Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Latest Natomas plan still divisive
Sacramento Bee ^ | September 1, 2002 | Carrie Peyton Dahlberg

Posted on 09/01/2002 11:31:33 AM PDT by farmfriend

Edited on 04/12/2004 5:42:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Two years after a judge rejected its last efforts, the city of Sacramento has come up with a new plan to protect threatened species while more houses and businesses are built in North Natomas.

This time, the city has teamed with Sutter County, and the two jurisdictions hope to persuade federal officials that they will preserve enough open land permanently to compensate for the farms, fields and wetlands that developers will pave over.


(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: evironmentalists; government; landgrab; natomas

Comment period

People wanting to comment on the draft Natomas basin habitat conservation plan and its environmental impact statement must submit remarks in writing by Oct. 28 to the field supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. No comments will be accepted via e-mail. The plan can be read at: www.sacto.org.

Search the site with keywords "Natomas basin."

1 posted on 09/01/2002 11:31:33 AM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Ms. Dahlberg obviously does not read her own newspaper. While the plan, as cited, in her article provides for 1/2 acre mitigation for every acre developed, the city is proposing a one on one exchange.

Divvying up North Natomas

"After a year of quiet negotiations, Sacramento city and county officials this week unveiled a landmark agreement that would open 10,000 acres of Natomas farmland to development, while preserving 10,000 acres of open space along the Sacramento River and around Sacramento International Airport. "

2 posted on 09/01/2002 11:37:49 AM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Editorial: A deal in Natomas
3 posted on 09/01/2002 11:38:59 AM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: comwatch; Saundra Duffy
Let's ping the NCCA freepers. Can we add these links to our web site?
4 posted on 09/01/2002 11:41:15 AM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; Ernest_at_the_Beach
ping
5 posted on 09/01/2002 4:19:36 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag; Willie Green
ping
6 posted on 09/01/2002 4:20:34 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: christie
ping
7 posted on 09/01/2002 4:22:11 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
More farmland being converted to more densely populated commercial/residential.
And Kalifornia doesn't have the common sense to provide adequate electricity/water/sewage infrastructure to support such growth.
I wonder if "developers" have taken this into consideration?
8 posted on 09/02/2002 8:16:21 AM PDT by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
What is not being taken into consideration is the amount of government owned land. The federal government owns 75% of California with state, county, and city land on top of that. There is nowhere left to build but on farmland.
9 posted on 09/02/2002 9:26:34 AM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson