I am in opposition of the proposed site. I do support helping the homeless. However these shelter sites DO NOT belong in residential areas, where children and senior citizens reside! These should be in industrial or rural areas. This is going to cause many of us homeowners to be forced to leave. We pay our taxes and HOA fees for a better living environment. Please do better!
I'm writing in reaction to the Sacramento Bee article with respect to potential sites being considered. Through their investigations they found 4 site being considered including 2 in south Sacramento. If both were to become tiny home villages it would create a unfair concentration in one area. In addition to the existing shelter on Meadowview Blvd there would be 3 within a 1.7 mile radius of 24th Street and 68th Ave. Each council district should support homeless shelters equally with a high priority spreading the burden geographically.
I am opposing this agenda item because of the impact upon the community. I currently serve as the pastor in South Sacramento and have seen the impact of the 100 tiny homes on the community and our ministry. I have experienced firsthand the increase in the number of crimes, vandalism, and harm to residents and businesses in the community. I believe the environmental impact on this community will be negative. The increased burden upon the City’s law enforcement, emergency services and residents will make the community less desirable and negatively impact our property values. I urge the council to consider a different location, perhaps a partnership with an under partnership with an underutilized military base.
Thank you for considering solutions to the current state of the housing and homeless system in Sacramento. I have heard councilmembers voice their concern about throwing money at the problem without solving it. Homelessness is an issue that has clear causes rooted in lack of access to housing and resources for residents. The city approved unlimited overtime for the city police in 2023, and we know that they are the first to be called in for sweeps and various crises that did not have to happen.
Please end the expensive policy of forced displacement of camp communities, only to restart the cycle that landed people on the streets in the first place. Sending fines and passing the bill to those at the lowest levels of income will not solve the money issue here. The city has resources to create a tax for Sacramento’s wealthiest entities and corporations, including those that own more than 2 residential or commercial properties that are vacant. We can divert essential funding to housing opportunities that promote safety, self-sufficiency, respite, healing and stability. I look forward to learning more about this plan, and I hope it keeps these factors in consideration.
This Plan is not shared. The River District has the highest number of shelter beds while other districts have none. I question why those districts even have a vote here. Additional beds will attract more unhoused to the District with even more limited resources to monitor crime, sanitation, health, safety and other social issues. Services must be connected with housing services. Currently Loaves & Fishes is the largest provider of services in the District but is not connected with housing; furthermore, it is only open from 6 AM to 3 PM leaving the unhoused with neither services nor shelter during the late afternoon and nighttime hours.
Those of us who live and work Downtown need help in the face of an ever increasing number of unhoused who injure, frighten, threaten, trash, and, otherwise, make life difficult, dangerous, and, sadly, often impossible for residents and businesses. This Plan does not alleviate the serious problems we face every day.
I am deeply concerned with the proposed County model. This models moves decision making from a highly collaborative Continuum of Care Board to a small board of reps from each city. The CoC Board includes local leaders, shelter and housing providers, people with lived expertise, and representatives from education, behavioral health, workforce development, law enforcement, and child welfare. This Board brings a wealth of perspectives and deep expertise as they collective wrestle with tough decisions around addressing homelessness. The proposed model tokenizes the voices of those with lived expertise and removes all together the wisdom of local service providers. When the County model was presented recently to the Board of Sups, one even celebrated the model with only one person with lived expertise, commenting on the efficiency when you strip down the Board and remove true representation and complexity in perspective. This model is designed without broad input, rushed into implementation, and designed to disempower those who do this work daily. I hope our council members will consult with the membership of the continuum of care and with the CoC Board before taking any action to adopt this dangerous model.
It is outrageous that vested homeowners were not allowed the opportunity to learn and discuss about an establishment that will, without question, have a negative impact on neighboring home values, parking (new residents will undoubtedly use nearby street parking, as none is otherwise being provided) plus home and family safety. Build such an environment in a more commercial/city space, not in family suburbia!
All local governments, chambers of commerce, and other community organizations must work together in a meaningful and cooperative way if we are to make substantial improvements in the economic predicament of those who have experienced more than their share of Adverse Childhood Experiences, or who are the victims of trickle-down, profits-before-people capitalism.
