Bee: City to hear ambitious railyard plan

Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#1
#1
The pertinent bits from a story in the Bee 3/9/06:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14227850p-15051462c.html

The developers of downtown Sacramento's 240-acre railyard today will submit a new plan to the city that includes high-rise housing along the river, a 1,000-seat live theater and a new sports arena anchoring an entertainment district.

Representatives of Thomas Enterprises, which has been working for three years to buy the railyard from Union Pacific, said the revised plan incorporates a variety of wishes expressed by local leaders and community members - from a new downtown home for the Kings to an arts venue that could better accommodate some Broadway shows.

"A lot of this is carrying out the mayor's vision for the railyards," said Suheil Totah, vice president of development for Thomas Enterprises Inc.

The group is not, however, offering to pay for these expensive amenities. It is simply making room for them in its plan. It would be up to the community to figure out a way to get them built, something that in the case of the arena has proved elusive.

Joe Maloof, whose family owns the Kings, said he hadn't been informed that an arena would be included in the railyard plan. He said the family doesn't have a strong preference for where an arena should go. But he noted that earlier leaders of the railyard development team - which has morphed substantially in the past two years - said they didn't need an arena to make their project work and didn't express any desire to have one.

"I don't know if they just put the arena in there to make the city happy, or if they really want to do it," he said.

"When they buy the land maybe we'll have a little more excitement," Maloof added, referring to the group's lengthy effort to consummate a purchase of the railyard from Union Pacific.
 
DocHolliday

DocHolliday

Starter
#2
#2
Yeah I read the whole article on sacbee.com. They haven't really made any specs on the arena, or come up with any funding. The people that are planning on devloping that land have just alotted room for an arena in there plan. I think it would be fantastic to have it there. Now we just need to come up with the money and a design. ... Oh wait....that's what we needed before to. :confused:
 
G

GreenKing

G-League
#3
#3
There is all this chatter about building on the rail yard site. Has everyone forgotten that the UP site is a toxic waste dump? Buy a new house/condo on that site and you get the added benifit of having cancer. See a Kings Game and drink the water mmmmm pollution. Superfund sites are a bargin for the price. That is if you dont care for being on scorched earth.
 
LPKingsFan

LPKingsFan

All-Star
#4
#4
The railyard would be PERFECT. The pollution can be treated. Cities do not often have such a golden opportunity to revitalize/expand their central downtown areas. A downtown arena is the way to go these days. This is Sacramento's chance to push toward becoming the cosmopolitan city of the future that it has the chance to be, or an amalgamation of cluttered suburbia that it is threatening to become.
 
G

GreenKing

G-League
#5
#5
Who is going to pay for the cleanup? It's on private land so the city of Sacramento has zero responsibility in paying for the cost of the clean up. And I seriously doubt whoever is going to buy the property is going to pay the tens of millions of dollars to get the job done. And with the current owners/union pacific there has been absolutely no progress in the cleanup of the site. Maybe after the levees break in natomas there will be this magic pot of gold just waiting to be used on an arena.
 
Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#7
#7
Uh, you guys aren't reading carefully. It WAS polluted and WAS a Superfund site - no longer:

But the site has proved difficult to develop, in part because of its lack of streets and other infrastructure, and because it was so soaked with toxic leftovers from the rail industry that it was labeled a Superfund site.

Totah said the agreement to buy the UP land awaits only minor tweaking relating to an insurance policy needed to cover unexpected toxic cleanup costs.

See some older articles on what has been done so far:

http://www.kcra.com/news/2684167/detail.html

After years of discussion and environmental cleanup, there are solid plans for the 240 acres of prime land. The plan shows new through-streets on 6th and 7th streets.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0903909

Shows the site is not on the National Priority List for Superfund Sites

It is also not on the list here:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/ca.htm#SACRAMENTO

And:

http://www.sierra2.org/viewpoint_articles/2005/april2005/railyard.htm

2003: UP sells 72 acres of the rail yard land to Petrovich Development and Renova Partners. Petrovich later buys Renova's interest. Petrovich proceeds with clean up of all the contaminated land to residential levels; completion expected in summer of 2005.
 
G

GreenKing

G-League
#8
#8
Even with the clean up people would be stupid to put their home on that land. And to trust the people who are cleaning up the site to do a thorough and complete clean up is wishfull thinking. Look at the debacle that is taking place at McCllean. The Government wants to reduce their commitment to cleaning up one of the top 5 worst superfund sites in the country. Maybe the UP Railyard is off the list but I doubt very seriously that it's a safe place to build homes and have public events.
 
Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#9
#9
GreenKing said:
Even with the clean up people would be stupid to put their home on that land. And to trust the people who are cleaning up the site to do a thorough and complete clean up is wishfull thinking. Look at the debacle that is taking place at McCllean. The Government wants to reduce their commitment to cleaning up one of the top 5 worst superfund sites in the country. Maybe the UP Railyard is off the list but I doubt very seriously that it's a safe place to build homes and have public events.
Click to expand...
Look, I'm not saying that I'd rush out to buy a house on a previous superfund site, but you have to realize that if you live within, say, 2,000 ft of an older gas station or a railroad (buried oil pipelines often run parallel to railroads, and I have worked at several sites where they have leaked), you could have a lot more pollution problems where you live than there is at this site. Cleanup is supervised by the govt, which in California has some of the strictest pollution standards in the country.

If they build an arena there, I would be much more concerned about getting into a car accident on the way there than any potential health effects from the site itself. If any plan moves forward with development, contamination will be a non-issue with all the monitoring and remediation already performed and also required if anything else pops up.
 
Last edited:
quick dog

quick dog

Starter
#10
#10
I am not holding my breath on this prospective deal because, afterall, it still involves UPRR, the State, and the City of Sacramento. That is body-load of bureaucracy and ineptitude.

That said, any ray of hope is better than none.

The idea of building a large multi-purpose arena and parking structures on a "fomerly" contaminated site may be the ticket. Those involved in land development know that environmental clean-ups are seldom perfect. There are always "surpirses", pockets of undiscovered contaminants, excavated during the ground preparation phase.

It might be far easier to proceed with development of a large, concrete and steel, public facility than it would be to build a cluster of residential structures. Regulatory agencies would be more likely to allow large, non-residential, structures to be constructed over a questionable soil and ground water situation. Large structures can actually isolate small zones of contamination.

I suspect, because of my suspicious mind, that the prospective developers have nagging concerns about potentially undiscovered problems that they might have to remediate. A very large structure or two on this "fully remediated" land might be a good idea.

Maybe Mayor Fargo will actively support this proposal? Maybe she was involved in this potential deal from the very beginning, hence her silence on the arena issue for several months?
 
M

MyKidsDad

Prospect
#11
#11
The railyard plan is ambitious and long range. If the site's prospective owners are able to start construction by April 2007, as they hope, it would still take at least 15 years to build out, Totah predicted.
Click to expand...
Arco is not going to last another 5 years let-alone 15. Unless they could put the arena on the "fast track" this is going to be too late.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#12
#12
I think what they're saying is if they start construction by April 2007, the entire project would take 15 years. I'm assuming if they did get as far as getting a go-ahead for the arena, it could be done within a reasonable time frame.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#13
#13
Well nice to at least see a little ambition reinserted into the picture by SOMEBODY. Even if the goods aren't there to actually get it done. From all the grumbling and whining you'd think shuffling off to build a new arena was the equivalent of a root canal. Something that gee, I guess just HAS to be done, but what a bummer. Far prefer the approach where its a an exciting part of a cool development for Sacramento.
 
Ryle

Ryle

Starter
#15
#15
GreenKing said:
Even with the clean up people would be stupid to put their home on that land. And to trust the people who are cleaning up the site to do a thorough and complete clean up is wishfull thinking. Look at the debacle that is taking place at McCllean. The Government wants to reduce their commitment to cleaning up one of the top 5 worst superfund sites in the country. Maybe the UP Railyard is off the list but I doubt very seriously that it's a safe place to build homes and have public events.
Click to expand...
I would have to say not as stupid as the people who are building and living in homes in Natomas that will be under water if a levee breaks.
 
Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#16
#16
Ryle said:
I would have to say not as stupid as the people who are building and living in homes in Natomas that will be under water if a levee breaks.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's interesting to look at old maps. I have one here in the office and you'll never guess what's there (Natomas) - Bush Lake. That's right - a good chunk of the area used to be a lake.

Look up "Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Sacramento Valley, California" (1923) and look at the "Map of the Sacramento Valley".
 
quick dog

quick dog

Starter
#17
#17
Ryle said:
I would have to say not as stupid as the people who are building and living in homes in Natomas that will be under water if a levee breaks.
Click to expand...
Wow. This is probably true, but you are the first non-hydrologist that I have seen state the obvious. I am assuming that you not a hydrologist, and did not participate in the 1970s ongoing debate on the issue. The scientific and engineering community, including hydrologists of the Army Corps of Engineers and DWR, admonished the State and local government not to develop the Natomas agricultural area, but the politicians and developers held sway. Amazing isn't it. Of course, loudest amongst the proponents of the massive Natomas development were the founders of the Sacramento Kings franchise.

Side note: It is also interesting to note that the Jerry brown Administration backed the Natomas developers. As you all know, Brown was always proported to be an environmentalist and humanist. He also, with the help of Speaker of the House Willie Brown and CSEA, gave us State government collective bargaining. As they sang in Caberet, "Money makes the world go round, the world go round. It makes the world go round. Money, money, money, money.....".
 
