CAL EXPO - AN ALTERNATE VISION

(CEAV)





An Alternate Proposal for the Revitalization

of the

California Exposition and State Fair





California Advocates for the 21st Century

“Putting Imagination Back Into Our Lives”

Note on Readers responsibility:

This copy of “Cal Expo an Alternate Vision” (CEAV) is free. We do ask that you encourage others who might be interested to send an email to CEAV@comcast net and obtain their own copy (this lets us know if we’re reaching the public through neighbor-to-neighbor networks).

The only other cost associated with the CEAV proposal is for California residents. If, after reading our concept, you feel you agree in principle with what CEAV proposes. we do ask you that write/call the management and Board of Directors at Cal Expo and tell them to stop pursuing the NBA concept and to give serious consideration to CEAV and other alternative approaches. To this point, Cal Expo has refused to give a fair hearing to any other ideas. - thank you, Red Slider

The following are the contact addresses related to Cal Expo and the NBA proposal:



Management: Norbert J. Bartosik, General Manager and CEO

Email: NBartosik@calexpo.com

phone: (916) 263-3601



Board of Directors: Ms. Amparo Pérez-Cook, Chair

Cal Expo Board of Directors



email: calexpoboard@calexpo.com



Assemblyman Dave Jones

Cal Expo Board of Directors, Ex-officio member

assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov

Will Bush, Director



State of California Department of General Services (DGS)

phone: (916)-376-5012



[sits on the Board of the State Fair Leasing Authority, a

state agency set up for the purpose of managing leasing

contracts such as those contemplated the NBA concept.]



Cal Expo Website: www.calexpo.com

www.calexpo.ca.gov






CAL EXPO - AN ALTERNATE VISION

SHOWCASE FOR THE 21st CENTURY






submitted to the Board of Directors

of the

California Exposition and State Fair (Cal Expo)

and for inclusion in the public record.

March 27, 2009


MISSION STATEMENT

‘CAL EXPO - AN ALTERNATE VISION’ [For General Release ]

CONTENTS:

Forward: The Form and Application of this Proposal (p. 7)

Main Presentation Documents:

- Draft Proposal: 'Cal Expo - An Alternate Vision' - An alternate concept and

design model for the revitalization of Cal Expo. (p. 8)

- ‘Imaginings - Index (p. 13)

- 'Imaginings' - Verbal 'walk-throughs' of a selection of imaginative

realization potentials for the 'Alternate Vision' model. (p. 15)

Supporting Documents:

- Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger: underscoring the State interest in Cal

Expo development. (p. 37)

- Cover Letter to the Cal Expo General Manager: introducing the submission. (p. 43)

- Cover Letter to the Cal Expo Board of Governors: describing some basic

economic and design inadequacies of the NBA/Cal Expo presentation and

solutions provided by “Cal Expo - An Alternate Vision”. (p. 45)

- “Professional Sport Stadiums: Do They Divert Public Funds From Critical Public

Infrastructure?” Testimony of Judith Grant Long, Harvard School of Design, before the U.S

. Senate Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform

Committee. (p. 51)

Appendix: Comparison of NBA/CEAV Offerings (p. 53)

Comparison of NBA/CEAV Features (p. 55)


Forward: Form and Application, This proposal is structured in three sections - the proposal, potential realizations and, supporting documents. The first section, in the form of a communication to the Cal Expo Board of Governors, broadly describes the basic purposes, design concepts, financial basis and central themes for a revitalized and future-oriented Cal Expo. It provides a conceptual anchor for such things as exhibits, retail shops, demonstration manufacturing venues, a small University California campus and other possibilities that naturally arise from its underlying motif.

The Second Section, “Imaginings”, is in a form that, itself, reflects the design goals of the proposal. It is presented as a series of imaginative realizations of a variety of venues that would be naturally supported by the basic concept. Each of these realizations is a suggestive example of the types of included activities, offerings, architectures and related descriptions that naturally arise from concepts in the first section. They are not fixed proposal designs, nor are they offered with any insistence that they all can or must be implemented.

The form of the “Imaginings” section is unusual in that its own design is open-ended, and in its last part, invites others to add their own imaginative ideas for additional features that might be included. Thus, the proposal, through its “Imaginings” section and, especially, “The Cal Expo Game” realization, becomes an evolving document, very much in keeping with the actual design of a revitalized Cal Expo as an evolving facility for the people of California. It leaves it to the Board of Governors and other public officials, to commercial enterprises through out the state, and to the people of California to carry out that process of evolving design from this time forward.

The third section contains some supporting documents in the form of communications to state officials which highlight many of the inadequacies and flaws that underlie the proposal that has been developed conjointly by the NBA and Cal Expo. The letters outline the vulnerabilities in the financial outlook of that proposal and make the case for why the alternate proposal offered in these documents is far superior, economically and conceptually to what has been described in the NBA version.

Finally, it should be said, that everything in the concepts proposed in these documents ultimately refers back to the original mission statement of the California Exposition & State Fair, as described in Cal Expo’s own Policy Manual. It was to the fulfillment of that mission that the land was originally chartered; a purpose that is no less important or essential to the people of the State of California now, than it was then. There are other places suitable for other facilities and purposes; but, there is only one Cal Expo. The lands given to the purpose of the California Exposition & State Fair constitute a trust with the people of California; that, whatever is to be located upon that land be entirely given to the fulfillment of its mission or some part thereof. - red slider, 3/20/2009



To the Board of Governors

California Exposition & State Fair,

Sacramento, California

Governors,

By way of illustration, permit me to offer an alternative concept to the NBA-centered proposal you are now considering. Make the entire public land that has been entrusted to you into a world-class showcase for the newest and most advanced technologies and practices of the green revolution that is about to come upon us bearing gifts of money, vitality, public interest and every manner of support for decades to come; not to mention a much healthier planet for all of us and our grandchildren.

In agriculture, transportation, energy, building and construction, health, climate, information, home and gardens, you name it, California is a leading contender for creating a whole new wave of technologies and products that correctly envision a future in which we steward our planet and its resources as if it were the last planet we've got. Large and small businesses are lining up for a piece of the action that will flow (some already flowing) from the vision that America is about to embark on a whole new adventure in commerce and invention. In the midst of our current economic debacle, whole branches of Government are gearing up to invest in a future that knows how to build and live in an environment that is founded on clean, sustainable and life-enhancing resources and the products that keep them that way. Even the last two mayors of Sacramento knew enough to promote green living as a centerpiece for Sacramento's future (the knowledge and commitment of the current mayor to this vision remains unclear at this time).

And the people? If you think sports, shopping and entertainment are the bedrock of their real interests and desires, you should think again. Better yet, take yourself, your family and your grandchildren to the new California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park. Let them roam. Then, step back and watch them and the other visitors watching the exhibits. Watch the long lines waiting to get into the place on a typical weekend. Listen to what they say, catch their curiosity, excitement and, yes, even inspiration (keep in mind, they're paying around $25 a ticket to get in). Oh yes, and note that they appear to be speaking in almost every language and come from all over the world. Ask yourself, what really makes a world-class venue? I don’t believe you would return to tell us the best you can do is throw a prime piece of public land and its important California showcase mission into some developer's trough.

Think of the events, exhibits, parks and even interesting entertainment (using advanced entertainment technologies, of course) all focused on demonstrating, educating and interacting with the public with the best of our future and a vision for the state worthy of calling itself a 'vision'. You've got a large chunk of public trust in your keeping. Fill some of it with demonstration wetlands, native plant preserves, xeroscaped garden environments. Events, exhibits? Can you think of a sector of our economy or type of business that doesn't have plenty to show&sell from the newest of green technologies and advancements? They'd be champing at the bit to create events and exhibits to showcase their activities and products to the rest of California, the nation and the world. Everything from flood-control to the latest car and transportation technologies to back (and front) -yard gardening suppliers eager to have a first-class, world-class venue to show their wares and present their newest products, services and visions. What could be more fitting than that for the capital of our state?

Retail shops? Well there's room for some of those, too. Perhaps a small village rented out to green architects and builders, green nurseries and garden supplies, shops selling only biodegradable products, and such. You want shopping, go to Arden Fair Mall. You want affordable solar panels for your house or a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon, or drip irrigation that makes water wasting a thing of the past? You'll find it at 'Cal Expo Village'. You want advanced products and services for an advanced community, go see it at Cal Expo. Think about it. Shops that not only sell products, but that themselves become part of the exhibit and event mission that was, and remains, the original and continuing vision for the mission of a state fairgrounds. For that matter you could also have a few small manufacturers (for instance, a solar panel fabricator, a green-insulation material manufacturer, etc.) on site with open view tours of how they make their stuff and what goes into the manufacture of green products. Perhaps larger, more permanent exhibits would be produced and underwritten by large corporations working on advanced clean technologies. How green can the Sacrament Kings really be? What do they demonstrate about California's future? What exhibit would they offer to enlighten California’s citizens?

And, imagine this - a consortium of departments from U.C. Davis and, perhaps, Sac State, operating a small campus - a few hundred faculty and students and researchers, at Cal Expo. Call it the 'School of Green Design' if you wish. U.C. is a world-class leader in both basic and applied research on the next generation technologies and practices, particularly in agriculture. Nearly every department, from engineering to horticulture, has some part devoted to discovering and applying ideas that will restore our planet and sustain it as a fit place for human beings and other living things. Why couldn't they locate some of that to a Cal Expo campus and have an immediate venue for showcasing and exchanging their work and knowledge directly with exhibitors, producers of events and the general public? Now that would really be putting 'world-class' front and center. "TODAY AT CAL EXPO THERE WILL BE A TALK ON HOW TO GROW ENOUGH FOOD IN YOUR FRONT YARD TO FEED YOUR FAMILY" or, "11am - PRESENTATION ON PROGRESS IN DESIGN OF IONIZED PAINT FOR PHOTO-VOLTAIC ROOFTOP APPLICATIONS - luncheon buffet afterward." Now, those would be messages really worthy of Cal Expo's electronic billboards. "KINGS BASKETBALL TONIGHT!" ?? Uh, no thanx.

There's no end to what might be done to use Cal Expo in the way it was originally intended - as a showcase for the best California has to offer - especially in agriculture and food production; but for many other forward looking ventures of every sector of our state's economy as well. The old 'Cal Expo' clearly is from an era that is tired and should be retired. Its vision is done; but its mission isn't. This is not to say that traditional activities and venues cannot be preserved within the vision given here. They can, and it will be to the discretion of your Board, the stewards of Cal Expo’s mission, to decide which should be maintained, which should be updated and which should be phased out; but, always, the emphasis should be to showcase the Best of California.

While we are on the subject, there is considerable update that can and should be done for traditional state fair offerings. The proposal and mission statement certainly leaves room for, and encourages, the provision for a variety of indoor and outdoor stages, small theaters and exhibit facilities for the performing and visual arts and other cultural presentations scattered throughout the site. For example, It is easy to imagine several locations at Cal Expo as venues for Sacramento’s annual Jazz Festival offerings and similar events. Indeed, a major California Culture Center, to showcase the diversity of cultures, traditions, histories and contributions made by the people of California would be entirely in keeping with the visions presented here. Again, many of the “traditional offerings” of state fairs are becoming rather old and less interesting to modern fair go-ers, and need to be seriously reviewed if they are to justify their continuing support.

