Researchers report that currently 3 people become homeless for every one who finds stable and affordable housing. So this additional effort by the city is welcome and must be followed by much more. While the causes of current homelessness are numerous and systemic, and the roots go back decades, it is local cities and counties that are inevitably responsible for handling the situation on the ground. Should the city decide to locate such facilities near my neighborhood, I would support them, and I would help by getting acquainted with those residents and monitoring the situation.
In particular, the current operations of the criminal ‘justice’ system are very effective in converting low-income people into homeless people who are socially contaminated by having even the most minor criminal record. Only sheltered people with power have the ability to fix that. Until sheltered people take the trouble to imagine walking in homeless people’s shoes, the oppression will almost certainly continue.
The city must stop demonizing homeless people, who are in far more danger from sheltered people than the reverse. City leaders must resist and rebut the typical response of blaming the victims and treating them as though they have the plague. City leaders must insist that Sacramento businesses and citizens also stop abusing them. Being mean to homeless people is a very effective way of making the problems worse. The HMIS system should be supplemented by an open database where the general public can get acquainted with homeless people who consent to their inclusion in that database with basic information about their life history and work skills.
While the city has reformed the counterproductive practice of charging unrealistic fines and fees, it appears that the practice continues of charging very poor people high and unrealistic fees for reclaiming impounded vehicles. When a vehicle is a homeless person’s only shelter, effectively stealing that shelter is unnecessary and totally counterproductive. Such fees should all be on a sliding scale; rich people should pay proportionately more.
I recommend to the city’s attention an excellent book I recently read:
And Housing For All: The Fight to End Homelessness In America
Law professor Maria Foscarinis sets the stage with the history beginning in the 20th century, though one can discern some roots in the European enclosures. Our present situation is disturbing and complex. Please note that support staff have found that of those who are self-medicating for PTSD, most need stable housing if they are to heal; only a small proportion can heal from addiction while homeless.
Other homeless people are victims of the export of jobs, automation, inflated rental markets, or economically-contaminating contact with the criminal justice system, such as a citation for camping in public. “Our fundamental structures, institutions and laws protect property for those who have it but offer few protections or rights for those who do not.” Ending homelessness will mean putting communities before monetary profits.
The city’s proposal states that “Participants who opt to stay in the program as longer-term housing would be required to have an income to satisfy the monthly program fee.” This is very unhelpful and just plain dumb. What would happen to very poor participants who are unable to generate an income? Would they be put in the animal shelter on Front Street where residents get to stay for free? Or would these elders just be thrown back out on the street?
Recently I read another book that also deserves more attention from those of us in the ‘front row’:
Dignity: Seeking Respect in Back Row America
Chris Arnade spent a couple of decades on Wall Street (the front of front-row America) before a mid-life crisis provoked him to explore the other half. Sobering photographs are accompanied by stories of some of the people he encountered and listened to in various places that are representative of the many locations and communities in ‘left-behind’ America, whether in homeless encampments or the hollowed-out heartland.
I am deeply concerned about the proposal to build a homeless shelter in our neighborhood on the corner of El Centro and Arena Blvd in North Natomas. I urge you to reconsider this decision, because the risks to our community are too great.
First, the location is completely inappropriate. Why place this facility so close to families and schools, when a site near public transportation, social services, and job opportunities would better serve its intended purpose and minimize disruption to residents?
Second, safety must come first. What background screenings will be performed on the individuals placed here? Will there be thorough checks for prior convictions, including sex offenses, theft, and drug-related crimes? Without strict safeguards, we are putting our children and families at risk.
Third, what enforcement mechanisms will be in place? If rules are broken, what is the process for eviction and relocation? Data shows that unhoused individuals tend to remain in the areas where they are placed. This raises major concerns about increased encampments in Westshore and Swainson Hawk Parks—spaces our families depend on for safety and recreation.
Finally, the impact on public safety cannot be ignored. Micro-housing shelters, even with good intent, often bring higher rates of theft, loitering, trespassing, and crime into surrounding neighborhoods. Our community should not be forced to shoulder threats to our homes, cars, and local businesses like Bel-Air. With police and fire services already stretched thin in Natomas, how can the city realistically protect us from these added burdens?
In short, this plan jeopardizes the safety, security, and quality of life for the families who have built their lives here. I urge you—please reconsider this site and find a solution that truly supports those in need without sacrificing the well-being of our community.
