16. Early Budget Work Session - Budget Context and City Department Reports on Departmental Budgets, Reduction Strategies, and Potential Impacts (City Manager's Office/Office of Innovation and Economic Development, Convention and Cultural Services, Department of Community Response, Fire Department, Police Department) File ID: 2026-00663
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed tiny home community at the corner of Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road. While I understand and support efforts to address homelessness and expand housing options, this particular location and project design raise several serious concerns.
First, the proposed site lacks adequate on-site services for residents. Many individuals who would benefit from supportive housing need access to medical care, behavioral health services, and case management. Without these services available on site—and with very few such services located nearby—this project risks failing to provide the level of support necessary for long-term stability.
Second, the location has limited access to public transportation. Residents without reliable transportation will face significant barriers in accessing jobs, medical care, counseling, and other essential services. A supportive housing site should be located where residents can easily reach these resources.
Another concern is the allowance of up to 40 dogs on what is already a very small property. Concentrating that many animals in such a limited space creates potential safety, sanitation, and liability issues for both residents and the surrounding community.
Additionally, the tiny homes themselves do not include bathrooms, requiring residents—many of whom may be elderly or have mobility challenges—to walk outside to shared restroom facilities. This could mean navigating dark outdoor areas at night, increasing the risk of falls, injury, or other safety concerns.
Finally, there is a broader community impact to consider. When similar projects fail due to insufficient services or poor site selection, residents often remain in nearby areas without adequate support. This location is surrounded by schools and parks, and it is important that any housing project be set up for success so that it benefits both residents and the surrounding neighborhood.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City Council to reconsider this proposal. Please relocate the project to a site that has stronger access to services and transit, and ensure that adequate on-site support and infrastructure are in place before moving forward.
Addressing homelessness is critically important, but these solutions must be thoughtfully planned to truly help residents succeed while maintaining safety and stability for the surrounding community.
I am writing opposed to the city locating a homeless shelter (dubbed micro-community) in North Natomas at Arena and El Centro. The city has proven over and over that it cannot control the spillover impacts of it's homeless shelters. The result of this one will be no different.
The city's authority to place anything one that parcel without re-zoning and PUD amendments simply does not exist. The 2023 ordinance granted the city manager authority to skip some bidding rules, but did NOT grant the manager to ignore established land-use controls nor environmental review. The city knows this, but is trying to push it through as fast as possible, with hopes that it will not be challenged.
After spending a decade volunteering on various boards and committees to help shape North Natomas into a great community, I am disappointed that the city has decided to abandon the North Natomas districts.
This community pays the most taxes into the city, and it's development has funded numerous new city-wide projects and programs. However, North Natomas receives the lowest public safety services per capita, and it's impact is ever increasing.
Crime is increasing, and Police response has slowed. The homeless population may have reduced downtown, but it has increased 10-fold for North Natomas as the population is pushed North to us. We have open-air drug deals occurring in our local shopping centers, litter plaguing our sensitive streams, and we have given up many of our local walking trails due to safety concerns.
My wife and I have a toddler, and we play daily in the parks in Westshore and Sundance Lake. If the city chooses to locate a no-barrier homeless shelter within 500 feet of these parks and schools, it is not wrong to assume these parks and schools will see an increased visit rate from those experiencing addiction. In areas impacted by homeless shelters, used syringes and drug paraphernalia/residue are a legitimate concern. The safety of our children are not a bargaining chip the city should be gambling with.
I strongly oppose this proposed site for this homeless housing project. It puts the community, including the many children who attend school very nearby, at risk.
Subject: Immediate Fiscal Accountability and Shared Sacrifice
Dear Members of the Sacramento City Council,
As a Sacramento resident, I am deeply concerned about the City’s ongoing structural deficits, repeated short-term “fixes,” and lack of meaningful fiscal reform. Balancing budgets through reserves, one-time measures, and fee increases is not sustainable — it simply delays the consequences of poor financial planning.
If cuts are being proposed for city departments and frontline workers, then the Mayor, City Council, City Manager and senior staff must reduce their own current salaries by the exact same percentage. Leadership must share the sacrifice. Furthermore, there should be no salary increases whatsoever while the City operates in a deficit, and the City Charter must be amended to permanently prohibit pay raises for the Mayor and Council during deficit years. Fiscal accountability must be codified — not optional.
It is equally troubling that the City continues to rely heavily on costly outside consultants while maintaining a capable municipal workforce. Overuse of consultants has contributed to contract overruns, weak oversight, and unnecessary spending. Taxpayer dollars should prioritize essential services, infrastructure, and long-term stability — not inflated consulting contracts or speculative financial ventures.
Sacramento deserves disciplined budgeting, transparent multi-year financial planning, strict contract oversight, and leadership willing to hold itself to the same standards imposed on employees and residents.
The current path is unsustainable. Shared sacrifice, charter reform, and structural budget balance must begin now.
Sincerely,
Mikaili Kamau, Meadowview D-8 Resident
Please do not have unhoused people in our home department area. It will drastically decrease our property values that we’ve worked so hard at obtaining. There will be no services for the unhoused in that area. Please please.
Mayor and City Councilmembers.
I’m here today to respectfully express my opposition to the current proposed location for the Natomas microcommunity—not to the goal of supporting our unhoused residents or the concept of tiny homes.
We all agree that finding humane, effective solutions to homelessness is complex. People need stability, services, and pathways to long term housing. I support that fully. But the proposed site, as it stands, does not set residents up for success.
The location lacks access to wrap around services, is situated in a flood zone, has no nearby public transit, and the design would be difficult to navigate for the seniors this project intends to serve. I would also like to submit for the public record a printout of a digital petition from more than 1,200 community members who share these concerns.
