These amendments to the ordinance need revision.
1. The "incompatible uses" are not defined

2. The process for obtaining a "Plaza event permit" seems to have no precedent other than the requirements for a special event permit as outlined here: https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/ypce/permits/special-events
Do these amendments intend to lower the threshold for requiring a special event permit?

3. Section A.5 banning panhandling is I believe unconstitutional as it appears to violate the First Amendment, and should be removed.

4. I am confused by Section A.9. Removing the time restrictions seems foolish since sitting or lying could be construed as permissible 24/7. The goal of not triggering the delicate sensibilities of the protected upper class and consumers could be helped a bit by shrinking the allowable hours to 10pm-6am. But I would advise sensitive people to get ready for more chaos of all kinds unless we start to see more rationality in government at all levels.

Perhaps the city plans to remove all benches so that all visitors who feel fatigued can only resort to the lawn.

5. Section A.12 is overly vague and should at the very least cite the specific sections of city code not already and rather exhaustingly enumerated.

6. Section B could use some clarification. Presumably any individual who is present in the plaza can expect to have exclusive use of the portion of the plaza that their body is inevitably occupying.

7. I have heard that when one is standing by a river and seeing babies being washed down the river, one is of course wishing to rescue them. Many people think it’s also obviously a good idea to go upstream and figure out how to stop babies from being thrown in the river.

I’ve heard that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Where is the cost-benefit analysis for relentless sweeping of homeless encampments?

Sweeps are home invasions, and homelessness is a market failure. Where are the chambers of commerce and when will they start working on fixing this market failure?

I'm a resident of District 3, and I’m commenting to express my strong opposition to the ordinance amendment proposed in item #18. This punitive policy will expose our unhoused neighbors to violence, drive them deeper into homelessness and poverty, further criminalize them, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars that could instead be used to provide people with safe places to live.

On the campaign trail, Mayor McCarty said the following: “We need to end urban camping in our neighborhoods, but those on the street need to be directed to safe places – not just moved around.” Now, he’s proposing this cruel and criminalizing ordinance that will, ironically, result in pushing people away from public areas that are relatively safe. This looks a lot like moving folks around, without giving them safe spaces to relocate to.

This council has an opportunity to do better than we've done in the past. Please be brave and prioritize the lives of the human beings who have been failed by our society, and more specifically, by our government. You have an opportunity to show the residents of Sacramento that they can believe this council when the people serving on it say that they care about our unhoused community.

The ordinance as it exists right now does nothing to address homelessness, and this amendment will only worsen the problem. Please value the lives of the human beings who are outside and suffering over the discomfort of those who don’t like to witness their suffering.

As a Board member of the Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness and member of the Sacramento Services Not Sweeps Coalition I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed ordinance in Agenda Item #18. According to your own data - the City of Sacramento Open Data re 311 complaints- there have been 47,263 complaints [phone or web] about homelessness encampments in District 4. Searching the City Hall address [915 I Street] there have been ZERO complaints! Let me repeat that .... ZERO. Your ordinance is in search of a problem! It is shameful that the Mayor has proposed this ordinance that further criminalizes people experiencing homelessness who are only using the space at City Hall that provides shade or shelter out of the rain. You should vote NO on this ordinance and focus your attention on addressing the root causes of homelessness - the lack of shelter and affordable and accessible housing.

As the Executive Director of Waking the Village, I am so disheartened to hear that we are backsliding into policies that equate making homelessness less visible with doing something about homelessness. It is fitting that a city struggling with the very real challenge of impactfully addressing homelessness has its leaders walk daily past the citizens we have still failed to serve. It is a daily reminder that we have work to do. This action is also an act of dehumanization. What does it mean when we declare a public space essentially off-limits to some of our citizens? To create a policy that forbids the act of being in one space without creating at the same time an actual place for those people to be is absurd.

