Does a Goodwill bring good will?

North Natomas is all a buzz about the possibility of a Goodwill taking over the Borders location in Park Place. You can read the tension on Natomas Buzz and Joe Sacramento. People are either against the Goodwill or against people that are against the Goodwill. I've seen very few arguments that are encompassing a positive argument for why a Goodwill is really what North Natomas needs. Calling names, calling us "haters" because we didn't sign up to live next to a thrift store is not productive.

My thoughts from my comments on Joe Sacramento with some additions:

The Goodwill in North Natomas fills a need that is temporary. Sure, the economy is in decline. But when the economy turns around, our neighborhood will not make the same increase if we have fallen apart. I didn't sign up 10 years ago to live next to a thrift store. Supposedly, I was getting a mixed use, neighborhood commercial center that was fully walkable and family friendly. That didn't happen. But I'm not willing to settle and say "It's not walkable, so let's just throw in whatever fits the building." I bought my house on a promise that the City would fulfill a beautiful community plan. If I were opposed to diversity, I wouldn't have bought here- we'd be in Granite Bay. This isn't about diversity. It's about reality of economics. When you swamp an area with low-income housing to meet an arbitrary percentage, you defeat the purpose of mixed residential.

I would like to see a traffic impact study done. Goodwill will no doubt increase the traffic in our neighborhood. I can't imagine that the donations pouring in will amount to the same traffic as one Borders delivery truck. North Bend was not designed to be a retail route. If people start driving in and out that way, the entire neighborhood (including the elementary school) will be impacted. The increased traffic on Natomas Blvd will also be difficult, considering before and after the high school days are already a nightmare.

Goodwill is not the best we can do. It's better than the Dollar Store idea. But I'm very concerned how a change will impact the other tenants in the center. Adding one Goodwill and losing 5 locally owned businesses as a result, is a major problem. I don't think we could stand to lose Jacks, Dinner My Way, Strings, Mathnasium, Big Spoon etc. in that center because people are either afraid (rightfully or not) to shop there, or because the new clientele attracted doesn't have the cash. Sorry- few will convince me that folks will go to Goodwill after work, do a little shopping and then drop $40 at Strings for dinner very often. Highly unlikely the same clients buy fancy shoes from the Shoes N Feet, get frozen dinners or for a week at Dinner My Way. One retailer can change the entire dynamic of a center.

People all over Natomas need to grow up, stop slinging mud and stand up for what we all committed to either 10 years ago or 30. If you're in South Natomas, you have just as much right to be mad at the City. But it's time to DO SOMETHING. Don't just complain that everyone in North Natomas is whining. We all bought into an idea of a community near downtown, close to the airport, with great schools, nice parks and high quality community activities. I don't think you can find one person here who said "Hey I think I'll rent a crappy apartment in a bad school district where the city lies to me, the parks are covered with graffiti and I'm afraid to go shopping." Not one person chose to live here saying that.

Drama unfolds in Natomas Park as discrimination is legalized

Welcome to guest blogger Mr Speeb who has given us permission to repost this from comments on News10.net



So if you're a home owner in Natomas Park, you probably received in the mail today, an interesting document. It is a proposal to amend the delegate voting system from its current form to a new (more sensible?) form. As I said, the clubhouse vote was rigged from the beginning. Here is how the current voting works:

Let's say each delegate has 100 home owners (votes) in his neighborhood. If 10 people vote for something and 10 people vote against something, and 80 didn't vote, the delegate gets to spend the 80 votes anyway that delegate sees fit. Essentially, in this example, the outcome for this delegate will be 90 (80 + 10) votes in one direction and 10 votes (actual home owner votes) in the other direction. Pretty cool. To even get a break even, unbiased vote, 50% of the homeowners would have to vote in one direction. Heck, we don't even get a 50% turnout in a national election. So, as you can see, if the delegates all agree that "those people" should be excluded from the club house, it was a done deal. With a 25% (or less) turnout for the vote, the delegates held 75% of the votes, before it even went to ballot. That's why these board defenders here won't give up any numbers. There was never any chance for a democratic process. But then the board knew that, planned on it, and counted on it.

So back to today's proposal in the mail. The delegates would now have to cast their votes (non-voting owners) in the same proportion as the voting home owners. That is, if the delegate represented 100 home owners, and the owners voted 10 for and 10 against, with 80 non-votes, the delegate would have to cast his vote 50 for and 50 against. Gee, one wonders why they are changing that now. Covering tracks? Trying to make sure the same ploy can't be used to undo their dirty deeds?

Come on NEWS10. Get on this. Start digging and publish the truth.