Comments for the Proposed McKinley Village Sacramento Draft Environmental Impact Report are due January 10, 2014. Click here for ideas on how to comment and suggested format.
Re: yellow sheet announcing the meeting at Clunie–I won’t be able to attend, but please register my strong support for the anti Mc Kinley village! Thank you, KMK
I understand that McKinley Village will have roads that will go directly through East Sacramento. That alone would create my strong opposition to that being built. They can not seem to create a way to handle the existing traffic here now and they want to close the E St. Freeway access??? We should not allow them to create another mess like they did in thr Natomas area. If they do build the McKinley Village, have their traffic patterns independent of any other neighborhood.
Sadly and as a former board member, Vice-President and President of McKinley East Sacramento Neighborhood Association (MENA) I have noticed that MENA has not asked for public input lately about this project. They should have. They are not a neighborhood association without asking for their members’ input. In addition, East Sacramento Improvement Association did not ask their members for input either. Both of these organizations should not be deemed “neighborhood associations” as they are not asking their members what they think. Just because you are a board member for an out-of-touch organization (MENA only has 4 board members) does not make you a voice for an entire neighborhood.
My family does not live in East Sacramento but I do have some experience with regards to planning and development in existing communities. I completely understand the concerns regarding additional traffic through the community. Traffic has and will always be the first issue to resolve prior to moving forward in design and construction of any planned community; however, the professional firms who have developed the current plan have done a good job to alleviate such congestion issues in a cost-effective manner. The entry points at A Street and 40th Street will provide a better flow to and from the neighborhood and spread any additional traffic that would be quite unnoticebale compared to concentrating all the entry points in one specific location (i.e. Alhambra Blvd). Also, the northern side of C street is predominantly commercial compared to other major arterials through East Sacramento, so the impact of this development is not as signficant to the residents as it could be if there were homes between C Street and the railroad embankment.
The vacant land along Business 80 is nothing but an eyesore and I’m glad to see that there is potential to make this land become useful and beneficial to the East Sacramento community as well as the City of Sacramento. Other alternatives of land development for this particular area do not seem financially feasible at this time.
Adapting to change is somewhat difficult, especially for the East Sacramento residents who have been a part of their community for most of thier lives, but no one would be living in East Sacramento today if development had not occurred under less discriminatory processes.
Please! Eyesore now? How about 390 units crammed in there with only one entry point, and absolutely no infrastructure? This traffic will, by necessity go through not only the small winding streets of the McKinley Park area, but also through the once Fabulous 40′s. We have enough problems now with traffic, it is going to get much worse if this project goes through. The reasoning that things that exist today wouldn’t if they were planned now, is fool’s logic. It is foolish to add a new appendage on to an old established neighborhood. In terms of traffic pollution, see http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-study-reports-how-air-pollution-42993.aspx, and http://www.scpcs.ucla.edu/news/Freeway.pdf.
McKinley Village: A Focus on Public Health Outcomes
McKinley Village is a serious public health hazard because those who would live there, particularly the children, would suffer significantly poorer health outcomes than those of us not living within 450 yards of a freeway.
These outcomes include exacerbation of asthma, impaired lung function, increased heart disease, new-onset chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a faster progression of atheroschlerosis, increased risk of premature death from circulatory disease, and increased incidence of new heart disease. Other effects include increased risk of low birth weight, increased risk of preterm delivery for mothers, and the doubling of autism rates.
Please refer to the research Dr. Harry Wang, The President of Physicians for Social Responsibility (700 local members), has cited in the response to the DEIR they provide to the city. http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Planning/Environmental/Impact-Reports/McKinley%20Village
Also please see research provided by our very own UC Davis MIND Clinic, Keck School of Medicine of USC, and the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. See more at: http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/30614/Study-Points-to-Environmental-Factors-of-Autism
“Children born to mothers living within 309 meters of a freeway appeared to be twice as likely to have autism,” said Dr. Heather Volk, the primary author of the study.
