(This seems like a no-brainer. – promoted by blogswarm)

Once upon a time, a network of streetcars and commuter trains knit the small cities of the Sacramento area together with the urban core. And then, for a variety of reasons – the popularization of automobiles, corporate buyouts, shifts in zoning laws and the rise of low-density suburban developments – the infrastructure that supported a walkable urban center withered away for a half century or so.

And yet recently, the cities of West Sacramento and Sacramento have been exploring the possibility of running a streetcar line across the Tower Bridge over to the Capital Mall, linking it up with Sacramento’s existing light rail system. This makes sense as part of a larger recent development trend towards reurbanization, reflected in the Railyards project in Sacramento and the flurry of condos being thrown up in West Sacramento. Were the population density to get high enough, and the streetcar priced reasonably enough to actually make the use of it a real alternative to driving across the Tower Bridge into Sac (or, in the other direction, from Sac to the Rivercats stadium), establishing a streetcar could help build the kind of walkable, urbane neighborhoods that this country used to have before the car changed everything, and which cities like Sacramento are going to need in the future when post-peak gas prices render low density development unfeasible.

And yet, that’s a big if, according to Sacramento History Blog. Sac History argues that the postwar shift to suburban development in West Sac and Sacramento’s other commuter burbs was what killed the streetcars in the first place. As housing density thinned out, and streetcar lines fanned further and further out from the core of the city, the cost of operating the trains at greater distances began to outstrip the revenue from a thinly-dispersed ridership scattered over a longer distance. Eventually, the streetcars went bust. If this plan is to avoid the same fate, higher levels of density are going to have to be planned and built along the streetcar route, to guarantee adequate ridership. Given the move towards higher density already underway, I think it’s entirely possible.

This ties into an interview that the Sacramento News and Review did with Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo in its Earth Day edition a month ago. At the end of the interview, the discussion turned to transportation and sustainability:

On public transportation: There’s a recommendation in the master plan that there be affordable public transportation within a quarter mile of everybody? How do we do that?

I don’t know how feasible that is. I think there are some other things we need to think about. I think it’s relatively easy to provide transit in the urban core. But as you get further out and the densities go down and the model gets more suburban, I’m not sure how you do that. I’m not even sure it would be smart because you’d be driving a lot of miles to get to people who may or may not want to get on the bus.

You know, there’s a lot of interest in fixing up downtown and the central city and the urban core. It’s older, it’s funkier, it’s fun. But, frankly, it’s not that hard.

No one is really addressing how you fix the suburban model. It’s much more fun to figure out how to fix R Street, rather than trying to figure out how to fix Northgate [Boulevard].

You go to Valley Hi, or south Natomas, and try to get people to use transit. Are they really going to ride a bus to the grocery store? Maybe in places like that we just need to switch to little electric vehicles. You know, the little golf carts? Maybe we stripe the street differently, or not, and let people drive what normally wouldn’t be considered a street-safe vehicle on certain streets. But allow someone to take their little electric car to the grocery store, instead of their big gas-guzzling vehicles. Maybe that’s a way to reduce emissions and reduce congestion and make the community more livable. Otherwise, how do you ever make a community that’s six units to the acre dense enough to support transit?

You’re talking about retrofitting the suburbs.

Someone’s got to figure it out. We have this suburban pattern all over California. Our best brain-stormers typically have been central-city focused. It will be interesting to get people like the American Institute of Architects and others to think about, “OK, how do we fix it out there? What do we do?” I think we need to figure that out before we go any further north than North Natomas.

This is the real tough spot in the whole puzzle of sustainability. How to retrofit the suburbs in terms of transportation infrastructure so that they can transition down the line to a reality where gas is so expensive (and the environmental costs of carbon emissions are so destructive) that it threatens the very car commuter culture that they were planned around? How do we fix that, or tinker with it to make it get by somehow?

Commuter rail is one existing solution, running more and more trains on existing lines such as the Capital Corridor, and perhaps running new lines out on the old tracks to Woodland or Winters, or up the Valley to Yuba City or Marysville, but what I’d really like to see is the light rail extended out to Davis, like they were talking about back in the early 90s. I would much rather hop a train or light rail and not have to bother with the mad commute of Hummers on speed through the tangle.  Truth be told, I’d probably spend a lot more time in Sacramento if there was such an extension.

Feeder networks are the other side, making sure that you’ve got good bus networks, or bike lanes, or even just adequate train station parking, feeding people into the big mass transit nodes at both ends. Sacramento’s light rail is getting better about this, and in Davis, Unitrans buses are somewhat useful for getting to the university, but less so for getting to the train station directly (and at any rate, the use of natural gas may bite us as that peaks down the road as well). The electric cars that Fargo talks about are all over the place here in Davis, and might be another good solution, especially given our plentiful sun and wind that could be tapped for energy needs in the suture (DMUD, anyone?). Many other suburbs have a long way to go in that regard, though, and I hope Fargo and other forward-thinking mayors and city councils are starting to think about it. And as I wrote a while ago, increasing the urban density in existing cities’ downtowns, within walking distance of things like train stations and basic amenities, could help to alleviate future post-peak transportation pressures as well.

