CaliFarmtoTable comment-82036 2013-04-29T21:21:35Z 2013-04-29T21:21:35Z If anyone else was looking to be added to the "outreach list," the Sacramento Convention & Visitors Bureau unfortunately doesn't have such a list (and they seemed a little annoyed that I was the second caller requesting to be added to it) - but their instructions are to visit their site and sign up for the monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with their farm to fork efforts. CaliFarmtoTable 2013-04-29T21:21:35Z William Burg comment-81994 2013-04-26T03:29:53Z 2013-04-26T03:29:53Z Roads built in those areas don't have to follow state and federal laws regarding environmental review? That's news to me. William Burg 2013-04-26T03:29:53Z Curmudgeon comment-81958 2013-04-25T15:33:01Z 2013-04-25T15:33:01Z Sophistry. The McKinley Village site is surrounded by development for miles. Developers who go out to El Dorado and Placer Counties, or Rancho Cordova and Citrus Heights, for that matter, don't have to put up with troublemakers. When they need connecting roads to improve traffic capacity within an *already* built-up area, they get them *built*, not "studied". They don't have to deal with troublemakers, like you. And you know it. Curmudgeon 2013-04-25T15:33:01Z Curmudgeon comment-81956 2013-04-25T15:25:34Z 2013-04-25T15:25:34Z "they also focused on a better mass transit system to limit the need for more freeways, and a somewhat higher population density in areas that were developed in order to limit the need for more horizontal expansion." What color is the sky in your world? They did nothing of the kind. They just exported their burbs out our way, turning Vacaville, Fairfield, Tracy, and Modesto into litte metropolises full of people who make 50-mile or more commutes. And wave after wave of "downzonings" gave the cities of SF, Oakland and Berkeley *fewer* residents than each city had in 1950. Curmudgeon 2013-04-25T15:25:34Z William Burg comment-81953 2013-04-25T05:20:40Z 2013-04-25T05:20:40Z McKinley Village isn't infill, it is greenfield development. It was still farmland a decade ago. If you're saying that the Petrovich development in the old WP Shops site isn't going to happen, that's news to me--it's still happening. I'm not sure why the go-ahead for a river crossing study counts as obstruction either, and the Grocery Outlet wasn't infill, it was a new tenant for an existing market. The alley house you mention was built, so I don't see how that counts either. Yes, developers have to deal with the concerns of neighbors when building in existing neighborhoods. Some take the time to address neighborhood concerns before they get too far into the construction cycle, and they're the ones neighbors tend to support. Other developers don't, but most of the time their projects get built too, maybe sometimes a little later or in slightly modified form. But seldom does a development get stopped just because neighbors don't like it, if ever--sometimes projects get scrapped for other reasons, or because the city doesn't like it, or the developer goes broke. William Burg 2013-04-25T05:20:40Z William Burg comment-81952 2013-04-25T05:14:30Z 2013-04-25T05:14:30Z I guess I'm not seeing state government grow lately, so I'm not sure where you're projecting much more state employment in the near future. And as to where those people live, some will want homes with yards, but if the figures I've seen are to be believed, about a third like the suburbs, about a third like a more urban form, and the other third are pretty much okay with either one as long as they can get a place to live. The building industry, on the other hand, only wants to build new greenfield developments because rezoning farmland into housing and commercial magically makes them more money, and government likes it too because their tax rate goes up. I can't say I am too teared up about San Francisco Bay not being totally filled into a couple of narrow channels, where it was headed in the 1960s, or the scenic hills of Marin and the greater Bay Area actually remaining scenic instead of being paved over with suburbs. Local municipalities decided that things like the beautiful San Francisco Bay and the scenic world around it were a higher priority than suburban tracts--and, while they still have plenty of suburban tracts, freeways and shopping centers, they also focused on a better mass transit system to limit the need for more freeways, and a somewhat higher population density in areas that were developed in order to limit the need for more horizontal expansion. And my question is, if Sacramento has decided that farmland is important enough to base a marketing campaign around, is the continued existence of that farmland important enough to take the same sort of measures to protect--even if it means folks in, say, Land Park or Granite Bay might have to get used to higher residential densities, or paying for a transit system that works for a greater proportion of the population? William Burg 2013-04-25T05:14:30Z Curmudgeon comment-81930 2013-04-24T21:53:01Z 2013-04-24T21:53:01Z "And, while you're at it, Curmudgeon, can you tell us how state government generates suburban growth?" Put on your thinking cap now--more employment means more people living here. And those people will tend to want homes with yards for their families, whether you like it or not..... "And, finally, are you claiming that Napa doesn't have suburbs all over its hillsides solely because of market forces--nobody wants to live there, real estate developers aren't interested in putting suburbs there?" No, but nice try. Although the people who declared filling adjacent Bay Area swamps