I support this proposal as a resident of the Garden Highway and as a law clinic school professor who established a homeless advocacy clinic and who works with county Social Workers providing legal assistance to unhoused members of our community. All of our neighborhoods have a responsibility to provide space for shelter and services. It is disingenuous for neighborhood residents to complain about camps and the presence of unhoused people and to then opposed efforts to remediate the situation. In my work providing legal assistance, it is clear that without stable and safe housing that provides for privacy and autonomy, people will not be able to transition from the street and camps. Seniors are a growing percentage of our unhoused population, which I understand this proposal targets. Even for those with SSI benefits ($1,206 per month), rents are unaffordable and there is a huge waiting list for SHRA rental housing. 30% of income is a fair and doable contribution. Even for those who do not have SSI and rely on General Assistance (GA) ($301 per month), 30% for housing will still provide some income for personal needs. For these people, the ability to have services that will allow them to apply for SSI benefits will result in savings for the county since GA benefits are repaid out of retro-active SSI benefits, and will remove them from the GA benefit rolls. I urge support for this proposal
I live in District 1 and have considerable concerns about the safety and viability of the proposed Tiny Home project at El Centro and Arena for both the citizens already living in the neighborhood and those unhoused people who would be placed in the tiny homes. For ease of reading I will list my reasons as follows:
-Our neighborhood is not conducive to extremely-budget-limited, transportation-limited lifestyles, as the only nearby grocery store is a high-priced Bel Air or the Walgreens which is a mile away on foot, which does not seem like a good option for senior citizens. Yes, the proposed project is said to include grocery and transportation "support" but this will never eliminate the need for freedom of purchasing and freedom of movement that any citizen including those in the tiny homes, should be expected to have.
-Our neighborhood has next-to-no amenities including no low-cost health care, no ER or hospital, and very limited public transportation.
-Our neighborhood has very few recreational opportunities, especially for adults/seniors. I know my neighbors, right or wrong, are not going to want the Tiny Home citizens just hanging out in the local parks, and frankly that's boring anyway, so what exactly are these people going to do with themselves all day? And if they work, how are they getting to work when cars are not allowed at the site? If they are limited to jobs they can reach only with public or DCR program transportation, and not a private vehicle they may already own, doesn't that limit their rehabilitation circumstances?
-While the Tiny Home project itself may anticipate good security, it is realistic to think that other unhoused people will gravitate to a known center of outreach and resources and will likely be much more prevalent in the neighborhoods and fields surrounding the Tiny Home community. For one, they know they will likely be accepted by those in the Tiny Homes who have been in similar positions themselves and find community with them, and secondly, they may already know people in the community. DCR does not seem to have any plan to prevent this from happening.
With regard to the impact on the existing surrounding communities of the West side of North Natomas (e.g. Duckhorn, Arena, and El Centro to Del Paso):
We who live in this area have twice now been "told" that without representation we will suffer major changes that we don't desire in our neighborhood; first the development of the farmlands south of San Juan to the river, and now this Tiny Home project. We are not the City's dumping ground for poor real estate purchases, late-enacted plans, and last ditch efforts to bolster politicians popularity. We are voting citizens whose neighborhood has already been held back from development for many years due to the fallout from the Hurricane Katrina moratorium on building and regardless of party lines, we deserve better than to have our representation repeatedly violated. I am personally in support of the *idea* of providing housing to the unhoused but this is not the way to do it. If you want to get "buy in" from a community and now start a project off with the community members immediately resenting the people who move into the tiny homes, you need to do this right with community input from the start.
With regard to the treatment of the people who will live in the tiny homes:
Perhaps as another indicator that the DCR doesn't seem to really be putting the citizens who will in these spaces first so much as it seems to be "checking off boxes" towards "dealing with homelessness", I am both puzzled by and appalled by some of the decisions made. People who will live in these spaces are human beings and they deserve to have en suite bathrooms, not communal ones, for basic human dignity. They also deserve to bring whatever pets at whatever size they may have, as pets are family too, and are critical for emotional health and well-being, plus asking people to give up their pets or make decisions about which ones to keep is something that often drives people back into living on the street. People in these spaces should be allowed to park a car if they have one or acquire one so that they have more mobility and flexibility of transportation. And finally, residents should not be charged 30% of their already tiny income to live there. How are they supposed to "get back on their feet" if they cannot save up for apartment down payments? If there need to be strict community rules to keep it nice, then fine, but charging people who are literally one step removed from living in a shelter 30% of their income is outrageous.
In conclusion, I am OPPOSED to the Tiny Home project at El Centro and Arena in District 1 and have serious concerns about the ethics and plausibility of its proposed outcomes.
I don't see how charging homeless people for use of the homeless shelter makes any sense. Realistically how much money would this even generate? This fee is not going significantly contribute to the goal of decreasing homelessness or increasing affordable housing. It is needlessly cruel and all we will accomplish is further disadvantage the already disadvantaged.
The proximity of this location to suburban residential family homes, parks, and schools with young children is extremely inappropriate and this plan should not move forward. I worry for our community and our children and the overall impact it will have on this family oriented area.
Hello Mayor and Council,
I am writing to oppose item # 2. Charging for shelter will not help the financial solvency of the city's homeless services program. It is not in line with best practices across the country and will further limit access to shelter! It will not lead to support or self sufficiency for homeless individuals.
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.
End the harmful and expensive policy of forced displacement of camp communities and the arrest of their residents in favor of diverting essential funding to housing opportunities that promote safety, self-sufficiency, respite, healing and stability.
According to the staff report, cost savings from previous measures have been reallocated into encampment clearing. It would be reprehensible for DCR to use any resident funds for this purpose.
Our focus should be on:
- Permanent policy solutions to the housing insecurity crisis –
- Ensuring families and individuals stay in their homes
- Alleviating the disastrous health outcomes of the public health crisis of homelessness
- Meeting homeless families and individuals where they are at, to build rapport and connect to relevant, desired resources, NOT for surveillance, displacement, and enforcement
Against District 1 Site. Hi my name is Richard Travassos. I am Homeowner in Sundance Lake of 15 years. I have 2 young daughters.
This proposal to build a micro community on Arena and El Centro for the purpose of housing people experiencing homelessness is a dreadfully terrible idea that has not been well vetted. This location in District 1 is the problem.