We strongly oppose the proposed shelter in the River District! We also strongly support more shelter space in other districts that are not as impacted as the river district currently is!! We have more shelter space,services & random "Good" Samaritans than any other district the impact on businesses and residents has become unbearable!!
Some of the existing service providers offer limited services & hours etc they could expand their operations to serve our large existing unhoused population much easier & more effectively than opening a new shelter.
We are not part of the "Not in my backyard" voices, our backyard juat happens to already be full!!
Empathy and compassion for the unhoused can co exist with business and quiet enjoyment for residents.
Let's work together to make & keep the River District and all of Sacramento "Safe & Clean"
I live in the River District. It has been more or more after hours coming to my housing community. Trashes and theft have occurred frequently. I don’t want to make my community restored to fence and gate.
I strongly oppose the proposed establishment of a homeless village at Arena boulevard and El Centro. First of all, this area lacks good public transportation and other critical and essential amenities aren’t easily accessible unless you have a car. Second, I think we all are aware of the city’s mismanagement of homeless people and ensuring the safety of surrounding businesses, parks and workers downtown. It’s an absolute catastrophe and shows that we, the public and residents in this area, can not trust that the city will do any better with this location.
I urge you to reconsider.
Rescind the order allowing the city manager to place homeless communities on any city property without coming back to the council. The Dept of Community Response is clearly lacking sufficient headship to implement good programs. Surrounding communities must be notified.
I appreciate the proposal for multiple senior tiny housing support locations in the North Natomas area that will support our homeless neighbors and residents. I appreciate the
24/7 on-site security and hope this can be a successful senior community.
I would like to request a potential rule of Restrict off-site parking to 24-hrs or less so there are no RV’s or cars gathering around the site.
Will there be any enforcement rules to help ensure that this tiny home community, its residents, and their visitors are good neighbors to the surrounding community? Who will maintain the site?
Will there be a process to resolving neighboring community complaints, if they occur?
Overall I think these are good proposals to help address homelessness in Sacramento.
Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding the Placement of a Homeless Encampment Near Witter Ranch Elementary School
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you with deep concern over the city’s decision to place a homeless encampment near Witter Ranch Elementary School. Placing an encampment so close to a school, where young children are at risk, is a grave mistake that puts the lives of these children in jeopardy.
This decision, if carried out, will have far-reaching consequences. Let me be clear: children’s lives are at stake. If a child is kidnapped, harmed, or worse, that crime will be on the hands of the City of Sacramento. It is impossible to ignore the risks inherent in placing a homeless encampment just half a mile from an elementary school. When crimes inevitably occur—and they will—the national media will make sure the country knows where the responsibility lies.
In addition, the encampment will be situated within 2,000 feet of Sundance Park, which serves as the only park for residents in the surrounding subdivisions, including families with young children. The proximity to these communities, and specifically to Witter Ranch Elementary School, raises alarming concerns about the safety and well-being of the children who attend school there.
This plan puts children in direct danger.
The proposed location is not only poorly equipped for housing homeless individuals, but it also places a vulnerable population—children—at a heightened risk. What will the city do if a child is abducted from the school grounds or a violent crime occurs in the vicinity? These types of incidents are not hypothetical. They are happening in other cities, and they will happen here if the encampment proceeds. When a child is harmed, it will be because of the city’s utter disregard for the safety and well-being of children in our community—and a devastating tragedy for the families involved.
Furthermore, the city’s apparent lack of consideration for the surrounding community is deeply troubling. There was no outreach to parents, teachers, or residents of the neighborhoods directly affected. The staff report reveals a troubling lack of engagement with the community, and it appears that the city is only now acknowledging the need to charge fees to cover the cost of the project—yet we, the community, were kept in the dark.
This failure to properly inform and involve the community further undermines public trust in you. Residents and parents are understandably concerned, and the city must be held accountable for the consequences of its actions. I strongly urge the city to reconsider this decision. We cannot afford to put children’s lives at risk for a poorly planned project that lacks both the necessary resources and the foresight to ensure the safety of the surrounding community.
In closing, I ask the City Council to act with caution, empathy, and responsibility. The safety of children should be paramount in all city planning decisions. I urge you to listen to the concerns of the community, rescind this vote, and place the needs and safety of our children first.
