Everyone cares about traffic congestion but solutions are varied and we don't have much say in those decisions. For many years the government has been consolidating power at the top at the expense of local control. Today we see this expressed as "regionalism" and SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) is the regional Agency that has control of El Dorado county including it's roads and housing. As we lose local control, even the courts may become out of reach. The State is currently attempting to end local election of Judges, negotiating to purchase all local courthouses with the plan of closing them in the name of efficiency. Yes, we are suppose to go to a big box institution in Sacramento County where the Judges are appointed by the state and may have no connection to EDC at all. This might seem like someone's bad idea, but it is the current long-term strategy in removing the "burden" of local control.
What does SACOG want? For one it wants NO new roads, except for busses. It wants electric vehicles and housing built on top of businesses. It wants urban areas that are "walk only" communities. Does this sound like El Dorado County or something more appropriate for the Sacramento Metropolitan Area? Let us notice that SACOG begins with Sacramento, and for all practical purposes, ends there to! SACOG includes Sacramento county and those counties that surround it and consider it as one region. In this region, Sacramento County Metropolitan area make up the vast majority of residents.
This regional approach does benefit the Sacramento Metropolitan areas, but at who's expense? Here is an example of how Regionalism puts El Dorado County at a disadvantage. EDC is not flat, but SACOG is applying standards and requirements as if it were. After all, SACOG's region is flat, on average. The outcome of this "regional" theory is that SACOG is now mandating that EDC zone for housing based on calculation of how many houses can be built on an acre of land - Flat land. Anyone looking or building a home in El Dorado County knows that "flat" land is very rear. In fact, it is not uncommon to have five acres with only one possible home location, unless we go to cliff dwellings.
When the inability to build in EDC at those SACOG required density was brought before SACOG, their response was, "sorry, we can't reduce your requirement because we would have to give it to someone else in the region!" See this related story, "Supervisors say it's unrealistic to suggest 11,739 new dwellings." We are placated with the statement that we are not required to build 5,700+ low income house, we only need to set aside the land to do it. This sounds disarming unless we give it a little thought
. 
This number of houses was derived from the total population of the state and the percent that would make under 40% of the average income. That is 49.5%. Then look at EDC and the percent of "affordable" housing units. What ever we are short SACOG will mandate that we set aside that much land for affordable homes in the future zoning.
If we allow the market to continue as consumers want, we will build more houses above the average and then that percentage of unmet affordable house will climb. Continuing that trend, we will run out of our allotment of (unaffordable) homes. Although SACOG may not make EDC build affordable housing, they certainly can stop us from zoning to build anything else! By the way, how do you build houses for less then they cost? If all that is left to build in EDC are houses that must sell for less then they cost to build, who will build those affordable houses? Taken to it's logical conclusion, this is a plan that does not work for El Dorado County, or some might call it a "no growth" plan.
We have learned in the past that when it comes regional power, the most powerful constituent in the region is the boss. One only needs to look at water rights in our county to see that we can only beg at the table when our big brothers are in town. When will we get tired of losing our local rights? Maybe when we realize that instead of more carpool lanes in EDC, we get more buses and trains in Sacramento county. Why should we be concerned when we have been told that this serves the majority of the region best.
Read the following story to get a better understanding of SACOG's leadership and direction.
Cris Alarcon.
One man's mission: Build a path to unclogged roads
By Tony Bizjak - Bee Staff Writer
A consensus builder courts allies for boosting mass transit spending
McKeever has taken to practicing what he preaches. He often rides the bus to work downtown from his Curtis Park home, and sometimes pedals in on an old three-speed Schwinn bike with a sagging chain.
"Only one gear works," McKeever says. It's the hard gear. "At least I get a workout."
He also bought a street-legal electric golf cart, known in transportation circles as a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle.
"We thought about it and decided not to get a second car," he said. Besides, "the city offers you free parking for
NEVs." The battery recently failed, however, and McKeever says he's been too busy working on the regional transportation plan to get it replaced.
McKeever says he isn't the only one looking for better ways to get to work.
He contends the region has hit what he calls its "ah-ha!" moment -- the realization that more and bigger roads are not the main answer to reducing congestion.
Instead, he says he hears more people saying they want their communities to grow in a way that gives them options beyond cars to get around.
That's in the works in suburban Rocklin, where officials are planning a walkable downtown of four-story buildings next to the train station.
City Councilman Peter Hill, one of McKeever's SACOG board members, said he first thought residents wouldn't like it.
"But people said, 'Yeah, we want that,' " Hill said. He is convinced that Rocklin can become a less car-dominated city. "In the long run, this is the way to go."
McKeever is pushing cities and counties to realize that "in the long run" starts now.
If new bus lines, bike lanes and light-rail facilities aren't in place soon, new residents will stay in their cars and never get out, even those who move to transit-oriented neighborhoods like those planned on the riverfront in West Sacramento or near light rail in Rancho Cordova.
SACOG's thrust is not to kick people out of their cars, McKeever said. Residents in congested areas have made it clear -- as have many on the diverse SACOG board -- that the region needs plenty of road improvements and maintenance in the coming decades.
McKeever agrees that's important. He said he doesn't buy the "starvation theory," where you refuse to fund roads, forcing people to take transit.
"The buses are no good if the road's clogged," McKeever said.
Congestion would, however, continue to rise under this spending formula, he acknowledged.
But McKeever counts it as a success that forecasts show the average Sacramentan a generation from now will experience only about 10 percent more congestion -- much less than the projected 58 percent -- despite the expected arrival of a million more residents.
The SACOG board has given tentative approval to the spending plan and will cast a final vote early next year, after public comments are in.
The tentative project list, called the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, is the product of political compromise.
Citrus Heights Councilwoman Jeannie Bruins, a SACOG board member, says putting it together was "like a taffy pull," given the limited money available.
It includes big road projects, such as the Placer Parkway, connecting Highways 65 and 99, and bulked-up roads in southeast Sacramento County, among them Grant Line and White Rock.
It also invests heavily in expanded bus service and promotes the return of streetcars or trams in several urban areas, including downtown Sacramento.
The public debate is already on.
Some strongly oppose the plan's addition of more carpool lanes, saying such lanes encourage suburban sprawl. Others contend that a billion-dollar, downtown-to-airport light-rail line is a waste of money.
McKeever counters that the light-rail line is important because Interstate 5 will be so congested with commuter and truck traffic that Natomas residents will need another way downtown.
That gives rise to perhaps the most controversial project proposal in SACOG's quiver -- a new bridge across the American River into South
Natomas. County Supervisor Susan Peters has pushed to make sure that bridge is built for cars, not just light rail.
Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo, who lives a few blocks away near Truxel Road, in turn has told McKeever that she and other South Natomas residents will oppose it.
One key player, the North State Building Industry Association, a longtime advocate for improving roads, isn't endorsing SACOG's vision yet.
But, in a nod to SACOG's growing influence, spokesman Dennis Rogers said more builders now believe that more compact growth fed by transit can help the region's economy.
He warns SACOG and city and county leaders not to go overboard. "At the end of the day, for commerce to work -- to deliver that head of lettuce -- we need to maintain and increase our road network."
For his part, Sacramento's Mr. Consensus will try to hold his agency's vision together through what could be a heated summer and fall.
It's why McKeever signed on for the job. "I just felt in my bones the region was in a place where the challenge was significant enough that there was a willingness to consider alternatives."
###
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/257323-p2.html
Last Updated 9:54 pm PDT Thursday, July 5, 2007
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A14
