I am a resident of Sundance Lake and I am very concerned about the proposed tiny home project in this area. While I respect the effort to provide housing solutions, the chosen location raises serious safety concerns.
In particular, our neighborhood has shared public spaces such as the park, walking paths, and community patio areas. Families, children, and residents use these areas daily. If the project is placed here, there is a significant risk that these spaces could be used inappropriately—for smoking, loitering, or large gatherings—which would make the environment unsafe and uncomfortable for the community.
For these reasons, I must strongly oppose this project at this location and ask that alternative sites be considered that will not compromise the safety and quality of life for existing residents.
I am a resident of Sundance Lake and also operate a business in this area. While I understand the importance of providing housing solutions, I strongly oppose placing the proposed tiny home project in this location.
My main concern is community safety, especially because there are many families with young children here. The project raises serious worries about potential issues such as increased disturbances, unpredictable behavior, and safety risks. I believe this site is not suitable for such a development, and I urge decision-makers to consider alternative locations that would better balance community needs and safety.
I’m writing to express several deeply concerning reasons why the proposed micro-community project should NOT move forward in our neighborhood. As our Mayor, we look to you to lead this effort and help protect the safety and well-being of our families, children, and the integrity of our community. I’ve kept this message brief, but I hope you’ll take these concerns seriously and consider them as part of the next steps in addressing this matter:
Location-Specific Concerns
High visibility on Arena Blvd: Arena Boulevard is a major thoroughfare with direct exposure to multiple residential communities. Placing a transitional housing facility here could alter the public perception and character of the area.
Proximity to schools: The proposed site is within a 2-mile radius of 3 to 4 schools, raising concerns among parents and educators about student safety, traffic congestion, and the psychological impact on children.
Residential zoning mismatch: Facilities of this nature are typically better suited to areas with mixed-use or commercial zoning, where infrastructure and oversight are more robust.
Impact on North Natomas’ growth: North Natomas is currently experiencing healthy development, with peaceful neighborhoods and a strong sense of community. Introducing a high-density micro-community for unhoused individuals could disrupt this trajectory and create tension among residents.
Psychological and Emotional Factors
Fear and stigma: Many people associate homelessness with danger or disorder, especially if they perceive the population as “undeserving” (e.g., those with addiction or behavioral issues), EVEN THEY ARE HAND PICKED, THIS IS NOT A GUARANTEE AND TRUSTED PROCESS, SAME AS WHOEVER SUGGSSTED BUILDING THIS COMMUNITY AT THIS SPECIFIC LOCATION( WRONG
This family oriented neighborhood is not the place for such a project especially since there is no guarantees what will happen at that site in the future. Sacramento is blessed to have an abundance of vacant spaces that would be much more appropriate. It is unthinkable our city manager would try to sneak this project in without consulting the people that actually live nearby. Any project of this scope should always listen to the people that would be most affected. A 40 tiny homes community surrounded with an 8 foot cyclone fence and a guard would be perfect for a halfway house for paroled felons and sex offenders or a drug treatment center. Once this project goes through there is no guarantee what will happen in the future, especially since the city manager has given themselves absolute power. It must be great to be a dictator.
As a formerly homeless individual, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposal to charge up to 30% of a homeless individual’s income as a fee to stay in the program. While the practice of charging a homeless individual for a shelter bed has existed across the country for years, the outcomes it produces have never been studied, let alone shown to be successful. In fact, when NYC attempted this in 2009, they shuttered their program after just 3 weeks.
Furthermore, a mandatory fee of up to 30% is a much higher rate than the nominal fee of 5 to 10 dollars charged by other shelters around the country. When shelters do charge these nominal fees, they are often not mandatory, giving those who are too disadvantaged to pay an equal opportunity for housing. Shelters also often pair these fees with financial empowerment classes and even place a portion of the fee into a savings account for the paying resident. What exactly does the city intend to do with the money they seize via this fee? What specific services is this going to fund that will be different or better than those at a non-charging shelter?
Without these specifics hammered out, this move seems like a cruel, callous cash grab targeting our city’s most vulnerable residents—a cash grab that will likely fail to bring in any serious revenue anyway. Charging such a high fee to people who are already in crisis, who are simply trying to get their lives back together, does not promote recovery, hope, or trust in the system. In fact, it is just as likely that this fee will deter or prevent those who need this shelter the most from ever being able to access it. If we want to fix Sacramento’s broken shelter system, we need to start with improving services and safety on-site, for free, so that homeless folk will actually want to live there.
