21. Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.140 to the Sacramento City Code, Relating to Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Wildfire Risk Areas [In lieu of pass for publication to be published in its entirety upon adoption] {Continued from 02/11/2020} File ID: 2020-00137
Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee opposes this ordinance in its entirety. There are ways to protect important infrastructure without criminalizing homeless people and trying to reenact the pre-Boise v Martin camping ban.
One half block designated as a hollow sidewalk would promote the use of law enforcement making people "move along" without instructions such as "move along a half a block more". Above hollow sidewalks do not pose a danger.
"Wildfire risk areas" could be determined to be about anywhere. Instead of preventing people from starting fires, or camp fires, this assumes that homeless people living in an area that provides visible cover are all causing fires, not just the homeless people that are starting campfires.
Relationships need to be developed. Safety Education is needed.
The real solution has always been and still is HOUSING. Just get that done!
I strongly oppose the inclusion of raised streets and underground sidewalks as protection against critical infrastructure and wildfire risk. In addition, the efforts to continue to fine individuals with no shelter and little means to ever pay these accrued fines is inhumane. It seems as though our city leadership believes in one step forward and then two steps back. Please focus your efforts on the continued expansion of shelter. The Governor has just listed 5 locations within Sacramento that are state owned and eligible for emergency shelter. Focusing on activating these locations would lessen the risk of the areas in question. Give people services. Please stop encumbering them with deeper holes to climb out of.
In my city, which has failed to adequately address the housing crisis or provide temporary housing for displaced people, what possible public service is banning people from "historic sidewalks" serving? Why is this the focus and not solving the housing and unhoused crisis? Why are we wasting any time at all on this?
Additionally, it's insane that we would fine a person who cant afford a warm, dry place to sleep, up to $25k for sleeping on public sidewalks. Where is the compassion? Why get into public service if you only intend to do right by some people? Withdraw this nonsense and re-evaluate your life choices. Please and thanks
Are wildfires a common occurrence on the hollow sidewalks of Sacramento? They are made of glass and concrete—two of the least flammable materials in our built environment. Even the Fire Marshal concedes there is no risk. This part of the proposed ordinance appears to be an attempt to weaponize an 11-year-old historic district in order to disallow the presence of unhoused persons because they are inconveniently in an area that the City is trying to promote. Please refer to the attached overlay of the hollow sidewalk area with recent development projects around the Arena. The pattern is striking. What is the rationale for the historic district being included in this ordinance, and who’s idea was it to include the district? It most certainly is not from the historic preservation community, who has seen poor defense of the hollow sidewalk historic district when requests for development have been granted by the City.
We need to clean up the city before there is a city wide epidemic similar to what happened in San Diego. One levy break and the city could be under water, one fire and hundreds of buildings could burn down. It is time for the city to protect the tax paying citizens. It is time to enact broken windows policing that would prevent citizens from stepping out of line.
Preservation Sacramento opposes inclusion of Sacramento’s hollow sidewalks in this ordinance. These structures are not critical infrastructure, nor a wildfire risk, sleeping above them poses no fire risk, sleeping beneath them is already illegal. The ordinance contains only minimal definitions of the hollow sidewalks area, creating a de facto ban on public camping in Old Sacramento, Downtown Commons, K Street and the Convention Center. Inclusion of hollow sidewalks in this ordinance violates the principles of environmental justice in the City of Sacramento’s General Plan, as it uses the presence of historic resources as an excuse to forbid the presence of economically disadvantaged persons, but these same resources are declared no longer eligible when real estate developers plan new construction. Preservation Sacramento’s predecessor organization, Sacramento Old City Association, funded the 2009 Page & Turnbull survey, and we oppose our survey being abused in this manner.
Public health and safety is paramount to the mission of government. The prospect of a severe fire season, the contamination of water supplies, ongoing destruction of infrastructure, including the levies, and the continue health and safety issues requires immediate action.
While the intended goals of the ordinance are certainly worthy of action, this ordinance is not the best way to achieve those goals. The ordinance and the report that accompanies it have no mention of an implementation plan or anticipated enforcement budget, while doing nothing to address the fundamental reasons people are in these places in the first place: they have no where else to go. Simply put, this is a short sighted, bad faith policy that will set the city back in community trust and actual traction towards realizing humane, comprehensive solutions.
We need to ensure safety and security of our levies and waterways. Imagine being blind or physically impaired and needing to utilize an unobstructed sidewalk. This is an important need for Sacramento.
While I agree that there should be no camping on our levees or the American River Parkway, it's a big reach to declare downtown streets unsafe for the homeless to camp on. There are genuine safety concerns that need to be addressed, it seems that this is just an excuse to roust the homeless from downtown. Remove the prohibition for camping on "hollow" streets and I would support this ordinance. We need to protected from fire and flood threats posed by illegal camping.
I am a 35 year resident of Sacramento. I commute to work from Curtis Park to Natomas via the bike trail along the river from Sutterville, through Old Sacramento, Discovery Park, then under the I5 over pass going toward Gateway Oaks. For the past couple of years, I have seen the homeless/mentally ill/addicted population grow and the resulting effects of that, i.e., garbage, dogs off leash, needles, human waste, and camp fires exponentially expand. I work for the state, administering federal funds that help the homeless and other low-income folk. I am sympathetic to their plight, but I am very concerned for the health of our rivers and surrounding areas that are being damaged by unfettered, illegal use of our public lands. Please pass this ordinance.
Please pass this ordinance to protect our infrastructure, residents, first responders, and those who are camping in wildfire risk areas and along levees. If the levees were to breach due to people digging into them to create a place for their camp, the City would be devastated and many of us would be under water. I'm also concerned about fires that are getting out of hand in unmaintained locations with brush and trees and in areas close to homes. I've already had to report numerous fires in camps near my home that are not burning for heat or food, but just to burn something. Such careless fires should not be tolerated and puts both residents and campers at risk. We need to get those on the street with mental illness and drug addition into care rather than leave them on our streets to create environmental disasters and put us and our homes at risk of fire or flood. Our first responders also need to be able to help protect us without anything or anyone impeding their path.
It's only a matter of time before our neighborhood is burned down by people living along the river. We need to product our beautiful city and the waterways that come along with it.
YES - Thank you for acknowledging the importance of protecting our water and natural surroundings from waste, fire and disease. I support this Ordinance and appreciate your efforts to protect the health and safety of our neighborhoods and natural lands.
Hollow sidewalks are NOT critical infrastructure & pose no fire risk. Fire Marshal Lee did not object to persons sleeping on top of sidewalks & was concerned with people breaking into spaces under the sidewalks & verified the sidewalks are not a fire risk. Spaces under sidewalks are private property & individuals there without permission are trespassing, thus it is unnecessary to add a new ordinance as enforcement mechanisms already exist. The ordinance is not limited to activities under the sidewalks & includes activities on the sidewalk surface. Declaring intent to protect historic resources from the economically disadvantaged, while removing historic status from historic resources when they are inconvenient to developers (which this city had done) is a violation of economic justice principles the state requires be included in the General Plan. It appears the city is reaching for any means necessary to remove homeless from downtown and misrepresenting a historic resource to do it.
While this ordinance fails to address many of the daunting issues related to the core problem, it represents a recognition by the City that the vast majority of residents of Sacramento, as well as the surrounding areas, need a tool to combat the pernicious effects of the destruction of our levees, rivers. and infrastructure due, in large part, to the Council's heretofore incompetent, costly, and misguided attempts to address the "homeless" problem. Should this ordinance be implemented and applied reasonably, judiciously, and with compassion, it could be a small step toward protecting citizens, natural resources, and public safety resources.
Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee opposes this ordinance in its entirety. There are ways to protect important infrastructure without criminalizing homeless people and trying to reenact the pre-Boise v Martin camping ban.
