in some fantasy. Do you even live in Sacramento, or even frequent downtown on a regular basis. It's weird how you and burg seem to want or desire the same thing for downtown but from a different political bent. At least burg wants to save historical old residential buildings, which I whole-heartedly agree with it. The difference between me and burg regarding that issue is I believe downtown and the market can and should accommodate a larger share of middle to upper middle class housing downtown, obviously, so does this investment company per the Bee article.
I still don't understand your bent, you seem to be obsessed with keeping Sacramento down from afar and enjoy any failed attempt by anyone to better or promote Sacramento. If there is any success you seem to be the first to criticize it as well. Might I suggest a few beers at the beer garden, and a night out on the town at one of Sacramento's great music venues, in case you don't know - Ace of Spades, Harlows - for starters, they welcome old people too.
To answer your question, I lived in Sacramento for 20 years, 11 of which were downtown. I consider it my adult home as opposed to my childhood home which was in SoCal. My wife was raised and spent most of her life in Sacramento. We moved elsewhere just five years ago after retiring from the state. I am decidedly a proponent of preservation of the old buildings and despaired of those torn down to make way for "progress." As for my current interest, we still have 11 relatives, in-laws and out-laws living in Sacramento with another grandchild on the way. It's also where my three daughters were mostly raised, two of whom still live there while the third and her two children live in Chico. They rightfully so consider
The only "success" I've ever criticized have been the single-minded, all-inclusive, tunnel-vision, self-serving emphasis on a basketball venue, to the picking of the people's pockets and damn near the exclusion of everything else and any returns and benefits remain to be seen. Sacramento is so much more than that, or should be, with its vibrant art, dining, cultural, historical and entertainment venues, many of which we supported and patronized. I also agree that more middle- to upper-class downtown housing would benefit the city and its tax base far more than continued pandering to the destitute who could and should be accommodated nearby but elsewhere.
Your obvious ageism and ignorance regarding me notwithstanding, at least do try for some accuracy. You should have started with, "I still don't understand your bent..." and simply asked. Of course, I could also follow my own advice right?
Wow. Good threads guys. Let's run down the checklist. We have: sarcasm. People misunderstanding sarcasm. Ad hominem. Some gentle racism.
To which we can now add ageism. Not bad for just two pages of comments.
And CeJeh, not Appalachia, the Ozarks. But also not bad considering the first white settlers mostly came here from the Appalachians and the culture is quite similar, including moonshining. So you were close.
Sacramento is so much more than that, or should be, with its vibrant art, dining, cultural, historical and entertainment venues, many of which we supported and patronized. I also agree that more middle- to upper-class downtown housing would benefit the city and its tax base far more than continued pandering to the destitute who could and should be accommodated nearby but elsewhere.
Yes Sacramento is much more than professional basketball, so why do you obsess with one building and one private professional organization that clearly has done a lot for the region and community in it's 29 years with both good and bad owners in its history. Which by the way, the Sacramento Kings are Sacramento History and will continue to make it's mark in a positive way in the history of Sacramento.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
Your obvious ageism and ignorance regarding me notwithstanding, at least do try for some accuracy. You should have started with, "I still don't understand your bent..." and simply asked. Of course, I could also follow my own advice right?
I never said anything offensive to you other than, "I don't fully understand your political bent". I mentioned that two music venues welcome "old" people, not sure how that is a case for ageism, in fact, it's the complete opposite, "WELCOMES you"......means inclusion. There is nothing wrong with being old.
To answer your question, I lived in Sacramento for 20 years, 11 of which were downtown. I consider it my adult home as opposed to my childhood home which was in SoCal. My wife was raised and spent most of her life in Sacramento. We moved elsewhere just five years ago after retiring from the state.
So I can deduce from this explanation that the answer is NO, you don't live in Sacramento.
In fact, California tax-supported funds will eventually be going into the economy of another State instead of being circulated back into the economy of California in your situation and we wonder why California sometimes has financial challenges.
This is not a judgement against you by the way; you are free to live where you want obviously. But you do know that PERS retirement checks from the State of California after 7 years on average is 100% government backed PERs generated funds. Again, this is not a negative judgement; PERS retirees earned their retirement and paid into it, but on average after 7 years, the funds that pay a state employees retirement is no longer strickly the funds they paid into, rather it becomes PERS generated funds which comes from PERS investing that money wisely on the open market, but is still backed partially by California tax-supported government funds.