Ah, but, financing? Think out-of-the-box. Sure its a tight economy. But business is still spending oodles on marketing its products and advertising its wares. Imagine how profitable it would be to them if you offered a world-class space they could showcase their latest and greatest to the world? I would guess that switching your support vision from one of bankers and developers to one of endowments and grants from the business and producing sectors of the economy (even in tight times) might yield far greater rewards and long-term security than betting on a basketball game. For that matter, there are hundreds of large foundations and trusts with stated missions to promote new technologies, environmental subjects and resource management. I’m sure some of them would substantially underwrite such a project. I'd even guess that if you needed some public funds to get up-and-running and put it to a public vote, something like the vision I've described might have a very different outcome from the Kings-Maloof deal that the city tried to float and we flatly rejected.

I don't think the voters of Sacramento hate sports or are particularly phobic when it comes to judiciously spending public money. I just think they know what is truly in the public interest and what is not. In tight times, especially, every drop of public money needs to be used for the advancement and well-being of the community and its generations to come. As entertaining as sports are, 'a compelling public interest' they are not.

Don't get me wrong, I like sports and entertainment and shopping. I just wonder if that's the best way to invest in our future and assure the quality of life we all want for our city and our state? Build them a sports-arena and, true, they will probably come. But, build them a vision and a future for their community and state that is really worthy of investment and they will not only come (from all over the world, with cash in hand), but they will grow and wonder and learn and, take the inspiration they get from 'Green Expo' to every corner of the state, every nook of the world, to grow even more and better visions. Is that not a vision worthy of public investment?

I can imagine a mentor asking a next-generation 4-H'r, "What did you do on your farm today?" And, I can imagine the kid answering, "I worked in my shop on making semi-transparent solar-panels more flexible so they could be used on net-zero energy greenhouses." "That," the kid says, "would make them mobile enough to be used all over the world to grow food year-round, in any climate and at any time. The world could produce enough inexpensive food to end world hunger." Now, that would make a Cal Expo exhibit that inspires and showcases as was originally intended for that venue. Why, that's a Cal Expo that I'd put my tax money where my mouth is, gladly, even if it meant I had to skip a basketball game or two to pay for it.

[closing signature]


Index of Imaginings:

Preface - Concept of an ‘open-ended’ development proposal. (p.15)



IMAGININGS - Preface

This is a preliminary concept and draft proposal. There are no artful drawings, engaging graphs or diagrams, economic forecasts or comforting certainties which fill the pages of most proposals for large public projects such as one which would befit a re-envisioned Cal Expo. As I suggest in the proposal and at the conclusion of this section of the documents, that is not entirely a shortcoming. There is a very strong element in the proposal that its development is, like the design outline it offers, something that should be taken as an evolving idea. That is not at all the same as one that is "incomplete" or not-ready-for-prime-time. It is to say that some parts can be realized while others are still awaiting conception; ones that are realized should be mobile and flexible enough to change without undo stress or cost as new ideas are advanced and new technologies which need to be showcased are developed.

So, rather than passing itself along as something which proclaims, "Build This!" I offer these ideas more in the spirit of a container that has been prepared to accept and make coherent the imagination of anyone who cares to put the best of their own imagination into it. A vessel, rather than a blueprint. The following remarks are just that, a few of my own imaginings as I contemplate the outline of the proposal and what I might put into it (alongside the contributions of many others) to bring a full vision of the future of Cal Expo into focus and begin the work of making that into a reality. In that spirit, then, imagine what Cal Expo might look like, might become, if we permit ourselves to put the best of our imaginations into the project. Wander with me for a bit through the eyes of my imagination, at some of the interesting things I think the Cal Expo of the future might look like:

IMAGINE #1 - GOING TO THE FAIR

Visitors to Cal Expo Green do not drive into parking facilities convenient and adjacent to the various exhibit and activity areas as they now do. There is no visitor auto traffic allowed anywhere near those areas nor, indeed, throughout most of the Cal Expo site (except for accessibility provisions for handicapped persons). Instead there are several large parking areas in relatively remote areas of the Cal Expo Grounds. These are placed at locations chosen, not for their proximity and convenience to nearby exhibits and activities, but at locations determined to have the best access from the standpoint of traffic patterns and configurations in surrounding communities and routes that would impose the least impact on them and existing roads and conditions. The sites were also chosen to keep vehicular traffic away from the most densely used pedestrian areas of the facilities and the most congested areas of the surrounding communities. Undoubtedly, there will be a lively debate when it comes time to decide whether inter-city public transport serving Cal Expo, to and from the city and region (whether by bus, light rail or other means), should have the described parking areas or the main exhibit and shopping area as their principal, and/or, only embarkation/disembarkation point. There are good reasons for either or both positions, and it will be interesting to see what result emerges.

The way people get to the exhibit and park areas that extend throughout the remainder of the Cal Expo lands is by intra-Expo (on site) travel - bus, advanced light-rail or low-speed, individualized (2-, 4- , or 6-passenger) electric vehicles which are owned and maintained by Cal Expo itself and rented to visitors. Fees for using these ‘expo-mini’s’ will probably need to be fairly high, just to keep the user volume reasonable. There is no way Cal Expo could afford, use, store or maintain the fifty- or one-hundred thousand vehicles that might be required on a busy day if they were simply free or low cost. By the same token, at least one of the intra-Expo public conveyances should be free (emission free buses or dedicated light-rail) so that there is no cost-barrier to getting around the site for all visitors.

One can also walk to the exhibit and park areas and other venues, similar to the way visitors access the various areas at the Huntington Library and Botanical Gardens in San Moreno. It may even be possible to provide some skateboard and/or bicycle-only pathways throughout the facilities that people (especially younger ones) may wish to bring or rent for their park visits. Incidentally, there are even a few very exciting skateboard parks and some scenic bicycle trails around Cal Expo that can only be accessed by those modes of transport.

In any case, the transportation modes are the most advanced, convenient, safe and comfortable that our technology can provide. The individual electric carts (a little like elegant golf-carts) are, in-fact, programmable, so that the visitor may opt-out of doing the driving and let the cart drive itself, either for point-to-point destinations of the user’s choice or, on various user selected ‘tour’ patterns which may meander through exhibit areas and also present audible information on features as they are encountered. In addition, the carts have a compartment for storing visitor’s personal items as well as small packages they may have purchased during their visit.

Needless to say, all modes of intra-Expo transport conserve energy, leave no emissions or carbon footprints and are, in a direct way, part of the exhibit of California’s prowess in green-transportation. Oh, incidentally, larger visitor purchases from ‘Green Village’ or other venues are distributed to the visitor’s particular parking area by underground conveyance - an electric belt or other advanced handling mode that will deliver the item directly there, where they can claim it when leaving Cal Expo. There is also a general ‘pick-up and ‘will-call’ area on the eastern side of the site, convenient to Expo patrons.

In addition, by the time the parking lots are finished, most cars on California roads will be some version of electric powered or electrically supported vehicle. The parking lots will provide charging stations for visitors that are largely powered by on-site solar facilities, especially during the summer months (see below). Thanks to work at M.I.T. and elsewhere on ‘fast batteries’ as reported on NPR’s ‘Marketplace’ on March 13, 2009, a full charge will take approximately 1 minute, making it possible to charge a fairly significant number of visitor automobiles at a very nominal fee.

IMAGINE #2 - OLD FAIRGROUNDS AND NEW COMMUNITIES

While we’re on the subject of traffic, parking and congestion, it was noted early in the development of the project that these matters were of major concern and would have significant impact on the city in general, with greatest impact on communities immediately adjacent to the Expo site itself. Traffic problems were serious before the project started, and Old Expo had already started spilling over into parking lots and congested areas east of Exposition Blvd. long before the project started. During the first twenty-five years that Cal Expo transformed itself into a world-class venue and destination for travelers, visitor census increased dramatically. Visitors from out-of-state increased the most, but had the least impact owing to the fact that the majority of those patrons used public conveyance during their stay in Sacramento. The fair became so popular as a destination that a consortium of local hotels ran regular free shuttles to the fair. Some of the large hotels maintained their own dedicated shuttle services. Statewide visitors, however, made significant impacts that had to be dealt with. Californians do love their cars. Of course, there was a regular shuttle between ‘K’ Street Mall and the fair.

Problems for the Aden-Arcade and Arden-Fair areas were particularly severe and difficult to solve. The outlying parking provisions, mentioned in the last section, took care of most of the problems of traffic coming from the south and west regions. But a good amount of northern and eastern traffic still took advantage of pedestrian access to the main exhibit-hall and performance/fairgrounds, ‘Green Village’ and the like, which remained clustered at the eastern side and south-eastern sides of the site. Their inclination to ‘short-cut’ on-site parking (and avoid parking fees and intra-Expo conveyance fees) resulted in some congestion in the adjacent neighborhoods, often filling merchant lots and residential street parking, as it had before the re-envisioned Cal Expo was built. Everyone, city planners, Expo management and neighbors in the surrounding communities have come to accept it as a fact of life and a trade-off for the numerous benefits of having Cal Expo located in their locale. To some degree, the character of those areas immediately adjacent the fairground site has changed over the years to accommodate the presence of a world-class attraction in their midst. Advantaging themselves of the opportunities presented have far outweighed the impacts and inconveniences.

One of the more interesting trade-offs, earlier on, was the agreement for the Expo developers and the city to induce a couple of types of business that had been sorely lacking in those areas for many decades. The first was having a major retail grocery store conveniently located at that end of the district (the closest formerly being Safeway near Watt and Arden Way, Trader Joe’s at El Camino and Safeway at Fair Oaks and Howe) Now, thanks to the increased customer base that Cal Expo brings with it, there is a new Trader Joe’s near Hurley Way,and a large natural foods store - ‘a natural’ - collaborative effort between The Sacramento Natural Foods Coop and Eliotts Natural Foods - located very near the main fairgrounds themselves. Add to that, "Good Eats" grocery that anchors the north end, just north of the Business 80 freeway, and the surrounding neighborhoods are no longer complaining about the lack of convenient near-by grocery shopping. Incidentally, the ‘Good Eats’ deal was an interesting reward, through the city’s offer of some tax-incentives, for Michael Teel’s generosity and business ethic, in backing off displacing Corti Bros. from its traditional location a decade earlier. That little bit of good moral sense earned ‘Good Eats’ some attractive inducements to build the new store, and the residents were overwhelmingly glad their city council showed such a long memory and heartfelt appreciation about the matter.

Oh, lest we forget, the on-site Farmer’s Market (now the largest in the region) is open every weekend during the summer and fall. The constant flow of people moving between there and the main fair venues unmistakably told us that, that location is perfect for Cal Expo and good for Farmer’s Market shoppers alike.

The neighboring communities have derived many other benefits as the character of their business and residential areas are impacted. Some are the result of natural associations and opportunities the new Cal Expo themes of advanced environmental, resource and other technologies have brought with their development. Hardware stores, such as Emigh’s and Ace, have begun to stock their shelves with tools and hardware items that support newer technologies and products (fittings and low-voltage add-ons for solar systems, drip-irrigation supplies, home water-saving and filtration items, etc.) Green Village merchants are also doing a lively business, primarily centered around the newest, larger devices and whole systems products such as solar panels, composting toilets and gray water managment, emission-free fire places, those sorts of items in addition to office space for services such as architectural, legal and health service professionals concentrating on clean energy, resource friendly, advanced technology designs and offerings.

The basic philosophy of the Green Village management staff has been to generally exclude offerings that are already well-known and widely distributed and can best be handled by local merchants. It is the Cal Expo aim to showcase and promote the newest and best, rather than to compete for sales with California businesses. A natural partnership has developed that is well in keeping with the over all mission of a revitalized Exposition.