One half block designated as a hollow sidewalk would promote the use of law enforcement making people "move along" without instructions such as "move along a half a block more". Above hollow sidewalks do not pose a danger.
"Wildfire risk areas" could be determined to be about anywhere. Instead of preventing people from starting fires, or camp fires, this assumes that homeless people living in an area that provides visible cover are all causing fires, not just the homeless people that are starting campfires.
Relationships need to be developed. Safety Education is needed.
The real solution has always been and still is HOUSING. Just get that done!
I strongly oppose it and any attempt to further criminalize and victimize the unhoused.
Greetings,
I strongly oppose the inclusion of raised streets and underground sidewalks as protection against critical infrastructure and wildfire risk. In addition, the efforts to continue to fine individuals with no shelter and little means to ever pay these accrued fines is inhumane. It seems as though our city leadership believes in one step forward and then two steps back. Please focus your efforts on the continued expansion of shelter. The Governor has just listed 5 locations within Sacramento that are state owned and eligible for emergency shelter. Focusing on activating these locations would lessen the risk of the areas in question. Give people services. Please stop encumbering them with deeper holes to climb out of.
Sincerely,
Blake Gillespie
citizen - District 4
Please see attached letter, thank you.
In my city, which has failed to adequately address the housing crisis or provide temporary housing for displaced people, what possible public service is banning people from "historic sidewalks" serving? Why is this the focus and not solving the housing and unhoused crisis? Why are we wasting any time at all on this?
Additionally, it's insane that we would fine a person who cant afford a warm, dry place to sleep, up to $25k for sleeping on public sidewalks. Where is the compassion? Why get into public service if you only intend to do right by some people? Withdraw this nonsense and re-evaluate your life choices. Please and thanks
Are wildfires a common occurrence on the hollow sidewalks of Sacramento? They are made of glass and concrete—two of the least flammable materials in our built environment. Even the Fire Marshal concedes there is no risk. This part of the proposed ordinance appears to be an attempt to weaponize an 11-year-old historic district in order to disallow the presence of unhoused persons because they are inconveniently in an area that the City is trying to promote. Please refer to the attached overlay of the hollow sidewalk area with recent development projects around the Arena. The pattern is striking. What is the rationale for the historic district being included in this ordinance, and who’s idea was it to include the district? It most certainly is not from the historic preservation community, who has seen poor defense of the hollow sidewalk historic district when requests for development have been granted by the City.
We need to clean up the city before there is a city wide epidemic similar to what happened in San Diego. One levy break and the city could be under water, one fire and hundreds of buildings could burn down. It is time for the city to protect the tax paying citizens. It is time to enact broken windows policing that would prevent citizens from stepping out of line.
Preservation Sacramento opposes inclusion of Sacramento’s hollow sidewalks in this ordinance. These structures are not critical infrastructure, nor a wildfire risk, sleeping above them poses no fire risk, sleeping beneath them is already illegal. The ordinance contains only minimal definitions of the hollow sidewalks area, creating a de facto ban on public camping in Old Sacramento, Downtown Commons, K Street and the Convention Center. Inclusion of hollow sidewalks in this ordinance violates the principles of environmental justice in the City of Sacramento’s General Plan, as it uses the presence of historic resources as an excuse to forbid the presence of economically disadvantaged persons, but these same resources are declared no longer eligible when real estate developers plan new construction. Preservation Sacramento’s predecessor organization, Sacramento Old City Association, funded the 2009 Page & Turnbull survey, and we oppose our survey being abused in this manner.
Public health and safety is paramount to the mission of government. The prospect of a severe fire season, the contamination of water supplies, ongoing destruction of infrastructure, including the levies, and the continue health and safety issues requires immediate action.