With health outcome like this facing future residents, we must focus our priorities not on traffic mitigation, nor on mitigating the damage the project could cause to public schools such as Theodore Judah, but instead first and foremost on health. Of course those and so many other issues are important things to consider; however, sick communities are costly to us all. Costly for our economy, and certainly damaging to our community’s sense of ethics if McKinley Village is allowed to move forward even though our leaders are fully aware of the consequences.
Let’s do the right thing. This project should be disapproved.
President, East Sac Give Back
How do I get a No McVillage sign.. We live at 132 San Antonio Way,
Too near, all too near to Elvas and 40th street, and dont want this to happen…
You can pick them Up at 926 43rd Street. Poke $5 a sign in the mailbox if you have it. Please take as many as you can place… Pay if you can. Thank you Ellen
To Mr. Saeltzer,
Although your concerns about the long-term effects on health has some merit, the overall air pollution in Sacramento and in many parts of the Central Valley are well-below levels that would be considered to be healthy regardless of proximity to major arterials. Approximately 10% of properties in Sacramento County are within 450 yards from a highway. I strongly advise that if there are absolute truths regarding your concern on possible health effects, there should be a focused effort among fellow East Sacramento residents who reside between Folsom Blvd and Hwy 50, between Business 80 and 33rd St, and in the west side of River Park, to determine if these residents are experiencing a higher rate of related heath issues as per the list of possible diseases in your post than those who live outside of this margin.
As I’ve implied in my earlier post, many of Sacramento’s desirable neighborhoods and infrastructure would not exist today if current environmental standards were applied. We may certainly learn from the past and its long-term effects, both negative and positive; however, greater collaborative efforts and the willingness to develop strategies to responsibly mitigate significant impacts due to development are absolutely required between the project proponents and its detractors.
Just want to restate a sentence in my earlier post to avoid confusion:
…the overall air pollution in Sacramento and in many parts of the Central Valley are well-below normal levels and UNHEALTHY regardless of proximity to major arterials.
I am soooooooo liking your responses. Awesome
To Mr. Prosh Anjit and others,
I think the idea of further research is good. I believe the current research presented above and on that basis alone oppose the project.
Some of my neighbors in East Sac have asked “Doesn’t taking a public stance against the McKinley Village Proposal risk further dividing our communities, and producing an atmosphere that is unwelcoming to possible future residents of the project?”
A good question. And yes, there is the risk that somebody would view a public stance against the proposal, or any other new idea, enterprise, or development, as an affront.
But, our communities need to create environments for healthy public disagreement. Healthy public disagreement means that regardless of outcome, valuable and creative relations continue beyond whatever issue is at hand. This is done by getting to know your neighbors as people just like yourself. And, people can and should disagree on certain issues. That’s healthy.
Unfortunately, our media, our politicians, and many other of our leaders don’t have the tools to role model this type of behavior. As we all know they very often role model the exact opposite behaviors and many in the public get so turned off by their exceeding poor examples, that they end up believing that it’s probably best to remain silent, at least in public.
Some my actually consider this a good outcome. I don’t. For the sake of brevity, I won’t detail the risks associated with that type of society or community, only to say that they are very dangerous.
By role modeling healthy discourse and relationships, the risk of offending someone becomes diminished, and healthy community is given an opportunity to exist. Remaining silent is riskier.
I agree healthy disagreement are good.
I have to admit. Posting before fully proofing and editing is something I must work on. For those interested the final version of my March 15th submission is on the East Sac Give Back website http://www.esgb.org. It concludes with the following:
“…I won’t detail the risks associated with that type of society or community, only to say that they can be dangerous, particularly in the face of a culture of extremism. By role modeling healthy discourse and long-term relationship building, the risk of offending someone becomes diminished, and healthy community is given an opportunity to exist. Remaining silent can in this light be the greater risk, though certainly an option.