As someone working on the front lines of this issue, I can attest that the investments Sacramento has made in actual housing and shelter have had abundant and meaningful impact. With County funds, our Prevention and Intervention program has diverted hundreds of youth and young adults from entering homelessness with 96% remaining stably housed following intervention. Our Creation District program, formerly funded by City Youth Development funds and now facing de-funding, has provided daily respite and resources to well over a thousand youth, ensuring they have a space to be, to connect, and to engage in restorative community. Our housing programs have housed hundreds of young adults and children, with over 95% leaving homelessness permanently. Intervention works! Investment works! Just last week, a young mother in our housing program graduated high school and moved into her own apartment. She is one of the hundreds of youth and children that will never become chronically homeless because her city saw her and invested in her housing and support. THIS is what ends homelessness. Looking away does not.

It is also disheartening to once again see so many of our city's leaders on the issue of homelessness- people who have given decades to confronting this issue- be relegated once again to a comments section on policy written without our input or partnership. When will these leaders and the people with lived expertise be invited into the rooms where "solutions" are devised- rather than constantly forced to react to the latest round of policy by the latest round of city council members? There is a reason you are hearing such consistent opposition from the people that run the shelters, drop in centers, and housing programs that work hard to authentically address the homelessness crises. We have been here before. It not only didn't work- it made it worse. When we create policy that creates mistrust of systems, folks experience homelessness disengage from and lose hope in the systems that resolve homelessness. Our streets and our riverbanks reflect that disengagement. Let's stop wasting time on the charade of addressing a problem- and instead engage, build trust, and invest in the citizens of our city and county struggling with homelessness.

Dear Mayor McCarty and City Council Members,

I am a resident of District 4 and I am writing to express my strong opposition to Item 18 on the agenda.

This ordinance targets our unhoused neighbors and fails to address the root causes of homelessness in our city. Instead of offering real solutions, it criminalizes poverty and further marginalizes a vulnerable population. Everyone deserves a safe place to sleep, especially in a city as resource-rich as Sacramento. The City of Sacramento should focus its efforts on expanding shelter options, creating low-barrier housing, and investing in long-term support services. Item 18 does not represent progress, it represents punishment. As a resident and taxpayer in District 4, I urge you to reject this ordinance and pursue policies rooted in compassion, dignity, and evidence-based care. Our city can and must do better for the homeless community.

Sincerely,
Mikeila Miller
District 4 Resident

I am a resident of District 4 & strongly oppose this ordinance. I see no constructive purpose to making it even more difficult to be homeless - punitive measures do nothing except further dispossess and demoralize people who are already navigating difficult circumstances. I do not believe that City Hall - where helping our unhoused neighbors should be a sacred charge - should be exempted from having to see, or even interact with, some of the people our society leaves behind.

Sacramento Homeless organizing committee, cathleen williams, and the entire board, strongly oppose banning Unhoused people from having access to Safe sleeping at City Hall. This access is crucial to the well-being of the many people who are Unhoused and reside downtown. I live right down the block and I often see and interact with people who are sleeping Under the eaves at City Hall. I find that they are neat and orderly. I also see that they get some protection from the weather, both sun and rain under the eaves. Please do not vote to impose a ban. It is counterproductive in that people will disperse to nearby sidewalks it imposes hardship on our homeless population. It is cruel and unnecessary. It is unjustified and wrong.

As the Executive Director of Sacramento Loaves & Fishes, I strongly oppose amending ordinance section 12.74.030 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to City Hall Facilities. This amended ordinance will, once again, take away spaces of rest for our unhoused neighbors and further contribute to the criminalization of homelessness, a policy choice that has never been successful in the past and which will not work to solve homelessness today either.

Since the Grant's Pass Supreme court decision, the city of Sacramento has aggressively enforced camping bans by sweeping camps, ticketing, fining and arresting people for having no safe place to sleep - all in the name of keeping our city clean. This ordinance with contribute more harm to those already indefensible acts of cruelty and place people further from any semblance of safety, rest and stability. At Loaves & Fishes, we see first hand everyday hundreds of people impacted by these damaging policies. We hear their stories of torment, broken trust and despair in the face of these unnecessary legal consequences. When will we stop punishing our most vulnerable citizens merely for living in such poverty that they have no option but to sleep on the streets?