This will lower our housing pricing by putting this so close to our homes! And to worry about theft and or are kids in the area! You need to consider the tax payers of our community!
As a resident of D4, I am asking that the City Council increase the response time of the IMT to be around-the-clock and able to respond to homeless people who need assistance at any time, day or night. With increased staffing and shifts for the IMT, I would like the city to prohibit camping at City Parks. We have habitual campers at McKinley Park and Stanford Park, both parks that neighbors travel through day and night. We are finding dirty drug needles, feces and soiled condoms in our parks, at children's sports fields, in the bathrooms and in the playgrounds. Children should be protected from biohazardous waste, and having IMT increase staffing, the city could assure that no one is camping illegally in our parks. Having increased staffing of the IMT would also allow the city to ensure a Safe Route to School for students and their caregivers that attend Miwok Middle School and other local schools and daycares. Let's protect our kids. Increase staffing of IMT and keep our parks for recreation, as they are intended for.
I am providing comment as the CEO of Alchemist CDC, a Sacramento-based nonprofit developing the Alchemist Public Market project in the River District. I have marked this comment as neutral, as our stance differs on different elements of this agenda item.
1. We are not supportive of charging participants for access to shelter sites.
2. We are generally supportive of more shelter and housing options, including smaller scale options that can be dispersed through more communities and neighborhoods.
3. We firmly believe that every District and neighborhood should play a role in providing shelter space. It is notable and concerning that there is a major imbalance in the location of shelters across various Districts and neighborhoods. Many, widespread, smaller shelter options would provide needed service without overburdening any one community.
4. Despite the fact that the River District hosts a disproportionate share of shelter and services for unhoused Sacramentans, we are supportive of a new permitted camp shelter option in the River District, with priority given to current unhoused River District residents. Housing and shelter are the only solutions to homelessness. The River District is already heavily impacted by people sleeping rough, and providing more of these neighbors with a safe, stable housing option will benefit them and the neighborhood as a whole. While the proposed shelter site in the River District does not seem like a strong long-term option with current development patterns, it is viable in the short term while longer term options are developed. We do not believe that prohibiting new shelter options in any district is the right path forward, but strongly encourage the city to site more shelter options in those areas of the city that lack them, as well.
5. With worsening federal policies around homelessness, we encourage the city to maintain a housing-first approach and to resist any policy proposals that would further criminalize unhoused Sacramentans. We appreciate creative measure to enhance shelter, affordable housing, and essential services.
Though seeking a solution to homeless is laudable, this is not it. The river district is already over burdened by homeless and has been for decades. Do you not remember the downtown greyhound bus station (and its problems) and if so why recreate it? The area was once a thriving industrial area (primarily produce) and the southern pacific railyard ( a whistle blew to alert workers to the beginning and end of their shifts). In the sixties hundreds of cabins where these workers lived were torn down by the city and not replaced. The city literally once had the city dump on North B street. Looks to me like they are trying to do It again. By the way, housing people on a barren lot is not doing them any favors.
I am a resident of the Westshore community, which is located at the northwest corner of El Centro and Arena Blvd, and I am writing to you with concerns about the proposal to add a homeless village on the city owned lot at the northeast corner of El Centro and Arena Blvd. I have also worked downtown, near Cesar Chavez Park since 2017, and I’m no stranger to the city’s mismanagement of homeless populations and ensuring the safety of surrounding businesses and workers in the downtown corridor.
The city's selection of the parcel at El Centro and Arena appears to be poorly considered, lacking foresight regarding the long-term well-being of the population it intends to house. As a Westshore resident since 2019, I've observed the severe lack of essential amenities easily accessible by foot or bike in the area west of I-5. For instance, critical amenities are at the following distances from the proposed site:
Bus stop: 1.2 miles
Emergency room: 8 miles
Food bank: 5 miles
Grocery store: Bel Air (0.1 miles), Sprouts (2 miles)
Clothing store: Walmart (3 miles)
Police station: 5 miles
As a single mother with a young child, I am particularly worried about the potential impact on my property value and my daughter's safety. The proposed parcel is less than 2,000 feet from Sundance Park, the only public park serving the Sundance Lake, Stadium Estates, and Irongate Apartment subdivisions. It is also 0.5 miles from Witter Ranch Elementary School and diagonally across from the only shopping plaza west of I-5. Furthermore, we are five miles from the nearest police station, and response times in Natomas are considerably higher than in other parts of the city. I urge the city to outline specific measures to ensure the safety of neighboring communities and to increase police presence.