And, there is one more unique feature regarding Cal Expo’s relationship to its neighbors. The site maintains a permanent Community Assistance Office and Center. There, residents and businesses in the nearby neighborhoods find expert planners ready to assist them with their concerns, help with needs to mitigate unforeseen impacts and develop programs that serve both the interest of the neighbors as well as Cal Expo. There are already annual science art and poetry fairs held on the fairgrounds and run through the auspices of Cal Expo. Jointly organized by Cal Expo and the public school districts, the science fair has already sent several children who have exhibited there on to become national contest winners, further enhancing the prestige of the work at Cal Expo.

At a table, to one side of the Center’s main reception room, I notice a planner assisting a neighborhood resident with her concerns about some unsavory characters who congregate near her home after Fair closing time. Let’s eavesdrop on them for a moment. Interestingly, the planner isn’t merely referring her to some other agency such as the police or telling her to write her council representative. Instead, they are working together to translate her concerns into a form that will be most likely to get the attention and resolution it requires from the agencies most related to her problem. Nor will he simply send her off with the copy and a list of phone numbers and addresses. Instead, the planner will send the materials, by email, to the agencies and individuals who can best respond to those particular community concerns, along with his own notes on the matter. The neighbor, herself, can then go on-line to track the progress of things, perhaps returning to the Center at a later time to further refine or amend her original needs.

We observe that the planner doesn’t end the session when they finish work on the initial problem. He makes other inquiries - Has she noticed any increase in mosquitoes the past week or so? How does she like the new low-light-pollution street lights that have been installed on her block? Has she seen the new exhibit on car-pooling that the fair installed over at the ‘Transport of the Future’ area? We get the idea that this isn’t just another government service counter. The planner is actively engaging the client in a discussion about the neighborhood and its various concerns and opinions. This not only adds to the Center’s overall user friendliness, but gives the planner insight and valuable heads-up information about other problems and directions that may be coming in the future.

In another corner of the Center, a planner is going over next year’s exhibit and events calendar with a local neighborhood merchant to see how he might be able to take advantage of particular events and exhibits to improve his business potentials. More partnering with neighborhood citizens to help Cal Expo and the surrounding communities work together.

One benefit of Cal Expo’s new organization and the presence of its community affairs office, is that the neighborhood associations and other community organizations have become, over time, reinvigorated and more engaged, both in the activities at Cal Expo, and in the needs of their own communities. From the very start of the project, Cal Expo discovered that proactively informing the community of its plans and involving them in the processes of envisioning a very new Cal Expo not only greatly reduced the misunderstandings and contentiousness that often accompanies large project development, but actually resulted in inclusions of ideas and provisions that the designers of Cal Expo hadn’t even thought about. This, to the benefit of both Cal Expo and its surrounding communities. A win-win situation, all around.


IMAGINE #3... - DEMONSTRATING THE FUTURE

We have arrived at our first destination, a little west of the main fairground and exhibit areas that are the anchor of all Cal Expo offerings (and the first to be developed.) Imagine yourself in an open area central to the ‘Demonstration Environments Area’ of Cal Expo. Down one set of paths, just beyond the scaled mountain replicas of hetch-hetchy reservoir you can just hear The Water Works! - an area, where there is a full scale giant water pump with gushing water (re-circulating, of course) and various displays (some interactive electronic ones) demonstrating aspects of how the pumps work, how and where they are used to move water around in California, side by side with large displays of the hydrology of the state and demonstrations of how water moves throughout the state, how the state varies its responses as droughts and flood seasons come and go and so on.

There is a history of the Los Angeles Basin in photos and film showing the way water has been managed to make deserts bloom since the founding of California and, ancillary exhibits on Mono Lake and Tahoe, Sacramento Delta features and other resource problem spots and efforts to reclaim and restore them. There is just about everything you might want to know about California’s water, from its hydrology, to the chemistry and technology of water treatment and disposal. There are acres of ‘real water’ exhibits, all of them, of course, utilizing the best methods and technologies of conserving water and energy. Its an exciting place.

There are also some full-scale simulated control rooms of major water management stations such as Folsom Dam, a tertiary water treatment plant, a central flood-control facility and the like. Here, lights blink, dials monitor and the various stations permit visitors to adjust (virtually) functions as they might be managed in the real-world stations. They can simulate increasing water flows, balancing water-treatment options, even releasing fish from a hatchery and viewing what the results of their action might be. Most of the seats at these (computer) stations are occupied by kids, who really get the hang of things pretty quick. But, there are a few adults, equally absorbed in a few minutes of playing ‘control room’. You can spot them later in the day, as they wander through other exhibits, clutching the hardcopy of a print-out that shows how they did during their brief stint as ‘effluent control engineers’ or ‘ dam systems operators.’


Water Works! has water, water everywhere and just about everything and every aspect of California’s management of water to view, learn and think about. It is a very large and interactive walk-through area; which could consume many hours or days of a visitor’s time if they wished to see everything it had to offer.

There are other directions that lead away from the central Expo Touring area (different from shops and exhibitors area which are to the east, adjacent Exposition Blvd.). Some are wide boulevards, the one to the EnergyScapes area for example, with its sidewalk cafes; solar, wind, ocean and other advanced-mode exhibits lining both sides of the street which leads to another large area displaying full scale alternative energy exhibits - wind generators, a working solar farm (which also supplies a fair amount of Expo’s energy during the bright summer months), simulated power-grid management stations (similar to those found in the Water Works! area) and all manner of devices and exhibits related to the conservation and capture of non-fossil based energy resources. There are also educational exhibits about oil and fossil fuel dependency and resources and similar subjects to enlighten and entertain the visitor about these important matters. Oh yes, during the summer, you can buy a beanie with a little solar powered fan attached for about five bucks; a real bargain on a triple-digit day in Sacramento! You’ll find it right next to the cool-drink and frozen yogurt stand. Yes, you can buy soda pop (glass bottles or biodegradable cups only) if you insist. But mostly the drinks are vegetable and fruit juices, ice-cold and absolutely refreshing. You can also get a cup (biodegradable) of solar-power cooled ice-water (and, I might add, it’s one of the few concession offerings that is absolutely free, and remains so well into the 22nd century!)

There are also some little trails and pathways that lead off in still other directions; to the river conservation area and the demonstration wetlands, with guides and exhibits about the ecology and features of these environments. The wetlands area also serves as a biological research station and many interesting things can be discovered there. Not least are some of species of bird and small animal life, which have not been seen in the Sacramento area for some time but, which the biologists working there have managed to coax back into the area and which are now thriving on the Expo Wetlands.

If you like, visit the research station. One of the students there may hand you a little test-tube for you to fetch a sample of wetlands water and bring it back where you can view it in a station microscope while they explain the various features you are viewing. Perhaps they will teach you how to test it for various qualities and properties if it’s a relatively slow day. The other ‘lab coats’ (some Nobel laureates among them), wandering around the facility, probably will not stop to answer questions. They are much too distracted by their work. You see, the wetlands exhibit, originally intended just as a side-attraction to the main venues at Cal Expo (and to appease some environmental activists who were getting rather noisy about whether the site was really ‘green’ or not), has gradually developed a reputation as a world-class biological research facility. Researchers and scholars from all over the world come to visit and study at the Expo Wetlands Station. It’s not just-another-roadside-attraction anymore. And, there is the usual complement of interactive exhibits, educational presentations and even video-games, all to excite your curiosity and show you the latest and best work California is doing to preserve these important environments and draw innumerable benefits from them.

There are several other areas to wander about - demonstration farms and horticultural areas, a xeroscape garden and home landscaping area, a desert and native plants section - oh, way too many things to detail here, covering acres and acres of the Cal Expo lands.

One of my favorite areas is over there, to the right, down that twisty little path and though that stand of covering trees (themselves, part of a demonstration of new choices for fast-growing, sustainable natural woods for building materials). As you emerge from the grove, there is a surprise waiting. What? It looks like nothing much, a bare area, some weeds (well, some different kinds of grasses anyway) a few chickens wandering around, a little chicken-wired vegetable garden and even the obligatory front-yard car (a ’52 Chevy, I think), sitting on blocks with its hood up. What on earth is this place, a ‘demonstration blight’ area? The little shack that sits at the back of yard looks like it was built by a backyard gardener with a sore, rather than green, thumb. Even the Cal Expo management balked at that one. Thankfully, they agreed to go along for a limited time, just to humor the university students who proposed the outlandish "architecture". Don’t kid yourself, look again. That is the "Cal Expo Master Gardener’s Shack" (or, just "The Shack," to insiders), another venue established by the University of California and the California Dept. of Food and Agriculture. It looks pretty crude, but behind that facade it’s another story. Beyond its wooden porch and ‘just-this-side-of-run-down’ front door is a fairly large room; a pellet burning, pot-bellied stove and some comfortable overstuffed chairs in one corner, a small library on some built-in shelves, a perpetual coffee pot and a rather tired looking front desk. But that’s about all you find of "country homey" at The Shack venue.

The master gardener who works at the desk knows just everything you might want to know about gardening and farming. What he doesn’t know can be found just on the other side of those glass doors at the back of The Shack. They open onto a subterranean, rammed-earth, 12,000 volume library covering just about every imaginable subject about gardening and agriculture that you could name. It is one of the most modern facilities on the entire Cal Expo site, a zero-energy facility completely heated, cooled and lighted by rooftop biomass and sundry energy technologies that have been either built onto it or into it. Computer stations and other features of a modern library complement its function as a place for the public to get their questions answered on anything related to growing plants and farming. There is also a modern, 300-seat auditorium to one side of the library where presentations, symposia and panels are held throughout the year. Anything from home-canning to Organic farming and certification may be on the public calendar.

Contrary to Expo management’s initial reservations, over time, The Master Gardener Shack has become one of the most visited sites in the entire complex. People from all over the valley, as well as other areas of the state stop by "The Shack" to get their questions answered, swap garden talk and information, exchange seeds and, sometimes just get-away-from-it-all for a few minutes. Master Gardeners, from U.C. are on duty during all hours Cal Expo is open. There is a noticeable increase in visitors during the winter (when most other venues scale back a little). This, it has been found, is owing to the fact that this is often the only time farmers and gardeners have time away from the chores that keep them much too busy the other three seasons. When there is some kind of county/valley-wide event, such as the detection of a new pest or announcements of arial spraying, etc., the visitor census to The Shack jumps dramatically. Oh yes, the operation is partially supported by seed and plant sales, though the bulk of its budget is managed through university funds, state agriculture grants, endowments and private grants and donations. The bulk of its labor needs are drawn from students and volunteers, which keep operating costs to a very modest sum.

By far, the most popular and well-attended area of Cal Expo is "The California Game". There are nearly double the visitors to that section as there are to all the other venues combined. The California Game is huge, several acres, upon which is a walk-through scale model of California with its most important features and sites represented; its rivers, dams, power plants, major roads and freeways (which serve as walking paths to view the model), wind and solar farms, larger towns and cities and so forth. At one end of the model there is a giant electronic screen that shows the model in perspective along with its main features. To one side, with a view of both the screen and the model, there are twenty (perhaps fifty) computer workstations. Each of these stations controls one or more aspects of the model. There may be a station that controls aqueduct flows, several that controls regional power grids, another perhaps for air-quality management in the Sacramento area, another for agricultural pest monitoring and response, and so forth.

Playing the California Game is simple. Each station automatically controls the functions in its area of interest, using as much real-time data as possible to simulate actual conditions. However, once you sit down at a station and play the game (for the price of a ticket), you are in control. You use the computer to monitor what is happening, to make adjustments and decisions according to the conditions you encounter. Dams may release water, factories in a certain area may have to shut-down their smokestacks, an earthquake may interrupt part of the power grid. Anything can happen (is programmed to happen) and you must respond in some way. Many of the actions one takes are not only reflected on the big-screen but, will change the data at other stations (and make little things move on the scale model).

