As a Sac Ragger, sometimes it just seems too easy to poke fun at Sacramento. It’s too easy, because well, many times this town is just asking for it. But every once in a while we come across stories that just make you want to throw your fist in the air and give a shout out in approval. This is what we at the Rag like to call giving up a “Right On!” (pronounced right-awn!).
I’ve decided to start a new weekly feature here on the Rag, called Kudos of the Week. Every Friday, I’m going to pick a feel-good story from the past week that I feel is worthy to acknowledge, with the hopes that, you know, I can find something every week to appreciate. If I can’t, I’m hoping one of the legions of Sac Rag faithful can, and if so, feel free to send me your tips at singhcity-at-sacrag-dot-com.
So, in this first and inaugural edition, this week’s Kudos of the Week goes to…
[drum roll, cow bells and clucking chickens…]
…Jim Lites, Gregg Fishman, and the other residents of the Arden Park neighborhood, who took it upon themselves to bust the racist CC&R language from their neighborhood, by lobbying and influencing the creation of a new bill. This story came out in the Sac Bee on last Friday, January 13:
Before, a homeowner had to go through an expensive process with trips to the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing before a county recorder would agree to make changes to only the individual’s property…A typical “racial occupancy clause” reads, “No persons of any race other than the white Caucasian race shall use or occupy any building or any lot except that this covenant shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of a different race domiciled with an owner or tenant.” …Under the new law, a homeowner can request a copy of the original CC&R, cross out the offensive language and give it to the county recorder, who will send it to the county counsel for review.
The issue of such CC&R language has been discussed here at the Rag several times. It’s nice to see that some people took the issue up for themselves, and not only complained about it, but actually did something about it – empowering not just their neighborhood, but giving that power to all other neighborhoods too.
Ladies and Gentlemen, please join me in giving the Arden Park peeps their props: RIGHT AWN!
The Sac Rag 
Ooooh!! How BIG of them. When are they going to sell their homes at below market rates so the poor/homeless can finally have a place to live? Maybe they could just take in a couple of homeless each, and let ’em live the their garages, to give the people in La Riv a break.
And let’s not forget to pat ourselves on the back for having an “integrated” community. Because we all know about the tangible benifits that come with that!
I’ll take the people that spay the feral cats in the parks over these self interested/self styled CCR busters any day.
LikeLike
Once again I’m not totally sure what ST is getting at but I’m thinking it has something to do with his hatred of the world. Man, that’s depressing.
Discriminatory CCRs are unenforceable so this provision won’t have a tangible effect on neighborhoods. Still, I join SacRag in saying RIGHT AWN since the provision will eliminate some remnants of an ugly past we’re all better off without. Imagine how offensive to have to sign closing documents with this kind of prohibition – even if unenforceable it’s really disconcerting.
LikeLike
Yes- why don’t we just burn the Constitution (with its “blacks are 2/3 of a person” language and all) and write a new one! We can all join hands and sing kumbaya around the flames. When we wipe out all vestiages of what we think is bad, it will be a better world, and no one will ever have their feelings hurt.
Or, we could let our kids see what used to be, and explain to them WHY things have changed. NAHHH!! Let’s just let em figure it out for themselves!
LikeLike
As a resident of the 864 I am proud of my people. Between replenishing the trees of our great city and updating the language of our code enforcement we are working towards the greater good. Thank you Mr. Singhcity for mentioning the hard work of the Parkers.
LikeLike
Squirty, you make a lot of noise and you throw like a girl.
LikeLike
I agree with HeyMeg. While these types of provisions are not enforceable, they are offensive. I was bothered when my husband and I bought a house and the closing documents all listed him first. Why was that? Who made that decision? Does the male always get to be the main party and the female the co-signer? The lender happily took my half of the down payment so it irked me that I was consistently listed as the second party. Furthermore, when the bills directly related to the property started arriving (sewer, garbage, water, etc.) my name simply dropped off like he owned the house himself. Am I being petty? I’m sure I am to some degree but that felt like my own little brand of discrimination.
LikeLike