This is a quiet established middle-class community. What’s being proposed is an EXPIREMENT with repercussions unknown. For the Homeowners of this community that have made investments to raise their families here see this proposal of too great a gamble to mess around with.
The fact of the matter is that THERE ARE NO HOMELSS PEOPLE IN THIS AREA NOW...So why are we bringing them in to unknown consequences.
The location is a bad idea as there is a Park and an Elementary school in close proximity. There is a senior housing manufactured home community across the street. There are running and walking trails across the street that are safe and crime free.
Go to the site and see for yourself. You are risking the well being children and seniors and not to mention the strong risk of expensive litigation brought by the Homeowners not wanting this. VOTE NO. DON’T DO IT.
As a River District resident, I see first-hand how the City of Sacramento manages the homeless issue, which is to wait until the trash piles up and people complain. I find it difficult to believe that the best we can do is to create a campground in a vacant lot in an area that already has more homeless people in it than any other district. Where is humanity in that idea? Living across the street from the largest homeless services provider in the region, I have witnessed some of the most despicable conditions that no human should ever have to experience. There are just a few ways in and out of the area and every one of them looks the same. Garbage everywhere, people wandering aimlessly through the streets because sidewalks are impassable. Open fires either directly in the street or in containers that send toxic fumes wafting through the air. People using illicit drugs out in the open and have summoned emergency services for those clearly suffering from being overly intoxicated, only to be told there is nothing they can do, they must be dying or physically injured. I have witnessed naked, mentally ill people trying to get into my building. I watched a man punch a car window while wiggling his way through traffic and saw a woman impaled on a fence from attempting to climb it, both were trying to go to Loaves and Fishes during early morning traffic. There are just too many incidents to list here, but I know you have a whole police log full of the ones that have been reported. Our garbage bins are constantly emptied onto the floor of the trash enclosures in my apartments causing a huge mess for all the residents and staff to deal with. Building a camp for tents in an abandoned lot is just another shortsighted plan. When I pulled up a map in Google Street View (image attached) to visualize the area that you are looking at putting the campground, there is no denying the recorded images of trash and tents piled up in front of the Union Gospel Mission, going back years. The same issues continue to persist in the area surrounding Loaves and Fishes and along the river. This area is inhospitable to human beings (and their pets) living in tents in abandoned lots behind bus stations, just as it is for them living on the sidewalks, under bridges, along the river, etc.... Please explain, how is this helping?
As a resident of District Five, I am concerned about the site proposed for the corner of 24th and 47th. As a resident of the Golf Course Terrace Neighborhood, which is located directly across from this proposed site, my concerns are largely around the potential for increased crime, vandalism, vagrancy, and the environmental impact of waste that may be a result of this community being built near my home. I am not opposed to housing being built for the unhoused in my community, however my concerns stem are largely from other failed homeless projects that have been implemented in our city. I would like to see how the city plans to address these concerns.
One example, the x-street safe camping project, significantly increased crime rates within the surrounding neighborhoods. Crimes included drug usage and sales, prostitution and vandalism within the area affecting local businesses and neighborhoods.
I would expect that the city and city leaders have since learned their lesson that these projects take significant investment including site security, management of the site including enforcement of rules and expectations for residents, increased police patrol in surrounding neighborhoods, and increased city funds to manage increased vandalism and garbage collection.
Before these micro communities are implemented, I would like a full, detailed review of how these challenges will be addressed at these sites.
Additionally, as a resident nearby to one of these proposed sites, I would expect a review period every 6 months to ensure that residents in surrounding areas have a chance to air grievance and complaints as well as a review prior to renewal for residents to discuss status of the project with city leaders to ensure that measures are being taken to ensure all interests are being accounted for.
One of the challenges that I saw from the x-street project was that when the surrounding communities were significantly negatively impacted, there was no avenue for action and no avenue for discussion or improvement. Therefore, continued neighborhood and community input must be a requirement for this project as well a ‘justice for neighbors’ type impact report when, or if, these communities
I am strongly opposed to the proposal to charge our most vulnerable community members for emergency shelter services. This regressive proposal is not how we should fund these services - instead you could stop the expensive, cruel, and ineffective encampment sweeps and stop paying SacPD overtime to target our most vulnerable community members!
I support this, not because it's great, but because it is, at least, something. I used to be so proud to be a Sacramentan, but not now. When I see the city’s disregard for its poorest, most vulnerable citizens it does NOT inspire pride, but grief and shame. The City’s response to this humanitarian crises becomes more punitive as time goes on. We can do better than this! If we cared half as much about marginalized people as we do about another sports facility or obscene amounts of money for law enforcement we could have made great strides towards solving the problem of homelessness. Let’s stop the sweeps – anyone can see they accomplish nothing! Let’s invest in more tiny homes. Let’s provide the services people need to stay housed. Let’s build more affordable housing. We can do it if we want to.
As the president of Airport, literally I strongly oppose Any type of housing across the street from a little league that has approximately 400 players from the ages of 4 -16. Not only is there a diamond across the street but also side-by-side where this housing is supposed to be placed. We have kids parents grandparents that walked to and from all the diamonds across the street. This will be a major safety hazard for our kids. Especially due to the demographics we live in a lot of our children walk, ride their bikes and are not accompanied by an adult. Who is going to keep everybody safe from predators, drug addicts, no one can guarantee anyone safety. This is the craziest thing I’ve ever heard. Our league protested a couple of years ago against this, and we also brought media out to protest against this. We are more than willing to do this again along with also getting signatures from our neighbors and members of the league.. This is almost as crazy as putting a child molester in a house next to a school. In the past, we have had multiple issues with the parking of RVs and homeless encampment on the street on that area and it was horrible., An RV, even caught fire, a lot of drug activity, needles drug paraphernalia, all on the sidewalks , urine , feces and even prostitution . We have pictures to prove what we are saying . The police have been called multiple times , code enforcement , 311 and every person took forever to respond ., It was clean up after clean up who wants to see all of that crap . People wanna see their kids play ball in a safe environment . It’s bad enough we have to remove people daily ourselves from the diamonds ourselves . We clean up feces at the fields , people shower in the sprinklers and we have had people having sex in the ball park . We have so much to say this is just crazy . I understand they need to live somewhere but surrounded by young children is not the right place . There has to be another place away from children . I am pleading to look somewhere else . My league & community will protest against this with our all .