Finally, I must express my concern about the city's lack of transparency. I hope the city council will implement measures to hold the city accountable for future planning of homeless communities or rescind its vote that granted the city manager broad authority in placing these communities. Despite living within a five-minute walk of this site, I received no prior notification, and even the city council member was unaware. Community members learned of the project through the news just a week before the city council meeting. The staff report indicates that while the city engaged with homeless communities and held workshops, it failed to consider or notify nearby communities. Moreover, the staff report suggests this information would not have been shared if not for the need to gain approval for charging fees. This blatant lack of transparency and the city's attempt to quietly introduce this project erode public trust. I implore the city to better serve its residents.
On behalf of our companies, we oppose the proposed micro-community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard. The River District is already overburdened with shelters and services, and placing another here threatens nearby businesses, future developments, and the neighborhood’s growth. We urge the City to consider more balanced locations across Sacramento
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the City’s proposal to establish a “micro-community” tent site for up to 120 unhoused individuals on the one-acre city-owned parcel southeast of Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, directly behind the Greyhound Bus Station at 420 Richards Boulevard.
While we acknowledge the pressing need for comprehensive solutions to homelessness, this proposal is not an appropriate or responsible location for such a facility. The River District already bears a disproportionate burden of Sacramento’s shelter and social service infrastructure, with 526 publicly funded shelter beds concentrated within our 1.25 square mile district. Nearby facilities include the Union Gospel Mission, Loaves & Fishes, and multiple other service providers. The addition of another large-scale site here would deepen the overconcentration of services in one neighborhood, rather than promoting an equitable, citywide approach.
This proposed location also raises serious concerns about compatibility with current and future land uses. The site is immediately adjacent to businesses and residences, sits steps away from the new May Lee State Office Complex, and near the future Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and Sacramento Republic FC Soccer Stadium in the Railyards. These are critical investments that require a stable and safe environment to succeed. The introduction of a sanctioned tent site of this size threatens to undermine both private redevelopment momentum and public confidence in the neighborhood’s transformation.
The River District has long shouldered far more than its fair share of Sacramento’s homelessness response. We urge the City to reject this proposal and instead prioritize locating new facilities in other parts of Sacramento that have not absorbed similar levels of shelter capacity. A balanced approach is essential if we are to meet the dual goals of addressing homelessness while also fostering equitable economic development across the city.
For these reasons, we cannot support the proposed micro-community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard. We respectfully request that the City pursue alternative locations and solutions that align with both the needs of unhoused individuals and the long-term revitalization of the River District.
Sincerely,
Greta and Kent Lacin at 1609 Dreher Street (In the River District)
As a formerly homeless individual, I can tell you that homeless encampments need to be where they can get services which can be accessed by walking to them . This is an excellent location! It’s close to Services and close to light rail.
This location by Arena and El Centro is highly unsuitable for a homeless micro community due to a severe lack of essential amenities.
Public transportation, crucial for employment access, is non-existent. Nearby employment opportunities are extremely limited, and vital services such as food banks, hospitals, and support services are nowhere to be found. Furthermore, the area is known for high-speed driving, posing significant safety risks with an increased population.
If these things are not being considered to be of importance, put it by the Amazon Fulfillment Center area where they can probably get employment.
District 4 simply cannot continue to take on the unhoused burden for the rest of the metro area. We already have the highest concentration of beds in the area, and are not maintaining safety and security for residents as is. I live in this district, and we constantly have our community garden vandalized. We've had to lock our side yards due to finding drug needles, and we regularly have neighbors who are screamed at and harassed by those who live in tents nearby. I am all for people having access to services, but it needs to be a shared responsibility across the region. The river district is already doing its part, and absolutely under no circumstances should we add more tents to the area.
We love our area and want to stay. However, with the repeal of the agreement from 1989 in March, we have little to no faith that the city will look out for the permanent residents of this area, and are considering moving.
