Sacramento River access: The Pocket can’t hold it hostage forever | Opinion
Last month, the Sacramento City Council unanimously approved a plan decades in the making to construct four miles of riverfront trail along the Pocket and Greenhaven neighborhoods. The project will finally close the longest gap in the Sacramento River Parkway multi-use trail, which spans the west edge of the Pocket between Garcia Bend and Zacharias parks — a goal the city has been working toward since it adopted its master use plan in 1975.
Residents who live along the proposed trail are suing the city in an effort to delay building and keep their riverfront properties private. It’s part of a decades-long fight to keep their backyard river access private.
And to be honest, I can’t outright condemn their frustration.
If I owned beautiful riverfront property in Sacramento for decades, I’d also be upset at the impending changes the city is proposing, especially if it was through forced easements or declaring eminent domain.
But the fact is, these homeowners have had decades to get used to the idea.
“The vision for a riverfront trail has been in plans for nearly 50 years,” the city’s website on the project states. “The Sacramento River Parkway was first envisioned in the 1975 Sacramento River Parkway master plan, and was subsequently added to the 1979 Pocket Area Community plans. The Parkway plan was revisited with the 1997 Sacramento River Parkway plan update.”
Moreover, the natural beauty of the Sacramento River is a gift that belongs to everyone who lives and works here. It does not belong solely to a few lucky property owners who have defied and delayed the project for decades.
.JPG "SAC_ScreenShot2019-10-13at102926AM (1).JPG")
Sacramentans deserve public access to every part of the river. A fear of strangers behind your house (though what we’re really talking about is a fear of people who are homeless) is not a valid reason to oppose a public service project like the Sacramento River Trail, which will introduce ADA-compliant access and alternative transportation options along the river, so that Sacramentans of all abilities can enjoy the riverfront.
“I get that change is hard, and I understand the residents have some frustrations, and we’re going to listen and try to the extent that we can mitigate those,” said Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty at the city council meeting in October when the plan was approved. “But this project is moving forward after multiple decades in the shadows, and I’m 100% in support.”
Those multiple decades spent in the shadows through stalling tactics have created another, much more valid problem, though. (And perhaps that was the point all along.)
The homeowners argue that the city has improperly relied on a nearly 30-year-old environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. They demand in their lawsuit that the city must administer a new, supplemental environmental impact report to address the nearly three decades of changes to the plan, which includes heavier projected use and new access points.
If the city is confident in the project’s validity and necessity, then the request for a supplemental EIR should be no obstacle. And if the homeowners are truly acting in good faith, then they must accept the decision of the judge, the city and the public’s will to move forward with the trail.
But it’s also been made clear that — at some point — the city will have to put its foot down and stop the repeated stalling tactics by Pocket and Greenhaven residents, many of whom are clearly not acting in good faith.
The city’s general plan has been on the books since 1975, and the trail itself has been in the works for nearly three decades. It’s time to learn how to share.
