Letters for April 17, 2014

McKinley not healthy

Re “Tunnel vision” by Nick Miller (SN&R News, April 10):

The cost to build responsibly is a part of doing business. I think it is nervy of developer Phil Angelides to accuse Councilman Steve Cohn of political motivation. Angelides is listed as a political supporter for Councilman Kevin McCarty and contributed to Councilman Darrell Fong's campaign. And our own SN&R reported how Angelo Tsakopoulos, one of California's most powerful political figures, stayed after project approval to shake hands with the planning commissioner. And I consider Angelides' unfounded accusation that East Sacramento is displaying “classic NIMBYism” as a slur. East Sacramento has a long history of and has been formed by infill. We support the current infill project Sutter Park. East Sac supports smart, healthy infill. McKinley Village, at the freeway's edge—rimmed by a railroad track with trains hauling up to 100 cars of highly flammable crude oil in a basin of noise and air pollution—is not healthy for children.

Sidney Norris

Sacramento

Elvas lives at McKinley?

Re “Tunnel vision” by Nick Miller (SN&R News, April 10):

When looking at the map of the proposed project, Elvas Avenue is a logical route into and out of McKinley Village. Directing traffic down 40th Street is nonsensical and just plain wrong. Why doesn’t anyone ever suggest Elvas as an alternative?

Kitty Lombardo

Sacramento

Cohn’s McKinley stand

Re “Tunnel vision” by Nick Miller (SN&R News, April 10):

I am glad you clarified that the vehicle-tunnel access from McKinley Village has been part of the negotiations with Phil Angelides since the very beginning. I find Councilman Steve Cohn’s last-minute jump on the bandwagon—stating that he would not vote to approve the project unless an entrance tunnel for cars is built under the railroad tracks at Alhambra Boulevard and B Street—quite interesting. We have had dozens of meetings over this past year, and I don’t remember Cohn ever taking a stand for this access. I’m happy that he is finally speaking up in favor of the third access, but it could be a day late and a dollar short, since the project is in the final stages and only needs approval by the city council. Since this project is in Cohn and Councilman Steve Hansen’s districts and will affect these districts more than any others, the other city council members should respect the opinions and concerns of Cohn and Hansen and not approve this project without a guaranteed vehicle-tunnel access.

Terry Reed

Sacramento

McKinley bad for Sutter’s Landing?

Re “Tunnel vision” by Nick Miller (SN&R News, April 10):

I would be very curious which council members and or planning staff was not aware of the vehicle-tunnel proposals at Alhambra Boulevard. This is the only appropriate solution for development of any project on those lands. It is very much in the greater public interest to manage traffic on 28th Street at Sutter’s Landing Regional Park. The future of this fantastic park with pristine American River access should not turn into a traffic jam before the public has a chance to properly develop what most council members understand is a Central Park-type opportunity for Sacramento. I am a property owner on 28th Street, and look forward to the smart growth of a regional treasure.

Clark Kayler

Sacramento

McKinley’s politics

Re “Tunnel vision” by Nick Miller (SN&R News, April 10):

Dumping this project’s traffic onto C and 28th streets without offering any mitigation is not a good way to do business. It is well-known that Phil Angelides has had ongoing discussions with both of the key city councilmen and their staff about the feasibility and cost of at least a one-way vehicle tunnel. Councilman Steve Cohn should have spoken out in support earlier, as should have Councilman Steve Hansen, but labeling this last-minute “railroading” is disingenuous. It’s simply politics.

Ellen Trescott

Sacramento