First and foremost, why are there no rules preventing registered sex offenders from being placed in a residential community comprised of families with children? This should automatically disqualify the entire project. Second, the cost is $500,000/unit/year? This doesn't even sound like real life. This is the cost of a single family home, for a single "Tiny Home" year after year. It's really hard to imagine how this project is going to make our community safer, cleaner, and economically viable in the future. Hard working families should not have to pay for this if it is going to make our community less safe for children.
I oppose the district 1 site. I am in favor for helping the homeless. However these shelter sites DO NOT belong in residential areas, where young children and senior citizens reside! These type of shelters belong in industrial or even rural areas. This project is going to move many of us homeowners away….Please do better!
I am in strong opposition of the District 1 site. I am a homeowner in the Witter Ranch area, directly behind the proposed site.
1) Right now, we have very little police presence in the area and there is no police station in Natomas. If there was a need for more police presence due to potential of increased crime from the homeless population, our neighborhood would be adversely affected.
2) In listening to the presenter and the presentation, there has been very little thought of what will happen if someone violates the rules of the safe parking homeless community. Eviction for any resident in California is NOT an easy and simple process - and it is costly. It can take months to evict a resident under California laws. That would be more taxpayer dollars to regulate the area.
3) The presenter has stated that funding is an issue!! There is a possibility that the money will run out. If so, we will have a much larger issue and very little recourse. Where will the funding for the security come from or will it simply be reduced? How will the property be kept up? Will it turn into a "self regulated" site, which was incredibly unsuccessful.
4) This will affect our property values! Having lived in my home for over 25 years now, this is completely outside of the development plan for Natomas. I bought here because I was in favor of the master plan. This falls outside of the plan.
5) The proposed sites are only 3 blocks away from and Elementary school.
There are similar models of this across the country and all have had a host of problems. Homelessness is a very complex issue, and placing a "interim housing" housing facility in an established neighborhood is not the answer to the problem.
Writing in opposition to the District 1 site. This is a terrible location. There aren’t even bus routes near here. How are these homeless Individuals going to get to medical appointments. The only thing nearby is an expensive grocery store. Did I also mention this is a flood plain. Terrible idea if a location!
I'm waiting in support of charging a fee for emergency housing. I would also support a portion of that money be placed into an account to pay for the deposit required for permanent housing. This would be a good transition from homelessness to becoming a more stable part of society.
I am writing in opposition of the District 1 site. I am a homeowner in the Westshore neighborhood and have significant concerns for neighborhood safety, but primarily for the lack of local resources for future residents.
This neighborhood has no access to social supports, resource centers, limited access to public transportation and limited social recreational facilities for potential senior residents. Neighboring senior residences are privately owned and funded with controlled access, not publicly accessible.
Secondly, there is a lack of clear eligibility criteria for what is considered a good standing senior unhoused citizen if there is an aim to provide support for substance abuse.
This is a neighborhood of young families, small children and impressionable youth with a lack of the necessary resources such as regular law enforcement patrols and supports from the city to establish and maintain a program or development of this nature, both from a funding and safety perspective.
My name is Genevieve Kolar and I am a resident in Councilmember Jennings district. I strongly oppose the proposition to charge people for Emergency Shelter Services. This completely undermines the point of providing shelter. Our tax dollars should be allocated to support our community including emergency shelters for those in need. Charging will make it even harder to access already inadequate shelter space for those most in need. Rehabilitation, reinvestment into community resources and groups that serve the unhoused, and most importantly adequate shelter space and actually affordable housing in Sacramento, are all key channels to address this. Creativity and care NOT cruelty & carcerality. The escalating sweeps of encampments has already been heinous and cruel, to and to charge for shelter, while sleeping outside is criminalized, is quite simply a fascist solution. Do better, care for the people of Sacramento regardless of where they lay their head at night.
I oppose this project because it does not take into consideration the negative impact upon the community. I currently lead a church in South Sacramento and I have personally witnessed the increase in crime, vandalism, and harm to the residents near the community with the 100 tiny homes. I urge the council to consider the negative impact upon the community and businesses and also to consider other locations such as under utilized military bases & spread across all districts. The property values will be negatively impacted negatively impacted.