Additionally, we are entering the depths of summer in Sacramento - a time when temperatures in excess of 100 degrees are common and place additional hardship on our unhoused neighbors as they scramble for a piece of shade or a bench to rest on. This ordinance robs them of yet another public space where they have a chance of some cooler rest. The timing is nothing short of cruel.

This is the first piece of policy around homelessness that the new mayor and council will be hearing. That context is not lost on those of us who are service providers and advocates. I urge each of you to have the courage to lead by pulling this item from the consent calendar and voting no. I urge you to stand up for our unhoused neighbors and allow them the dignity of some spaces to rest at city hall, as minimal as that may be.

Dear Mayor McCarty and Members of the City Council,

I write to express my strong opposition to the ordinance amending Section 12.74.030 of the Sacramento City Code which expands the City’s sit-lie laws. This punitive policy will expose our unhoused neighbors to violence and drive them deeper into homelessness costing taxpayers millions.

After forty years of failed efforts to arrest and fine our way out of homelessness, it is well documented that these laws exacerbate the danger our unhoused neighbors face while being forced to live outdoors. For example, in 2023, the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative found that 42% of unsheltered people experienced physical or sexual violence. Relatedly, they found that 10% of unhoused people experienced sexual violence while homeless, including 16% of cis-women and 35% of transgender people. Unhoused people consistently report that sweeps and forced displacements separate them from friends and family that help keep them safe and force them to relocate to isolated sites where they are exposed to violence. At present, the plaza outside City Hall is a relatively safe place for people to sleep in the absence of the City’s ability to build more shelter and affordable housing. As a result, these amendments will cause harm to our unhoused neighbors.

Relatedly, the proposed civil and criminal penalties will drive people deeper into poverty and homelessness. Violations of the sit-lie law are punishable by fines ranging from $250-25,000 and up to a year in jail. The fines will strip unhoused people of funds they need to save for security deposits and rent. Similarly, a misdemeanor conviction serves as a barrier to securing a lease and stable employment as landlords and employers are unwilling to rent to or hire people with a criminal record. Furthermore, fines and arrests traumatize unhoused people and breed mistrust, complicating the work of the Department of Community Response and countless social service providers working to help people secure safe, affordable, and permanent housing.

In 2019, the National Homelessness Law Center put Sacramento in its “Housing Not Handcuffs Hall of Shame.” Our reputation precedes us. For decades, this City has chosen excessively cruel and punitive responses to homelessness over evidence-based solutions. As a result, we are no closer to ending this humanitarian crisis.

With a new Mayoral Administration and Council, we have the opportunity to break the cycle. I humbly ask you to listen to the evidence, experts, and most importantly, our unhoused neighbors and vote no on the ordinance amending Section 12.74.030.

Sincerely yours,
Ron Hochbaum
Associate Clinical Professor of Law
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law

To: Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty and City Councilmembers Lisa Kaplan, Roger Dickinson, Karina Talamantes, Phil Pluckebaum, Caity Maple, Eric Guerra, Rick Jennings, and Mai Vang,

RE: Item # 18 Sit/Lie Proposed Ordinance

Sacramento Poor People's Campaign (Sac PPC) writes to you in strong opposition to item 18, the proposal to expand the sit/lie ordinance at Sacramento City Hall. As our elected representatives, we urge you to reconsider this direction and oppose any expansion that criminalizes the existence of individuals within public spaces.

The Sacramento Poor People's Campaign (Sac PPC) chapter aims to unite people across the Sacramento region to organize actions that highlight the struggles of those most impacted and to build power for policy change. We strive to create a movement to fight systemic racism, poverty, ecological destruction, and the war economy. Everyone has a right to live! We have been actively engaging with the City of Sacramento, County, and, more importantly, our community members since 2011, and we connected with the national campaign in 2017.

Given the crucial role that community planning, urban planning, and street management play in shaping our relationship with the built environment, it is unconscionable that our city continues to make that relationship fraught. Namely, we know that this policy can only be seen as discriminatory, racist, and ableist, sustaining the status quo. We believe Housing is a moral and human right, and our policymakers have the power to make that a reality in our community! Housing is the only solution to homelessness.