It’s ‘The California Game’, and the object is to keep us from disaster. Of course, sometimes things get too wild, and the system must reset. You get points if you keep your area balanced; you lose points if you make things worse. If you actually improve things (over the status quo) you get big bonuses. Perhaps, someday, there may even be talent scouts from state agencies who visit the California Game to see if they can spot any visitors who are exceptionally good at managing one of our resources. On those days, the electronic billboards for Cal Expo might say - ‘PLAY THE CALIFORNIA GAME - IT MIGHT LAND YOU A JOB!’. Oh, and there is a ‘California Governor’s ’ workstation that manages a bunch of stuff. But, I wouldn’t try to get that station. The lines for it are always way too long and, besides, no one ever scouts that station for potential job applicants.

IMAGINE #9 - SHOWCASING THE BEST -The Main Pavillions and Shops, ‘Green Village’ and such:

We haven’t even touched upon the main events, the familiar state fair operations and the main exhibitor halls and shows, the retail shops mentioned in the proposal and similar venues which will likely be clustered on the eastern edge of the Expo grounds, as they are today. Livestock, horse-racing, rodeo and fireworks and similar traditions would have their place. Temporary and permanent exhibits would continue and a variety of concessions and shops would compliment those activities. As noted in the proposal, a ‘Green Village’ might comprise a number of retail shops all focused on products and services geared to new environmental technologies and resource conservation. Supportive facilities for dining and other related activities would be included, though even these might be directed towards healthier offerings and more tasteful surroundings than the usual fast-food and push-cart ambiance that inhabits most fairgrounds.

A real difference is contemplated in the architectures that embody these activities.

IMAGINE #10 - CAL EXPO, THE REALIZATION

The NBA-centered proposal identifies four major types of venue in its vision - fairgrounds, sports-complex, retail shops and housing. It can be presumed that these are intended to be relatively permanent, fixed architectural locations which, once built, define the character and environment of the site for generations to come.

This proposal entertains neither the vision nor the need for such fixed and inflexible arrangement. It strives not to impose on future generations a single vision for potentials which must be accepted year after year as the permanent motif of a state exposition and fair.

Rather, the very nature of the themes proposed, the future and most advanced of California’s offerings, argue strongly for a very mobile and flexible design that can be readily changed as new advances and new visions emerge. This is not to say that the look and feel of the sites should convey something ‘temporary’ or ‘insubstantial’. Quite the contrary. It should have a character and ambiance every bit the equal in stature and reputation of a well-designed World’s Fair, or modern Olympics venue. The central idea is that the California Exposition (‘to expose the best that California has to offer’) should be as much evolving in its design as it is in its vision; and, itself, be the best that California has to offer.

This is not so difficult or strange to imagine as it may seem at first sight. That is exactly what the prize-winning architect, Piano Renzo, set about doing, and did, for the California Academy of Sciences and their new building. It is a building, as Piano notes, that is intended to lend itself to ‘reshaping’ as the vision and mission of the enterprise itself evolves over time. The proposal that has been drafted here suggests that, instead of fixed-mode venues, the entire enterprise be designed and constructed with the same capacity to evolve over time.

We have and are still developing new technologies and new approaches to designs that are not only efficient and harmonious, but have a certain suppleness both in concept and functionality. That will permit them to transform themselves as yet newer ideas and needs grow from within their own vision and from changes in the society around them.

That is what this proposal is shooting for; something that will present the very best of today without creating unnecessary obstacles to the imagination, needs and desires of tomorrow.

Like the concept that has been offered here, the proposal itself should be taken as an evolving document. It is, from this point, a call to "exhibitors" (the imagination of the people of California) to fill it with the spirit of imagination that has served as the foundation of our state and has taken us as far as we have come. It is for you, The Board of Governors, to imagine something that not only excites and attracts the multiple generations that will come to visit on a given day; but to imagine a vision that embraces our citizens across a multiplicity of generations yet to come. To accomplish that, I believe you only need reach out to the citizens of California and ask them to lend their imagination to a vision worthy of the best that California has to offer and, to lend their energy to making that vision real. I think you will find, if you do that, that they will build a Cal Expo for the 21st century; and, they will come.




IMAGINE #11 - VIRTUAL CAL EXPO

As a 21st century facility, it doesn’t take much imagination to realize there will also be a ‘Virtual Cal Expo’ right alongside the actual Cal Expo. Online, its acreage will be unlimited, its exhibits and activities innumerable and it will not only engage the viewer in interactive and exciting ways, but capitalize on their imagination to expand the vision of an ever evolving Cal Expo both in its virtual form and, sometimes, in its physical form.

Cameras, monitors and sensors of various kinds will be everywhere around the re-envisioned, real Cal Expo. They will convey to any online visitor the various sites, exhibits and presentations in real-time as well as special productions, archival material, reference documents and the like. Through that medium, for example, one may view the real data of, say, some solar energy experiment being conducted by the U.C. School of Green Design or, test new energy applications in fusion-cell vehicles. There will be participatory projects where virtual visitors may be found actually counting birds in some part of the Wetlands area and relaying the data to the Wetlands Station or, adopting a plant at the experimental farm and following its progress through a season of growth. Indeed, commercial and educational exhibitors who are not, for one reason or another, exhibiting at the real Cal Expo, may find it well worth their time and money to exhibit at the Virtual Cal Expo, right alongside real Cal Expo exhibits.

Real visitors may choose to visit another very popular venue not far from the area where the Master Gardener Shack is located (See above) popularly referred to as "The Wine Cellar" (and, we suspect, the Master Gardeners wanted it nearby) -. This area includes a demonstration vineyard, a small demonstration wine-making and processing plant using the latest technology and, of course, the Cal Expo Wine Tasting Room (one of the few ‘adults only’ areas at Cal Expo). Even so, virtual visitors can watch the vintners at work in various stages of the wine-making process. They can even view the insides of wine casks as they go through changing states of fermentation and aging, calling up in-vivo slides to reveal the microscopic details of grapes in transition.

Incidentally, this year’s production of Cal Expo wine, which the "Wine Cellar" produces and sells on site, is expected to be a particularly good vintage when it matures. Do other California vintners mind that yet-another-competitor is operating, with the help of public underwriting and assistance? Not at all. For one thing, the Cal Expo label is only produced in very limited quantities. For another, "The Wine Cellar" is, like other venues, also a research station where many experiments in viniculture and wine-making are conducted and shared with the rest of California’s wine-making industry. Indeed, it is that industry which largely underwrites the Cal Expo "Wine Cellar". Of course virtual visitors will miss out on the real delight of visiting Cal Expo’s wine-tasting room, but even ‘virtuality’ has its limits.

Nor will virtual vistors be able to play "The California Game" (though its easy to imagine an online version that presents many of the educational and game-playing experiences of the ‘real’ game). They will be able to visually roam through the Cal Expo offerings at will, even having two-way interactions with exhibitors, viewing demonstrations and presentations in various venues, participating in some of the projects and, of course, making online purchases directly from the site.

It is frankly, hard to imagine a sports facility, some townhouses and a retail shopping area offering much to really excite the imagination of virtual visitors or lend to the many creative uses of virtuality, such as those described. Perhaps we will be able to view a few basketball games on line, though I am hard pressed to see the advantage of that over watching them on T.V. Virtuality, in this proposal, not only brings visitors to Cal Expo, it brings visitors to Cal Expo in a variety of exciting ways; and, importantly, it brings Cal Expo to many who cannot visit in person. It puts Cal Expo in the world and on the map. But, in order to do that, Cal Expo, itself, must be every bit the world-class presentation it can be and ought to be. It is that, and only that, which promises both short-term and long-term security and lasting value for the citizens of California for generations to come.

end of presentation. - rs, 3/9/2009

ADDED REALIZATIONS:

IMAGINE #12 - WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD

Interestingly, a march 12th story on public radio’s ‘Market Place’

( http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/03/12/pm_state_innovation/ ) concerning centers for technology transfer that are starting up around the country, expressed a potential for the Alternate Vision of Cal Expo that would not only be in keeping with the concepts presented, but would complete and fulfill them in a way never anticipated by the original founders of Cal Expo. It suggests the inclusion of a ‘Center for Technology Development’ that would facilitate the actual development of new technologies and the processes of bringing them to market.

This facility could work with new concepts and assist their creators to find useful applications to which they might be directed. It could work with businesses and individuals to locate potential sources of venture capital, government underwriting and other supports which might be used to bring promising new applications to market. And, it could work with existing products and technologies to advise on ways they might advantage themselves of newer technologies and information to become more successful and greener products.

In this way, Cal Expo could move from being a ‘passive showcase’ of new ideas and products to an active partner in helping to advance them, facilitate their potentials for success and, perhaps, significantly shorten the time it takes to find, implement and ready for market the next generation of products and technology.

Of course, there are certain legal and ethical limits to which a public entity can engage in the processes of private enterprise. Still, given the many things that it might do in this regard, the Cal Expo of this model could very well be come a world-nexus for the advance of future technology and the solution to many serious world problems in partnership with private enterprise. The Alternate Vision quite naturally positions itself to embrace such a role in shaping the future of California and the world.

IMAGINE #13 - THE CAL-EXPO GAME

As suggested throughout these documents this proposal, itself, is intended to evolve over time. Not simply until the time that money changes hands and cement is poured but, for the lifetime of Cal Expo itself. Given that the concept proposes the use of advanced, more flexible and mobile designs, there is no reason that the proposal itself cannot change and evolve right along side the physical reality it represents.

Welcome To the Cal-Expo Game! The ‘Cal Expo Game’ has only one requirement to play, your imagination. If you have ideas, thoughts, visual walk-throughs and such to contribute, things you would like to see included or added to the concept, you need only email them to me (redslider@comcast.net) and I will gladly add them to the ‘Imaginings’ section of the proposal.

There are only a few rules to this game. First, I will make no edits other than trivial typos or spelling or, if need be, reject any truly inappropriate materials (but please try to send as clean a copy as you can). Second, all Cal-Expo Game entries will be added except for obvious duplications. Third, the new additions to the Cal-Expo Game will be included in subsequent distributions of the proposal. Fourth, I will probably not respond to most Game entries, so don’t expect a reply. I may, if something strikes me that I’d like to discuss further with an entrant, but this will be the exception. Next to lastly, don’t expect that your ideas will necessarily be realized in an actual Cal Expo offering or venue. All will contribute to the evolution of the concept, but few are likely ever see the light of day (including this proposal, which remains in doubt at the present time). Finally, everyone wins - there are absolutely no losers in The Cal Expo Game. Its a win-win situation. If you would like to send an entry, send it to redslider@comcast.net (please specify if you would like your name/contact information included with your entry, or if you wish to remain anonymous).

- rs, March 12, 2009


IMAGINE #14 - LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

[Note: From this point (‘Imagine #14) onward, the ‘the final draft’ of the proposal is complete. There will be no further substantive changes. All additions are now given over to entrants in ‘The Cal Expo Game’ (see Imagine #13) and will be added to the document as they are received. The author of the proposal has no special privilege in this regard. I have, indeed, become simply another entrant (hopefully, one among many) in the Cal Expo Game. That said, permit me to be the first player in unfolding the vision of Cal Expo, as it might become - rs, 3/16/09]

IMAGINE #15 - ELECTRIC FOOTSTEPS

For a long time I have wondered why, given advances in our technology and concerns about energy, we have not yet brought to market pedestrian and roadway construction that includes embedded transducers converting the force of our footsteps and traveling vehicles into electrical energy that would feedback into our power grids. In the floors of our commercial buildings, in sidewalks and plazas, throughout our downtown shopping areas, on our freeways and streets, the energy we expend for mobility could be captured and recycled into our existing power systems. All of the problems we have about energy have a single, original source - we use it. It stands to reason, the more energy we expend can be captured and reused, the less we will need, and the smaller our problems will be. This is even more fundamental than conservation.