Mayor Kevin McCarty
Councilmember Lisa Kaplan
Councilmember Roger Dickinson
Councilmember Karina Talamantes
Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum
Councilmember Caity Maple
Councilmember Eric Guerra
Councilmember Rick Jennings
Councilmember Mai Vang
RE: Agenda Items: # 2: Homelessness Workshop Follow-Up: Update on Strategies Addressing Homelessness in the City of Sacramento. File ID: 2025-01554 and
# 3: Sacramento Homeless and Housing System Partnership Structure File ID: 2025-01454.
The Sacramento Poor People’s Campaign (Sac PPC) and the Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee are writing to share our concerns regarding items on the Council agenda: #2: Homelessness Workshop Follow-Up: Update on Strategies Addressing Homelessness in the City of Sacramento. File ID: 2025-01554 and # 3: Sacramento Homeless and Housing System Partnership Structure File ID: 2025-01454.
1. Sacramento Poor People’s Campaign and the Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee firmly believe that every district and neighborhood should participate in providing shelter space. It is notable and concerning that there is a significant imbalance in the distribution of shelters across various districts and neighborhoods. Many small, widespread shelter options would offer necessary services without overburdening any single community.
2. We oppose the City’s current proposals for charging a fee for temporary and emergency housing:
These proposals will fail to achieve financial solvency for the city, may further increase individuals' debt, create a two-tiered system within the same shelter program, lack the urgency required for the scale of crises, and are not focused on long-term, real solutions.
• 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. We believe that everyone has a right to live a decent life, as proclaimed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• Emergency shelter is NOT housing, and individuals and families, especially seniors, should not be charged for its use.
• Instead of charging our poorest residents for vital services, the city should raise fees and taxation for Sacramento’s wealthiest individuals and corporations; they must pay their fair share in resolving homelessness.
• We continue to serve only a fraction of those who need assistance. We must increase outreach and redirect wasted funds spent in sweeping and displacing individuals.
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.
• 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. Safe Ground camping and Safe Parking must be implemented to protect unhoused people.
• 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.
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.
Finally, the Sacramento Service Not Sweeps Coalition created a policy platform in 2020 and a Comprehensive Community Plan, as the City endorsed and then abandoned its own “Comprehensive Siting Plan.” The SNS policy platform and plan remain relevant today and can be found here. https://netorg1904587-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/bob_srceh_org/EfNc7qomypNMrX9exHjXVMYBdObRTOEQCUsVEafmTNHDUA?rtime=6j23KFz13Ug
Writing to oppose charging unhoused people for emergency shelter. These are not homes, they are bare minimum survival, and funding for these programs should not come from our most vulnerable community members!
However - I am generally in favor of more housing and more options. Open up housing and shelters where they are needed. I don't have any concerns with the proposed sites.
It's a ludicrous proposition to charge people for temporary shelter who are already struggling so much that they're living in the streets of our city. I can't even believe this is being proposed! These folks are struggling to even eat, stay safe out in the elements, and deal with health issues and you want to take what little they may have from them? It baffles the mind that this is even being proposed. To those who have so little income, taking away even small amounts can amount to disaster. So that even if it seems like the amount being proposed may be small, to these folks who are in the worst financial situation in their lives, it amounts to quite a lot being remove from them. And for what purpose? If it's supposedly such a small amount, how will this even help pay for the temporary housing in the first place? It won't but it will endanger those who are already barely surviving. Just no. Don't do this. It's a stupid, insane proposition.
For the last couple years, when I have time after my work, I do a little bit of food, water, and clothing distribution to unhoused neighbors in Sac and the larger county. They're always incredibly kind and grateful. Back in 2016 I was hit in the face by an unhoused man at the 59th light rail station. I did not get scared or indignant, because I understand the situation. Even with that experince, I know they are not "dangerous". Most violence come from people the victim know or family. They don't want to admit that because that shows violence is in polite white people. Way back in 2007-2008 I worked on an ambulance and took care of unhoused and mentally ill people all the time. Sac city government is WAAAAAY out of touch. And constituents that say they're "scared" because unhoused are "dangerous" are way out of touch, brainwashed.
I oppose anything that puts additional burdens on our unhoused neighbors.
Charging for shelter will not help the financial solvency of the city's homeless services program. It is not in line with best practices across the country and will further limit access to shelter! It will not lead to support or self sufficiency for homeless individuals.
End the harmful and expensive policy of forced displacement of camp communities.
END UNLIMITED OVERTIME for Sac PD, Code Enforcement and DCR to implement its Homeless Response Protocol, which focuses on enforcement of anti-homeless laws and encampment removal. SPEND THAT ON TRUE SUPPORT INSTEAD!
In looking at the plan to create safe, camping and micro communities for homeless throughout the city, I can’t help but notice a site being proposed in the River District. As the former executive Director of the River District and a Midtown resident, I must object to this. The River District has done more than it share when it comes to homelessness. The River District site should be stricken from this plan and no more homeless or social services should be considered for the River District.
As the director of a program housing and serving youth and children for the last 23 years, I can't fathom that I'm pleading with our city to not charge people experiencing homelessness for shelter. Charging 30% of income for a shelter bed is extreme. When we support our youth in finding housing, we often share than the goal is to find an apartment that is 30% of their income. In local affordable housing programs, 30% is a common rate for that nice apartment. A shelter bed is not an apartment or even true housing. It is a roof. Furthermore, our city would be using a shelter bed to generate income. Do we truly need to be generating income on the backs of our city's most vulnerable? Taking 30% of our elders' social security checks? As a long time Sacramento resident, I would hope we find that money in taxes or fees of city services or small cuts in other city services or reductions in overtime amounts paid to city employees. To be taking it from the very poorest is a low moment for a city that historically has stood by its most vulnerable citizens.
The Sacramento homeless Organizing Committee (SHOC) strongly opposes the proposal to charge homeless individuals and families a “fee” (actually “rent”) for its use of temporary shelters. SHOC has organized and supported the voice of unhoused people in the City of Sacramento since its founding 30 years ago.
