• The habitat mitigation program for development already completed in Natomas will fail and the preserves already set up will be significantly degraded. Our wildlife resource in the Sacramento area will be seriously depleted. The Federal and State wildlife agencies have already expressed very strong concerns which City and County have ignored.
• Infrastructure costs and risks to taxpayers from flooding, drainage, sewage, traffic, and air pollution will impact existing communities negatively. Flood risk in Natomas and drainage problems in the remaining area alone make this a poor area to develop. Over 1/3 of the proposed "Joint Vision" area is within the internal 100-year flood plain. City and County taxpayers will subsidize infrastructure costs.
• Conflicts with airport use will dramatically increase west of Hwy 99, making it more difficult for the Sacramento International Airport to meet regional travel needs. When you get in your car to go to the airport, count on a whole lot more traffic congestion between you and your flight.
• There are many infill areas of the City and County that would serve new growth more efficiently, and help economic vitality of these neighborhoods, but sprawl developers insist that the ag land that they bought at bargain prices be built first.
• North Natomas agricultural lands are a natural resource that is protected under state law.

For more information, read the fact sheet on the "arena land scam proposal" [the last effort at rezoning North Natomas] at www.swainsonshawk.org/pressing.html.

[FYI: here's what you'll hear the proponents of development say about the environmental benefits of more development in North Natomas:

• this is infill development because the area is contiguous with the existing city boundary.
• development here will cause less air pollution than development elsewhere; not developing in Natomas
• will drive development to Marysville and Yuba City.]