While the intended goals of the ordinance are certainly worthy of action, this ordinance is not the best way to achieve those goals. The ordinance and the report that accompanies it have no mention of an implementation plan or anticipated enforcement budget, while doing nothing to address the fundamental reasons people are in these places in the first place: they have no where else to go. Simply put, this is a short sighted, bad faith policy that will set the city back in community trust and actual traction towards realizing humane, comprehensive solutions.
Protecting the general public by protecting infrastructure is one of the most critical jobs of our elected and public safety officials.
We need to ensure safety and security of our levies and waterways. Imagine being blind or physically impaired and needing to utilize an unobstructed sidewalk. This is an important need for Sacramento.
While I agree that there should be no camping on our levees or the American River Parkway, it's a big reach to declare downtown streets unsafe for the homeless to camp on. There are genuine safety concerns that need to be addressed, it seems that this is just an excuse to roust the homeless from downtown. Remove the prohibition for camping on "hollow" streets and I would support this ordinance. We need to protected from fire and flood threats posed by illegal camping.
I am a 35 year resident of Sacramento. I commute to work from Curtis Park to Natomas via the bike trail along the river from Sutterville, through Old Sacramento, Discovery Park, then under the I5 over pass going toward Gateway Oaks. For the past couple of years, I have seen the homeless/mentally ill/addicted population grow and the resulting effects of that, i.e., garbage, dogs off leash, needles, human waste, and camp fires exponentially expand. I work for the state, administering federal funds that help the homeless and other low-income folk. I am sympathetic to their plight, but I am very concerned for the health of our rivers and surrounding areas that are being damaged by unfettered, illegal use of our public lands. Please pass this ordinance.
This is an incredibly important ordinance needing to be passed. We cannot tolerate putting lives and our waterway infrastructure at risk any longer.
Please pass this ordinance to protect our infrastructure, residents, first responders, and those who are camping in wildfire risk areas and along levees. If the levees were to breach due to people digging into them to create a place for their camp, the City would be devastated and many of us would be under water. I'm also concerned about fires that are getting out of hand in unmaintained locations with brush and trees and in areas close to homes. I've already had to report numerous fires in camps near my home that are not burning for heat or food, but just to burn something. Such careless fires should not be tolerated and puts both residents and campers at risk. We need to get those on the street with mental illness and drug addition into care rather than leave them on our streets to create environmental disasters and put us and our homes at risk of fire or flood. Our first responders also need to be able to help protect us without anything or anyone impeding their path.
It's only a matter of time before our neighborhood is burned down by people living along the river. We need to product our beautiful city and the waterways that come along with it.
YES - Thank you for acknowledging the importance of protecting our water and natural surroundings from waste, fire and disease. I support this Ordinance and appreciate your efforts to protect the health and safety of our neighborhoods and natural lands.
Hollow sidewalks are NOT critical infrastructure & pose no fire risk. Fire Marshal Lee did not object to persons sleeping on top of sidewalks & was concerned with people breaking into spaces under the sidewalks & verified the sidewalks are not a fire risk. Spaces under sidewalks are private property & individuals there without permission are trespassing, thus it is unnecessary to add a new ordinance as enforcement mechanisms already exist. The ordinance is not limited to activities under the sidewalks & includes activities on the sidewalk surface. Declaring intent to protect historic resources from the economically disadvantaged, while removing historic status from historic resources when they are inconvenient to developers (which this city had done) is a violation of economic justice principles the state requires be included in the General Plan. It appears the city is reaching for any means necessary to remove homeless from downtown and misrepresenting a historic resource to do it.
While this ordinance fails to address many of the daunting issues related to the core problem, it represents a recognition by the City that the vast majority of residents of Sacramento, as well as the surrounding areas, need a tool to combat the pernicious effects of the destruction of our levees, rivers. and infrastructure due, in large part, to the Council's heretofore incompetent, costly, and misguided attempts to address the "homeless" problem. Should this ordinance be implemented and applied reasonably, judiciously, and with compassion, it could be a small step toward protecting citizens, natural resources, and public safety resources.