I imagine, the Cal Expo of the future - all of its buildings, malls, plazas, trails, exhibit halls and the like - will employ such devices to capture and reuse the energy that its visitors expend in walking or riding to the various venues. I imagine that the earliest designs, if they are not quite ready to implement such plans, will at least keep them in mind in the design plan so that good choices and provisions are made to provide for their future implementation. I Imagine the Cal Expo of the future as having as nearly a net-zero sum as possible in supplying its energy needs. - rs, 3/16/09


IMAGINING #16 - DESIGN YOUR OWN LIFE

I imagine there is a small area, an acre or so, nicely landscaped with a variety of native plants and trees, a feeling of separateness, but not isolation, from the other busy fair activities and venues to the south. When one enters this area, by way of a nicely paved garden path of attractive patterned-brick, lined with fragrant smelling herbs and attractive shrubs and flowers, they come upon a small collection of houses built to a scale that makes one wonder if they have arrived at some tiny Lilliputian village. It is quiet and peaceful here and, save for a few very normal-sized people working at various projects around the grounds, there is relatively little traffic. A kind of ‘space away’ from the busy crowds elsewhere at Cal Expo.

One of the workers looks over as you enter the area and breaks away from his work collecting a sample of seeds from an endangered species of native California plants which he will later test for viability and genetic resource banking. He approaches and asks if you would like to tour the collection of demonstration ‘tiny homes’ and see some of their features. You accept his invitation, and follow as he leads you toward one of the nearby houses. You notice, on the way, that each house is quite different in design from the others. Some are ultra-modern, of glass and steel design; some are very rural and rustic; still another seems altogether ordinary in a conventional but attractive stucco exterior with a familiar, though small-scale, front lawn and porch. Each facility seems to accentuate a different concept using different construction materials and methods.

The worker, turned guide, explains that every one of these homes has been designed to maximize efficiency and the use of resource conserving technologies. These are, indeed, ‘green houses’, in a very new application of the term. They are comfortable dwellings that can accommodate people with a variety of life-styles and needs; they do not skimp on features people might wish in their homes and they do not create feelings of being cramped or confined, a common myth about ‘tiny houses’. They are demonstration models of how we might live well, yet with a smaller foot-print, on the lands we occupy.

When we enter the first house, the guide points out various features which we’ll not detail here. We do notice this one is occupied by several mannequins mimicking occupancy by two adults, two children and a dog. It presents a picture of fairly comfortable and adequate living-space for a family of 4 (and a half).

The other homes, each quite distinct in style and features, is occupied by other staff of Cal Expo engaged in very special kinds of work. One is a horticulture station where seeds, like the ones our guide was sampling, would be taken for further analysis, grow-outs and tests which help to maintain the health of plants around a number of venues at Cal Expo. Another of the houses has a couple drawing tables and a desk at which staff and some architects seemed to be discussing possibilities for some new ‘tiny home’ designs that might be tried next year.

Yet another was occupied by staff going over some kind of billing and real estate accounting procedures they are implementing for their project. In still another, there is a classroom setting where we saw several staff members learning basic task skills used by people who work in the Sacramento County Planning Department office.

The tour is over. We take our leave and a whole lot of knowledge and pamphlets about new possibilities for living choices available in this age of consciously constructed life-styling. We have much to think about, later when we travel home from the fair.

However, we really haven’t even seen the “Future Living” venue of the new Cal Expo. It is over there, to the south of the small compound we visited. There is an abundance of vegetation that serves as natural barrier to Cal Expo visitors and, if you happen to venture into that area, signs and staff are there to remind you that it is a ‘Cal Expo Staff Only’ area and visitors are not allowed. Privacy is important those who are authorized to be at the ‘Future Living’ site. In a Moment you will see why.

IMAGINING #17 - AND THE LAST SHALL COME FIRST

Beyond the barriers, just described, is a reserved section of Cal Expo. Quite a sizable chunk, about twenty to thirty acres. On about a half-dozen acres is sited an entire village, about one-hundred and fifty ‘tiny homes’ of a variety of shapes and styles. What would otherwise be very cramped high-density space, is instead relatively roomy and open, owing to the scale of the houses. The character of each house is quite unique, though the entire village blends into a harmonious and consonant whole. It is a marvel of design orchestration that took considerable effort on the part of some very capable and imaginative architects.

Surrounding this area of homes are a variety of features: public commons areas and open spaces, cooperative community gardens and farms, outdoor and indoor daycare facilities and children’s play parks. There is even a village general store, a hardware and a small movie theater. There are no automobiles, of course, but there is ample parking for the small electric vehicles the residents use for travel within the Cal Expo boundaries, along with fast-charging stations that provide free recharging these ‘mini-cars’. Future Life Village is something to see, the best technology and the best design that modern ingenuity can provide. But these descriptions, wonderful as they may be, are not the real wonder of the place. It is the people who live there.

‘Future Life Village’ as we shall dub it here (in reality, the people who first lived there chose their own name for the place), is a project organized and created by a consortium of local, regional and national organizations. Housing and advocacy groups, city and regional redevelopment agencies, local academic institutions, HUD, foundations and businesses of many types and, various other entities all lent their expertise, effort and money to make the project a reality; and, still do. The real creators of the project, however, are the people who live in Future Life Village. They come from a variety of places. Some are students from local universities. Some are relatively low-income workers who could not otherwise afford to buy a home. Some are local artists. Yet another group, largest source from which residents are drawn, are the homeless people of Sacramento; some families, some single individuals; some younger, some older; some casualties of the economic downturn, some chronically stuck in a life situation which they themselves do not desire. A few (from any of the above sources) may even have some emotional and mental health issues that have barred them from improving their circumstances (though these are constrained to problems that would not impact their chances of success, nor result in undue disturbances to the community). In short, the people of ‘Future Life Village’ are about as diverse and varied in their interests and needs and character as those in any community in Sacramento. They are no different than any of our neighbors; except that circumstances do not permit them, at present, to be our neighbors.

What all of these populations have in common is 1) they all are in circumstances in which there is little prospect of buying a home (the student-drawn population may be an exception to this general idea, but there are special reasons and goals set aside for them); 2) they all have a strong desire to change their circumstances, to re-join the general society and to join in sharing in its responsibilities as well as in its rewards (again, for the students and artists, this would be framed somewhat differently though, there are similar features in their life-designs as well.); 3) they are all committed to working on their own and with the other members of the community to make the Future Life project a success.

Once qualified, the new Future Life Village resident is explained the details of the project. They will be able to own a home, a ‘Future Life’, small-footprint home. They will also have employment. Employment leading to advancement, career development and, most of all, employment tailored as much as possible to the kind of work they are most interested in doing and for which they appear to have an aptitude and good chance of success. They may have to try several job development paths before finding the one that really suits them, but that is to be expected.

Residency in Future Life Village is not free. The first group of residents who came to Future Live Village didn’t even find houses there. They lived in tents, trailers and improvised temporary dwellings for quiet some time. It was their job, along with assistance from architects, builders, landscapers, farmers and others who had professional experience and know-how to offer, to create the first set of homes and other amenities that would come to take shape as ‘Future Life Village’. There were meetings and discord and complaints and, yes, even a few who did not choose to stay in the project. But, as time passed, things did take shape and a very tired but inspired and hopeful group of people started to meld themselves into a community that today, though generally out of public view and, which deliberately avoids media attention, takes substantial and well-deserved pride in what they have accomplished.

How does it work? Well the home building part was relatively easy and had a good deal of experience to draw upon, namely from models such as that developed by “Habitat for Humanity” and similar organizations using ‘sweat equity’ and similar means to turn over home ownership to people who otherwise were left out of the home buying market. But there is one very special condition of living at ‘Future Life’ which other models had never attempted. To begin with, residency in the village is not permanent. It is limited to say, five or ten years. It was never intended that residents would live out their lives at the village. The village is a starting place; but, it is always considered a launching platform that, once erected, the individual will have sufficient resource, knowledge and motivation to move out into the larger society and continue to improve their lives well beyond the limits of what “Future Life” can offer them.

It is the various kinds of equity that “Future Life” offers that permits this to happen. First, for the original group of residents, there was the initial ‘sweat equity’. Added to that is that a certain and reasonable sum is extracted from their salary each month and put into an equity savings fund which will be turned over to them at the end of their residency (with interest). The salary comes from various kinds of employment at Cal Expo, some quite challenging and interesting, some entry-level work; but, always, the jobs offered to the residents of ‘Future Village’ have clear opportunities for advancement; require continuing education and development on the part of the worker and, above all, are useful and worthwhile jobs that one can take pride in and Cal Expo can benefit from having done. There are no ‘charity’ or ‘make work’ jobs. We met a few of those workers as we toured the demonstration ‘tiny houses’ just outside of the village proper. All of the regular staff at that venue, incidentally, including its managers, are village residents.

Residents work elsewhere at Cal Expo, as well; in the offices, in the exhibit and demonstration venues, in the sales and marketing divisions, on the demonstration environments and, just about everywhere else on the Cal Expo site. During the limited time that one can participate in the project, some have even risen to managerial positions; an achievement that is really quite remarkable, considering the time it takes to accomplish a similar advancement out in the general business world. Some residents find that they simply like gardening or plumbing or other trades positions and have no desire to ‘advance’ in the ordinary sense - the work, they find, offers its own status and reward for them. This is fine too, as long as it leads to financial stability, developed skills and a suitable stake when they enter life beyond the boundaries of the project; their own ‘Future Life’.

Additional equity might derived from certain grants and other financial instruments offered by HUD and other sources. One Foundation, for example, found the project so extremely valuable that it offered to put up matching funds upon a resident’s successful completion of the project in an amount equal to the amount a resident had set aside from his salary. No resident who complied with requirements of the project is compelled to leave before they have accumulated enough equity to find a suitable home in their new location.

The one radical change from the ordinary home markets we are all familiar with is that Future Life homes can be owned but they cannot be bought or sold. There is no ‘cash value’ assigned to the value of a village home and none of the homes or facilities there can be converted into cash. People need homes and the homes are for occupancy, not investment. There are ‘housing credit’ values which are assigned to each home and, from which cash equivalents can be calculated. These equivalencies may be used to determine the mustering out equities that are due a parting resident; for the sweat equity in building the home, for sweat equities that later occupants might invest in making improvements or in maintenance they elect to do themselves or, in some other related manner. But, the homes themselves remain outside of the cash markets. The one exception to this is that some of the housing credit value of village homes can be “cashed in” to purchase materials or services for improvements and repairs as needed. However, even this must be reconverted into housing credits (paid back) by the resident either from sweat equity arrangements or from payments from their salary, made over time.

There are other sources of equity income. Everyone does some work at the village itself, in addition to their regular employment. Some, such as the daycare specialists, farm or garden managers, store clerks and other essential positions are full-time and fulfill the employment requirements, as well as equity investments for the project. Others, such as farm and garden work, general village upkeep, daycare aides, and such, are part-time, equity-fulfillment jobs done on week-ends or at other available times. There are many types of work that people do in maintaining the necessary elements of village life. Some offer equity payment in return; some are simply voluntary and non-paid tasks that people do because it is needed and because it is good for their community. Thus, a fair number of formerly homeless people and working poor, who could not have hoped to gain entry into a reasonably secure and sustaining middle-class life, gain that passage by designing their own future lives; the way they had imagine it might be, but had never dared hope for it before.