Researchers report that currently 3 people become homeless for every one who finds stable and affordable housing. So this additional effort by the city is welcome and must be followed by much more. While the causes of current homelessness are numerous and systemic, and the roots go back decades, it is local cities and counties that are inevitably responsible for handling the situation on the ground. Should the city decide to locate such facilities near my neighborhood, I would support them, and I would help by getting acquainted with those residents and monitoring the situation.
In particular, the current operations of the criminal ‘justice’ system are very effective in converting low-income people into homeless people who are socially contaminated by having even the most minor criminal record. Only sheltered people with power have the ability to fix that. Until sheltered people take the trouble to imagine walking in homeless people’s shoes, the oppression will almost certainly continue.
The city must stop demonizing homeless people, who are in far more danger from sheltered people than the reverse. City leaders must resist and rebut the typical response of blaming the victims and treating them as though they have the plague. City leaders must insist that Sacramento businesses and citizens also stop abusing them. Being mean to homeless people is a very effective way of making the problems worse. The HMIS system should be supplemented by an open database where the general public can get acquainted with homeless people who consent to their inclusion in that database with basic information about their life history and work skills.
While the city has reformed the counterproductive practice of charging unrealistic fines and fees, it appears that the practice continues of charging very poor people high and unrealistic fees for reclaiming impounded vehicles. When a vehicle is a homeless person’s only shelter, effectively stealing that shelter is unnecessary and totally counterproductive. Such fees should all be on a sliding scale; rich people should pay proportionately more.
I recommend to the city’s attention an excellent book I recently read:
And Housing For All: The Fight to End Homelessness In America
Law professor Maria Foscarinis sets the stage with the history beginning in the 20th century, though one can discern some roots in the European enclosures. Our present situation is disturbing and complex. Please note that support staff have found that of those who are self-medicating for PTSD, most need stable housing if they are to heal; only a small proportion can heal from addiction while homeless.
Other homeless people are victims of the export of jobs, automation, inflated rental markets, or economically-contaminating contact with the criminal justice system, such as a citation for camping in public. “Our fundamental structures, institutions and laws protect property for those who have it but offer few protections or rights for those who do not.” Ending homelessness will mean putting communities before monetary profits.
The city’s proposal states that “Participants who opt to stay in the program as longer-term housing would be required to have an income to satisfy the monthly program fee.” This is very unhelpful and just plain dumb. What would happen to very poor participants who are unable to generate an income? Would they be put in the animal shelter on Front Street where residents get to stay for free? Or would these elders just be thrown back out on the street?
Recently I read another book that also deserves more attention from those of us in the ‘front row’:
Dignity: Seeking Respect in Back Row America
Chris Arnade spent a couple of decades on Wall Street (the front of front-row America) before a mid-life crisis provoked him to explore the other half. Sobering photographs are accompanied by stories of some of the people he encountered and listened to in various places that are representative of the many locations and communities in ‘left-behind’ America, whether in homeless encampments or the hollowed-out heartland.
eComment received by the City Clerk's Office
Councilmembers,
I am deeply concerned about the proposal to build a homeless shelter in our neighborhood on the corner of El Centro and Arena Blvd in North Natomas. I urge you to reconsider this decision, because the risks to our community are too great.
First, the location is completely inappropriate. Why place this facility so close to families and schools, when a site near public transportation, social services, and job opportunities would better serve its intended purpose and minimize disruption to residents?
Second, safety must come first. What background screenings will be performed on the individuals placed here? Will there be thorough checks for prior convictions, including sex offenses, theft, and drug-related crimes? Without strict safeguards, we are putting our children and families at risk.
Third, what enforcement mechanisms will be in place? If rules are broken, what is the process for eviction and relocation? Data shows that unhoused individuals tend to remain in the areas where they are placed. This raises major concerns about increased encampments in Westshore and Swainson Hawk Parks—spaces our families depend on for safety and recreation.
Finally, the impact on public safety cannot be ignored. Micro-housing shelters, even with good intent, often bring higher rates of theft, loitering, trespassing, and crime into surrounding neighborhoods. Our community should not be forced to shoulder threats to our homes, cars, and local businesses like Bel-Air. With police and fire services already stretched thin in Natomas, how can the city realistically protect us from these added burdens?
In short, this plan jeopardizes the safety, security, and quality of life for the families who have built their lives here. I urge you—please reconsider this site and find a solution that truly supports those in need without sacrificing the well-being of our community.