California invented sprawl. Hopefully we can invent a way out of it as well that still allows the next generation to afford housing.

originally at surf putah

Here are some wild and wonderful Orange County stories that you have to see to believe:

– Is Brea Turning Up Its Nose to Walgreens? Is Brea being “hostile to property rights”, as Jubal/Matt Cunningham suggests at OC Blog?

I saw that a bankruptcy judge sided with Brea and against bankrupt Tower Records’ attempt to lease their 30,000 square foot space to Walgreens:

“There are a lot of places in our city where a Walgreens would be great,” O’Donnell said. “But not in an entertainment/restaurant district.”

A drugstore? Eeeewww…how tawdry! People with illnesses picking up prescriptions! Can’t possibly have that across the street from the multiplex!

Have we come to this? Local government inserting itself into the free marketplace to the extent of deciding where it is and isn’t appropriate to put a drugstore?

I really don’t know. I’ll leave that judgment call to you.

– Who’s Breaking the Law Now?. The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals faults the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in its detention of an inmate who was cuffed to a hospital bed. The OC Register has more.

– Hmmm… Should I Feel Sorry for My Reps. in Sacto? Brian Joseph is reporting in today’s Register that state legislators don’t get as good health care and pension benefits (in fact, legislators get NO pensions) as their staffers. Still, I don’t know if I feel sorry for them quite yet… Especially when former State Sen. (now Congressman) John Campbell (R-Newport Beach) still refuses to pay back the $14,000 he lost the state by having the state buy him a yellow Mustang Saleen. And finally…

– Gingrich (Finally!!) Says He’s a Cheater! OK, so this is not a purely Orange County story… But still, Dan Chmielewski has something to say about it at The Liberal OC. : )

(The Money Comes in, The Favors Go Out. It’s time to stop this cycle. So many issues would get a better crack at the apple if we didn’t have all this money flowing into Sacramento. Think about recommending this on Daily Kos. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

With the Katrina anniversary, there has been lots of talk about what government needs to do to protect citizens from another disaster. The other day, California Assemblymember John Laird told the Capitol Weekly, “We have less flood protection than they had in New Orleans. Sacramento is really not protected and the thousands of people who live here are at risk.” But this wasn’t a story about the anniversary, this was a report on how flood protection in California died a suspicious death in the legislature:

This week, just as Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata put on hold an eight-bill package of flood-protection legislation, one of his political committees received a $500,000 donation from the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), one of the package’s biggest opponents.

The donation is the single largest that a Perata committee has received since he became Senate leader in 2004.

In response, the California Majority Report noted, “As is the case with many policy areas that the legislature deals with, especially this time of year, eyebrows were raised about the timing of all of this.” In addition being a policy disaster that risks lives, these scandals harm people’s faith in government, decreasing participation in a vicious cycle that gives even more power to the special interests who run Sacramento.

In May, the Public Policy Institute of California polled on the issue (May 14-21, 2000 adult residents, +/- 2% MOE):

Do you think that campaign contributions are currently having a good effect or a bad effect on the public policy decisions made by state elected officials in Sacramento, or are campaign contributions making no difference?”

Good Effect	12%
Bad Effect	56%

The big money that controls Sacramento is so excessive, that it is easy to see why the polls show people realize how it is harming policy. If you check out yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle, you’ll see an editorial blasting the “nasty moves” that special interests used to kill flood control. It is easy to see why people who pay attention are disgusted by the way Sacramento operates like an auction.

Special Interests Killing Universal Health Care Legislation

Yesterday, the California Assembly passed historic Universal Health Care legislation. This bill would save $8 billion a year and at the same time provide insurance for 6 million Californians. Sounds too good to be true? Well here comes the but…

Insurers have spent $3.7 million in campaign contributions in California since 2005.  Governor Schwarzenegger, who alone has received $765,000 from health insurers, has said he will veto the bill.

The big money has a proven ability to stop sound policy, and so California will waste $8 billion a year so that 6 million less people will have health insurance.

Special Interests New Deregulation

Public safety and health care aren’t the only areas where big money dominates in Sacramento. While lawmakers are holding dozens of fundraisers as they wrap up the legislative session, AT&T lobbyists are hitting the jackpot:

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) gave AT&T and smaller Verizon permission to raise telephone rates at will, even as a telecommunications deregulation bill — a bonanza for AT&T and a bane to consumers — sped toward passage in the state Senate, jammed with last-minute amendments. […]

AT&T, while publicly billing the deregulation as beneficial competition in the video market, has not promised any rate reductions or other specific consumer benefits. It has poured nearly $18 million into lobbying efforts over the last few months, and $500,000 into direct political contributions during this election cycle, noted FTCR. That does not include contribution pledges made during legislators’ mad dash of fund-raising during the last three weeks of the legislative session, which ends next Thursday. These contributions will not be known until after the hundreds of measures still coming to a vote are passed or killed.