With this in mind, rest assured the outcome of the McKinley Village project will not alter the purpose of ESGB. We will remain welcoming and inclusive.”
Apologies for not being more careful and thanks for the respectful forum.
You’re passionate and care deeply about people, especially children. Don’t worry about an editing misstep, we hear the music of your words.
“culture of extremism” Can you explain that some more?
At least you are talking in the forum. As for the other people just blindly defending either side… They suck! There is no nice way I can think of to express my dissatisfaction.
So btw I’m for the new community. Cure for autism good parenting and better educational system. Unfortunately we can do nothing about parenting, but we can fix education. Since education is mostly tied to tax dollars you need more people to fund it. If you don’t want to do that then raise taxes.
Hi All, I wont be at the Planning Commission meeting tonight about McKinley Village. I will be attending the Theodore Judah PTA Art & Music Festival. But, I did want to thank all who have found their voice through this process no matter their background, interest or opinion. The open discussions and getting to know each other, for me, has made me sense greater community. And, I have learned a lot about myself. Although I oppose the project, no matter the decision I will always be ready welcome any and all new members of our community. Peace.
My comment appears to be a little late in the process. My duaghter and family live in East Sac and I just recently started asking questions.
My primary concern for this project would be flood control for East Sac, Midtown and further into Downtown.
I haven’t seen mention that the railroad tracks provide the secondary river levee for flood protection. The flood gates are in place on Bus 80 under the 28th St overcrossing and have been in place since the freeway was constructed.
It is one thing to construct within a planned flood plane but the possibility of placing tunnels under the railroad tracks will render the secondary levee useless unless flood gates are constructed at those locations.
Remember Katrina and subsequent flooding that breached levees.
Maybe this issue has been addressed but I haven’t seen anything in writing.
I have a question. Who are the community supporters ie. advocates who are standing strong against this development of McKinley Village.
My parents and grandparents were and still are East Sac residents since the early 1950′s. Seeing this McKinley Village to be developed is a disgrace to this beautiful area of Sacramento. More traffic, more people and more houses is just a depressing thought; and now we are in a drought and have to house water to 336 more homes is rediculous. Is there anyway this development has a way to be stopped? I now live in River Park and my mother still lives near Elvas Ave, we are not looking forward to this increase of population.
Well, looks like McVillage is go.
Brought to us by the same folks who flee downtown for parts East at the conclusion of each workday.
Perhaps Sacramento’s lack of employment diversity and a strong tax base—certainly relative to the Bay Area—contributes to the City’s willingness to agree to a spate of mediocre and piecemeal projects? I’m relatively new to the area, but it seems like the River City treats its rivers with disdain, at best, and has no overarching plan for cohesive development of the East Sac/Midtown/Railyards/Downtown area. I mean, wasn’t that a dump on the other side of C Street in Midtown? Ugh.
Now, next to the former dump, we’re squeezing an automobile-centric, likely water intensive development between the freeway and railroad tracks. With poor access, no services, and no public transportation. Clearly, short term business interests trump any other concerns. And for perhaps the next century, this little development will probably never quite live up to its potential, if it even goes that well.
In a nutshell, this is the story of Sacramento. It never quite lives up to its potential.
I know y’all already know all of this, but as a newbie, I’m astounded by the poor decisions made on behalf of this city. It saddens me greatly. Even though my neighborhood in Midtown is lovely, things like this make me realize that Sacramento will continue to pursue mediocrity.
And, unfortunately, a mediocre city doesn’t attract vibrant business interests, top-tier employees, world-class museums, live theater, cultural events, or anything else that comes along with those things. Heck, in the middle of yet another drought, we’re still trying to actually be able to meter water usage. I was astounded to find this to be the case, only further reinforcing the backwardness of the city.
Try as I might, it’s difficult for me to embrace this place, despite its interesting history. Perhaps it was different and better in decades past, but I can’t imagine many folks coming her because they want to. And McVillage is another, admittedly small, example of why the entire area is such a mess.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>