STORYLINE Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Council candidate David Turturici: 'No to arena, yes to public safety'

by Melissa Corker, published on April 4, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Storyline: Politics RSS Feed

1 of 3
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 3
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image

David Turturici is one City Council candidate who said he refuses to drink the arena "Kool-Aid” because he thinks it’s a bad deal for the city. Instead, he wants to see Sacramento use its resources on shoring up basic services – especially public safety – to get the city headed toward being more livable.

“The Kings are part of the city culture, but they’re not the only thing,” Turturici said Wednesday. “To gather up everything we can find to spend trying to keep them here is unconscionable.”

Turturici, an estate planning attorney who moved to Sacramento from the Stockton area in 2000, is running for the City Council District 4 seat.

He said he never considered running for a political office – until the idea of a new entertainment and sports complex started gaining traction in the city.

“I’m a private person and I prefer to stay out of any spotlights,” he said, “but the arena issue really lit a fire under me.”

Turturici, 39, said the arena deal represents everything that is going wrong with the City Council right now.

“It’s representative of a problem with their way of thinking,” he added.

Turturici said he opposes the arena deal on principal and on its terms.

“I would never enter into a deal with a for-profit organization while it’s questionable whether the city will ever get its money back. It doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Public safety and enhancing schools are top priorities for Turturici if he gets elected, he said.

“Sacramento’s crime rate is double the average rate for California cities,” Turturici said. “If we want to make Sacramento more appealing to visitors and businesses, we need to start with making (the city) safer.”

Turturici said he wants to invest the city’s resources in hiring back Sacramento Police Department officers who were laid off in the last two budget cycles.

“Public safety is the first thing a local government should be concerned with. Not just throwing money at it, but also doing more community-oriented policing and especially working with kids (who are) at risk of ending up in the juvenile justice system,” he added.

Turturici said he sees the big picture for the city, but he believes his priorities for the city have an important application in his district, too.

“Bigger-spending projects – like the arena – are bleeding us and are inefficient and causing the more district-related priorities to suffer,” he said.

One example for Turturici is the idea of adding bike lanes to Freeport Boulevard.

The Freeport bike lane project is still in the planning stages and would be expected to create safer routes for bicyclists to travel along one of Sacramento’s busiest thoroughfares.

“(The project) involves public safety and preventing kids who are riding to school from getting injured, but we are saying we don’t have money,” Turturici said. “But, we do have money for the arena or $300 million in bonds for water system infrastructure.

“We are sacrificing almost everything for the arena,” he added.

Turturici said the big sales pitch for the arena is job creation – but he isn’t buying it.

“I say we are only allocating some construction jobs with the arena. Allocate the money for other jobs – like hiring back city workers,” Turturici said.

Increasing the city workforce to pre-economic downturn levels, Turturici said, will go a long way to improve the level of city services.

Turturici also wants to see the city use its resources to help school districts provide sports, music and arts programs.

Having a city that provides good services, a low crime rate and good schools will make the city more livable, Turturici said – and more inviting to businesses that would relocate to Sacramento and bring much-needed jobs with them.

“If we want to be one of the most livable cities in the nation, we need to start there,” he said.

Turturici joins six other candidates for the District 4 City Council seat that will be open when incumbent Rob Fong steps down at the end of his term. The other DIstrict 4 candidates include Steve Hansen, Phyllis Newton, Joe Yee, Terry Schanz, Neil Davidson and Michael Rehm.

Melissa Corker is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

April 4, 2012 | 7:48 PM
I wonder if Mr Turturici is just trolling for law enforcement contributions. Nobody can be that uninformed not to know fire and police take up over 80% of the city budget and are directly responsible for the layoffs in the rest of city services. They adamantly refuse to any labor reform and are well on bankrupting Sacramento if something is not done soon.

But then he did move here from Stockton..
5 3
REPLY
edited on  April 5, 2012 | 11:51 AM
Perhaps they *should* take up 80% of the city budget. What is priority One for a city? Public safety. While I do understand your concerns about unions running amok, Parks, Libraries, etc. will be meaningless if the city isn't safe. (Schools are a district by district concern, but they too are impacted by a lack of public safety).
2 0
REPLY
April 5, 2012 | 9:03 AM
Turturici - if we don't build the ESC, what is your plan for a catalyst for railyards development?
3 3
REPLY
JWS
Author thumbnail
April 5, 2012 | 10:06 AM
I have serious doubts about what catalytic effects the arena would have on the Railyards and downtown.
4 2
REPLY
edited on  April 6, 2012 | 7:36 PM
Catalyst? Aren't the rail yards being built with or without ESC?
2 0
REPLY
April 5, 2012 | 10:40 AM
so what s the plan after the invesment money runs out for public safety?
0 4
REPLY
April 6, 2012 | 9:36 AM
Having Police and Fire pay their 9% contributuion to their Pension.....instead of nada.
4 0
REPLY
April 5, 2012 | 7:39 PM
Economic development needs to be a priority, too, but the arena is a bad deal for the city. There are plenty of small development projects which have brought economic benefit, and we should do more of those.

If the sports-loving portion of the public is so keen on an arena, then let individuals put their money where their mouth is and invest in it. Sell stock to get financing. That should be much easier now with that JOBS Act passed yesterday.

Let the city work on public safety and infrastructure issues.
3 1
REPLY
April 6, 2012 | 9:43 AM
Did you look at that Job's Bill?

"President Obama on Thursday signed a Republican-crafted bill to loosen securities regulations, including several that were established after the dot-com crash of 2000 and the Enron scandal of 2001, and make it easier for companies to raise cash from the public.

Too easy, warned the president's chief of securities law enforcement, several leading academics, the chief investment officer of the giant California Public Employees' Retirement System, and others who said that the legislation will expose investors to infomercial and Internet swindlers.

Critics said the new law, dubbed the "Jump-start Our Business Startups" or JOBS Act, could reduce financial transparency and applies so broadly that billion-dollar companies, and potentially much larger corporations, could face less-restrictive disclosure and auditing rule"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/06/MNCP1NVGO9.DTL&feed=rss.pageone

Looks more like election year politics as usual.
0 0
REPLY
April 8, 2012 | 4:15 AM
I was originally against the arena deal, too. Why should we put public money towards a private enterprise, etc? Until I realized that if the money isn't spent there, it'll just be handed over to Labor and we'll see zero return on it. Please remember, more money does NOT equal better results.
1 4
REPLY
April 12, 2012 | 9:19 PM
There is no way that Sacramento's carbon footprint will be reduced if the arena is built. Even if everyone walked to events there, the concentration of carbon dioxide and other emissions would be concentrated.

I wonder how much of the estimated $398 million is devoted to buying carbon credits to ofset the pollution that is going to be associated with this project if built.

Then there is the economic drain associated with events at such a facility as out of town entertainers and sports teams extract $$$ from Sacramento. Money in Sacramento should circulate in Sacramento!
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background