Last edited:
kennadog

kennadog

Dog On It!
#18
#18
GreenKing said:
Even with the clean up people would be stupid to put their home on that land. And to trust the people who are cleaning up the site to do a thorough and complete clean up is wishfull thinking. Look at the debacle that is taking place at McCllean. The Government wants to reduce their commitment to cleaning up one of the top 5 worst superfund sites in the country. Maybe the UP Railyard is off the list but I doubt very seriously that it's a safe place to build homes and have public events.
Click to expand...
Do you know what's under your house? Is your home on former farmland? Anybody do soil tests for pesticides and herbicides? Did anybody check to see if there were underground storage tanks (used to store fuels for farm equipment)? And that's just a teeny part of what could be under your house and you don't know it. At least this is identified and clean-up is required. People buy homes all the time and have no clue what kind of contaminents are in, under, or over their homes (PCBs, anyone?).
 
G

GreenKing

G-League
#19
#19
Warhawk said:
Yeah, it's interesting to look at old maps. I have one here in the office and you'll never guess what's there (Natomas) - Bush Lake. That's right - a good chunk of the area used to be a lake.

Look up "Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Sacramento Valley, California" (1923) and look at the "Map of the Sacramento Valley".
Click to expand...
Anyone associated with Natomas is a fool. Buying a house in a natural flood zone is brilliant! And now everyone there has to pray that the levees from the 1800's dont fail. After all this hoopla in the news flood insurance will skyrocket. lol suckers.
 
J

JB_kings

Starter
#22
#22
DocHolliday said:
Yeah I read the whole article on sacbee.com. They haven't really made any specs on the arena, or come up with any funding. The people that are planning on devloping that land have just alotted room for an arena in there plan. I think it would be fantastic to have it there. Now we just need to come up with the money and a design. ... Oh wait....that's what we needed before to. :confused:
Click to expand...
It has been worked on before:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/SED/SED_Phase_2a.pdf

The key thing here is that the players that screwed over the City Council and the Maloofs appear to be out of the picture. Former city manager Bob Thomas was booted a few months ago and he was a key player in cutting the arena out of the plans submitted by Millinea. Isn't it a cooincidence that the arena suddenly is back in the plans. This has a better chance of happening because the scope of the whole plan goes far beyond just a benefit for the Kings. It has major potential to make that area as successful as the San Antonio Riverwalk. Also the legislation the the Maloofs got Arnold to get through will establish a district that could be eligible for cheaper funding. The railyard has always been the best option, but the players who held those cards appear to be out now. It's not a bombshell news item, but it's significant enough to watch closely.
 
quick dog

quick dog

Starter
#23
#23
Little known fact. The formerly productive farmland of the Natomas area was developed into farmland from swamps by the Natomas Gold Mining Company (NGMC). The wealth created by NGMC in the first half of the 20th Century was used to develop productive farmland in the deltaic swamps northwest of Sacramento. They built farm levees, which were not intended to product structures, and pumped out the water.

Fifty years after the fact, 90 percent of the dredge tailings created by NGMC have been subsequently developed into housing and commercial property. Most of the farmland created by NGMC has been developed into housing and commercial property.

What a cycle. Rough land and wildlife habitat is mined in Rancho Cordova and Folsom to recover gold. After the mining, without reclamation work, the trees and wildlife move back in for more than 30 years. The government ultimately takes much of the land from NGMC through eminent domain. The Aeroject facility is built, and the rest of the dredge tailings are covered with houses, commericial businesses, junkyards, and people.

In the Natomas area, money from gold mining is used to create farmland from rough land and habitat. After 30 years the farmland is destroyed and more houses are constructed. This is a case study on the relationships between business, bureaucracy, politicians, environmentalists, and the general public. Who wins and who loses?
 
Last edited:
slugking50

slugking50

All-Star
#24
#24
JB_kings said:
It has been worked on before:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/SED/SED_Phase_2a.pdf

The key thing here is that the players that screwed over the City Council and the Maloofs appear to be out of the picture. Former city manager Bob Thomas was booted a few months ago and he was a key player in cutting the arena out of the plans submitted by Millinea. Isn't it a cooincidence that the arena suddenly is back in the plans. This has a better chance of happening because the scope of the whole plan goes far beyond just a benefit for the Kings. It has major potential to make that area as successful as the San Antonio Riverwalk. Also the legislation the the Maloofs got Arnold to get through will establish a district that could be eligible for cheaper funding. The railyard has always been the best option, but the players who held those cards appear to be out now. It's not a bombshell news item, but it's significant enough to watch closely.
Click to expand...

I still like that plan. Imagine driving your boat up to the arena.... That would be cool.
 
LPKingsFan

LPKingsFan

All-Star
#25
#25
slugking50 said:
I still like that plan. Imagine driving your boat up to the arena.... That would be cool.
Click to expand...
Too bad we still don't have J-Will. People could park their boats outside the arena and hope to catch errant passes, much like the boaters in McCovey cove in SF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.