Since the Grants Pass ruling, the City of Sacramento’s arrests and citations for homelessness have skyrocketed, increasing 4-5 times over the previous year’s numbers. In Sacramento County, we are witnessing alarming trends, including an untenable number of deaths among the unhoused due to many factors, including exposure to extreme weather, lack of healthcare access, and preexisting health conditions.

Law enforcement approaches to homelessness have proven to be counterproductive, racist, and ableist. These are banishment laws that originate from the Jim Crow era and Ugly Laws, which were historically used against those considered undesirable. Recent reports show that sweeps and arrests of unhoused individuals can extend homelessness by up to two years. The public costs of this law enforcement approach are substantial, including police time, overtime, response costs, booking fees, and incarceration expenses. These are banishment laws rooted in the Jim Crow era and Ugly Laws, once used against those deemed undesirable.

Additionally, because we lack long-term solutions for homelessness, most individuals return to or near the places from which they have been displaced. As a result, many individuals stay in emergency accommodations for extended periods, sometimes lasting months or even years. We continue to serve only a fraction of those who need assistance.

We understand that communities want clean and safe environments. Unhoused individuals wish to be included and could be valuable partners in this effort. However, instead, we tend to stigmatize and criminalize them. We cannot simply try to arrest our way out of homelessness; we will never succeed at achieving community safety or cleanliness. Displacement leads to more desperate and less safe conditions. Until permanent supportive housing is available, unhoused individuals must have a safe place to stay in our city. It is essential to implement real solutions rather than merely conducting harmful sweeps and making empty promises to our unhoused neighbors and the public.

Until our city, county, state, and nation treat the unhoused and poor with the dignity and respect they deserve, we will continue to repeat the same ineffective narratives and strategies. Meanwhile, the unhoused community continues to suffer daily and die prematurely.

Jail and enforcement actions are not the solution, nor is reversing a policy from 2018. Regardless of how heavily we rely on them, we need immediate, free, permanent, and supportive housing options for all Sacramento residents and Californians.

We urge you to vote NO and reject the proposal in Item 18 to expand this further, and to stand with our unhoused neighbors.

Thank you

Sacramento Poor People's Campaign (Sac PPC) sacppcunited@gmail.com

If nothing else, the City of Sacramento is proving itself to be wildly misguided and a questionable steward of public funds. City Hall is the people's building. It's where the work of and for the people of this city is done, and where residents, regardless of housing status, should be able to sit and lie. Sit/lie ordinances have been used as a band-aid solution in communities throughout the nation. While they do an excellent job of ignoring systemic issues, they fail to address the needs of the people the leadership in City Hall is supposed to serve. In Berkeley and San Francisco, the result of having sit/lie ordinances was incurring costs for implementing the ordinance, enforcement, and legal time. Unhoused residents in our community and our city budget cannot afford to actively push unhoused people away from public spaces. Sacramento needs real solutions, real investment in sustainable programs, and affordable housing to address the crisis of homelessness. This Mayor platformed on being part of the solution; it's time to show the people of Sacramento that he meant what he said. Please vote no on this harmful, racist, and tired ordinance.

Homeless are HUMAN BEINGS just like you, instead of spending money on locking them up and costing tax payers more money. How about doing what you promised and get housing and services for them. Every single one of the city council needs to remember you work for the citizens of Sacramento we DO NOT WORK FOR YOU !! WE PAY YOU TO LISTEN TO US !! YOUR SCREWING UP by doing this , PUT YOURSELF IN THERE SHOES !!

Instead of using scarce city funds on law enforcement to further criminalize homeless people, give them services such as portapotties, food, and resources towards treatment and permanent housing. These are your constituents and should be treated with respect. Sacramento prides itself as being a compassionate place for refugees from around the world. Our homeless are refugees too.

Attached is a letter from Sunrise Movement Sacramento in strong opposition to this proposal.

Please do not go to Sun Spa, located at 6804 Fruitridge Rd #A
Sacramento, CA, 95820, as well as q spa, located at 4215 Norwood avenue, suite #12, sacramento, ca, 95838, They will all claim that they are too busy for you.