Please refer to my comments under agenda item #2 for more discussion about paths away from current failures and toward future success.
These homes will require maintenance, water, electricity, plumbing. How will that work? What model or example city was used to test that this plan will effectively work? Or did someone say there is vacant land here let’s build these shelters here. This sounds good in theory but what will this look like? Who will be on-site to ensure safety? What happens when these shelters start falling apart? Who will be responsible for maintenance,… safety? Our police department is already overburdened. Why was this site selected? What are the construction markers or flags if this is still being decided on? Why weren’t the Natomas taxpayers/ voters notified? What are these closed door meetings? Why the secrecy? Most of the neighbors I have spoken to had no idea this was being planned? How was this communicated? Where is the impact report!???!!!??
This area has no amenities within walking distance and no public transit to support the proposed community dwellers.
If it goes through, visitor parking should be limited to 2 hours and the overall appearance of the housing development needs to abide by rules similar to that of an HOA so that the existing housing surrounding it does not lose value due to this new homeless development.
Furthermore, what will be done to prevent excess people gathering and making noise and participating in illicit activity? Sure, on paper this may be 55+, but how will this be enforced when the seniors have the next two or three generations of their family living with them, sucking up resources that taxpayers are subsidizing?
Will residents forfeit their lease and be evicted for violating laws, noise ordinances, cleanliness standards, etc? Our tax dollars would be subsidizing this, so it would only fair be to limit this opportunity to those that are respectful, responsible members of the community - not entitled abusers of the system.
The site at Arena and El Centro does not have the accessible services that will be needed by this population and it will isolate them from the services as there is no public transportation on this side of Natomas. There is no accessible health care or store other than Bel Air. This will not benefit these folks. They need to be in an area with services and access to transportation as well as medical care
Please do not go to Sun Spa, located at 6804 Fruitridge Rd #A
Sacramento, CA, 95820, as well as q spa, located at 4215 Norwood avenue, suite #12, sacramento, ca, 95838, They will all claim that they are too busy for you.
I am in opposition of the proposed site. I do support helping the homeless. However these shelter sites DO NOT belong in residential areas, where children and senior citizens reside! These should be in industrial or rural areas. This is going to cause many of us homeowners to be forced to leave. We pay our taxes and HOA fees for a better living environment. Please do better!
I'm writing in reaction to the Sacramento Bee article with respect to potential sites being considered. Through their investigations they found 4 site being considered including 2 in south Sacramento. If both were to become tiny home villages it would create a unfair concentration in one area. In addition to the existing shelter on Meadowview Blvd there would be 3 within a 1.7 mile radius of 24th Street and 68th Ave. Each council district should support homeless shelters equally with a high priority spreading the burden geographically.
I am opposing this agenda item because of the impact upon the community. I currently serve as the pastor in South Sacramento and have seen the impact of the 100 tiny homes on the community and our ministry. I have experienced firsthand the increase in the number of crimes, vandalism, and harm to residents and businesses in the community. I believe the environmental impact on this community will be negative. The increased burden upon the City’s law enforcement, emergency services and residents will make the community less desirable and negatively impact our property values. I urge the council to consider a different location, perhaps a partnership with an under partnership with an underutilized military base.
Thank you for considering solutions to the current state of the housing and homeless system in Sacramento. I have heard councilmembers voice their concern about throwing money at the problem without solving it. Homelessness is an issue that has clear causes rooted in lack of access to housing and resources for residents. The city approved unlimited overtime for the city police in 2023, and we know that they are the first to be called in for sweeps and various crises that did not have to happen.
Please end the expensive policy of forced displacement of camp communities, only to restart the cycle that landed people on the streets in the first place. Sending fines and passing the bill to those at the lowest levels of income will not solve the money issue here. The city has resources to create a tax for Sacramento’s wealthiest entities and corporations, including those that own more than 2 residential or commercial properties that are vacant. We can divert essential funding to housing opportunities that promote safety, self-sufficiency, respite, healing and stability. I look forward to learning more about this plan, and I hope it keeps these factors in consideration.
This Plan is not shared. The River District has the highest number of shelter beds while other districts have none. I question why those districts even have a vote here. Additional beds will attract more unhoused to the District with even more limited resources to monitor crime, sanitation, health, safety and other social issues. Services must be connected with housing services. Currently Loaves & Fishes is the largest provider of services in the District but is not connected with housing; furthermore, it is only open from 6 AM to 3 PM leaving the unhoused with neither services nor shelter during the late afternoon and nighttime hours.
Those of us who live and work Downtown need help in the face of an ever increasing number of unhoused who injure, frighten, threaten, trash, and, otherwise, make life difficult, dangerous, and, sadly, often impossible for residents and businesses. This Plan does not alleviate the serious problems we face every day.
The current model is which there's more collaboration is best.
I am deeply concerned with the proposed County model. This models moves decision making from a highly collaborative Continuum of Care Board to a small board of reps from each city. The CoC Board includes local leaders, shelter and housing providers, people with lived expertise, and representatives from education, behavioral health, workforce development, law enforcement, and child welfare. This Board brings a wealth of perspectives and deep expertise as they collective wrestle with tough decisions around addressing homelessness. The proposed model tokenizes the voices of those with lived expertise and removes all together the wisdom of local service providers. When the County model was presented recently to the Board of Sups, one even celebrated the model with only one person with lived expertise, commenting on the efficiency when you strip down the Board and remove true representation and complexity in perspective. This model is designed without broad input, rushed into implementation, and designed to disempower those who do this work daily. I hope our council members will consult with the membership of the continuum of care and with the CoC Board before taking any action to adopt this dangerous model.
It is outrageous that vested homeowners were not allowed the opportunity to learn and discuss about an establishment that will, without question, have a negative impact on neighboring home values, parking (new residents will undoubtedly use nearby street parking, as none is otherwise being provided) plus home and family safety. Build such an environment in a more commercial/city space, not in family suburbia!
All local governments, chambers of commerce, and other community organizations must work together in a meaningful and cooperative way if we are to make substantial improvements in the economic predicament of those who have experienced more than their share of Adverse Childhood Experiences, or who are the victims of trickle-down, profits-before-people capitalism.
Please refer to my comments under agenda item #2 for more discussion about paths away from current failures and toward future success.
These homes will require maintenance, water, electricity, plumbing. How will that work? What model or example city was used to test that this plan will effectively work? Or did someone say there is vacant land here let’s build these shelters here. This sounds good in theory but what will this look like? Who will be on-site to ensure safety? What happens when these shelters start falling apart? Who will be responsible for maintenance,… safety? Our police department is already overburdened. Why was this site selected? What are the construction markers or flags if this is still being decided on? Why weren’t the Natomas taxpayers/ voters notified? What are these closed door meetings? Why the secrecy? Most of the neighbors I have spoken to had no idea this was being planned? How was this communicated? Where is the impact report!???!!!??
I oppose this idea.
This area has no amenities within walking distance and no public transit to support the proposed community dwellers.
If it goes through, visitor parking should be limited to 2 hours and the overall appearance of the housing development needs to abide by rules similar to that of an HOA so that the existing housing surrounding it does not lose value due to this new homeless development.
Furthermore, what will be done to prevent excess people gathering and making noise and participating in illicit activity? Sure, on paper this may be 55+, but how will this be enforced when the seniors have the next two or three generations of their family living with them, sucking up resources that taxpayers are subsidizing?
Will residents forfeit their lease and be evicted for violating laws, noise ordinances, cleanliness standards, etc? Our tax dollars would be subsidizing this, so it would only fair be to limit this opportunity to those that are respectful, responsible members of the community - not entitled abusers of the system.
The site at Arena and El Centro does not have the accessible services that will be needed by this population and it will isolate them from the services as there is no public transportation on this side of Natomas. There is no accessible health care or store other than Bel Air. This will not benefit these folks. They need to be in an area with services and access to transportation as well as medical care
Please do not go to Sun Spa, located at 6804 Fruitridge Rd #A
Sacramento, CA, 95820, as well as q spa, located at 4215 Norwood avenue, suite #12, sacramento, ca, 95838, They will all claim that they are too busy for you.