verboten in the 1960's, followed by people who declared terracing adjacent Bay Area hillsides verboten in the 1980's, did push commuter developments further and further out--as far as Fairfield and Stockton. Napa and Sonoma counties got more development pressure as soon as Marin County decided not to grow anymore. And Solano County got more development pressure as soon as Napa County decided not to grow anymore. When the Bay Area presure groups said "no more Foster Cities" and "no more Pacificas", it was only a matter of time before the people who would otherwise afforded a home on filled-in Bay swamp or on terraced Bay hillside started moving out as far as Stockton to find that affordable home. Curmudgeon 2013-04-24T21:53:01Z Curmudgeon comment-81928 2013-04-24T21:43:14Z 2013-04-24T21:43:14Z "Curmudgeon: Can you please provide some examples of infill developers who were stymied and stifled by people who profess to be in favor of more infill development?" Gee, Will, how about here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/80684/Opinion_Neighbors_not_happy_with_developers_lack_of_response_on_McKinley_Village and here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/79384/Back_with_a_twist_McKinley_Village_development_being_retooled and here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/43938/Curtis_Park_neighbors_fear_clearcutting_of_Heritage_Trees_in_Union_Pacific_Railyard_site and here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/58905/Council_gives_go_ahead_for_study_of_neighborhood_friendly_river_crossings and here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/47625/Before_R_Street_Market_Plaza_development_Photo_Essay and here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/35281/Grocery_Outlet_Then_and_Now and here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/44966/City_Council_tells_builder_to_redesign_alley_house Curmudgeon 2013-04-24T21:43:14Z William Burg comment-81920 2013-04-24T19:38:17Z 2013-04-24T19:38:17Z And, while you're at it, Curmudgeon, can you tell us how state government generates suburban growth? And, finally, are you claiming that Napa doesn't have suburbs all over its hillsides solely because of market forces--nobody wants to live there, real estate developers aren't interested in putting suburbs there? William Burg 2013-04-24T19:38:17Z William Burg comment-81919 2013-04-24T19:36:58Z 2013-04-24T19:36:58Z Curmudgeon: Can you please provide some examples of infill developers who were stymied and stifled by people who profess to be in favor of more infill development? William Burg 2013-04-24T19:36:58Z Curmudgeon comment-81916 2013-04-24T18:41:53Z 2013-04-24T18:41:53Z And again and again on these Sacramento Press webpages, we find examples of would - be "infill developers" who were stymied and stifled, more often than not by the very people who profess to be in favor of more infill development. Curmudgeon 2013-04-24T18:41:53Z Ben Ilfeld comment-81914 2013-04-24T18:23:20Z 2013-04-24T18:23:20Z I doubt William is proposing slowing growth, but rather fostering urban growth rather than turning farmland into suburbs. Ben Ilfeld 2013-04-24T18:23:20Z Curmudgeon comment-81907 2013-04-24T14:38:54Z 2013-04-24T14:38:54Z Napa doesn't have the growth generator known as the state government. If you want to keep Sacramento from growing so much, you will have to curtail the size of that. Aerospace and Defense have already left, and electronics and food canneries are leaving. Curmudgeon 2013-04-24T14:38:54Z William Burg comment-81903 2013-04-24T01:03:47Z 2013-04-24T01:03:47Z Napa's a great little place--a tenth our size. When real estate developers propose turning Napa vineyards into new suburbs, how does the community respond? William Burg 2013-04-24T01:03:47Z mckimball comment-81891 2013-04-23T19:28:10Z 2013-04-23T19:28:10Z Hi Amber - great job! Was talking to a PR/Marketing colleague last week - she does a lot of work in the Napa Valley. She was saying that in general the food tourist spends more than the wine tourist! So even in Napa, where wine is king, they are focused on highlighting the food. Good for us to remember. Also - Yolo County has put together a Yolo Farm to Fork workgroup. There were almost 60 folks at the first meeting! Lots of interest, tons of people wanting to get involved. What I loved about that meeting is that it was mostly farmers! mckimball 2013-04-23T19:28:10Z Dawn Balzarano comment-81889 2013-04-23T18:53:01Z 2013-04-23T18:53:01Z Great article, thoughtfully written. I love the social tourism concept... seems like that could be a huge draw for our city. We've a long way to go, but recognizing the importance of "farm to fork" values is a great start! Dawn Balzarano 2013-04-23T18:53:01Z Ed Murrieta comment-81887 2013-04-23T18:18:57Z 2013-04-23T18:18:57Z I drove out the Garden Highway recently. Oye, the housing. I remember farmland. Ed Murrieta 2013-04-23T18:18:57Z Coral Henning comment-81839 2013-04-23T16:34:04Z 2013-04-23T16:34:04Z Nicely put, Amber! Coral Henning 2013-04-23T16:34:04Z Jared Goyette comment-81838 2013-04-23T16:27:36Z 2013-04-23T16:27:36Z William will be tackling this question in an upcoming article. Jared Goyette 2013-04-23T16:27:36Z Mark comment-81837 2013-04-23T16:12:10Z 2013-04-23T16:12:10Z Amen brother! Mark 2013-04-23T16:12:10Z William Burg comment-81831 2013-04-23T14:44:46Z 2013-04-23T14:44:46Z Sacramento was never a farm town--but we built our suburbs on farms. The question we must ask ourselves is, if we value the close proximity from our city's "forks" to nearby farms, should we continue building new suburbs on top of that valuable farmland? William Burg 2013-04-23T14:44:46Z