We strongly oppose the proposed shelter in the River District! We also strongly support more shelter space in other districts that are not as impacted as the river district currently is!! We have more shelter space,services & random "Good" Samaritans than any other district the impact on businesses and residents has become unbearable!!
Some of the existing service providers offer limited services & hours etc they could expand their operations to serve our large existing unhoused population much easier & more effectively than opening a new shelter.
We are not part of the "Not in my backyard" voices, our backyard juat happens to already be full!!
Empathy and compassion for the unhoused can co exist with business and quiet enjoyment for residents.
Let's work together to make & keep the River District and all of Sacramento "Safe & Clean"
Thank You,
Steve Thomason
Twelfth Street LLC
I live in the River District. It has been more or more after hours coming to my housing community. Trashes and theft have occurred frequently. I don’t want to make my community restored to fence and gate.
I strongly oppose the proposed establishment of a homeless village at Arena boulevard and El Centro. First of all, this area lacks good public transportation and other critical and essential amenities aren’t easily accessible unless you have a car. Second, I think we all are aware of the city’s mismanagement of homeless people and ensuring the safety of surrounding businesses, parks and workers downtown. It’s an absolute catastrophe and shows that we, the public and residents in this area, can not trust that the city will do any better with this location.
I urge you to reconsider.
Rescind the order allowing the city manager to place homeless communities on any city property without coming back to the council. The Dept of Community Response is clearly lacking sufficient headship to implement good programs. Surrounding communities must be notified.
I appreciate the proposal for multiple senior tiny housing support locations in the North Natomas area that will support our homeless neighbors and residents. I appreciate the
24/7 on-site security and hope this can be a successful senior community.
I would like to request a potential rule of Restrict off-site parking to 24-hrs or less so there are no RV’s or cars gathering around the site.
Will there be any enforcement rules to help ensure that this tiny home community, its residents, and their visitors are good neighbors to the surrounding community? Who will maintain the site?
Will there be a process to resolving neighboring community complaints, if they occur?
Overall I think these are good proposals to help address homelessness in Sacramento.
Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding the Placement of a Homeless Encampment Near Witter Ranch Elementary School
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you with deep concern over the city’s decision to place a homeless encampment near Witter Ranch Elementary School. Placing an encampment so close to a school, where young children are at risk, is a grave mistake that puts the lives of these children in jeopardy.
This decision, if carried out, will have far-reaching consequences. Let me be clear: children’s lives are at stake. If a child is kidnapped, harmed, or worse, that crime will be on the hands of the City of Sacramento. It is impossible to ignore the risks inherent in placing a homeless encampment just half a mile from an elementary school. When crimes inevitably occur—and they will—the national media will make sure the country knows where the responsibility lies.
In addition, the encampment will be situated within 2,000 feet of Sundance Park, which serves as the only park for residents in the surrounding subdivisions, including families with young children. The proximity to these communities, and specifically to Witter Ranch Elementary School, raises alarming concerns about the safety and well-being of the children who attend school there.
This plan puts children in direct danger.
The proposed location is not only poorly equipped for housing homeless individuals, but it also places a vulnerable population—children—at a heightened risk. What will the city do if a child is abducted from the school grounds or a violent crime occurs in the vicinity? These types of incidents are not hypothetical. They are happening in other cities, and they will happen here if the encampment proceeds. When a child is harmed, it will be because of the city’s utter disregard for the safety and well-being of children in our community—and a devastating tragedy for the families involved.
Furthermore, the city’s apparent lack of consideration for the surrounding community is deeply troubling. There was no outreach to parents, teachers, or residents of the neighborhoods directly affected. The staff report reveals a troubling lack of engagement with the community, and it appears that the city is only now acknowledging the need to charge fees to cover the cost of the project—yet we, the community, were kept in the dark.
This failure to properly inform and involve the community further undermines public trust in you. Residents and parents are understandably concerned, and the city must be held accountable for the consequences of its actions. I strongly urge the city to reconsider this decision. We cannot afford to put children’s lives at risk for a poorly planned project that lacks both the necessary resources and the foresight to ensure the safety of the surrounding community.
In closing, I ask the City Council to act with caution, empathy, and responsibility. The safety of children should be paramount in all city planning decisions. I urge you to listen to the concerns of the community, rescind this vote, and place the needs and safety of our children first.