There is much, much more to be seen and learned about the “Future Life Village Project”, but there is not time or place in this paper to cover it all. The students and artists, for example, are special classes of residents (though indistinguishable from other residents in their community roles and other activities). Their inclusion adds some needed “class/goal” diversity and energy to the general character of the residents, in that, unlike the other people of Future Life Village they do not share in the common experience of difficulties that qualifies other residents for participation.

Students and artists come to the project already engaged in a substantial positive life/work-choice commitment, prior to qualifying for the project. They are already hopeful and engaged in the process of building the portfolios of their lives through the application of creative energy. Both populations are also very skilled in how to find and apply resources that the poor have generally been excluded from acquiring. They are, also and generally speaking, groups that are less likely (though not always) to be conditioned by mythologies and prejudices that create barriers to forming mutual relationships with people of other classes and life circumstances. And, there is one other very important advantage that students and artists bring with them to the Future Life community.

There have been innumerable studies demonstrating that positive role models have a direct bearing on the future successes of the children of a community. One, very early, study (cit.?) had shown that an overwhelming number of children who lived within a mile of a major airport facility eventually had careers related to the airline industry (pilots, stewards, aircraft designers and engineers, mechanics and air-traffic controllers and the like). The inclusion of artists and students in the makeup of Future Life will undoubtedly contribute greatly to modeling healthy accomplishment and ambition to the children of the village. They, the students and artists, need not do anything special; by virtue of their presence they impart messages of the value of education and the rewards of hard work and application simply doing what they do.

Artists, in particular, add another quality of role modeling that is quite essential and upon which no price can be set. In their choice of life-design, artists, more than most people, understand that there is far more to a satisfying or productive life than simply financial success. Knowing that art-making will not likely result in getting wealthy or even making them financially comfortable, artists have had to consciously face the choice, do I wish to make money or, do I want to do what I want to do? They can dream about money, but most of them know they are making a sacrifice when they choose to become artists.

While it is true, one of the objectives of the project is to insure that everyone in it can eventually leave with the benefit of having gained a measure of sustainable economic security and the capacity to purchase a home, it is equally important that the achievement of that goal does not overshadow a more important underlying purpose. Gaining wealth at the cost of personal satisfaction and self-expression with what one does and in their life is a terrible price to pay for security. Artists, on the whole, are not a wealthy class. Most do not own their own home and few can afford to do so. But, they do model that even modest circumstances can be filled with creativity, resourcefulness, joy, useful productions and other qualities that money cannot buy. The success of the project, especially for the children, will depend on that knowledge being available to other residents.

Which naturally leads to one final observation. The project, as a whole, has one source of modeling under the alternate proposal that is of enormous value. That is, their proximity to the realized vision of Cal Expo as outlined in the proposal. Recall that Cal Expo is envisioned here as a world-class venue and showcase for the most advanced technologies, products and activities of the 21st century. The people and venues of Cal Expo, to which the residents of Future Life Village will be exposed on a daily basis, are at the leading edge of discovery and success in the modern world. There is even a campus of a major university and a variety of research stations like the one at ‘Wetlands’, mentioned earlier, included in the alternate vision. And, there are people working at Cal Expo from all walks of life who have achieved successes, both material and spiritual, that most people hardly imagine.

At Future Life, the dreams and the possibilities of achieving that success are but a very short distance from one’s doorstep. They will work and play, in their everyday lives, among Cal Expo’s vision of the future and people who are actually bringing that future into existance. Whatever the price-tag might be for building and sustaining the Future Life venue, the rewards to those who participate in the project will certainly be of far greater value. Indeed, the Future Life project, as outlined here, gives new meaning to the phrase, “And the last shall come first.”

IMAGINING #18 - HOW GREEN IS OUR VALLEY?

I can easily imagine that the state department responsible for setting standards and assuring that the quality of ‘greenness’, in our products, our foods, our environmental services, and other concerns for restoring planetary and personal health - remain consistent with the latest discoveries of science and technology. It will mean little to have such services and products, or even the discover of them, if the standards by which we measure such elements as the true safety of a product, or the actual degree of reclamation that will assure future sustainability are lacking or faulty. It would be a natural inclusion that a state department responsible for drafting those definitions and monitoring our standards of achievement be located at the place where we showcase that achievement.

I find it ironic that, even now, there are those who argue that information about their products or services should be kept from public view or otherwise concealed; in our labeling, in additives to food or paint or other products, in potential hazards and in other aspects of our commercial activity that may adversely impact us. Their argument is that, the ‘public may be unnecessarily frightened or mistaken about the safety of some process or additive and would, thus be falsely dissuaded from buy such products or services.’ That is, that the “ignorance” of the people would damage the potential market for a product. I always thought the antidote for ignorance was education, not concealment or deception. Perhaps we are too early into the 21st century to understand that the only legitimate reply to skepticism is knowledge and high quality data with which to respond convincingly to those who would question doubtful assertions. Perhaps the myth that nature will be fooled by overzealous marketing also remains an educational task for next generation?

I do expect that gap in our policies will pass in time, along with our other false ambitions. Where I think we may have a lively debate is on the locating of the new ‘Bureau of Green Standards’. Some will think the ‘watchers’ over the quality and practice of our projects to restore a healthy environment should be best removed to some quiet corner of Cal Expo, so as not to overly remind visitors that their our remain mis-steps and mistakes to be made in our quest for creating a better place to live. Others will equally argue that such activities not only should be front and center where the public can view them, but they are, themselves, an important part of the educational processes necessary if we are ever to achieve our goals. Personally, I favor the latter choice. Still, like the debates over whether inter-city transport should drive up to the ‘front-door’ of the main events and facilities (Imagine #1, p. 13), this one should provide much lively entertainment for those who care to follow its discussion.

I do envision that the architecture of this facility will be as unimposing and inviting to the public as is humanly possible. The exhibits and activities one can imagine for a ‘Bureau of Green Standards’ are not only important for the public to see, but will probably draw a fairly good number of visitors as a venue of key importance to the success of all other projects. The place where the very definitions of a 21st century world are carefully weighed and measured.





Supporting Documents for “Cal Expo - An Alternate Vision”:

March 10, 2009

Governor Arnold Schwarznegger

Office of the Governor of California

State Capitol

Sacramento, California 95814

Governor Schwarzenegger,

As an ex-officio member of the Cal Expo Board of Governors, you should soon receive a copy of an alternate vision to the NBA/Cal Expo model under current consideration by the Cal Expo Board of Governors. 'An Alternate Vision' challenges the soundness of the NBA/Cal Expo proposal:

- it questions the basic concepts and values underlying its economic analysis and

projections.

it questions the narrow scope of its proposal and its underlying assumption to

treat Cal Expo as primarily a local facility, ignoring the statewide mission and

purposes for which the state fair was founded.

- it questions the taking of a significant and valuable part of the public commons

and delivering it into the hands of primarily private and narrow interests that

will essentially obstruct and foreclose on its more valuable potentials for the

future.

- it finds the current NBA/Cal Expo proposal, frankly, rather dull and

unimaginative beyond a few pretty drawings and doubtful assertions.

Up to now, Governor, the matter has largely been viewed as a local and regional undertaking. Even, at that, only the most narrow and generally private interests of shoppers and sports enthusiasts is being garnered for support. When the real value and public interest of an exposition and state fair are treated at all, they are mainly dealt with by assurances that the "fairgrounds will continue to operate," and similar statements. The California Exposition and State Fair is not something that was intended to simply 'continue to operate' or be an afterthought for other commercial interests. It has always been, and should remain, a valuable asset and offering for all the people of the State of California and for all its varied agricultural, commercial and industrial sectors. I believe that to be a trust which the state holds with the people of California and should not be broken.

Sooner or later, Governor, I think you are going to need to weigh-in on these matters and the future of Cal Expo. I hope that you will find the enclosed vision (my own) and other ideas from the people of our state useful in coming to some decision on what the future of Cal Expo really ought to be. I realize there is an immediate and serious economic crises for the state as well as Cal Expo. But, if it came down to it, I'd frankly be in favor of shutting down the facility for a few years and switching to a low-cost, bare maintenance mode, rather than endorsing a proposal that might very likely foreclose, forever, on the imagination, talent and incredible energy of the people of California and their businesses.

We may need time to think this matter through. We may even need time to wait for better times. What we don't need is to cancel the potentials for the future in order to deal with some difficulties of the moment.

Thank you for your kind attention,

[closing signature]

March 11, 2009


March 10, 2009

Mr. Norbert J. Bartosik

CEO & General Manager

California Exposition & State Fair

Dear Mr. Bartosik,

Due to the cancellation of your March 10th Cal Expo Board of Governor’s meeting, I am sending the enclosed documents by email. I will say, at the outset, that I do not favor the current NBA-centered proposal being considered by your board. As reported recently in its February 27th presentation, and in the Sacramento Bee Newspaper, I, along with others, find its economic assertions doubtful. Indeed, the NBA proposal’s own text expresses much uncertainty about the economic viability of the project.

More importantly, I find the narrow scope of their proposal’s concept ("Masterplan") to be the most disturbing element of what they suggest. The California Exposition and State Fair is a state facility governed by both state appointed and state-elected members. Its mission is defined in state documents and its activities described in state codes and regulations. In short, it is a venue and a mission for the whole of California, its industries, commerce and people. The NBA-centered proposal is really motivated and designed for purely local interests or, at best, regional ones. Indeed, there is no mention or consideration in its pages of the entirety of interests that comprise the whole of the people of California and our varied commerce and industry.

Beyond that, “Cal Expo - An Alternate Vision” strongly suggests that a revitalized exposition venue has an important role to play in many of the essential goals and projects of the nation as a whole, as stated by the current Administration. In economic recovery, in energy goals, in climate and resource management, in education and, even in health reform, the vision offered for a revitalized Cal Expo indicates it could well have an essential part to play in the success of all those other ambitions.

Be that as it may, I hope that the documents I am providing will at least inform your members that there are alternatives that not only have better economic potentials for the short- and long-term support of a revitalized Cal Expo but, that also have a far superior vision; one that does include all the people and all the interests of the state as it core presentation.

[closing remarks and signature ]


March 10, 2009

To the Board of Directors,

California Exposition & State Fair:

Governor Schwarzenneger,

Ms. Perez-Cook, Chair,

Mr. Bartosik, CEO & General Manager,

Members of the Cal Expo Board of Directors

What I am offering, as a citizen and nearby resident, is an alternative to the proposal you’ve received from the NBA. It is very informal and does not conform to what one usually gets when they call for proposals for major public projects. More important than the vision presented in these documents is the fact that they do present an alternate vision to what you have gotten in the past. It is only one idea and there may even be much better ones still waiting to be found in our own communities. The citizens of California are very creative and also very realistic. Our entire State was founded, not only on our incredible capacity to imagine what we might become, but also on the inventive spirit to transform that imagination into a reality. In good times, and bad, that fundamental quality in our character has proven itself time and time again. It is no different now, with the current economic difficulties; nor with the local crises that important public venues such as Cal Expo now face.

I think if you read my concept [enclosed] of what I imagine Cal Expo could become for us and for future generations, you will find that it holds much truer to the original and sustained purposes for which Cal Expo was first created. No less than then, those purposes remain essential and important in every aspect of our lives. It is at Cal Expo that the imagination of the State is showcased and distributed in such a way that its promises can be realized and applied. Indeed, the purpose of your organization is nothing less than to serve as a lynch pin for that very transformation mentioned above.

