I agree that the Cal Expo land should not be just given away to developers, but I am not sure the State Fair -- a shopworn event if there ever was one -- is a worthy of holding this prime land hostage. Surely, if we don't want to make this available for development, we could find a better use for the land than the State Fair, RV/Boat/Garden shows and harness racing. I think that making the "land grab" argument fails if the land sits idle except for tired and forlorn events such as the ones it hosts now. The land deserves to be used for something that enriches the lives of its citizens, and if the local governments can't manage it, I am open to discussing private alternatives. Not all developers are bad, and not all of their projects are terrible.

You have to be kidding, Steve. There are probably dozens of good arguments for not building a new arena or redirecting focus to mass transit, but saving the "beloved Cal Expo", which has all the charm of a East German government building, has to be the worst I've ever heard. In fact, anything that removes that multi-acre eyesore can't be all bad. Arena or no arena, I would like to vote Cal Expo off the island. It sucks.

Other than lost jobs, I'm not sure why the closing of this chain restaurant is any more important than the closing of any other chain business. It has little or nothing to do with Sacramento's history or culture, and is just an artificial and unoriginal tourist trap.

Oh, really? Care to back that up with some factual data?

Well-said, Abe. I would also like to see our limited resources used fighting REAL CRIMES.