Courtesy of making the Streetsblog “front page” today for the article “Stockton less sprawling than Portland or Washington DC? Not so fast,” I became aware of the blog Stockton City Limits. It’s a great site that I recommend you look at, and I’ll be delving into the site more in the coming days. The topics are similar to this Getting Around Sacramento blog, including community, development, transportation, and smart growth. Stockton is similar in many ways to Sacramento, not just because it is on a river, but it is another classic Central Valley sprawl city which has a livable core but is surrounded by unsustainable suburbs with dismal walk scores and declining economies.
News summary April 6
Other
- Back-seat Driver: Local road forecast for April – congestion (SacBee 2014-04-03)
Development
- McKinley Village proposal creates traffic fight with neighbors (SacBee 2014-04-03)
- Report: Sacramento would work better with less sprawl (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-04-02)
- Downtown arena project nearing last hurdles (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-04-02)
- Developer plans residential tower near Memorial Auditorium (SacBee 2014-04-02)
- Developer revises plan for 7-story mixed use building on I Street (SacBee 2014-04-01)
News summary March 30
Carnage
- Bicyclist near Winters killed by hit-and-run driver (SacBee 2014-03-28)
- Bicyclist dies in collision with car in south Sacramento (SacBee 2014-03-25); Bicyclist in South Sacramento crash identified by coroner (SacBee 2014-03-26)
Other
- Back-seat Driver: Light rail’s chance to shine? (SacBee 2014-03-28)
- Caltrans says 1-hour delays possible during W-X freeway project (SacBee 2014-03-28)Caltrans alters W-X freeway project plans; hopes to reduce congestion (SacBee 2014-03-27)
- Roundabout is latest in downtown Roseville makeover (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-03-26)
- RT wants to add buses, light rail trips during Highway 50 fix (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-03-25)
- Editorial: Caltrans must space out major Sacramento road projects (SacBee 2014-03-25)
- Exposures: I Care: Youngsters revel in his trail-blazing (SacBee 2014-03-24)
Development
- Sacramento arena plan goes to Planning Commission April 10 (SacBee 2014-03-28)
- Angelides not laying odds on McKinley Village vote (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-03-28); City Planning Commission gives McKinley Village a green light (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-03-28)
- Sacramento Commons project worries neighbors (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-03-28)
- Former Towers site — known as that hole in the ground — to get new look from CIM (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-03-27)
- New project at Capitol Towers site would include two 25-story towers (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-03-26)
- Possibility for old arena: Hospital? (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-03-25)
- Work at The Elan sign of trend? (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-03-24)
News summary March 23
- Will Sacramento freeway closures cause a “Carmageddon”? (SacBee 2014-03-21) – would it do any good to point out that a great alternative exists, the SacRT light rail Gold Line?
- The A.V. Club: How the automobile will reshape our cities, again (Sacramento News & Review 2014-03-20)
- Mallet to the face: Christine Carrisosa, bicycle polo player (Sacramento News & Review 2014-03-20)
- El Dorado County voters may decide latest growth fight (SacBee 2013-03-19)
- Hundreds of years of dust are cleaned away (City of Sacramento 2014-03-17)
News summary March 16
- Editorial: Light-rail killings in Sacramento are wake-up call for Regional Transit (SacBee 2014-03-15)
- Sacramento supervisors delay vote on connector road after farmers protest (SacBee 2014-03-11)
sprawl hurts
Two articles from the Sacramento Bee this Sunday illustrate how sprawl hurts us all.
How much water a community gulps varies across the Sacramento region (SacBee 2014-03-09)
The article highlights the remarkable variation in the amount of water used per capita by different areas in the region, with Granite Bay being the poster child for extensive lawns and landscaping. These exurban areas suck up the water that could be used for more productive domestic or agricultural purposes. This is not a lifestyle choice, this is extravagant misuse of our common resources. Where does this happen? Almost always in the exurbs. But many of these people still work in the urban core, their commutes eased by the freeways and arterials built with the money taken from the rest of us taxpayers. They have us coming and going. Literally.
Sacramento ‘ruralpolitans’ feed the animals, then don suits for city jobs (SacBee 2014-03-09)
The article highlights people who live in rural areas close to the urban core and commute to regular jobs. Another seeming lifestyle choice, made possible by the freeways and arterials that make it easy for people to live in a seeming rural paradise but work where the jobs are higher paying. They pay low property taxes, but benefit from the transportation network and other services that all of us pay for. If these people were actually serving some agricultural purpose, I’d be a lot more willing to provide some subsidy to their lifestyle, but they are only playing at agriculture, contributing nothing to the rest of us.
News summary March 9
Carnage
- Coroner’s Office identifies pedestrian killed Sunday in Rancho Cordova collision (SacBee 2014-03-04)
Other
- Capital Southeast Connector ready for a vote (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-03-07)
- Cohousing project proposed for Fair Oaks (Sacramento Business Journal 2014-03-04)
Arena for revitalization and transit?
