Commentary on Sycamore Village and Sac Bee article - long | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Cinnie Blair (cpie55earthlink.net) | |
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:58:15 -0800 (PST) |
As promised, here is the response that I sent to the Sacramento Bee. Cinnie Commentary on the proposed Sycamore Village Cohousing and Sac Bee article I was at the CPAC meeting in Orangevale on Tuesday, January 2. Although I am a former 15 year resident of Fair Oaks, I am not a current resident in Sacramento County, nor a future resident of this project. I attended the meeting because I am an enthusiastic supporter of cohousing and hope to live in a cohousing community some day. I left Sacramento because I wanted to farm, and so I moved to a rural part of Nevada County. I would like to share a few of my observations about the meeting and the subsequent Sacramento Bee article on Monday, January 8. In my experience, this part of Orangevale is not “rural.” My 1996 edition of Webster’s Unabridged dictionary defines rural as: “…characteristic of the country, country life, or country people; of or pertaining to agriculture…” Okay, do any of the petitioners actually own livestock? Do any grow a crop? When was the last time you had to wait while your neighbor drove his cattle down the road? This morning I drove past 2 hunters standing beside their pickup truck, wearing camo and holding rifles…I amused myself by imaging this duo in Thelen Court! No, this part of town, Illinois and Greenback, is “suburban” and “commercial”. The 3.5 acre lot in question is an island surrounded by ¼ acre parcels and a huge concrete building that houses a fitness center. The only rural property left in the area is the 80 acre Gum Ranch, 1.5 miles away. (I think this committed group of residents would do better to work to preserve that!) Why would one journalist and 70 local residents call this place rural? I’ll bet you money that the Bee Staff Writer has never seen the place by the light of day. But what about those 70 local residents? My guess is that it is denial, pure and simple. Denial exists to shield us from a reality too painful to bear. I am going to be the bubble-popper, I’m going state the sad, sad truth. Are you ready? Okay here it is: there is no more open space. This area has already lost its open space to a style of development that makes it very difficult to socially interact and do anything without a car. This is something we all grieve. Cohousers, among a handful of others, are trying to do something about it. Let me tell you how. First of all, a “court” (as in Thelen Court) is no more “cohousing” than a grub is a butterfly. Cohousing residents have known each other for years before they actually move in. As co-developers they have risked their life savings, squabbled over design issues, and ridden the highs and lows of the approval roller coaster. They do this because they feel that the benefits of cooperation outweigh all of the hardships. In cohousing, people have private homes, private kitchens, and private finances. But they have chosen to cooperate with their neighbors, and they have generous shared facilities. I know the first three things I would cooperate on: 1. childcare – goodbye play-dates! 2. shared dinners 3. driving. I would say, of all the issues raised by the neighbors in opposition to this project, traffic got the most air time. Please note: there already exists a tremendous traffic problem and residents are justifiably alarmed. But I don’t think cohousing could make it much worse. In fact, cohousing stands a good chance of improving the traffic. A study done in Colorado found that cohousing reduced traffic by 25%. At the Nevada City cohousing, they have a 15 passenger van that ferries some of the kids to a school across town. One mother at the same location said she used one tank of gas all last summer vacation because her kids wanted to stay home and play with their friends. Can the signers of the petition say the same? How many of you carpool with your neighbors? Cohousing will set an example that can be followed by others. The spirit of cooperation won’t end at the property line, so there are sure to be opportunities for the surrounding residents to cooperate directly with cohousing residents on many things, including driving. The Bee article also failed to mention that the area in question falls within the Greenback Lane transportation corridor identified by county planners as one in which they would like to increase density in order to promote public transit and reduce urban sprawl. The bottom line is mass transit requires mass. I was very impressed by the research and thought that went into the petition drive. I encourage the petitioners to continue their research by looking into the latest solutions to the traffic hell that cul-de-sac development has created in this country. You can begin by googling “smart growth” and “new urbanism”. You can also visit Sacramento County’s website devoted to Commercial Corridor development. You may choose to revise some of your assumptions about what creates more traffic. In fact, you may wish that cohousing had been brought to your community while you still had some open space to play with. You could have clustered your homes, reduced traffic by at least 25% and preserved some open space, all at the same time. (But lest you think it’s too late, you can look at N Street Cohousing in Davis where neighbors tore down the fences in their back yards to a create a big common space.) Another issue of grave concern to the immediate neighbors was one of visual impact and privacy. They don’t want to see two-story buildings across their fence; they don’t want their neighbors to look in on their back yard activities. Yet they know that development itself is a forgone conclusion. So, rather than settle for two-story buildings set back eighty feet amongst many mature oak and sycamore trees that will be preserved and having a buffer of a covered parking garage between them and their cohousing neighbors, they would default to the current mode of construction: a two-story stucco box built as big as can be with a 15 feet strip of set-back for a yard, inhabited by people who may not be cooperative or even friendly. Hmmm…. Cohousing residents are energetic, creative people dedicated to making the world a better place for future generations, starting with their own. They are problem solvers. As soon as they have settled in, they will be eager to involve themselves with the surrounding community. An example was given of Muir Commons in Davis where the Girl Scouts and Neighborhood Watch meet in the Common House. So you may want to consider this new development in a new light: you are not so much losing open space as gaining a free community development department and a meeting space that will be available to the neighborhood. Finally, I consider this the beginning of the conversation. The neighbors’ concerns will be addressed at future meetings, both publicly through the planning process and privately with the cohousers. I know many think it would be easiest to shut down the project in one night so you can get on with your lives. I encourage you to continue the conversation. There are not just two sides to an issue - there is much to be learned by all. I want to conclude with an image taken from the life of a butterfly. After the caterpillar spins the cocoon, butterfly cells appear only to be swiftly vanquished by the old caterpillar cells. The butterfly cells must continually reappear and congregate until finally they are “accepted” and can go on about the business of their unique transformation. These butterfly cells have been given a name. They are called “imaginal cells.” No kidding. Look it up.
-
Commentary on Sycamore Village and Sac Bee article - long Cinnie Blair, January 15 2007
- Re: Commentary on Sycamore Village and Sac Bee article - long Cinnie Blair, January 16 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.