My name is Christopher-Camilo Carbajal-Carbajal and I am a resident of District 4. I am writing in strong opposition to the proposal from the Department of Community Response to charge unhoused residents for the use of the Emergency Homeless Response System. This proposal is cruel, shortsighted, and out of touch with the urgent scale of our housing crisis.
Charging people experiencing homelessness for emergency shelter will not lead to financial solvency, stability, or self-sufficiency. Instead, it places our poorest residents at further deficit, creates a two-tiered system within shelter programs, and limits access to what little emergency shelter capacity already exists. This approach is not in line with best practices across the country, and it diverts us from real, long-term solutions.
Emergency shelter is not housing, and it should never come with a price tag. Housing is a human right, and policymakers have the responsibility and the power to make that a reality in our community.
Instead of extracting money from those who have the least, the City should require Sacramento’s wealthiest individuals and corporations to pay their fair share. According to the most recent Continuum of Care Coordinated Access System report, only 13% of demand for voluntary shelter placement was met in July. Our crisis is not caused by unhoused people failing to pay; it is caused by a broken sheltering and housing system.
Meanwhile, since the Grants Pass ruling, the City has dramatically escalated enforcement against unhoused residents, increasing arrests and citations by 4–5 times over last year. The City continues to fund harmful, expensive, and ineffective practices of forced displacement and encampment sweeps, which destroy personal property and worsen health outcomes. Cost savings from past measures have even been redirected to more encampment clearing. It would be unconscionable to use unhoused residents’ money to fuel this cycle of punishment and displacement.
Our focus must be on:
Permanent housing solutions, not temporary fees.
Policies that prevent families and individuals from losing their homes.
Investments in health, stability, respite, and healing, rather than surveillance and enforcement.
It is unacceptable that the City has approved unlimited overtime for police, code enforcement, and DCR to carry out sweeps and anti-homeless laws, while simultaneously proposing to charge residents for shelter access. Unlimited funds for punishment cannot coexist with austerity for services.
I urge Council to reject this harmful proposal and instead direct resources toward housing opportunities that promote true safety and stability for all Sacramento residents.
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund opposes Sacramento's proposed requirement that unhoused people have an income and pay a program fee of 30% of their income to live in "micro-communities" that provide longer-term shelter. This policy excludes people without an income who are likely to be in greater need of help. For those who have an income, taking even 30% will mean they will be less likely to be able to afford food, medication, clothing, and other essential items. The program fee will also have the effect of dissuading people from choosing to enter the "micro-communities" if they know they will eventually have to pay to stay or that they will eventually be kicked out because they cannot pay.
This policy is particularly detrimental to people with disabilities who have high unemployment rates so are likely unable to take advantage of the program. People with disabilities often have additional expenses like the cost of durable medical equipment, medications, therapy, and other needs for which they must use their income. Many disabled people must rely on SSI which is approximately 74% of the federal poverty level. Taking 30% of SSI income leaves people with little left to live on. Unhoused people with disabilities should not have to choose between shelter and paying for their medical needs.
Finally, housing and shelter options are limited for people with disabilities, as the vast majority of housing and shelter is inaccessible. The program fee requirement for people with no other option due to widespread inaccessibility and unaffordability is cruel and inefficient. This further limits the options for people with disabilities to have stable shelter. Unhoused people are already extremely financially vulnerable, requiring payments means they are less likely to be able to exit homelessness. Paying for shelter is an unprecedented action for a city to take. Unhoused people need resources, housing, and support, not more financial liabilities. - Erin Nguyen Neff, Senior Staff Attorney, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.
Good evening to the Council. Right now, interactions with the city typically end in forced displacement and destruction of personal property. Since the Grants Pass ruling, the City of Sacramento’s arrests and citations for experiencing homelessness have exploded, increasing 4-5X over the previous year’s numbers. To escape this, people can either pay for an offered alternative (if the income percentage fee is approved) or turn to shelters when only 13% of demand for voluntary shelter placement was met in July, according to the most recent Continuum of Care Coordinated Access System report. Charging for shelter will not help the financial solvency of the city's homeless services program because it will not lead to long-term self sufficiency for homeless individuals.
I am a resident of Sundance Lake and I am very concerned about the proposed tiny home project in this area. While I respect the effort to provide housing solutions, the chosen location raises serious safety concerns.