• The fee-based approach for city shelters has been condemned and opposed by national leaders with expertise in homeless policy for years. In 2010 the billionaire mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, proposed a fee for sheltering the homeless. Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, has stated that “It’s an extreme approach. You’re not going to find the overwhelming majority of communities charging people who are in the worst economic conditions of their life.” https://www.sacbee.com/news/equity-lab/accountability/article302957074.html#storylink=cpy
• The reason fees are considered an extreme and unworkable approach is that such fees deplete whatever income these families and individuals depend upon for other necessities of life, such as food, clothing, health care, transportation, education, job training, child support, and the like.
• In particular, this type of fee interferes with the ability of these families or individuals to save or set aside funds for permanent housing so that they can transition in the future from city shelters. Councilwoman Kaplan has commented, according to the Bee, that the fee would support as sense of “independence.” Councilwoman Kaplan may not have taken into account this longer-term negative effect. Such a fee could actually prolong stays in temporary shelter by depleting the slim financial resources of families and individuals.
• Councilman Roger Dickinson has already gone on record opposing it, with the common sense observation that, “I’m not sure it’s practical to do that because most of the people, in my experience, who are homeless, may have some minimum or limited amount of income but probably not enough that they have the capacity to pay rent and take care of other living costs as well so as a realistic matter I’m not sure it would make sense,” Dickinson said. https://www.sacbee.com/news/equitylab/accountability/article302957074.html#storylink=cpy
• The proposed fees are not “small,” as characterized by Brian Pedro, but amount to a full 30% of income – hundreds of dollars a month for a $1200 monthly income. $300 a month (for a motel room or tiny house or shelter bed) may seem, as Mr. Pedro has stated, “cheap,” but this is only because there is a housing crisis and rents have become astronomical. Consider the impact on an individual or family whose income is irregular, unpredictable, or even more minimal than the $1200 referenced by Mr. Pedro. Such a fee, imposed without regard to the amount, regularity, or source of the income, will further devastate an unhoused individual or family.
• If unhoused individuals or families do not comply with these new fees, or cannot pay them because of other financial obligations, they could be excluded or even evicted from the city’s temporary shelters, resulting in trauma and disruption and additional individuals and families living outside without recourse.
• Fees for temporary shelter are punitive – and, according to experts, this type of punitive system “does nothing to encourage or teach individuals or families about ‘opening a bank account, keeping a checkbook, and maintaining a budget.” See, National Coalition for the Homeless.
• Even under the most optimistic revenue picture, the income of these fees would a microscopic impact on the city’s $62 million dollar deficit. Mr. Pedro estimates that some $400,000 would be collected, at most, in total, from the hundreds of impoverished individuals and families subject to the fee if they use city-provided shelter. SHOC has always advocated that housing should be a civil right, as essential to human health as, say, emergency medical care, or access to water and food. It is unseemly, even immoral, for a city with tens of thousands of wealthy people to depend on the most destitute individuals and families to help balance the budget.
I am a district 1 resident, particularly in the Westshore Community borough. My house backs up along El Centro and I am a few homes away from the intersection of Natomas Central/El Centro/Arena Blvd. This proposed micro-home location on Arena and El Centro affects our neighborhood negatively and I strongly oppose it.
Per Legislation Text File ID: 2025-01554, there have been NO sustainability studies on any of these projects as they are "Not applicable." How and why are they not applicable? No infrastructure studies made to an already congested location, and no inclusion of the statistical evidence of accidents that have occurred at that intersection in the last five years. The claim of economic impact is well received in your report as it proposes more jobs to construct said micro-homes, however, why is there no study on the probable adverse effect(s) on an already busy thoroughfare? The construction site itself placing burden on an already strained intersection is guaranteed.
In Brian Pedro’s presentation, the claim is that residents will be subject to public transportation, but the nearest bus stop is 1.2 miles away. Another theory is that visitors may pick up residents to run errands/buy necessities/get medical care, but there is no adequate area to conduct said pick-ups and drop-offs. Moreover, if seniors are the prioritized occupants of this micro-community, the distance of the closest medical facility for an elderly population is at least 5 miles away. ADDITIONALLY, the residents in this area, like me, signed a disclosure at close of escrow that I have taken significant risk by occupying property that is in a floodplain. What safety studies have been made to these vulnerable, at-risk seniors to ensure they are protected by potential catastrophes? Zero.
Once more in Brian Pedro’s presentation, services available at a Micro-Community include: “behavioral health/substance abuse prevention and treatment services.” Our neighborhood has three schools within a 2-mile radius: Witter Ranch, Paso Verde, NP3. That type service to be included in each micro-community, particularly Arena & El Centro, is quite alarming to a family-oriented neighborhood. Unaddressed mental health/substance abuse can lead to unprecedented danger to the community. There seems to be a huge disconnect ensuring safety for current residents and upholding strict standards to maintain residence in said micro-homes. Will these referred future residents be subject to drug tests prior to occupancy and at random to ensure illegal substances aren’t being abused? One resident commented in her opposition, “introducing a concentrated population of individuals facing homelessness could strain local resources and potentially elevate incidents of property crime or other issues, as seen in similar developments elsewhere. Residents have invested in this community expecting stability, and this proposal threatens that without clear mitigation strategies.”
Natomas is a newer development in comparison to other areas, and its residents pay a higher amount of property taxes. Our infrastructure is still in its adolescence in comparison to others. We’re a growing community, yet we still don’t have proper bus routes or adequate resources to fully ensure our own safety, like larger police presence and fire services. From another resident: “that parcel should be turned into a green space/park and bus stop, which this community really needs. Both of those would greatly increase the quality of life of the residents nearby. It’s time to start offering services for the people that already live here, not cram as many as possible into every square inch.”
Lastly, the blatant disregard to properly inform the community of these projects creates massive distrust with the public servants that have promised to serve the needs and interests of its constituents. Many of the comments here believe that homelessness needs to be addressed, and I agree wholeheartedly. Although these micro-homes proposal is one thoughtful solution, it is lackluster at best for its inability to be thoroughly studied and mitigated. It compromises the safety and stability of our community. I strongly suggest and urge to find an area whose street isn’t as congested and is closest to support facilities easily accessible by local transit.