Richard Layman, author of the Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space blog, posted yesterday on “An arena subsidy project I’d probably favor: Sacramento.”
After an extensive review of the benefits and pitfalls of arenas and stadiums, and subsidies of them, he goes on to look at the Sacramento subsidy for the Kings arena (the Entertainment and Sports Complex). He gives it a tentative up vote, based on the effects of moving investment from the suburbs to the center city, and utilizing the existing transit system.
Take a read and see what you think.
Sacramento and the 12 strategies
Several Sacramento area people have referenced the article “12 Strategies That Will Transform Your City’s Downtown” on the UrbanScale blog by John Karras. I’d like to look a little more closely at some of the strategies. If you have information or thoughts about any of these, please contribute.
#1 Turn one-way streets into two-way streets. Sacramento, and specifically downtown/midtown, has most of the one-way streets in the region. The city does have a policy to convert some of these streets, but the effort stalled, and no one seems to know why or be willing to admit why. Several streets have been resurfaced recently without being converted, though this would be the perfect time to do it. These include H, I, 9th, and 10th. There are some costs to conversion, turning signals around or installing new signals in some cases, the the reward in walkability and retail success is worth it. The post says “One-way streets are great if your only goal is to channel traffic through your downtown, but they are bad for pedestrian activity and retail opportunities. Two-way streets create a more comfortable pedestrian environment and have been shown to increase property values.” J Street in Sacramento is a classic example of how one-way streets reduce retail business. All those thousands of cars streaming by the most dense retail street in the region, and only small bubbles of successful retail to show for it. I’m glad Karras has this one on the top, because it is one of my strongest desires, with many blog posts: Two-waying streets in SF, New bike lanes, diets and sharrows downtown, street changes, more on conversion to two-way streets, and Choosing streets to walk.
property taxes and blight

Why do buildings and lots sit empty for years throughout downtown Sacramento and beyond? Because there is little consequence to the property owner of leaving them empty. They continue to pay property taxes while waiting for some development scheme that will make them so much money that the years of property tax are a drop in the bucket. Occasionally, a property is taken for non-payment of property taxes, but that is rare.
While the building or lot remains empty, the city (I’ll use “the city” for the cities and counties and utility providers) still has costs associated with the property. The cost of electrical, water, sewer, telephone, the street network, and transit in an area has more to do with the capacity of the system and the network passing by a property than the specific connection to the property, so the city still has costs even though they are receiving only a pittance of property tax. Fire and police services are actually higher for empty building and empty lots because they attract vandalism, crime, illegal occupancy. They drag down the property values of everything around them, and therefore the property tax income from everything around them. They are in large part the very definition of blight.
Ironically, many of the empty buildings and empty lots in downtown Sacramento are owned by the city itself. So the city is costing itself money by letting these sit, and of course that means that it is costing us taxpayers.
When the economy slowed, those big projects that would make a lot of money evaporated, and so more and more property sat unused. But it did not need to be unused. Smaller scale projects were always possible. I think one of the big differences between downtown and midtown in the downturn was that midtown had a large number of small properties owned by people with moderate dreams of development and redevelopment, while downtown had a few large properties owned by people with grandiose dreams. Those dreams crashed, and so did downtown. A number of successful businesses were dragged down by the failures around them. Midtown went through a slow time, but lost far fewer businesses, and is now picking up in a way that downtown has not.
So, what to do? As always, I have some outside-the-box (or off-the-wall, some would say) solutions to propose.
1. Assess property tax on all government entities. What purpose would this serve? Wouldn’t it just be moving money from one pocket to another? Yes, but it would make the cost of maintaining empty buildings and empty lots show up on the balance sheet as a direct expense. As with all things financial, we pay it no attention until it shows up on the balance sheet and affects the bottom line.
2. Assess empty lots at the value they would have if developed, based on typical properties surrounding it. Seems unfair? Not in my mind. The empty lot is costing the city, and all of us, directly in terms of services needed, and indirectly in creating blight that lowers property values and depresses economic activity. This higher level of property tax would encourage the owner to move forward with development. In a few instances, these empty lots could be converted to public purpose such as a park or farmers market location, but the number of those conversions would be small relative to the number of properties
3. Double property taxes every four years for both empty lots and empty buildings. This would give the owner a strong incentive to do something. While regular property taxes can largely be ignored, when it goes up 2X, then 4X, then 8X, then 16X, no property owner will leave the property unused.
I have no illusions that even these radical proposals would bring vibrancy back to downtown, but along with many other policies and actions, they would certainly help.
I think something needs to be done about surface parking lots, which are another unproductive use of land that costs us all money, but that is another topic for later.
I’ve uploaded a few photos to Flickr of abandoned downtown, along J and K streets. It would take days and thousands of photos to document it all.