In particular, our neighborhood has shared public spaces such as the park, walking paths, and community patio areas. Families, children, and residents use these areas daily. If the project is placed here, there is a significant risk that these spaces could be used inappropriately—for smoking, loitering, or large gatherings—which would make the environment unsafe and uncomfortable for the community.
For these reasons, I must strongly oppose this project at this location and ask that alternative sites be considered that will not compromise the safety and quality of life for existing residents.
I am a resident of Sundance Lake and also operate a business in this area. While I understand the importance of providing housing solutions, I strongly oppose placing the proposed tiny home project in this location.
My main concern is community safety, especially because there are many families with young children here. The project raises serious worries about potential issues such as increased disturbances, unpredictable behavior, and safety risks. I believe this site is not suitable for such a development, and I urge decision-makers to consider alternative locations that would better balance community needs and safety.
Strongly oppose this project in a residential and school zone.
I’m writing to express several deeply concerning reasons why the proposed micro-community project should NOT move forward in our neighborhood. As our Mayor, we look to you to lead this effort and help protect the safety and well-being of our families, children, and the integrity of our community. I’ve kept this message brief, but I hope you’ll take these concerns seriously and consider them as part of the next steps in addressing this matter:
Location-Specific Concerns
High visibility on Arena Blvd: Arena Boulevard is a major thoroughfare with direct exposure to multiple residential communities. Placing a transitional housing facility here could alter the public perception and character of the area.
Proximity to schools: The proposed site is within a 2-mile radius of 3 to 4 schools, raising concerns among parents and educators about student safety, traffic congestion, and the psychological impact on children.
Residential zoning mismatch: Facilities of this nature are typically better suited to areas with mixed-use or commercial zoning, where infrastructure and oversight are more robust.
Impact on North Natomas’ growth: North Natomas is currently experiencing healthy development, with peaceful neighborhoods and a strong sense of community. Introducing a high-density micro-community for unhoused individuals could disrupt this trajectory and create tension among residents.
Psychological and Emotional Factors
Fear and stigma: Many people associate homelessness with danger or disorder, especially if they perceive the population as “undeserving” (e.g., those with addiction or behavioral issues), EVEN THEY ARE HAND PICKED, THIS IS NOT A GUARANTEE AND TRUSTED PROCESS, SAME AS WHOEVER SUGGSSTED BUILDING THIS COMMUNITY AT THIS SPECIFIC LOCATION( WRONG
Tony Naddaf
Sundance Lake Community Home owner
This family oriented neighborhood is not the place for such a project especially since there is no guarantees what will happen at that site in the future. Sacramento is blessed to have an abundance of vacant spaces that would be much more appropriate. It is unthinkable our city manager would try to sneak this project in without consulting the people that actually live nearby. Any project of this scope should always listen to the people that would be most affected. A 40 tiny homes community surrounded with an 8 foot cyclone fence and a guard would be perfect for a halfway house for paroled felons and sex offenders or a drug treatment center. Once this project goes through there is no guarantee what will happen in the future, especially since the city manager has given themselves absolute power. It must be great to be a dictator.
As a formerly homeless individual, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposal to charge up to 30% of a homeless individual’s income as a fee to stay in the program. While the practice of charging a homeless individual for a shelter bed has existed across the country for years, the outcomes it produces have never been studied, let alone shown to be successful. In fact, when NYC attempted this in 2009, they shuttered their program after just 3 weeks.
Furthermore, a mandatory fee of up to 30% is a much higher rate than the nominal fee of 5 to 10 dollars charged by other shelters around the country. When shelters do charge these nominal fees, they are often not mandatory, giving those who are too disadvantaged to pay an equal opportunity for housing. Shelters also often pair these fees with financial empowerment classes and even place a portion of the fee into a savings account for the paying resident. What exactly does the city intend to do with the money they seize via this fee? What specific services is this going to fund that will be different or better than those at a non-charging shelter?
Without these specifics hammered out, this move seems like a cruel, callous cash grab targeting our city’s most vulnerable residents—a cash grab that will likely fail to bring in any serious revenue anyway. Charging such a high fee to people who are already in crisis, who are simply trying to get their lives back together, does not promote recovery, hope, or trust in the system. In fact, it is just as likely that this fee will deter or prevent those who need this shelter the most from ever being able to access it. If we want to fix Sacramento’s broken shelter system, we need to start with improving services and safety on-site, for free, so that homeless folk will actually want to live there.