That said, the reality is a financial crises that seriously threatens the ability of your organization to continue to exist. The State of California has said, in charter and policy, that Cal Expo was to exist by its own means and ability to generate revenues; that the State and General Fund revenues were not to be used to support or underwrite the financial needs of the fairgrounds, important as they may be. The state granted you the land to steward and use for your mission but, beyond that, Cal Expo was on its own. In good times, when money and credit were readily available, that worked. But now it does not.

The question is, will a sports-complex and a few ancillary real estate projects, through the sale of some of its only public asset - the Cal Expo land itself - relieve its current crises and will it endure as a dependable means of support for generations to come? Equally important, will the purposes to which the assets be used, as described in the February 27th presentation, enhance or dilute the original mission and purposes of Cal Expo, which remain as vital and important to the well being of our state as when they were first proposed? The very fact that the Board has had to give assurances that the fairgrounds and other activities will still operate, the very fact that they did so, is fair evidence that the NBA-centered presentation proposes some dilution of that mission, mixing it with other purposes which are not part of Cal Expo's charter.

As to the first question regarding finance, there are already many knowledgeable people in our region, some of whom are members of your own board, who have expressed doubts that the proposal itself may not live up to its economic forecasts and promises. No doubt, such a proposal will generate some initial revenues that naturally arise out of the transfer and sale of properties. This infusion of cash may be sufficient for Cal Expo to repair its facilities and continue in the short-term. However, it is not difficult to see that the things which Cal Expo would depend upon for its long term endurance, let alone an expanding vision for the future, would be the very things that have proved so vulnerable to failure in the current, national economic crises; that is, private commercial and residential property, bank and development financing and sports revenues. Is it not ironic, that the centerpiece of that assurance, a sports complex, is intended to be a new arena for the Sacramento Kings, the very same organization that has suffered serious difficulties due to the deterioration of its own venue and its own economic difficulties, some of which are directly related to whether the team does well or not in any given season? The State determined that Cal Expo would have to depend on its own sources of revenue and that the primary source of those monies would be from horse-racing. As we can see, betting on horse-racing for Cal Expo's survival hasn't worked too well. How does betting on the Kings (or any other sports productions at that venue) differ from betting on horse-racing as a dependable, long-term solution to financial solvency? It doesn't. It is as likely to fail as betting on horses. Moreover, it puts the cart before the horse.

When one is creating an organization, one begins with the purposes and mission statements of the enterprise. It is only after that, that one sets about devising the economic structures that will support that mission. The February 27th proposal does things exactly backwards. I do not think anyone asked, "How does a sports arena, townhouses and retail shopping support the mission statement of Cal Expo?" Of course not, because, other than resolving some immediate financial crises, they do not. All of the proposed NBA projects are ones which serve missions generally intended for private interests and private lands - commerce, real estate and entertainment are not found in the catalogs of 'public interests' let alone for showcasing the vitality and breadth of agriculture and enterprise in the State of California. More disturbing, if private economic interests are substituted for public missions and public interests in the short-term, what does that foreshadow for the long term? Very likely, the expansion and dominance of those interests over and above the public mission of the venue and, the eventual take-over of the original purposes for which those public assets were originally created. Why else, under the NBA proposal, would Cal Expo have to keep giving assurances that the 'fairgrounds' would continue to operate?

That is the reality of the current proposal. Still, if it were the only option, a 'do or die' matter, it might still be a proposal to be seriously considered. What my own proposal demonstrates, if nothing else, is that it is not the only alternative - not by a long shot. As described in the text, my proposal suggests that other visions of how to deal with the current situation not only can remain true and faithful to the mission of Cal Expo and its fairgrounds, but may have financial promise and stability far exceeding anything promised in the NBA proposal. For one thing, my proposal shifts away from dependencies upon financial stakeholders who are merely capitalizing on the acquisition of public assets. My model suggests that the stakeholders include both private and public interests that would stand to gain a great deal from a revitalization of the actual mission of Cal Expo. Second, the current proposal's economic model is an exact analog of compelling public trusts or private foundations to spend down their endowments (which is, incidentally, a present crises in the charitable and educational sectors of our economy). The land is Cal Expo's endowment - its only endowment. Under the NBA proposal, we are contemplating spending it down.

My proposal would save that endowment and, instead, use the value of the enterprise - its mission; its interest - to revitalize and even expand the value of that endowment. The NBA proposal projects only one source of revenue, the investors in its revenue generating components; and, only one revenue stream beyond racing and ticket sales, i.e. sales and rentals to private parties whether they be tenants, exhibitors or sports spectators. It further suggests that the entire project will be underwritten by the banking and finance/developer communities (to which your Board has already sent RFQ's). My proposal suggests that the actual beneficiaries of a revitalized Cal Expo may not only be willing to underwrite such projects, but may also find it entirely within their interests to enhance and expand the actual mission of the State's showcase. More than that, my proposal identifies not one sector of interest for securing those funds, but four independent sectors that are likely to respond.

First, it includes the entire commercial sector of California, whether it be agriculture or technology or building and construction or IT any other expression of California industry and commerce. It is in their interest to have a world-class revitalized venue, and I believe it would be welcomed and generously underwritten by them. Second, there are any number of trusts and foundations dedicated to the purpose of advancing our technology, of bringing it into phase with the need to conserve resources, protect the environment, and generally change the nature of our relationship to this planet to a healthier and more sustainable one. Many of those organizations already contribute to such projects in a myriad of ways. Even public broadcasting derives substantial funds from such donors for programs that promote those ideas. I would be surprised if the philanthropic communities weren't significantly interested in underwriting aspects of a Cal Expo that was, indeed, a world-class venue for the exhibit, knowledge exchange, education, demonstration and dissemination of information directed toward the next generation of products and services contributing to the solution of serious world problems. We see a lot of things being readied for the future vision of how we will live in the world. Prime-venue showcases that bring it all together, give it coherency and exposure and stimulate further development will be essential components if that project is to be a success.

The next source of underwriting an alternative vision for Cal Expo may seem a little surprising. It was to me. The State has pretty flatly said that there would be no funds from its general revenues allocated to Cal Expo. My proposal suggests that may not continue to be the case, even under difficult economic conditions. This has several interesting aspects. First, you may note that I suggest in the proposal there may be a natural role for the University of California, Davis (and possibly Sacramento State University) to play in the vision I present. If that is the case, then certainly the University would be making substantial investment in the project; investments that not only bring in revenues and stimulate our local economy, but enhance the purposes and stature of Cal Expo itself. In a round-about way, that in itself would be indirectly infusing state funds into the project, given that the University of California is a State institution.

In addition, both California and the current Administration of the Federal Government have made it clear that they will be heavily investing in future-oriented technologies. Indeed many of these, such as the President's energy proposals, promise to invest substantial funds into these sectors for quite some time to come. I see no reason why a venue that plays such an integral role and has such important value in the promotion of such projects should not receive a fair amount of support to further those missions. Indeed, I would not be surprised, at all, if, given a renewed mission along the lines I suggest (or something similar) the State didn't recant a little, despite the budget crises, and provide some form of emergency support to insure the continuance of Cal Expo and its immediate needs until a full vision could be drafted and implemented. Under those circumstances, it would only make good sense to do so. Cal Expo would be offering itself as an important part of the solution to our current economic crises and many of the serious problems we face in the coming years. Its new mission would underscore that role.

Finally, I think it might even be possible to revisit the public (statewide, as well as local) to ask for some tax moneys to support the project. Sacramento wasn't rejecting basketball or sports when they voted against providing support for a new arena. Nor were they saying they would refuse to increase their taxes for any project, no matter how worthy. I think we were expressing our view that sports and entertainment, worthy as they might be, were not compelling public interests and should not receive tax support from our scant resources. Its not at all certain, but I believe that if Cal Expo were to approach the taxpayers of this state with something as valuable and obviously in the public interest as a re-envisioned Cal Expo along the lines I've described, they might very well see it was in their own interests (short- and long-term) to help keep it going and support its ambitions.

What this all comes down to, is, there are better alternatives than the one you've got before you from the NBA. It is understandable that, given the desperate circumstances, you had to seize upon something, anything, that might relieve the financial difficulties Cal Expo faces. My proposal may not be the best. But, certainly, it suggests there may be alternatives which can secure the future of Cal Expo at the same time they expand and enhance the purposes for which the venue was created. What I ask is that you read with an open-mind and without assuming anything needs to rushed into a done deal as seems to be the case with the NBA proposal. It would be my advice that the Board of Governors retract their current call for RFQ's and, instead, send out a fresh call for RFP's (Requests for Proposals). It should be an RFP that only specifies the mission statement of Cal Expo (perhaps a slightly revised one) and the broadest outlines of what the future of Cal Expo might be. Moreover, that RFP should be sent, not simply to the developer community, but to the entire State; to various sectors of its economy and to the public at large to do their very best imagining and submit their best ideas. Then, have a panel of notable experts weed through and cull out the best of all the ideas from which to make a selection. Who knows, perhaps the NBA proposal will be among them, though I rather think not. More likely, you will find some ideas that are as stunning as they are realistic from which to make a final choice.

What I hope is that some day, our grandchildren will be visiting Cal Expo and remarking, "You know, our grandparents took a crises and turned into an opportunity and, then, gave that opportunity to us.” And, they will watch as their grandchildren let go of their hands and rush to see exhibits that fascinate and excite and inspire them to do things in the world that will become their own next generation's exhibits at Cal Expo. That's the vision I would like to see step forward.

Thank you kindly for your attention,

[closing signature]




Testimony of

Judith Grant Long, PhD, AICP Assistant Professor of Urban Planning Graduate School of Design, Harvard University Professional Sport Stadiums: Do They Divert Public Funds From Critical Public Infrastructure? Domestic Policy Subcommittee

Oversight and Government Reform Committee

Wednesday October 10, 2007

2154 Rayburn HOB – 2:00 P. M.

Thank you, Chairman Kucinich, Ranking Member Issa, and members of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee, for the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. I am a professor at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, and one of my areas of expertise is the financing and development of sports, convention, and tourist facilities. The question before the committee today is whether or not public subsidies for professional sports facilities divert funds and attention away from America’s public infrastructure. My testimony focuses on three aspects of this issue:

• How much public money has been spent subsidizing major league sports facilities?

• What portion of this public funding has made use of using tax-exempt financing?

• Are public subsidies for major league sports facilities diverting funds from the repair and maintenance of critical public infrastructure?

.

Measuring the Cost of Public Subsidies for Major League Sports Facilities

How much public money has been spent, and continues to be spent, to subsidize new major league

sports facilities? This question is important because the ongoing debate about the appropriateness of these public subsidies depends critically on our ability to accurately measure the nature and magnitude of the underlying costs

Starting with cost figures provided by the sports industry, public funding for the 82 new facilities opened between 1990 and 2006 totals approximately $12 billion dollars. This estimate is based on an average facility price tag of $253 million (in 2006 dollars), an average public subsidy of $144 million, translating to an average public share of facility costs measuring 57 percent.

My research summarized in Table 1 below, shows that these figures are the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I argue that governments pay far more to participate in the development of major league sports facilities than is commonly understood due to the routine omission of public subsidies for land, infrastructure, as well as the ongoing costs of operations, capital improvements, municipal services, and foregone property taxes.