If you don't like being called a liar, Chimerique, my advice is, don't lie. Making obviously false claims about what I think, and about downtown Sacramento, is no way to win friends. The central city is not primarily or even predominantly low-income; according to a survey of low-income housing done by the city around 2007, about 17% of the central city's housing stock is low-income, meaning the other 83% are accessible to median or above-average incomes. That number has almost certainly gone down since 2007. Your claim that I only want low-income housing in the central city is a flat-out lie, and it calls into question any other statement you make here--if you're willing to fabricate so willingly, what else are you lying about? Do you consider yourself at all obligated to tell the truth?
I'm a big fan of housing, for all income levels, because we need it all--low-income, moderate-income, high-income. And fortunately we are seeing a real renaissance of housing on all income levels here. The term "low-income" creates all sorts of negative associations in many people's minds, mostly nasty stereotypes, but in practical terms, "low-income" in Sacramento County means people making less than $40,000 a year, which includes groups like students, young professionals just starting their career path, and many of the increasingly celebrated sector of chefs and restaurant staff, who work hard but are criminally underpaid. These are the core of the "creative class" which many cities are trying to attract to their downtowns, and often members of the younger "millennial" generation, who can't yet afford a million-dollar condo, but might be able to once they get established. Chimerique's obvious disdain for any sort of low-income housing means he must also be opposed to the presence of this growing population of urban dwellers, unless they fit his high standard of well-paid professionals. Why should the central city, a bulwark of art and creativity, be the exclusive domain of boring suits and buttoned-down finance types? A healthy urban neighborhood is a mixed-income neighborhood, where bankers and businesspeople live alongside waiters and students and artists and retired seniors and elementary school kids. Midtown's success is based on this vigorous mixture of incomes and uses--in a word, diversity.
It's also a lie to say I don't support market-rate or high-end housing. I have written letters, spoken to public bodies, and penned articles in favor of market-rate projects, and projects that combine low-income, moderate-income and market-rate units in the same project. Unlike Chimerique, I live in the central city, and while I'm certainly not well off, I make more money now than the threshold of "low income" so my presence itself supports the idea of market-rate housing. I especially support efforts to promote ownership housing, rather than rental, since 90% of the central city is rental and only 10% is ownership, including condos--which is a laughably low rate. I show up at meetings and groundbreakings and write letters and raise hell for many projects of this support--maybe not all of them, because not all of them are worth supporting, but plenty of them. Chimerique, other than posting on the Internet about it, exactly what do you do to support central city housing? You're a commuter--maybe you work here and hang out here, but you have no more economic stake in the central city than the tens of thousands of office commuters who you seem to disdain as much as homeless people, artists and service employees.
I oppose efforts to destroy or eliminate housing that is extremely low-income, at least without some kind of plan for substitute housing, because destroying that type of housing is a direct cause of homelessness. We had fewer homeless when we had a lot more very low income housing--and the less we have, the more people we have on the street. I also don't believe in the kind of "ethnic cleansing" or "cordon sanitaire" some people seem to support regarding homeless people. The solution to homelessness starts with housing, and it has to be somewhere. Would I support more in Land Park, in the Pocket, in East Sacramento? Hell yes I would! But if you don't have a solution other than KICK THEM OUT NOW WHO CARES WHERE THEY GO, you don't have a solution, and in fact you're part of the problem.
I also acknowledge the fact that other cities also have homeless issues, including those with downtown arenas. Anyone who thinks that a downtown arena will magically make homeless people vanish is deluding themselves. Homeless people can be found within the same neighborhoods as downtown arenas in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. While residents of SRO hotels are not homeless, they often get demonized just as badly, but there are SRO hotels in the downtowns of all of those neighborhoods, and somehow their presence does not detract from the success of their downtowns--because those cities also prioritized housing for other income levels ALONGSIDE the relatively small number of poor people who already lived there. If someone thinks that downtown Sacramento is unapproachable if there is even a remote chance they might see a poor person or a homeless person, then no, I don't care if I hurt that person's feelings by telling them that, yes, they are wrong to think that. Because it's true.
Meanwhile, the whole 3rd/4th/L/Capitol block sits fenced off. I will believe it when the luxury condo towers get finished *there*.
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.