I oppose this monstrosity since its a mere 1000 ft away from an elementary school !
First and foremost, why are there no rules preventing registered sex offenders from being placed in a residential community comprised of families with children? This should automatically disqualify the entire project. Second, the cost is $500,000/unit/year? This doesn't even sound like real life. This is the cost of a single family home, for a single "Tiny Home" year after year. It's really hard to imagine how this project is going to make our community safer, cleaner, and economically viable in the future. Hard working families should not have to pay for this if it is going to make our community less safe for children.
I oppose the district 1 site. I am in favor for helping the homeless. However these shelter sites DO NOT belong in residential areas, where young children and senior citizens reside! These type of shelters belong in industrial or even rural areas. This project is going to move many of us homeowners away….Please do better!
I am in strong opposition of the District 1 site. I am a homeowner in the Witter Ranch area, directly behind the proposed site.
1) Right now, we have very little police presence in the area and there is no police station in Natomas. If there was a need for more police presence due to potential of increased crime from the homeless population, our neighborhood would be adversely affected.
2) In listening to the presenter and the presentation, there has been very little thought of what will happen if someone violates the rules of the safe parking homeless community. Eviction for any resident in California is NOT an easy and simple process - and it is costly. It can take months to evict a resident under California laws. That would be more taxpayer dollars to regulate the area.
3) The presenter has stated that funding is an issue!! There is a possibility that the money will run out. If so, we will have a much larger issue and very little recourse. Where will the funding for the security come from or will it simply be reduced? How will the property be kept up? Will it turn into a "self regulated" site, which was incredibly unsuccessful.
4) This will affect our property values! Having lived in my home for over 25 years now, this is completely outside of the development plan for Natomas. I bought here because I was in favor of the master plan. This falls outside of the plan.
5) The proposed sites are only 3 blocks away from and Elementary school.
There are similar models of this across the country and all have had a host of problems. Homelessness is a very complex issue, and placing a "interim housing" housing facility in an established neighborhood is not the answer to the problem.
I oppose this because I’m a homeowner and don’t want to start losing value on my property! There are plenty of other options.
Writing in opposition to the District 1 site. This is a terrible location. There aren’t even bus routes near here. How are these homeless Individuals going to get to medical appointments. The only thing nearby is an expensive grocery store. Did I also mention this is a flood plain. Terrible idea if a location!
I'm waiting in support of charging a fee for emergency housing. I would also support a portion of that money be placed into an account to pay for the deposit required for permanent housing. This would be a good transition from homelessness to becoming a more stable part of society.
I am writing in opposition of the District 1 site. I am a homeowner in the Westshore neighborhood and have significant concerns for neighborhood safety, but primarily for the lack of local resources for future residents.
This neighborhood has no access to social supports, resource centers, limited access to public transportation and limited social recreational facilities for potential senior residents. Neighboring senior residences are privately owned and funded with controlled access, not publicly accessible.
Secondly, there is a lack of clear eligibility criteria for what is considered a good standing senior unhoused citizen if there is an aim to provide support for substance abuse.
This is a neighborhood of young families, small children and impressionable youth with a lack of the necessary resources such as regular law enforcement patrols and supports from the city to establish and maintain a program or development of this nature, both from a funding and safety perspective.
My name is Genevieve Kolar and I am a resident in Councilmember Jennings district. I strongly oppose the proposition to charge people for Emergency Shelter Services. This completely undermines the point of providing shelter. Our tax dollars should be allocated to support our community including emergency shelters for those in need. Charging will make it even harder to access already inadequate shelter space for those most in need. Rehabilitation, reinvestment into community resources and groups that serve the unhoused, and most importantly adequate shelter space and actually affordable housing in Sacramento, are all key channels to address this. Creativity and care NOT cruelty & carcerality. The escalating sweeps of encampments has already been heinous and cruel, to and to charge for shelter, while sleeping outside is criminalized, is quite simply a fascist solution. Do better, care for the people of Sacramento regardless of where they lay their head at night.
eComment received by the Office of the City Clerk
I oppose this project because it does not take into consideration the negative impact upon the community. I currently lead a church in South Sacramento and I have personally witnessed the increase in crime, vandalism, and harm to the residents near the community with the 100 tiny homes. I urge the council to consider the negative impact upon the community and businesses and also to consider other locations such as under utilized military bases & spread across all districts. The property values will be negatively impacted negatively impacted.
My name is Christopher-Camilo Carbajal-Carbajal and I am a resident of District 4. I am writing in strong opposition to the proposal from the Department of Community Response to charge unhoused residents for the use of the Emergency Homeless Response System. This proposal is cruel, shortsighted, and out of touch with the urgent scale of our housing crisis.
Charging people experiencing homelessness for emergency shelter will not lead to financial solvency, stability, or self-sufficiency. Instead, it places our poorest residents at further deficit, creates a two-tiered system within shelter programs, and limits access to what little emergency shelter capacity already exists. This approach is not in line with best practices across the country, and it diverts us from real, long-term solutions.
Emergency shelter is not housing, and it should never come with a price tag. Housing is a human right, and policymakers have the responsibility and the power to make that a reality in our community.
Instead of extracting money from those who have the least, the City should require Sacramento’s wealthiest individuals and corporations to pay their fair share. According to the most recent Continuum of Care Coordinated Access System report, only 13% of demand for voluntary shelter placement was met in July. Our crisis is not caused by unhoused people failing to pay; it is caused by a broken sheltering and housing system.
Meanwhile, since the Grants Pass ruling, the City has dramatically escalated enforcement against unhoused residents, increasing arrests and citations by 4–5 times over last year. The City continues to fund harmful, expensive, and ineffective practices of forced displacement and encampment sweeps, which destroy personal property and worsen health outcomes. Cost savings from past measures have even been redirected to more encampment clearing. It would be unconscionable to use unhoused residents’ money to fuel this cycle of punishment and displacement.
Our focus must be on:
Permanent housing solutions, not temporary fees.
Policies that prevent families and individuals from losing their homes.
Investments in health, stability, respite, and healing, rather than surveillance and enforcement.
It is unacceptable that the City has approved unlimited overtime for police, code enforcement, and DCR to carry out sweeps and anti-homeless laws, while simultaneously proposing to charge residents for shelter access. Unlimited funds for punishment cannot coexist with austerity for services.
I urge Council to reject this harmful proposal and instead direct resources toward housing opportunities that promote true safety and stability for all Sacramento residents.
Thank you.
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund opposes Sacramento's proposed requirement that unhoused people have an income and pay a program fee of 30% of their income to live in "micro-communities" that provide longer-term shelter. This policy excludes people without an income who are likely to be in greater need of help. For those who have an income, taking even 30% will mean they will be less likely to be able to afford food, medication, clothing, and other essential items. The program fee will also have the effect of dissuading people from choosing to enter the "micro-communities" if they know they will eventually have to pay to stay or that they will eventually be kicked out because they cannot pay.
This policy is particularly detrimental to people with disabilities who have high unemployment rates so are likely unable to take advantage of the program. People with disabilities often have additional expenses like the cost of durable medical equipment, medications, therapy, and other needs for which they must use their income. Many disabled people must rely on SSI which is approximately 74% of the federal poverty level. Taking 30% of SSI income leaves people with little left to live on. Unhoused people with disabilities should not have to choose between shelter and paying for their medical needs.
Finally, housing and shelter options are limited for people with disabilities, as the vast majority of housing and shelter is inaccessible. The program fee requirement for people with no other option due to widespread inaccessibility and unaffordability is cruel and inefficient. This further limits the options for people with disabilities to have stable shelter. Unhoused people are already extremely financially vulnerable, requiring payments means they are less likely to be able to exit homelessness. Paying for shelter is an unprecedented action for a city to take. Unhoused people need resources, housing, and support, not more financial liabilities. - Erin Nguyen Neff, Senior Staff Attorney, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.
Good evening to the Council. Right now, interactions with the city typically end in forced displacement and destruction of personal property. Since the Grants Pass ruling, the City of Sacramento’s arrests and citations for experiencing homelessness have exploded, increasing 4-5X over the previous year’s numbers. To escape this, people can either pay for an offered alternative (if the income percentage fee is approved) or turn to shelters when only 13% of demand for voluntary shelter placement was met in July, according to the most recent Continuum of Care Coordinated Access System report. Charging for shelter will not help the financial solvency of the city's homeless services program because it will not lead to long-term self sufficiency for homeless individuals.