TABLE 1:

Public Funding for Major League Sports Facilities 1

Facilities Opened from 1990 to 2006 2

(in 2006 Dollars)

Industry

Estimates

Adjusted for Land and Infrastructure Adjusted for Ongoing Expenses (Net of Revenues) and Foregone Property Taxes
Average Facility Cost $253 Million $281 Million $281 Million
Average Public Subsidy $144 Million $169 Million $225 Million
Average Public Share 57% 60% 80%
Total Public Subsidy $12.0 Billion $14.0 Billion $18.5 Billion



figures, or $6.5 billion dollars in uncounted costs. These figures are based on an average of $80 million dollars of uncounted costs for each individual facility, increasing the average public subsidy to $225 million, and the average public share of total costs from 57 to 80 percent.

My adjusted public cost data can also be applied to broader time periods. Over the period from 1950 to 2006, I estimate that the public has spent just over $27 billion dollars subsidizing the capital costs (building, land, infrastructure) for 167 major league sports facilities—an average subsidy of $155 million per facility (2006 dollars).

Add the $6.5 billion dollars in uncounted ongoing costs and foregone property tax revenues for the period from 1990 to 2006, and the total public cost increases to $31.5 billion dollars.

Add the seven (7) new facilities scheduled to open from 2007 to 2010, and the total public cost increases by another $1.5 billion to just over $33 billion dollars.

Measuring the Cost to the Public of Tax-Exempt Financing

What portion of the $18.5 billion dollars in public subsidies for sports facilities delivered between 1990 and 2006 used tax-exempt financing? This is an important question because of the ongoing debate about the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds to finance sports facilities, since they offer a discounted cost of capital to private individuals, paid for through a reduction in federal tax revenues.

Interpreting my preliminary aggregate data conservatively, I estimate that approximately $10 billion dollars of tax-exempt bonds have been issued to fund major league sports facilities for the 82 new facilities opened from 1990 to 2006. Based on the estimated $18.5 billion total public funding over this period (Table 1), the implication is that the majority of those funds—over 55 percent—are delivered through tax-exempt financing. Assuming a participation rate of 80 percent, or 65 out of 82 facilities, the average amount of tax-exempt debt issued is $150 million.

Note that I use the term “preliminary” data because I have yet finished collecting high-quality data on the nature and magnitude of tax-exempt financing for each individual facility. I do, however, have data for a sufficiently large sample to provide this estimate with reasonable confidence. I also deliver my estimate conservatively, both in terms of participation rate and average debt issue.

It is likely that the actual figures for tax-exempt financing are higher. An informal survey conducted by the Washington Post in 2003, where the sample was chosen to highlight issues of tax-exempt financing, yielded a participation rate of 95 percent and average debt issue of $185 million. Using their assumptions, my estimate of the impact of tax-exempt financing would increase dramatically: 85 percent of total public funding would be attributed to tax-exempt bonds, or 85 percent of all public funding from 1990 to 2006, at an average debt issue of $200 million per facility.

Regardless of whether the actual figure lays closer 55 percent or 85 percent, it is clear that tax-exempt financing is the major instrument of subsidy delivery in the context of major league sports facilities during recent years. What is less clear is whether the total amount of public funding for sports facilities would be lower—and how much lower it would be—if the use of tax-exempt bond to finance sports facilities had been prohibited.

On a smaller scale, but still worth noting, is an additional uncounted public cost associated with the use of tax-exempt financing, whereby taxpayers are paying a share of reduced interest costs through reduced federal tax revenues. Based my conservative estimate of 65 out of 82 facilities making use of tax-exempt financing at an average debt issue of $150 million, then a two-percentage-point spread between the tax-exempt and market interest rates would result in a total loss of revenue to the US treasury of approximately $195 million annually. Assuming a declining balance over twenty years, the total lost federal revenues would be close to $2 billion dollars. That the incidence of tax-exempt financing costs fall nationally on taxpayers raises a point ably articulated by Mr. Neil DeMause, who in testimony earlier this year, points out that Kansas City Royals fans would no doubt not be pleased to learn that their tax dollars are going to help make the New York Yankees even richer.

Again, it is likely that the actual loss of federal revenues due to tax-exempt financing is higher. As an example, to finance the Seattle Mariners’ new ballpark in 1997, King County issued $310 million in tax-exempt bonds carrying an interest rate of 5.9 percent, at a time when equally-rated taxable bonds issued by King County carried an interest rate of 8 percent. The difference in rates amounted to $6 million in lost federal revenues.

Are public subsidies for major league sports facilities diverting funds from public infrastructure?

Could this $18.5 billion dollars have been better spent by investing in critical public infrastructure? This question of opportunity cost is particularly important given the recent and solemn reminder in Minneapolis where a bridge collapsed killing twelve people one day before ground was to be broken on a new major league ballpark financed with close to $400 million in public funds.

A quick look at the numbers reveals that public money spent on major league sports facilities is pocket change relative to the money needed to maintain and upgrade critical infrastructure. According to the University of Alabama Aging Infrastructure Systems Center of Excellence, it takes approximately $100 billion annually to maintain the nation’s infrastructure at its current level of service, and over the next five years an estimated $1.6 trillion is required to bring the nation’s infrastructure up to acceptable standards.

Viewed nationally, if public funding for sports facilities could indeed be redirected, the magnitude of spending comes nowhere near to solving the infrastructure problem. Even if the entire $18.5 billion public dollars spent on sports facilities over the past sixteen years could be retroactively applied to infrastructure, only three months of current operating costs could be paid. In annual terms the picture is bleaker still, since annual public spending on major league sports facilities is between $1 to $2 billion dollars per year, or about $10 million per facility. Moreover, these figures assume that rate of new construction will continue, whereas by 2010 over 90 percent of the major league facility stock will have been replaced, and a lull in activity is anticipated.

Viewed locally, however, the opportunity cost of public funding for sports facilities is more tangible. If the $1 to $2 billion dollars were diverted to the 50-plus US cities that host major league sports facilities, and the impact is sizeable. Recapturing $10 million dollars per facility per year—and most of these cities have at least two—would go a long way towards ensuring effective management, maintenance and upgrading of local public infrastructure.

It is also helpful to consider diversions other than transportation infrastructure, since the mismatch in the relative scale of these two public spending issues may quite mistakenly infer that public funding of sports facilities is a token amount and therefore insignificant. Nationally, $1 billion per year could support a host of worthy public programs: To take one example, $100 million is the amount the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention planned to distribute to help states boost their smallpox vaccination programs in 2003. Locally, these monies could be better spent supporting local schools, health care services, and job creation programs: $10 million dollars per year could support the creation of two hundred local jobs, assuming a cost of $50,000 per job.

Since the vast majority of these new facilities have been built in urban areas, there may be a stark juxtaposition of the needs of low- and moderate-income residents living near the facilities, versus those of the high-income team owners, athletes, and facility patrons. The contrast is economic, where poorer residents often can only afford to go to game events if they are somehow employed in the facility, as well as physical, with a high degree of amenity and security in the immediate environs of the facility, buffering patrons from these same residents. Tax-exempt financing exacerbates these distributional impacts, since the significant benefits of these bonds accrue to a small group of private individuals at a significant cost to the general public, and with few corresponding public benefits, particularly for local residents.

So it appears that there are many ways this money could be better spent.

Yet under existing regulations, it is unreasonable to expect that state and local decision-makers will be able to fend off the considerable political pressure exerted by private individuals to gain access the benefits of tax-exempt financing. Diverting public funds away from sports facilities will require removing this authority from the state and local political arena through a prohibition of the use of tax-exempt funds for sports facilities. There is absolutely no evidence that $18.5 billion dollars in public benefits have been generated since 1990 to compensate for the $18.5 billion dollars in public costs. Variations on the loophole, including recent creative use of payments-in-lieu-of-taxes should be similarly prohibited. The opportunity cost is significant, viewed in the context of infrastructure or any of a host of other important public services, and competition between local jurisdictions is becoming increasingly counter-productive when measured at the national level.

Critics of such a prohibition may argue that the private-activity substituted for sports facilities may not fare any better in terms of generating public benefits. If this turns out to be true, then a prohibition on that activity may be required, and so on. In this sense, public policies and the regulations that implement them are living things, subject to fine-tuning over time. It is a particular responsibility of those of us engaged in this collective endeavor to act when change is needed. Our goal should be to ensure that tax-exempt financing is used for its original intent as set out in 1913—that is, aiding the provision public infrastructure that provides truly public benefits—and to stop the diversion of scarce public funds to a select few private individuals and industries.

Prof. Judith Grant Long 10/10/2007 7



    • COMPARING OFFERINGS

    (NBA) (CEAV)

    CAL EXPO? or, CAL EXPO?

    BASKETBALL & SPORTS WORLD-CLASS SHOWCASE FOR 21st CENTURY LIFE
    TOWNHOUSES ‘SMALL-FOOTPRING’ HOMES’ FOR

    FUTURE LIVING DEMONSTRATION

    RETAIL SHOPPING ‘GREEN VILLAGE’ SHOPS - ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS

    		 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER CENTER FOR COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

    		 SCHOOL OF GREEN DESIGNL U.C./CSUS CAL EXPO CAMPUS


    		 EXHIBIT AND DEMONSTRATION AREAS FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY




    		 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTS DEMONSTRATION AREAS; WETLANDS, NATIVE PLANTS, XEROSCAPES, FARM AND GARDEN, RIVER PRESERVATION & MORE....


    		 FULL SCALE SOLAR AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DEMONSTRATIONS AND RELATED PRODUCTS

    		 BIOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATIONS
    CALIFORNIA CULTURES CENTER
    ‘THE CAL EXPO GAME’
    VIRTUAL CAL EXPO
    Traditional exhibits and activities. traditional exhibits and activities.
    & That’s all folks. & MUCH, MUCH MORE...


    COMPARING FEATURES

    (NBA) (CEAV)

    CAL EXPO? or, CAL EXPO?

    SERIOUS TRAFFIC IMPACTS

    REQUIRING EXTENSIVE MITIGATION

    		 REMOTE AREA PARKING; ZERO EMISSIONS INTRA-EXPO TRANSIT
    DEVELOPER-DRIVEN, PRIVATE,

    FOR-PROFIT INTERESTS

    		 NON-PROFIT INVESTMENT IN CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE AND ITS PEOPLE
    ‘TOWNHOUSES’, SHOPS,

    SPORTS-ARENA.

    		 SHOWCASE FACILITIES FOR THE BEST OF CALIFORNIA, CREATING A HABITABLE PLANET, ADVANCING CALIFORNIA COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
    FOCUS ON SALES, RENTALS AND CONSUMERISM CREATING VISION, IMAGINATION, KNOWLDEGE AND, RESPECT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT & THE PRODUCTS THAT SUPPORT THEM


    INSULATED LIVING, RETAIL SHOPS COMPETING WITH LOCAL BUSINESS ADVANCED AGRICULTURE, COMMERCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN A COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY

    PARTNERSHIP

    OVERSHADOWS, CONFLICTS WITH AND DESTROYS THE MISSION OF CAL EXPO ENHANCES & UPDATES THE CAL EXPO MISSION FOR THE 21st CENTURY
    SERVES THE LOCAL AND NARROW INTERESTS OF A FEW PEOPLE SERVE THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA AND ITS BUSINESSES
    BANK, DEVELOPER AND PRIVATE FINANCING BASED ON PROFIT ENDOWMENT, TRUST AND CORPORATE UNDERWRITING ALONG WITH PUBLIC FINANCE BASED ON REAL VALUE TO COMMERCE, INDUSTRY,AGRICULTURE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
    FIXED POSITION, CEMENT POUR FLEXIBLE, SUPPLE EVOLVING DESIGN
    BUSINESS AS USUAL REDESIGNING OUR LIVES AND OUR PLANET
    ‘DONE DEAL’ WE CAN CHANGE IT.