This will lower our housing pricing by putting this so close to our homes! And to worry about theft and or are kids in the area! You need to consider the tax payers of our community!
As a resident of D4, I am asking that the City Council increase the response time of the IMT to be around-the-clock and able to respond to homeless people who need assistance at any time, day or night. With increased staffing and shifts for the IMT, I would like the city to prohibit camping at City Parks. We have habitual campers at McKinley Park and Stanford Park, both parks that neighbors travel through day and night. We are finding dirty drug needles, feces and soiled condoms in our parks, at children's sports fields, in the bathrooms and in the playgrounds. Children should be protected from biohazardous waste, and having IMT increase staffing, the city could assure that no one is camping illegally in our parks. Having increased staffing of the IMT would also allow the city to ensure a Safe Route to School for students and their caregivers that attend Miwok Middle School and other local schools and daycares. Let's protect our kids. Increase staffing of IMT and keep our parks for recreation, as they are intended for.
I am providing comment as the CEO of Alchemist CDC, a Sacramento-based nonprofit developing the Alchemist Public Market project in the River District. I have marked this comment as neutral, as our stance differs on different elements of this agenda item.
1. We are not supportive of charging participants for access to shelter sites.
2. We are generally supportive of more shelter and housing options, including smaller scale options that can be dispersed through more communities and neighborhoods.
3. We firmly believe that every District and neighborhood should play a role in providing shelter space. It is notable and concerning that there is a major imbalance in the location of shelters across various Districts and neighborhoods. Many, widespread, smaller shelter options would provide needed service without overburdening any one community.
4. Despite the fact that the River District hosts a disproportionate share of shelter and services for unhoused Sacramentans, we are supportive of a new permitted camp shelter option in the River District, with priority given to current unhoused River District residents. Housing and shelter are the only solutions to homelessness. The River District is already heavily impacted by people sleeping rough, and providing more of these neighbors with a safe, stable housing option will benefit them and the neighborhood as a whole. While the proposed shelter site in the River District does not seem like a strong long-term option with current development patterns, it is viable in the short term while longer term options are developed. We do not believe that prohibiting new shelter options in any district is the right path forward, but strongly encourage the city to site more shelter options in those areas of the city that lack them, as well.
5. With worsening federal policies around homelessness, we encourage the city to maintain a housing-first approach and to resist any policy proposals that would further criminalize unhoused Sacramentans. We appreciate creative measure to enhance shelter, affordable housing, and essential services.
Though seeking a solution to homeless is laudable, this is not it. The river district is already over burdened by homeless and has been for decades. Do you not remember the downtown greyhound bus station (and its problems) and if so why recreate it? The area was once a thriving industrial area (primarily produce) and the southern pacific railyard ( a whistle blew to alert workers to the beginning and end of their shifts). In the sixties hundreds of cabins where these workers lived were torn down by the city and not replaced. The city literally once had the city dump on North B street. Looks to me like they are trying to do It again. By the way, housing people on a barren lot is not doing them any favors.
I am a resident of the Westshore community, which is located at the northwest corner of El Centro and Arena Blvd, and I am writing to you with concerns about the proposal to add a homeless village on the city owned lot at the northeast corner of El Centro and Arena Blvd. I have also worked downtown, near Cesar Chavez Park since 2017, and I’m no stranger to the city’s mismanagement of homeless populations and ensuring the safety of surrounding businesses and workers in the downtown corridor.
The city's selection of the parcel at El Centro and Arena appears to be poorly considered, lacking foresight regarding the long-term well-being of the population it intends to house. As a Westshore resident since 2019, I've observed the severe lack of essential amenities easily accessible by foot or bike in the area west of I-5. For instance, critical amenities are at the following distances from the proposed site:
Bus stop: 1.2 miles
Emergency room: 8 miles
Food bank: 5 miles
Grocery store: Bel Air (0.1 miles), Sprouts (2 miles)
Clothing store: Walmart (3 miles)
Police station: 5 miles
As a single mother with a young child, I am particularly worried about the potential impact on my property value and my daughter's safety. The proposed parcel is less than 2,000 feet from Sundance Park, the only public park serving the Sundance Lake, Stadium Estates, and Irongate Apartment subdivisions. It is also 0.5 miles from Witter Ranch Elementary School and diagonally across from the only shopping plaza west of I-5. Furthermore, we are five miles from the nearest police station, and response times in Natomas are considerably higher than in other parts of the city. I urge the city to outline specific measures to ensure the safety of neighboring communities and to increase police presence.
Finally, I must express my concern about the city's lack of transparency. I hope the city council will implement measures to hold the city accountable for future planning of homeless communities or rescind its vote that granted the city manager broad authority in placing these communities. Despite living within a five-minute walk of this site, I received no prior notification, and even the city council member was unaware. Community members learned of the project through the news just a week before the city council meeting. The staff report indicates that while the city engaged with homeless communities and held workshops, it failed to consider or notify nearby communities. Moreover, the staff report suggests this information would not have been shared if not for the need to gain approval for charging fees. This blatant lack of transparency and the city's attempt to quietly introduce this project erode public trust. I implore the city to better serve its residents.
On behalf of our companies, we oppose the proposed micro-community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard. The River District is already overburdened with shelters and services, and placing another here threatens nearby businesses, future developments, and the neighborhood’s growth. We urge the City to consider more balanced locations across Sacramento
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the City’s proposal to establish a “micro-community” tent site for up to 120 unhoused individuals on the one-acre city-owned parcel southeast of Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, directly behind the Greyhound Bus Station at 420 Richards Boulevard.
While we acknowledge the pressing need for comprehensive solutions to homelessness, this proposal is not an appropriate or responsible location for such a facility. The River District already bears a disproportionate burden of Sacramento’s shelter and social service infrastructure, with 526 publicly funded shelter beds concentrated within our 1.25 square mile district. Nearby facilities include the Union Gospel Mission, Loaves & Fishes, and multiple other service providers. The addition of another large-scale site here would deepen the overconcentration of services in one neighborhood, rather than promoting an equitable, citywide approach.
This proposed location also raises serious concerns about compatibility with current and future land uses. The site is immediately adjacent to businesses and residences, sits steps away from the new May Lee State Office Complex, and near the future Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and Sacramento Republic FC Soccer Stadium in the Railyards. These are critical investments that require a stable and safe environment to succeed. The introduction of a sanctioned tent site of this size threatens to undermine both private redevelopment momentum and public confidence in the neighborhood’s transformation.
The River District has long shouldered far more than its fair share of Sacramento’s homelessness response. We urge the City to reject this proposal and instead prioritize locating new facilities in other parts of Sacramento that have not absorbed similar levels of shelter capacity. A balanced approach is essential if we are to meet the dual goals of addressing homelessness while also fostering equitable economic development across the city.
For these reasons, we cannot support the proposed micro-community at Bannon Street and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard. We respectfully request that the City pursue alternative locations and solutions that align with both the needs of unhoused individuals and the long-term revitalization of the River District.
Sincerely,
Greta and Kent Lacin at 1609 Dreher Street (In the River District)
Submitting this letter on behalf of Midtown Association and the 112 blocks of commercial properties we represent. We appreciate your consideration.
As a formerly homeless individual, I can tell you that homeless encampments need to be where they can get services which can be accessed by walking to them . This is an excellent location! It’s close to Services and close to light rail.
This location by Arena and El Centro is highly unsuitable for a homeless micro community due to a severe lack of essential amenities.
Public transportation, crucial for employment access, is non-existent. Nearby employment opportunities are extremely limited, and vital services such as food banks, hospitals, and support services are nowhere to be found. Furthermore, the area is known for high-speed driving, posing significant safety risks with an increased population.
If these things are not being considered to be of importance, put it by the Amazon Fulfillment Center area where they can probably get employment.
District 4 simply cannot continue to take on the unhoused burden for the rest of the metro area. We already have the highest concentration of beds in the area, and are not maintaining safety and security for residents as is. I live in this district, and we constantly have our community garden vandalized. We've had to lock our side yards due to finding drug needles, and we regularly have neighbors who are screamed at and harassed by those who live in tents nearby. I am all for people having access to services, but it needs to be a shared responsibility across the region. The river district is already doing its part, and absolutely under no circumstances should we add more tents to the area.
We love our area and want to stay. However, with the repeal of the agreement from 1989 in March, we have little to no faith that the city will look out for the permanent residents of this area, and are considering moving.