I support this proposal as a resident of the Garden Highway and as a law clinic school professor who established a homeless advocacy clinic and who works with county Social Workers providing legal assistance to unhoused members of our community. All of our neighborhoods have a responsibility to provide space for shelter and services. It is disingenuous for neighborhood residents to complain about camps and the presence of unhoused people and to then opposed efforts to remediate the situation. In my work providing legal assistance, it is clear that without stable and safe housing that provides for privacy and autonomy, people will not be able to transition from the street and camps. Seniors are a growing percentage of our unhoused population, which I understand this proposal targets. Even for those with SSI benefits ($1,206 per month), rents are unaffordable and there is a huge waiting list for SHRA rental housing. 30% of income is a fair and doable contribution. Even for those who do not have SSI and rely on General Assistance (GA) ($301 per month), 30% for housing will still provide some income for personal needs. For these people, the ability to have services that will allow them to apply for SSI benefits will result in savings for the county since GA benefits are repaid out of retro-active SSI benefits, and will remove them from the GA benefit rolls. I urge support for this proposal
I live in District 1 and have considerable concerns about the safety and viability of the proposed Tiny Home project at El Centro and Arena for both the citizens already living in the neighborhood and those unhoused people who would be placed in the tiny homes. For ease of reading I will list my reasons as follows:
-Our neighborhood is not conducive to extremely-budget-limited, transportation-limited lifestyles, as the only nearby grocery store is a high-priced Bel Air or the Walgreens which is a mile away on foot, which does not seem like a good option for senior citizens. Yes, the proposed project is said to include grocery and transportation "support" but this will never eliminate the need for freedom of purchasing and freedom of movement that any citizen including those in the tiny homes, should be expected to have.
-Our neighborhood has next-to-no amenities including no low-cost health care, no ER or hospital, and very limited public transportation.
-Our neighborhood has very few recreational opportunities, especially for adults/seniors. I know my neighbors, right or wrong, are not going to want the Tiny Home citizens just hanging out in the local parks, and frankly that's boring anyway, so what exactly are these people going to do with themselves all day? And if they work, how are they getting to work when cars are not allowed at the site? If they are limited to jobs they can reach only with public or DCR program transportation, and not a private vehicle they may already own, doesn't that limit their rehabilitation circumstances?
-While the Tiny Home project itself may anticipate good security, it is realistic to think that other unhoused people will gravitate to a known center of outreach and resources and will likely be much more prevalent in the neighborhoods and fields surrounding the Tiny Home community. For one, they know they will likely be accepted by those in the Tiny Homes who have been in similar positions themselves and find community with them, and secondly, they may already know people in the community. DCR does not seem to have any plan to prevent this from happening.
With regard to the impact on the existing surrounding communities of the West side of North Natomas (e.g. Duckhorn, Arena, and El Centro to Del Paso):
We who live in this area have twice now been "told" that without representation we will suffer major changes that we don't desire in our neighborhood; first the development of the farmlands south of San Juan to the river, and now this Tiny Home project. We are not the City's dumping ground for poor real estate purchases, late-enacted plans, and last ditch efforts to bolster politicians popularity. We are voting citizens whose neighborhood has already been held back from development for many years due to the fallout from the Hurricane Katrina moratorium on building and regardless of party lines, we deserve better than to have our representation repeatedly violated. I am personally in support of the *idea* of providing housing to the unhoused but this is not the way to do it. If you want to get "buy in" from a community and now start a project off with the community members immediately resenting the people who move into the tiny homes, you need to do this right with community input from the start.
With regard to the treatment of the people who will live in the tiny homes:
Perhaps as another indicator that the DCR doesn't seem to really be putting the citizens who will in these spaces first so much as it seems to be "checking off boxes" towards "dealing with homelessness", I am both puzzled by and appalled by some of the decisions made. People who will live in these spaces are human beings and they deserve to have en suite bathrooms, not communal ones, for basic human dignity. They also deserve to bring whatever pets at whatever size they may have, as pets are family too, and are critical for emotional health and well-being, plus asking people to give up their pets or make decisions about which ones to keep is something that often drives people back into living on the street. People in these spaces should be allowed to park a car if they have one or acquire one so that they have more mobility and flexibility of transportation. And finally, residents should not be charged 30% of their already tiny income to live there. How are they supposed to "get back on their feet" if they cannot save up for apartment down payments? If there need to be strict community rules to keep it nice, then fine, but charging people who are literally one step removed from living in a shelter 30% of their income is outrageous.
In conclusion, I am OPPOSED to the Tiny Home project at El Centro and Arena in District 1 and have serious concerns about the ethics and plausibility of its proposed outcomes.
I don't see how charging homeless people for use of the homeless shelter makes any sense. Realistically how much money would this even generate? This fee is not going significantly contribute to the goal of decreasing homelessness or increasing affordable housing. It is needlessly cruel and all we will accomplish is further disadvantage the already disadvantaged.
The proximity of this location to suburban residential family homes, parks, and schools with young children is extremely inappropriate and this plan should not move forward. I worry for our community and our children and the overall impact it will have on this family oriented area.
Hello Mayor and Council,
I am writing to oppose item # 2. Charging for shelter will not help the financial solvency of the city's homeless services program. It is not in line with best practices across the country and will further limit access to shelter! It will not lead to support or self sufficiency for homeless individuals.
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.
End the harmful and expensive policy of forced displacement of camp communities and the arrest of their residents in favor of diverting essential funding to housing opportunities that promote safety, self-sufficiency, respite, healing and stability.
According to the staff report, cost savings from previous measures have been reallocated into encampment clearing. It would be reprehensible for DCR to use any resident funds for this purpose.
Our focus should be on:
- Permanent policy solutions to the housing insecurity crisis –
- Ensuring families and individuals stay in their homes
- Alleviating the disastrous health outcomes of the public health crisis of homelessness
- Meeting homeless families and individuals where they are at, to build rapport and connect to relevant, desired resources, NOT for surveillance, displacement, and enforcement
Thank you,
Elicia Yoffee
District 4 Resident
Against District 1 Site. Hi my name is Richard Travassos. I am Homeowner in Sundance Lake of 15 years. I have 2 young daughters.
This proposal to build a micro community on Arena and El Centro for the purpose of housing people experiencing homelessness is a dreadfully terrible idea that has not been well vetted. This location in District 1 is the problem.
