is, he says, his “dream job.” When he started at that position in 2014, the team’s new owners knew they had to revamp its community work. His unit focuses on three areas: health, education and sustainability. Collectively, Kings staffers volunteer more than 10,000 hours in the community each year.
Moak loves the Kings’ new downtown arena. “Golden 1 is simply the best,” he says. “It is a venue that the people of the Sacramento region have deserved for decades.” Shane Singh can be reached at email@example.com. n
Kings annoncer Scott Moak grew up in the Pocket area. CITY FROM page 10 was advocating for consolidation. It renewed its effort in 1957, leading to a 251-page study of the idea. But the idea really caught steam in the early ’70s, when a coalition of the Chamber of Commerce, The Sacramento Bee, Democratic Party leaders, restive and ambitious political staffers at the Capitol (some things never do change) and local good-government groups managed to persuade the city council and board of supervisors to create a
joint charter commission to study the idea. Members of the commission were split into three factions: the “old elite” who wanted only modest changes to local government, Capitol staffers who wanted to implement wholesale changes, and the “unaligned” faction, made up of good-government groups as well as newly emergent leaders of the black and Hispanic communities. In 1970, city voters approved a charter change that shifted Sacramento from electing council members citywide to electing
them by district. The change had a profound effect on both the makeup of the council and the city’s very political culture. There was a time before the shift when more than half of the city council members were residents of a single neighborhood, Land Park (which was really great for Land Park residents; for others, not so much). After the change, members of minority groups were elected to the council in greater numbers, which helped empower black and Hispanic neighborhoods and groups. In the end, the charter commission proposed a consolidation plan that called for a strong mayor of a unified government (with the mayor sharing power with a chief administrative officer), an expanded legislative council and a division of the county into five “boroughs.” Each borough government would have the trappings of a mini-city, but with authority that was never well defined. The commission's proposal was put before city and county voters in 1974. The campaigns for and against the 1974 consolidation proposal showed that the measure lacked
broad geographical support. County officials and small-city officials (in those days, the county’s small cities were just Folsom, Isleton and Galt, commonly known as the FIG cities) lined up against the plan, while the Sacramento city council backed the measure. Public employee groups lined up against the plan, while the Chamber of Commerce failed to provide much help to the “Yes” side. Lacking a recognized campaign leader, the “Yes” campaign struggled along with B-list spokesmen, while the “No” campaign was led by the voluble, energetic and popular Jack Kipp, a longtime mayor of Folsom (and a cousin of mine). Kipp effectively castigated the measure as a power grab by downtown interests, foreshadowing, perhaps, a central theme of the opponents of Measure L, the strong-mayor proposal that was soundly defeated 40 years later. The campaigns were decidedly low-budget affairs, with each side spending about $14,000, at a time when a typical
CITY page 14
POC n INSIDEPUBLICATIONS.COM