Yes, it sounds exactly like what went on during electrical deregulation, but as with flood protection, government can’t learn from past mistakes when special interests are running the show.

Solution: Proposition 89

Proposition 89 is the Clean Money and Fair Elections initiative that California will vote on this November. Put on the ballot by the California Nurses Association of anti-Arnold fame, the proposal addresses that systematic problems that are holding back good policy on a wide array of issues. Here are the details of Proposition 89.

Strict contribution and expenditure limits
Prop. 89 ends the fundraising madness with constitutional limits so regular voters aren’t drowned out by big money.
* Proposition 89 bans contributions from lobbyists and state contractors
* Proposition 89 limits contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals to state candidates
* Proposition 89 limits corporation donations to initiatives to $10,000

Clean Money public financing of political campaigns
Prop. 89 levels the playing field so new candidates can win on their ideas, not
because of the money they raise.
* With Proposition 89, candidates who agree to spending limits and to take no private contributions qualify for public funding
* Under Proposition 89, $5 contributions from voters required to prove viability
* With Proposition 89, lean candidates receive enough to run competitive campaigns. They can’t raise money beyond public funds

Tough disclosure and enforcement for politicians
Prop. 89 stops candidates from hiding behind negative ads and punishes politicians who violate the law.
* Proposition 89 makes wealthy self-funded candidates disclose the amount of personal funds they will spend
* Under Proposition 89, publicly financed candidates must engage in debates
* Proposition 89 imposes mandatory jail time and provides for removal from office of candidates who break the law.

The Challenge

Of course, the special interests who dominate Sacramento are spending at least as much money to stop Proposition 89 as they spend for each issue where they want to dominate the debate. While we won’t have as much money as the opposition, what we do have is a great initiative, a reality-based argument, lots of supporters, and trusted organizations like the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, California Nurses, the Consumer Federation of California and the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights all aggressively and creatively working to pass the initiative.

We would also like to have your support. We have started a campaign blog to keep supporters up-to-date and would appreciate it if supporters would sign up for email updates. Thanks for reading all the way down.

I just love talking about Rob Haswell cause here is one candidate who has never run before and who’s running one of the most energized and smartest campaigns in the Lake Tahoe area.

In case you haven’t heard about Rob Haswell yet, and considering we’re mostly talking about congressional and gubernatorial campaigns you probably haven’t, he’s running in California’s open (!) 4th Assembly district which ranges from the suburbs of Sacramento up to Lake Tahoe. The district mostly overlapses with the 4th Congressional district represented by Abramoff buddy John Doolittle. Running against Doolittle is fighting Dem Charlie Brown.

A couple of days ago I also talked about Rob in my post The Modern Campaign.

Rob Haswell’s Republican opponent Ted Gaines is proud of his connection with Abramoff buddy John Doolittle as becomes apparent from his endorsement list and his photo page.

Recently, Carlos Alcala of the Sacramento Bee has also taken notice:

Placer-grown rivalry: Assembly candidate Rob Haswell scheduled some recent events with the theme of preserving open space and boosting local agriculture. Promoting his Loomis “Keep it Rural” rally, Haswell backers noted his family has been in Placer for five generations. It started with great-great-grandfather Frederick Birdsall, who came to Auburn in the 1870s and started an olive oil company that was family-run until the 1970s. (Street Whys mentioned this stuff in June, because some Auburn streets are named for Birdsalls.) We like Haswell’s rural and ag focus, but we have to point out that his opponent in the race has deep Placer ag roots, too. County Supervisor Ted Gaines’ great-great-grandfather was James William Kaseberg, who showed up in these parts in the 1850s or 1860s. He amassed up to 50,000 acres stretching from Roseville to the Sacramento River, and raised wheat, among other products. Roseville has a school, drive and park named Kaseberg. … One could see the Assembly race as a Wild West duel of farm histories, but we prefer a more peaceful scenario: Imagine that at some point in Placer’s past, someone sat down to eat and dipped bread made from Kaseberg wheat into Birdsall’s Aeolia Olive Oil.

That olive oil story is great and here is what Rob has to say about the “rural” background of Ted Haines:

My opponent, developer-backed Ted Gaines, also comes from deep agricultural roots in the county. Although we are both 5th Generation, we have come to very different conclusions about what the future of our region should look like. This race will be about those competing visions.

It’s fantastic to see a candidate take real interest in local issues and think about what’s best for the future. Rob Haswell’s support of PlacerGROWN is a great example. Encouraging people to buy local produce has several advantages: it’s good for the environment, it safes energy resources, it supports and creates employment in the area and of course the produce is always fresh.

Help Turn Tahoe Blue by contributing to Assembly candidate Rob Haswell!

This is an edited version of a post on my local blog Turn Tahoe Blue.