This is a quiet established middle-class community. What’s being proposed is an EXPIREMENT with repercussions unknown. For the Homeowners of this community that have made investments to raise their families here see this proposal of too great a gamble to mess around with.
The fact of the matter is that THERE ARE NO HOMELSS PEOPLE IN THIS AREA NOW...So why are we bringing them in to unknown consequences.
The location is a bad idea as there is a Park and an Elementary school in close proximity. There is a senior housing manufactured home community across the street. There are running and walking trails across the street that are safe and crime free.
Go to the site and see for yourself. You are risking the well being children and seniors and not to mention the strong risk of expensive litigation brought by the Homeowners not wanting this. VOTE NO. DON’T DO IT.
As a River District resident, I see first-hand how the City of Sacramento manages the homeless issue, which is to wait until the trash piles up and people complain. I find it difficult to believe that the best we can do is to create a campground in a vacant lot in an area that already has more homeless people in it than any other district. Where is humanity in that idea? Living across the street from the largest homeless services provider in the region, I have witnessed some of the most despicable conditions that no human should ever have to experience. There are just a few ways in and out of the area and every one of them looks the same. Garbage everywhere, people wandering aimlessly through the streets because sidewalks are impassable. Open fires either directly in the street or in containers that send toxic fumes wafting through the air. People using illicit drugs out in the open and have summoned emergency services for those clearly suffering from being overly intoxicated, only to be told there is nothing they can do, they must be dying or physically injured. I have witnessed naked, mentally ill people trying to get into my building. I watched a man punch a car window while wiggling his way through traffic and saw a woman impaled on a fence from attempting to climb it, both were trying to go to Loaves and Fishes during early morning traffic. There are just too many incidents to list here, but I know you have a whole police log full of the ones that have been reported. Our garbage bins are constantly emptied onto the floor of the trash enclosures in my apartments causing a huge mess for all the residents and staff to deal with. Building a camp for tents in an abandoned lot is just another shortsighted plan. When I pulled up a map in Google Street View (image attached) to visualize the area that you are looking at putting the campground, there is no denying the recorded images of trash and tents piled up in front of the Union Gospel Mission, going back years. The same issues continue to persist in the area surrounding Loaves and Fishes and along the river. This area is inhospitable to human beings (and their pets) living in tents in abandoned lots behind bus stations, just as it is for them living on the sidewalks, under bridges, along the river, etc.... Please explain, how is this helping?
Hello,
As a resident of District Five, I am concerned about the site proposed for the corner of 24th and 47th. As a resident of the Golf Course Terrace Neighborhood, which is located directly across from this proposed site, my concerns are largely around the potential for increased crime, vandalism, vagrancy, and the environmental impact of waste that may be a result of this community being built near my home. I am not opposed to housing being built for the unhoused in my community, however my concerns stem are largely from other failed homeless projects that have been implemented in our city. I would like to see how the city plans to address these concerns.
One example, the x-street safe camping project, significantly increased crime rates within the surrounding neighborhoods. Crimes included drug usage and sales, prostitution and vandalism within the area affecting local businesses and neighborhoods.
I would expect that the city and city leaders have since learned their lesson that these projects take significant investment including site security, management of the site including enforcement of rules and expectations for residents, increased police patrol in surrounding neighborhoods, and increased city funds to manage increased vandalism and garbage collection.
Before these micro communities are implemented, I would like a full, detailed review of how these challenges will be addressed at these sites.
Additionally, as a resident nearby to one of these proposed sites, I would expect a review period every 6 months to ensure that residents in surrounding areas have a chance to air grievance and complaints as well as a review prior to renewal for residents to discuss status of the project with city leaders to ensure that measures are being taken to ensure all interests are being accounted for.
One of the challenges that I saw from the x-street project was that when the surrounding communities were significantly negatively impacted, there was no avenue for action and no avenue for discussion or improvement. Therefore, continued neighborhood and community input must be a requirement for this project as well a ‘justice for neighbors’ type impact report when, or if, these communities
I am strongly opposed to the proposal to charge our most vulnerable community members for emergency shelter services. This regressive proposal is not how we should fund these services - instead you could stop the expensive, cruel, and ineffective encampment sweeps and stop paying SacPD overtime to target our most vulnerable community members!
I support this, not because it's great, but because it is, at least, something. I used to be so proud to be a Sacramentan, but not now. When I see the city’s disregard for its poorest, most vulnerable citizens it does NOT inspire pride, but grief and shame. The City’s response to this humanitarian crises becomes more punitive as time goes on. We can do better than this! If we cared half as much about marginalized people as we do about another sports facility or obscene amounts of money for law enforcement we could have made great strides towards solving the problem of homelessness. Let’s stop the sweeps – anyone can see they accomplish nothing! Let’s invest in more tiny homes. Let’s provide the services people need to stay housed. Let’s build more affordable housing. We can do it if we want to.
As the president of Airport, literally I strongly oppose Any type of housing across the street from a little league that has approximately 400 players from the ages of 4 -16. Not only is there a diamond across the street but also side-by-side where this housing is supposed to be placed. We have kids parents grandparents that walked to and from all the diamonds across the street. This will be a major safety hazard for our kids. Especially due to the demographics we live in a lot of our children walk, ride their bikes and are not accompanied by an adult. Who is going to keep everybody safe from predators, drug addicts, no one can guarantee anyone safety. This is the craziest thing I’ve ever heard. Our league protested a couple of years ago against this, and we also brought media out to protest against this. We are more than willing to do this again along with also getting signatures from our neighbors and members of the league.. This is almost as crazy as putting a child molester in a house next to a school. In the past, we have had multiple issues with the parking of RVs and homeless encampment on the street on that area and it was horrible., An RV, even caught fire, a lot of drug activity, needles drug paraphernalia, all on the sidewalks , urine , feces and even prostitution . We have pictures to prove what we are saying . The police have been called multiple times , code enforcement , 311 and every person took forever to respond ., It was clean up after clean up who wants to see all of that crap . People wanna see their kids play ball in a safe environment . It’s bad enough we have to remove people daily ourselves from the diamonds ourselves . We clean up feces at the fields , people shower in the sprinklers and we have had people having sex in the ball park . We have so much to say this is just crazy . I understand they need to live somewhere but surrounded by young children is not the right place . There has to be another place away from children . I am pleading to look somewhere else . My league & community will protest against this with our all .
Mayor Kevin McCarty
Councilmember Lisa Kaplan
Councilmember Roger Dickinson
Councilmember Karina Talamantes
Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum
Councilmember Caity Maple
Councilmember Eric Guerra
Councilmember Rick Jennings
Councilmember Mai Vang
RE: Agenda Items: # 2: Homelessness Workshop Follow-Up: Update on Strategies Addressing Homelessness in the City of Sacramento. File ID: 2025-01554 and
# 3: Sacramento Homeless and Housing System Partnership Structure File ID: 2025-01454.
The Sacramento Poor People’s Campaign (Sac PPC) and the Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee are writing to share our concerns regarding items on the Council agenda: #2: Homelessness Workshop Follow-Up: Update on Strategies Addressing Homelessness in the City of Sacramento. File ID: 2025-01554 and # 3: Sacramento Homeless and Housing System Partnership Structure File ID: 2025-01454.
1. Sacramento Poor People’s Campaign and the Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee firmly believe that every district and neighborhood should participate in providing shelter space. It is notable and concerning that there is a significant imbalance in the distribution of shelters across various districts and neighborhoods. Many small, widespread shelter options would offer necessary services without overburdening any single community.
2. We oppose the City’s current proposals for charging a fee for temporary and emergency housing:
These proposals will fail to achieve financial solvency for the city, may further increase individuals' debt, create a two-tiered system within the same shelter program, lack the urgency required for the scale of crises, and are not focused on long-term, real solutions.
• 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. We believe that everyone has a right to live a decent life, as proclaimed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• Emergency shelter is NOT housing, and individuals and families, especially seniors, should not be charged for its use.
• Instead of charging our poorest residents for vital services, the city should raise fees and taxation for Sacramento’s wealthiest individuals and corporations; they must pay their fair share in resolving homelessness.
• We continue to serve only a fraction of those who need assistance. We must increase outreach and redirect wasted funds spent in sweeping and displacing individuals.
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.
• 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. Safe Ground camping and Safe Parking must be implemented to protect unhoused people.
• 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.
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.
Finally, the Sacramento Service Not Sweeps Coalition created a policy platform in 2020 and a Comprehensive Community Plan, as the City endorsed and then abandoned its own “Comprehensive Siting Plan.” The SNS policy platform and plan remain relevant today and can be found here. https://netorg1904587-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/bob_srceh_org/EfNc7qomypNMrX9exHjXVMYBdObRTOEQCUsVEafmTNHDUA?rtime=6j23KFz13Ug
Thank you
Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee; Sacramento Poor People's Campaign (Sac PPC) sacppcunited@gmail.com
Writing to oppose charging unhoused people for emergency shelter. These are not homes, they are bare minimum survival, and funding for these programs should not come from our most vulnerable community members!
However - I am generally in favor of more housing and more options. Open up housing and shelters where they are needed. I don't have any concerns with the proposed sites.
It's a ludicrous proposition to charge people for temporary shelter who are already struggling so much that they're living in the streets of our city. I can't even believe this is being proposed! These folks are struggling to even eat, stay safe out in the elements, and deal with health issues and you want to take what little they may have from them? It baffles the mind that this is even being proposed. To those who have so little income, taking away even small amounts can amount to disaster. So that even if it seems like the amount being proposed may be small, to these folks who are in the worst financial situation in their lives, it amounts to quite a lot being remove from them. And for what purpose? If it's supposedly such a small amount, how will this even help pay for the temporary housing in the first place? It won't but it will endanger those who are already barely surviving. Just no. Don't do this. It's a stupid, insane proposition.
For the last couple years, when I have time after my work, I do a little bit of food, water, and clothing distribution to unhoused neighbors in Sac and the larger county. They're always incredibly kind and grateful. Back in 2016 I was hit in the face by an unhoused man at the 59th light rail station. I did not get scared or indignant, because I understand the situation. Even with that experince, I know they are not "dangerous". Most violence come from people the victim know or family. They don't want to admit that because that shows violence is in polite white people. Way back in 2007-2008 I worked on an ambulance and took care of unhoused and mentally ill people all the time. Sac city government is WAAAAAY out of touch. And constituents that say they're "scared" because unhoused are "dangerous" are way out of touch, brainwashed.
I oppose anything that puts additional burdens on our unhoused neighbors.
Charging for shelter will not help the financial solvency of the city's homeless services program. It is not in line with best practices across the country and will further limit access to shelter! It will not lead to support or self sufficiency for homeless individuals.
End the harmful and expensive policy of forced displacement of camp communities.
END UNLIMITED OVERTIME for Sac PD, Code Enforcement and DCR to implement its Homeless Response Protocol, which focuses on enforcement of anti-homeless laws and encampment removal. SPEND THAT ON TRUE SUPPORT INSTEAD!
In looking at the plan to create safe, camping and micro communities for homeless throughout the city, I can’t help but notice a site being proposed in the River District. As the former executive Director of the River District and a Midtown resident, I must object to this. The River District has done more than it share when it comes to homelessness. The River District site should be stricken from this plan and no more homeless or social services should be considered for the River District.
As the director of a program housing and serving youth and children for the last 23 years, I can't fathom that I'm pleading with our city to not charge people experiencing homelessness for shelter. Charging 30% of income for a shelter bed is extreme. When we support our youth in finding housing, we often share than the goal is to find an apartment that is 30% of their income. In local affordable housing programs, 30% is a common rate for that nice apartment. A shelter bed is not an apartment or even true housing. It is a roof. Furthermore, our city would be using a shelter bed to generate income. Do we truly need to be generating income on the backs of our city's most vulnerable? Taking 30% of our elders' social security checks? As a long time Sacramento resident, I would hope we find that money in taxes or fees of city services or small cuts in other city services or reductions in overtime amounts paid to city employees. To be taking it from the very poorest is a low moment for a city that historically has stood by its most vulnerable citizens.
Dear Sacramento City Council,
The Sacramento homeless Organizing Committee (SHOC) strongly opposes the proposal to charge homeless individuals and families a “fee” (actually “rent”) for its use of temporary shelters. SHOC has organized and supported the voice of unhoused people in the City of Sacramento since its founding 30 years ago.
• The fee-based approach for city shelters has been condemned and opposed by national leaders with expertise in homeless policy for years. In 2010 the billionaire mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, proposed a fee for sheltering the homeless. Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, has stated that “It’s an extreme approach. You’re not going to find the overwhelming majority of communities charging people who are in the worst economic conditions of their life.” https://www.sacbee.com/news/equity-lab/accountability/article302957074.html#storylink=cpy
• The reason fees are considered an extreme and unworkable approach is that such fees deplete whatever income these families and individuals depend upon for other necessities of life, such as food, clothing, health care, transportation, education, job training, child support, and the like.
• In particular, this type of fee interferes with the ability of these families or individuals to save or set aside funds for permanent housing so that they can transition in the future from city shelters. Councilwoman Kaplan has commented, according to the Bee, that the fee would support as sense of “independence.” Councilwoman Kaplan may not have taken into account this longer-term negative effect. Such a fee could actually prolong stays in temporary shelter by depleting the slim financial resources of families and individuals.
• Councilman Roger Dickinson has already gone on record opposing it, with the common sense observation that, “I’m not sure it’s practical to do that because most of the people, in my experience, who are homeless, may have some minimum or limited amount of income but probably not enough that they have the capacity to pay rent and take care of other living costs as well so as a realistic matter I’m not sure it would make sense,” Dickinson said. https://www.sacbee.com/news/equitylab/accountability/article302957074.html#storylink=cpy
• The proposed fees are not “small,” as characterized by Brian Pedro, but amount to a full 30% of income – hundreds of dollars a month for a $1200 monthly income. $300 a month (for a motel room or tiny house or shelter bed) may seem, as Mr. Pedro has stated, “cheap,” but this is only because there is a housing crisis and rents have become astronomical. Consider the impact on an individual or family whose income is irregular, unpredictable, or even more minimal than the $1200 referenced by Mr. Pedro. Such a fee, imposed without regard to the amount, regularity, or source of the income, will further devastate an unhoused individual or family.
• If unhoused individuals or families do not comply with these new fees, or cannot pay them because of other financial obligations, they could be excluded or even evicted from the city’s temporary shelters, resulting in trauma and disruption and additional individuals and families living outside without recourse.
• Fees for temporary shelter are punitive – and, according to experts, this type of punitive system “does nothing to encourage or teach individuals or families about ‘opening a bank account, keeping a checkbook, and maintaining a budget.” See, National Coalition for the Homeless.
• Even under the most optimistic revenue picture, the income of these fees would a microscopic impact on the city’s $62 million dollar deficit. Mr. Pedro estimates that some $400,000 would be collected, at most, in total, from the hundreds of impoverished individuals and families subject to the fee if they use city-provided shelter. SHOC has always advocated that housing should be a civil right, as essential to human health as, say, emergency medical care, or access to water and food. It is unseemly, even immoral, for a city with tens of thousands of wealthy people to depend on the most destitute individuals and families to help balance the budget.
Sincerely,
Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee
This is an awful idea.
I am a district 1 resident, particularly in the Westshore Community borough. My house backs up along El Centro and I am a few homes away from the intersection of Natomas Central/El Centro/Arena Blvd. This proposed micro-home location on Arena and El Centro affects our neighborhood negatively and I strongly oppose it.
Per Legislation Text File ID: 2025-01554, there have been NO sustainability studies on any of these projects as they are "Not applicable." How and why are they not applicable? No infrastructure studies made to an already congested location, and no inclusion of the statistical evidence of accidents that have occurred at that intersection in the last five years. The claim of economic impact is well received in your report as it proposes more jobs to construct said micro-homes, however, why is there no study on the probable adverse effect(s) on an already busy thoroughfare? The construction site itself placing burden on an already strained intersection is guaranteed.
In Brian Pedro’s presentation, the claim is that residents will be subject to public transportation, but the nearest bus stop is 1.2 miles away. Another theory is that visitors may pick up residents to run errands/buy necessities/get medical care, but there is no adequate area to conduct said pick-ups and drop-offs. Moreover, if seniors are the prioritized occupants of this micro-community, the distance of the closest medical facility for an elderly population is at least 5 miles away. ADDITIONALLY, the residents in this area, like me, signed a disclosure at close of escrow that I have taken significant risk by occupying property that is in a floodplain. What safety studies have been made to these vulnerable, at-risk seniors to ensure they are protected by potential catastrophes? Zero.
Once more in Brian Pedro’s presentation, services available at a Micro-Community include: “behavioral health/substance abuse prevention and treatment services.” Our neighborhood has three schools within a 2-mile radius: Witter Ranch, Paso Verde, NP3. That type service to be included in each micro-community, particularly Arena & El Centro, is quite alarming to a family-oriented neighborhood. Unaddressed mental health/substance abuse can lead to unprecedented danger to the community. There seems to be a huge disconnect ensuring safety for current residents and upholding strict standards to maintain residence in said micro-homes. Will these referred future residents be subject to drug tests prior to occupancy and at random to ensure illegal substances aren’t being abused? One resident commented in her opposition, “introducing a concentrated population of individuals facing homelessness could strain local resources and potentially elevate incidents of property crime or other issues, as seen in similar developments elsewhere. Residents have invested in this community expecting stability, and this proposal threatens that without clear mitigation strategies.”
Natomas is a newer development in comparison to other areas, and its residents pay a higher amount of property taxes. Our infrastructure is still in its adolescence in comparison to others. We’re a growing community, yet we still don’t have proper bus routes or adequate resources to fully ensure our own safety, like larger police presence and fire services. From another resident: “that parcel should be turned into a green space/park and bus stop, which this community really needs. Both of those would greatly increase the quality of life of the residents nearby. It’s time to start offering services for the people that already live here, not cram as many as possible into every square inch.”
Lastly, the blatant disregard to properly inform the community of these projects creates massive distrust with the public servants that have promised to serve the needs and interests of its constituents. Many of the comments here believe that homelessness needs to be addressed, and I agree wholeheartedly. Although these micro-homes proposal is one thoughtful solution, it is lackluster at best for its inability to be thoroughly studied and mitigated. It compromises the safety and stability of our community. I strongly suggest and urge to find an area whose street isn’t as congested and is closest to support facilities easily accessible by local transit.