The railroad museum deal for two buildings and the old American River bed remain two areas of disagreement needing resolution and all seem wiling to do that, so the prognosis, at this point, looks good.
Museum site still dogging railyard plan
State wants two buildings, but developer has offered only one.
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - mlvellinga@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PST Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The ongoing dispute between the downtown railyard developer and the state of California took center stage again Tuesday when the Sacramento City Council held the first of three planned meetings to review the railyard development proposal.
State Parks Director Ruth Coleman, appearing in front of the council, struck a conciliatory tone, emphasizing that the state is in no position to "demand" two of the former railyard shop buildings from developer Thomas Enterprises for a new Museum of Railroad Technology.
She also said the parks agency is eager to work with Thomas Enterprises and the city to enliven the museum at night by putting restaurants and stores along its periphery.
"We're hearing your message that people want an exciting, vibrant museum," she said, adding, "It is not in our interest to build a flawed project."
Still, Coleman emphasized Thomas' offer of one building is inadequate. The museum has long held a memorandum of understanding – first from Union Pacific and then Millennia Partners, which later morphed into Thomas Enterprises – that would allow it to take possession of two buildings – the former boiler shop and the erecting shop.
Coleman said the existing museum in Old Sacramento already uses the tin-clad boiler shop to construct exhibits for the museum and to refurbish trains. This building is connected by a rail line to the existing railroad museum. The boiler shop is the only building Thomas Enterprises has offered for the Museum of Railroad Technology. The firm has balked at the long-standing plan by state parks to take possession of the brick erecting shop next door as well…
As the project approaches a vote, a variety of issues remain unresolved, including the ultimate size of a historic district, and a complicated land swap needed to resolve the state's claim to land formerly covered by the American River.