Natomas wants to be part of the solution. That’s why our councilmembers, Lisa Kaplan and Karina Talamantes, have identified an alternative parcel in North Natomas that appears far closer to being “move in ready.” When the city is facing 67 million dollars in a budget deficit, that matters. It affects how quickly units can be built, what services can be provided, and ultimately how many people we can help transition off the streets. A site that already meets infrastructure and compliance requirements could reduce costs, shorten timelines, and avoid unnecessary legal or environmental complications.
My request today is simple: Please give full consideration to the alternative site so we can provide a safer, more accessible, and more effective microcommunity for the people who need it most. Or, alternatively, consider whether the funding allocated for this project could help prevent deeper cuts to the programs and services our community relies on—our parks, public safety, roads, and other essential infrastructure.
Thank you for your time, for your commitment to thoughtful and compassionate solutions for our unhoused community, and for ensuring that the City’s limited resources are used as effectively as possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment during this early budget discussion and the review of the Department of Community Response.
I want to speak to three principles that matter to many residents in our community. Safety, responsible budgeting, and compliance with the law.
Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho issued a formal notice to the City in August of 2023 describing the growing public safety crisis connected to unmanaged encampments and the need for enforcement of existing laws and ordinances. The letter states clearly that conditions affecting an entire neighborhood may constitute a public nuisance under California law and that local government has a duty to act once formal notice is given.
This context matters as the City considers budget priorities and program decisions.
Residents are asking that the City apply careful judgment when selecting sites for temporary housing solutions. The community has recently learned of an alternative parcel that appears far closer to being ready for use. If a location exists that can meet safety requirements, reduce infrastructure costs, and move more quickly into operation, it deserves serious evaluation.
This is not about opposition to helping people who need shelter. Most residents support solutions that are safe, lawful, and well planned.
What residents are asking for is thoughtful stewardship of public funds and full compliance with Measure O and existing city code.
We appreciate Council Member Lisa Kaplan bringing forward an alternative location for consideration. A transparent evaluation of all viable options will strengthen public trust and ensure that decisions are made with both compassion and responsibility.
Thank you for your time and for your service to the residents of Sacramento.
Respectfully,
The AMAZING Rick Loek
Advisory Council for Legal and Ethical Oversight (ACE-O)
Sacramento Resident
We are firmly opposed to putting in a homeless shelter near a park, an elementary school and a quiet family neighborhood.
The mayor says homelessness is down 70% downtown but it is up over 100% in Natomas.
It is a classic shell game.
Please do the right and decent thing and stop this unfair, deceptive power move by an unscrupulous politician
Others here have written far more eloquent and thoughtful responses to this proposal than I will be able to do here.
As a member of the Sundance Lake community, I wanted to voice my concerns and opposition to the micro home proposal at Arena and El Centro. I have borrowed some verbiage from another community member here that align with my thoughts. (Their words I am borrowing are the following:)
Council member Lisa Kaplan and Vice Mayor Karina Talamantes have proposed a far more suitable alternative location--one with existing infrastructure, better access to services, lower risks, and cost efficiencies. This alternative would better serve the intended population while respective the valid and legitimate concerns of District 1 residents.
I urge the Sacramento City Council and all relevant departments to:
• Immediately halt progress on the Arena Blvd/ El Centro site.
• Prioritize the alternative location supported by our District representatives and our Vice Mayor.
• Conduct a full, transparent review of flood risks, ordinance compliance, transit access, and safety policies.
• Engage meaningfully with North Natomas residents before any further decisions.
The Arena / El Centro site disregards the inherent dangers and inadequacies, prioritizing political expediency over prudence. I implore the City to prioritize safer, more accessible location that truly supports those in need while preserving the safety of all North Natomas residents. It is not too late to choose a responsible path that truly helps those in need without compromising the safety. Please do the right thing--relocate this project to a viable site now, before more foreseeable and preventable tragedies arise.
Thank you for considering this urgent and vital matter.
I am speaking today to express my strong opposition to the proposed plan to build a homeless shelter in our community.
Our neighborhood is a residential area where many families live and where children walk, bike, and play every day. Introducing a facility of this scale raises serious concerns about safety, supervision, and the overall well-being of the families who live here. Decisions that could significantly alter the environment where children grow up should be made with the highest level of caution and community input.
Beyond safety concerns, the location itself presents clear logistical problems. Our area has limited public transportation options and lacks safe pedestrian infrastructure. There are no adequate sidewalks or transit routes that would allow individuals to access services, employment opportunities, or other resources in a safe and practical way. Placing a shelter in a location without those basic supports does not appear to serve either the residents of the shelter or the surrounding community well.
There are also legitimate concerns about the long-term impact on the character of the neighborhood and the property values of homes that many families have invested their life savings into. Residents deserve transparency and thoughtful planning when decisions of this magnitude are being considered.
I believe homelessness is a serious issue that deserves real solutions, but those solutions must be implemented responsibly, with appropriate infrastructure, services, and meaningful engagement with the communities that will be affected.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reconsider this proposal and explore alternative locations that are better equipped with transportation, services, and appropriate infrastructure.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns.
My opposition to this project is predicated on the imminent failure projections of this (short-term) housing model. But I would also be concerned if our city leadership has become married to this plan without vetting a more permissible location (that doesn't violate Measure O of the City Charter) and more strategic target locations (as opposed to this land and freeway locked site proposal that offers only a sedentary/pedestrian lifestyle to project participants and their belongings).
Existing Research:
Investigations into specific, state-funded initiatives and private development companies reveal significant, high-profile project failures, particularly in California.
California State-Funded Projects: In 2024, it was reported that "none" of the 1,200 tiny homes promised by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2023 for homelessness crises in Sacramento, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego were fully operational or filled, with only 150 even purchased at that time.
Corporate Failures: One specific company, Anchored Tiny Homes, left approximately 450 customers stranded when they shut down in 2024, with more than 60 customers, subcontractors, and franchisees reporting a combined $5.5 million in losses.
Operational Delays: Many projects face long-term closures due to administrative bottlenecks, such as a Sacramento County project that had 100 empty, locked cabins sitting idle for nearly a year due to planning and construction delays.
Individual Project Success Rates: While some, like those in Seattle, report over 50% success in transitioning people to permanent housing, others, such as in Los Angeles, report that 53% of residents ended up back on the streets.
Key Reasons for Closures and Failures of Tiny Home Projects:
Zoning and Regulation: The inability to find legal, compliant land for placement.
High Operational Costs: Costs for some, such as those in San Jose, reached roughly $208,000–$278,000 per unit/bed, with high management costs.
Construction/Permitting Delays: Administrative and supply issues, specifically highlighted in California.
Having lived in the Sundance Lake community for over 25 years, I have seen a concerted effort on the part of planning commissions and city councils to industrialize the North Natomas region for years (with home values hanging in the balance). As a concerned citizen I have attended city planning commission & city council meetings over the years and I would suggest that city leadership focus on managing and maintaining existing blight-ridden projects and problems that plague industrialized zones (ex: Richards Blvd) before you propose yet another non-feasible plan that will (statistically) cantaminate a largely residential sector - knowing from mid-range and long-term predictors that this model will eventually fail.
This project was approved without proper community consultation.”
• “Residential neighborhoods should not be the first option for transitional housing facilities.”
• “The city should prioritize industrial or commercial zones for projects like this.”
• “Residents deserve transparency and meaningful participation in decisions that affect their neighborhood.”
the proposed micro-community at Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road is not the right location.
First, many residents feel this project moved forward without meaningful community engagement. A development of this magnitude should include transparent communication, public input, and careful review. Our community should not learn about major land-use changes after decisions are already being made.
Second, this site sits in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood where families chose to live because of its safety and stability. Major transitional housing projects require surrounding infrastructure, support services, and planning that residential neighborhoods are not designed to provide.
Third, residents are concerned about long-term impacts. Projects described as temporary often become permanent. Once built, it is very difficult for communities to reverse course. The city should provide clear timelines, clear management plans, and guarantees that the surrounding neighborhood will be protected.
Fourth, the issue is not whether we help people experiencing homelessness — the issue is where and how we do it responsibly. Locations closer to existing services, transportation, and commercial areas would allow residents of these micro-communities to access support more effectively while minimizing disruption to established neighborhoods.
North Natomas is a community of families, seniors, and small businesses who have invested their lives and savings into their homes. Residents deserve to have their voices heard when decisions of this scale are made.
I am opposed to the tiny home community planned on the corner of Arena and El Centro. These tiny homes do not have toilets, which are inhumane. The homeless need homes with basic amenities. Toilets are not a luxury. Each home should have a toilet. Tiny homes without a toilet is nothing more than a campground. Please do better Sacramento!
The site location selected for the micro community (Arena) was a horrible choice. It is not adequate for the population you are trying to serve for a myriad of reasons. It is also not fair to the local communities that have already been established around that tiny sliver of land adjacent to a very busy intersection (where someone lost their life not long ago).
This area is not fully developed yet, there are no services for them there and there aren’t even any bus stops. How are they supposed to get anywhere? That space should be a green space and bus stop for the seniors and apartment dwellers that already live in that spot. You aren’t only shoving an ill conceived project that will waste money down this communities throat, you are also wasting that space for what it could have been for this neighborhood.
How do they evacuate in the event of a catastrophic flood? If you don’t think that can happen here you are dead wrong. Mortgages in this area require a flood insurance mandate for a reason. Do better city planner/manager. Build a resilient community, not one that only goes halfway and doesn’t meet the needs of ANYONE involved.
I am writing to respectfully express my strenuous opposition to the planned tiny home housing community at the corner of Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road in North Natomas. As a registered voter and citizen of District 1, I have deep concerns about building this project on that site. I urge the City of Sacramento to relocate the micro-community to the alternative and more suitable location as proposed by Councilmember Lisa Kaplan and Vice Mayor Karina Talamantes.
While I recognize the critical need to address homelessness in our city, the location at Arena & El Centro Road is profoundly unsuitable for such a development due to significant risks and existing challenges that would exacerbate problems for both residents and the broader community and I urge you to reject this site and explore the alternatives that better align with public safety, sustainability, fiscal responsibility, and effective service delivery.
First, North Natomas is one of the most flood-prone regions, situated in a low-lying basin surrounded by rivers and canals. A levee breach would be disastrous, endangering lives and property. Natomas has a long history of severe flooding risks, ranking among the highest in the U.S. for catastrophic potential pursuant to FEMA maps and the mandatory (and costly) flood insurance requirement for properties in this area. Placing vulnerable individuals, including seniors experiencing homelessness, in this high-risk flood zone is irresponsible and would lead to tragedy during extreme weather events, which have become more frequent. Placing a tiny home community in this site ignores basic principles of safety and emergency planning. In the event of flooding evacuation would be challenging, access for emergency services limited, and potential harm to residents severe. The City cannot responsibly proceed without fully addressing these flood risks through engineering mitigations or, preferably, site relocation.
Additionally, the area already is plagued by traffic congestion, particularly around major arterials like Arena Boulevard and intersections with I-5 and I-80. Introducing a new community here would intensify gridlock, increase commute times, and strain infrastructure that is ill equipped for additional volume. This site contributes to urban sprawl in a region that has rapidly expanded without adequate planning for sustainable growth, leading to longer drives, higher emissions, and diminished quality of life. Natomas has developed at such a rapid rate but lacks the necessary amenities.
Concerns about crime are paramount. Reports now indicate that the City will not commit to excluding criminals, including convicted registered sex offenders from these micro-communities, unlike some prior tiny home projects in Sacramento that explicitly barred them and individuals with violent felony convictions. With schools, parks, and family neighborhoods in the surrounding area, any policy that permits high-risk individuals in this setting endangers children, families, and vulnerable seniors alike. The City must prioritize community safety by adopting strict eligibility criteria.
An established senior living community is already located at that site (Stadium Club Estates) and has been there for well over 40 years. Introducing a micro-community here could strain local resources, increase traffic/pedestrian activity in area not designed for it, and negatively affect the safety and quality of life for the current seniors who live there and live on a fixed income. Brookdale Drive is accessed directly off Arena Blvd and serves as a primary entry and exit route for the adjacent senior mobile home community. Placing this micro-community at this intersection would create significant hazards for safe ingress and egress, potentially endangering the vulnerable elderly residents who rely on these roads for daily access, routine mobility and emergency evacuation
Recently it has been reported that each of these micro units will not have running water and the community of 40+ vulnerable seniors will have a shared bathroom. Placing vulnerable individuals in structures akin to backyard storage sheds lacking sufficient bathrooms, running water, and adequate fire safety features is not only inhumane but also creates a serious fire hazard, especially given Sacramento's intense summer heat waves, where temperatures routinely exceed 100F and can reach 108-115F or higher, increasing the risk of an uncontrolled fire. Again, already a long time senior citizen community (Stadium Club Estates) exists at that location, thereby making emergency evacuations even more difficult.
Furthermore, this location is isolated from essential support and medical facilities critical for the target population. The nearest hospitals, such as Sutter Medical Center, Mercy General, and the UC Davis Medical Center are far in proximity, thereby making timely access challenging, especially for vulnerable seniors or those without reliable transportation. This leaves residents far from the downtown services and healthcare hubs that they may urgently need. The services originally intended for this project have significantly reduced, and the only remaining service will be security although the level of security has not been defined. I have worked professionally to aid and advocate for the homeless and disenfranchised individuals and have learned that successful outcomes occur when all resources are identified and work in a comprehensive and cohesive manner. People facing homelessness need case managers or social workers and reliable access to the social services required for meaningful progress and long-term stability instead of isolated housing without these critical components.
Importantly, the land is less than 500 feet from Sundance. If a city ordinance or prior policy requires a minimum of 500-foot buffer from parks for certain interim housing or similar developments (as has been referenced in past Sacramento homeless housing discussions0, this location is non-compliant. The City must demonstrate full adherence to all applicable zoning, land use, and safety laws before advancing this project on that parcel.
The handling of this proposal has raised serious questions about transparency, resident input, and compliance with laws and best practices. Councilmember Lisa Kaplan and Vice Mayor Karina Talamantes have proposed a far more suitable alternative location--one with existing infrastructure, better access to services, lower risks, and cost efficiencies. This alternative would better serve the intended population while respective the valid and legitimate concerns of District 1 residents.
I urge the Sacramento City Council and all relevant departments to:
• Immediately halt progress on the Arena Blvd/ El Centro site.
• Prioritize the alternative location supported by our District representatives and our Vice Mayor.
• Conduct a full, transparent review of flood risks, ordinance compliance, transit access, and safety policies.
• Engage meaningfully with North Natomas residents before any further decisions.
The Arena / El Centro site disregards the inherent dangers and inadequacies, prioritizing political expediency over prudence. I implore the City to prioritize safer, more accessible location that truly supports those in need while preserving the safety of all North Natomas residents. It is not too late to choose a responsible path that truly helps those in need without compromising the safety. Please do the right thing--relocate this project to a viable site now, before more foreseeable and preventable tragedies arise. Thank you for considering this urgent and vital matter.
Respectfully,
Ashley S. Hamidi
North Natomas (District 1)
ashamidi@alumni.ucdavis.edu
Dear Honorable Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty & City Council Members:
On behalf of all of us at the Health Education Council (HEC), we want to thank you for your continued support (financially and through your outstanding Sacramento City Staff) of Sacramento’s Financial Empowerment Center (FEC) of which HEC is one of them.
The FEC’s efforts will importantly and literally empower our HEC constituency, and our new contacts that we outreach to in the community, to learn financial skills such as budgeting and banking and other aspects of financial education. Through learned skills application, our FEC participants will share what they've learned with friends and family and return those dollars wisely back to Sacramento businesses, some of which they may own or own one day, through spending efforts to support, with multiplying effect, the financial and economic well-being of our city and its citizens.
Connection to Mission: For 35 years, the HEC has cultivated health and well-being in the Sacramento Region, Northern California and beyond, for low-income neighborhoods by leveraging the power of collaboration. HEC believes this approach is essential to a community’s overall health strategy by programmatically addressing issues of Health Access, Social Connection, Economic Well-Being/Workforce Development, Community Safety and Wellness Education. This takes community-wide investment—of time, talent, treasure, and trust from community members and leaders like you!
On mission,
Martin Ross, MBA
Deputy Director of External Affairs, Partnerships & Workforce Development at HEC
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed micro-community development near the Sundance Lake neighborhood. While I understand the importance of addressing housing challenges and supporting vulnerable populations in our community, I have serious concerns about placing this type of development in close proximity to an established residential area.
Residents in the Sundance Lake neighborhood value the safety, stability, and quality of life that the area currently provides. Introducing a micro-community in this location raises concerns about increased traffic, strain on local infrastructure, potential impacts on public safety, and the overall character of the neighborhood. Many families live here specifically because it is a quiet and safe environment for children and seniors.
Additionally, I believe the community deserves greater transparency and meaningful engagement before decisions of this magnitude are made. Local residents should have the opportunity to be fully informed, ask questions, and provide input about developments that may significantly affect their daily lives.
I respectfully urge the city to reconsider the location of this proposed micro-community and explore alternative sites that would better balance the need for housing solutions with the interests and wellbeing of existing neighborhoods. Thoughtful planning and collaboration with residents will lead to more sustainable and widely supported outcomes.
Thank you for your time and consideration of the concerns raised by members of the Sundance Lake community. I hope the city will take these perspectives seriously as it evaluates the future of this proposal.
We are OPPOSING the micro-homes our home values will go down and we do not have the right resources for these families. I also, am worried about the security. This is a very family, affluent area for us and I do not want our homes to be devalued.
Sacramento cannot provide the services these folks need in Natomas. Build this project closer to where they can easily access care, because they won’t have anything available in North Natomas, of all places. This is just a horribly planned idea and is going to hurt local businesses and property values. The city cannot even provide police services to us, this will create even more crime and headaches for us hard working family. Oppose this bad idea!
Reye Lozoya
Autumn W, She/her
at March 10, 2026 at 10:38am PDT
Please please please, crime is falling with our "skeleton staff of police", it has been for decades. If we fund things like the quick build program and homeless services that have real tangible effects on safety that will free up the police to focus on the "dangerous situations" that members of the public are afraid of. I just get so frustrated with the city, politicians and leaders in general when they care more about appeasing the demands of loud, ignorant, or malicious residence instead of actually trying to solve their problems. When a person says we need to clean up the streets from homeless people using the police they mean one of two things. I don't want to see homeless people or I like when people suffer. Only one of those is ethically solvable and statistically the police are terrible at it. So unless the problem you are trying to solve is not enough suffering in Sacramento just do the things that statistically actually solve the real problems and stop trying to appease the ignorant or malicious demands of the the worst among us.
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed tiny home community at the corner of Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road. While I understand and support efforts to address homelessness and expand housing options, this particular location and project design raise several serious concerns.
First, the proposed site lacks adequate on-site services for residents. Many individuals who would benefit from supportive housing need access to medical care, behavioral health services, and case management. Without these services available on site—and with very few such services located nearby—this project risks failing to provide the level of support necessary for long-term stability.
Second, the location has limited access to public transportation. Residents without reliable transportation will face significant barriers in accessing jobs, medical care, counseling, and other essential services. A supportive housing site should be located where residents can easily reach these resources.
Another concern is the allowance of up to 40 dogs on what is already a very small property. Concentrating that many animals in such a limited space creates potential safety, sanitation, and liability issues for both residents and the surrounding community.
Additionally, the tiny homes themselves do not include bathrooms, requiring residents—many of whom may be elderly or have mobility challenges—to walk outside to shared restroom facilities. This could mean navigating dark outdoor areas at night, increasing the risk of falls, injury, or other safety concerns.
Finally, there is a broader community impact to consider. When similar projects fail due to insufficient services or poor site selection, residents often remain in nearby areas without adequate support. This location is surrounded by schools and parks, and it is important that any housing project be set up for success so that it benefits both residents and the surrounding neighborhood.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City Council to reconsider this proposal. Please relocate the project to a site that has stronger access to services and transit, and ensure that adequate on-site support and infrastructure are in place before moving forward.
Addressing homelessness is critically important, but these solutions must be thoughtfully planned to truly help residents succeed while maintaining safety and stability for the surrounding community.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jaron West (Resident of Westshore Neighborhood)
I am writing opposed to the city locating a homeless shelter (dubbed micro-community) in North Natomas at Arena and El Centro. The city has proven over and over that it cannot control the spillover impacts of it's homeless shelters. The result of this one will be no different.
The city's authority to place anything one that parcel without re-zoning and PUD amendments simply does not exist. The 2023 ordinance granted the city manager authority to skip some bidding rules, but did NOT grant the manager to ignore established land-use controls nor environmental review. The city knows this, but is trying to push it through as fast as possible, with hopes that it will not be challenged.
After spending a decade volunteering on various boards and committees to help shape North Natomas into a great community, I am disappointed that the city has decided to abandon the North Natomas districts.
This community pays the most taxes into the city, and it's development has funded numerous new city-wide projects and programs. However, North Natomas receives the lowest public safety services per capita, and it's impact is ever increasing.
Crime is increasing, and Police response has slowed. The homeless population may have reduced downtown, but it has increased 10-fold for North Natomas as the population is pushed North to us. We have open-air drug deals occurring in our local shopping centers, litter plaguing our sensitive streams, and we have given up many of our local walking trails due to safety concerns.
My wife and I have a toddler, and we play daily in the parks in Westshore and Sundance Lake. If the city chooses to locate a no-barrier homeless shelter within 500 feet of these parks and schools, it is not wrong to assume these parks and schools will see an increased visit rate from those experiencing addiction. In areas impacted by homeless shelters, used syringes and drug paraphernalia/residue are a legitimate concern. The safety of our children are not a bargaining chip the city should be gambling with.
I strongly oppose this proposed site for this homeless housing project. It puts the community, including the many children who attend school very nearby, at risk.
Subject: Immediate Fiscal Accountability and Shared Sacrifice
Dear Members of the Sacramento City Council,
As a Sacramento resident, I am deeply concerned about the City’s ongoing structural deficits, repeated short-term “fixes,” and lack of meaningful fiscal reform. Balancing budgets through reserves, one-time measures, and fee increases is not sustainable — it simply delays the consequences of poor financial planning.
If cuts are being proposed for city departments and frontline workers, then the Mayor, City Council, City Manager and senior staff must reduce their own current salaries by the exact same percentage. Leadership must share the sacrifice. Furthermore, there should be no salary increases whatsoever while the City operates in a deficit, and the City Charter must be amended to permanently prohibit pay raises for the Mayor and Council during deficit years. Fiscal accountability must be codified — not optional.
It is equally troubling that the City continues to rely heavily on costly outside consultants while maintaining a capable municipal workforce. Overuse of consultants has contributed to contract overruns, weak oversight, and unnecessary spending. Taxpayer dollars should prioritize essential services, infrastructure, and long-term stability — not inflated consulting contracts or speculative financial ventures.
Sacramento deserves disciplined budgeting, transparent multi-year financial planning, strict contract oversight, and leadership willing to hold itself to the same standards imposed on employees and residents.
The current path is unsustainable. Shared sacrifice, charter reform, and structural budget balance must begin now.
Sincerely,
Mikaili Kamau, Meadowview D-8 Resident
Please do not have unhoused people in our home department area. It will drastically decrease our property values that we’ve worked so hard at obtaining. There will be no services for the unhoused in that area. Please please.
Mayor and City Councilmembers.
I’m here today to respectfully express my opposition to the current proposed location for the Natomas microcommunity—not to the goal of supporting our unhoused residents or the concept of tiny homes.
We all agree that finding humane, effective solutions to homelessness is complex. People need stability, services, and pathways to long term housing. I support that fully. But the proposed site, as it stands, does not set residents up for success.
The location lacks access to wrap around services, is situated in a flood zone, has no nearby public transit, and the design would be difficult to navigate for the seniors this project intends to serve. I would also like to submit for the public record a printout of a digital petition from more than 1,200 community members who share these concerns.
Natomas wants to be part of the solution. That’s why our councilmembers, Lisa Kaplan and Karina Talamantes, have identified an alternative parcel in North Natomas that appears far closer to being “move in ready.” When the city is facing 67 million dollars in a budget deficit, that matters. It affects how quickly units can be built, what services can be provided, and ultimately how many people we can help transition off the streets. A site that already meets infrastructure and compliance requirements could reduce costs, shorten timelines, and avoid unnecessary legal or environmental complications.
My request today is simple: Please give full consideration to the alternative site so we can provide a safer, more accessible, and more effective microcommunity for the people who need it most. Or, alternatively, consider whether the funding allocated for this project could help prevent deeper cuts to the programs and services our community relies on—our parks, public safety, roads, and other essential infrastructure.
Thank you for your time, for your commitment to thoughtful and compassionate solutions for our unhoused community, and for ensuring that the City’s limited resources are used as effectively as possible.
Members of the City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment during this early budget discussion and the review of the Department of Community Response.
I want to speak to three principles that matter to many residents in our community. Safety, responsible budgeting, and compliance with the law.
Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho issued a formal notice to the City in August of 2023 describing the growing public safety crisis connected to unmanaged encampments and the need for enforcement of existing laws and ordinances. The letter states clearly that conditions affecting an entire neighborhood may constitute a public nuisance under California law and that local government has a duty to act once formal notice is given.
This context matters as the City considers budget priorities and program decisions.
Residents are asking that the City apply careful judgment when selecting sites for temporary housing solutions. The community has recently learned of an alternative parcel that appears far closer to being ready for use. If a location exists that can meet safety requirements, reduce infrastructure costs, and move more quickly into operation, it deserves serious evaluation.
This is not about opposition to helping people who need shelter. Most residents support solutions that are safe, lawful, and well planned.
What residents are asking for is thoughtful stewardship of public funds and full compliance with Measure O and existing city code.
We appreciate Council Member Lisa Kaplan bringing forward an alternative location for consideration. A transparent evaluation of all viable options will strengthen public trust and ensure that decisions are made with both compassion and responsibility.
Thank you for your time and for your service to the residents of Sacramento.
Respectfully,
The AMAZING Rick Loek
Advisory Council for Legal and Ethical Oversight (ACE-O)
Sacramento Resident
We are firmly opposed to putting in a homeless shelter near a park, an elementary school and a quiet family neighborhood.
The mayor says homelessness is down 70% downtown but it is up over 100% in Natomas.
It is a classic shell game.
Please do the right and decent thing and stop this unfair, deceptive power move by an unscrupulous politician
Others here have written far more eloquent and thoughtful responses to this proposal than I will be able to do here.
As a member of the Sundance Lake community, I wanted to voice my concerns and opposition to the micro home proposal at Arena and El Centro. I have borrowed some verbiage from another community member here that align with my thoughts. (Their words I am borrowing are the following:)
Council member Lisa Kaplan and Vice Mayor Karina Talamantes have proposed a far more suitable alternative location--one with existing infrastructure, better access to services, lower risks, and cost efficiencies. This alternative would better serve the intended population while respective the valid and legitimate concerns of District 1 residents.
I urge the Sacramento City Council and all relevant departments to:
• Immediately halt progress on the Arena Blvd/ El Centro site.
• Prioritize the alternative location supported by our District representatives and our Vice Mayor.
• Conduct a full, transparent review of flood risks, ordinance compliance, transit access, and safety policies.
• Engage meaningfully with North Natomas residents before any further decisions.
The Arena / El Centro site disregards the inherent dangers and inadequacies, prioritizing political expediency over prudence. I implore the City to prioritize safer, more accessible location that truly supports those in need while preserving the safety of all North Natomas residents. It is not too late to choose a responsible path that truly helps those in need without compromising the safety. Please do the right thing--relocate this project to a viable site now, before more foreseeable and preventable tragedies arise.
Thank you for considering this urgent and vital matter.
I am speaking today to express my strong opposition to the proposed plan to build a homeless shelter in our community.
Our neighborhood is a residential area where many families live and where children walk, bike, and play every day. Introducing a facility of this scale raises serious concerns about safety, supervision, and the overall well-being of the families who live here. Decisions that could significantly alter the environment where children grow up should be made with the highest level of caution and community input.
Beyond safety concerns, the location itself presents clear logistical problems. Our area has limited public transportation options and lacks safe pedestrian infrastructure. There are no adequate sidewalks or transit routes that would allow individuals to access services, employment opportunities, or other resources in a safe and practical way. Placing a shelter in a location without those basic supports does not appear to serve either the residents of the shelter or the surrounding community well.
There are also legitimate concerns about the long-term impact on the character of the neighborhood and the property values of homes that many families have invested their life savings into. Residents deserve transparency and thoughtful planning when decisions of this magnitude are being considered.
I believe homelessness is a serious issue that deserves real solutions, but those solutions must be implemented responsibly, with appropriate infrastructure, services, and meaningful engagement with the communities that will be affected.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reconsider this proposal and explore alternative locations that are better equipped with transportation, services, and appropriate infrastructure.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns.
Hello,
My opposition to this project is predicated on the imminent failure projections of this (short-term) housing model. But I would also be concerned if our city leadership has become married to this plan without vetting a more permissible location (that doesn't violate Measure O of the City Charter) and more strategic target locations (as opposed to this land and freeway locked site proposal that offers only a sedentary/pedestrian lifestyle to project participants and their belongings).
Existing Research:
Investigations into specific, state-funded initiatives and private development companies reveal significant, high-profile project failures, particularly in California.
California State-Funded Projects: In 2024, it was reported that "none" of the 1,200 tiny homes promised by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2023 for homelessness crises in Sacramento, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego were fully operational or filled, with only 150 even purchased at that time.
Corporate Failures: One specific company, Anchored Tiny Homes, left approximately 450 customers stranded when they shut down in 2024, with more than 60 customers, subcontractors, and franchisees reporting a combined $5.5 million in losses.
Operational Delays: Many projects face long-term closures due to administrative bottlenecks, such as a Sacramento County project that had 100 empty, locked cabins sitting idle for nearly a year due to planning and construction delays.
Individual Project Success Rates: While some, like those in Seattle, report over 50% success in transitioning people to permanent housing, others, such as in Los Angeles, report that 53% of residents ended up back on the streets.
Key Reasons for Closures and Failures of Tiny Home Projects:
Zoning and Regulation: The inability to find legal, compliant land for placement.
High Operational Costs: Costs for some, such as those in San Jose, reached roughly $208,000–$278,000 per unit/bed, with high management costs.
Construction/Permitting Delays: Administrative and supply issues, specifically highlighted in California.
Having lived in the Sundance Lake community for over 25 years, I have seen a concerted effort on the part of planning commissions and city councils to industrialize the North Natomas region for years (with home values hanging in the balance). As a concerned citizen I have attended city planning commission & city council meetings over the years and I would suggest that city leadership focus on managing and maintaining existing blight-ridden projects and problems that plague industrialized zones (ex: Richards Blvd) before you propose yet another non-feasible plan that will (statistically) cantaminate a largely residential sector - knowing from mid-range and long-term predictors that this model will eventually fail.
Sources:
1.https://www.capradio.org/articles/2023/03/02/tiny-home-village-sits-empty-as-delays-costs-mount-for-sacramento-homelessness-project/
2.https://abc7news.com/post/anchored-tiny-homes-shuts-down-colton-paulhaus-fair-oaks-sacramento-i-
team/15183498/#:~:text=The%20Contractors%20State%20License%20Board,stranded%20when%20they%20shut%20down.
3.https://www.hoover.org/research/sheltering-californias-homeless-insanely-expensive-it-doesnt-have-be#:~:text=Economics-,In%20March%202023%2C%20Gavin%20Newsom%20announced%20that%20the%20state%20would,the%20units%20was%20not%20returned.)
4.https://lapublicpress.org/2025/03/los-angeles-tiny-homes-problems-investigation-homelessness/#:~:text=Key%20Findings,rates%20at%20or%20near%2070%25.
5.https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/05/tiny-homes-not-filled/#:~:text=The%20move%20was%20part%20of,of%20the%20Utah%2Dbased%20company.
6.https://www.vox.com/a/new-economy-future/tiny-houses#:~:text=The%20growth%20of%20tiny%20houses,necessarily%20render%20tiny%20houses%20viable.
7.https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Redevelopment-Wrecks.pdf#:~:text=This%20report%20details%2020%20prominent%20examples%20of,development%20projects%2C%20the%20promised%20projects%20never%20materialize.
This project was approved without proper community consultation.”
• “Residential neighborhoods should not be the first option for transitional housing facilities.”
• “The city should prioritize industrial or commercial zones for projects like this.”
• “Residents deserve transparency and meaningful participation in decisions that affect their neighborhood.”
the proposed micro-community at Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road is not the right location.
First, many residents feel this project moved forward without meaningful community engagement. A development of this magnitude should include transparent communication, public input, and careful review. Our community should not learn about major land-use changes after decisions are already being made.
Second, this site sits in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood where families chose to live because of its safety and stability. Major transitional housing projects require surrounding infrastructure, support services, and planning that residential neighborhoods are not designed to provide.
Third, residents are concerned about long-term impacts. Projects described as temporary often become permanent. Once built, it is very difficult for communities to reverse course. The city should provide clear timelines, clear management plans, and guarantees that the surrounding neighborhood will be protected.
Fourth, the issue is not whether we help people experiencing homelessness — the issue is where and how we do it responsibly. Locations closer to existing services, transportation, and commercial areas would allow residents of these micro-communities to access support more effectively while minimizing disruption to established neighborhoods.
North Natomas is a community of families, seniors, and small businesses who have invested their lives and savings into their homes. Residents deserve to have their voices heard when decisions of this scale are made.
I am opposed to the tiny home community planned on the corner of Arena and El Centro. These tiny homes do not have toilets, which are inhumane. The homeless need homes with basic amenities. Toilets are not a luxury. Each home should have a toilet. Tiny homes without a toilet is nothing more than a campground. Please do better Sacramento!
The site location selected for the micro community (Arena) was a horrible choice. It is not adequate for the population you are trying to serve for a myriad of reasons. It is also not fair to the local communities that have already been established around that tiny sliver of land adjacent to a very busy intersection (where someone lost their life not long ago).
This area is not fully developed yet, there are no services for them there and there aren’t even any bus stops. How are they supposed to get anywhere? That space should be a green space and bus stop for the seniors and apartment dwellers that already live in that spot. You aren’t only shoving an ill conceived project that will waste money down this communities throat, you are also wasting that space for what it could have been for this neighborhood.
How do they evacuate in the event of a catastrophic flood? If you don’t think that can happen here you are dead wrong. Mortgages in this area require a flood insurance mandate for a reason. Do better city planner/manager. Build a resilient community, not one that only goes halfway and doesn’t meet the needs of ANYONE involved.
I am writing to respectfully express my strenuous opposition to the planned tiny home housing community at the corner of Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road in North Natomas. As a registered voter and citizen of District 1, I have deep concerns about building this project on that site. I urge the City of Sacramento to relocate the micro-community to the alternative and more suitable location as proposed by Councilmember Lisa Kaplan and Vice Mayor Karina Talamantes.
While I recognize the critical need to address homelessness in our city, the location at Arena & El Centro Road is profoundly unsuitable for such a development due to significant risks and existing challenges that would exacerbate problems for both residents and the broader community and I urge you to reject this site and explore the alternatives that better align with public safety, sustainability, fiscal responsibility, and effective service delivery.
First, North Natomas is one of the most flood-prone regions, situated in a low-lying basin surrounded by rivers and canals. A levee breach would be disastrous, endangering lives and property. Natomas has a long history of severe flooding risks, ranking among the highest in the U.S. for catastrophic potential pursuant to FEMA maps and the mandatory (and costly) flood insurance requirement for properties in this area. Placing vulnerable individuals, including seniors experiencing homelessness, in this high-risk flood zone is irresponsible and would lead to tragedy during extreme weather events, which have become more frequent. Placing a tiny home community in this site ignores basic principles of safety and emergency planning. In the event of flooding evacuation would be challenging, access for emergency services limited, and potential harm to residents severe. The City cannot responsibly proceed without fully addressing these flood risks through engineering mitigations or, preferably, site relocation.
Additionally, the area already is plagued by traffic congestion, particularly around major arterials like Arena Boulevard and intersections with I-5 and I-80. Introducing a new community here would intensify gridlock, increase commute times, and strain infrastructure that is ill equipped for additional volume. This site contributes to urban sprawl in a region that has rapidly expanded without adequate planning for sustainable growth, leading to longer drives, higher emissions, and diminished quality of life. Natomas has developed at such a rapid rate but lacks the necessary amenities.
Concerns about crime are paramount. Reports now indicate that the City will not commit to excluding criminals, including convicted registered sex offenders from these micro-communities, unlike some prior tiny home projects in Sacramento that explicitly barred them and individuals with violent felony convictions. With schools, parks, and family neighborhoods in the surrounding area, any policy that permits high-risk individuals in this setting endangers children, families, and vulnerable seniors alike. The City must prioritize community safety by adopting strict eligibility criteria.
An established senior living community is already located at that site (Stadium Club Estates) and has been there for well over 40 years. Introducing a micro-community here could strain local resources, increase traffic/pedestrian activity in area not designed for it, and negatively affect the safety and quality of life for the current seniors who live there and live on a fixed income. Brookdale Drive is accessed directly off Arena Blvd and serves as a primary entry and exit route for the adjacent senior mobile home community. Placing this micro-community at this intersection would create significant hazards for safe ingress and egress, potentially endangering the vulnerable elderly residents who rely on these roads for daily access, routine mobility and emergency evacuation
Recently it has been reported that each of these micro units will not have running water and the community of 40+ vulnerable seniors will have a shared bathroom. Placing vulnerable individuals in structures akin to backyard storage sheds lacking sufficient bathrooms, running water, and adequate fire safety features is not only inhumane but also creates a serious fire hazard, especially given Sacramento's intense summer heat waves, where temperatures routinely exceed 100F and can reach 108-115F or higher, increasing the risk of an uncontrolled fire. Again, already a long time senior citizen community (Stadium Club Estates) exists at that location, thereby making emergency evacuations even more difficult.
Furthermore, this location is isolated from essential support and medical facilities critical for the target population. The nearest hospitals, such as Sutter Medical Center, Mercy General, and the UC Davis Medical Center are far in proximity, thereby making timely access challenging, especially for vulnerable seniors or those without reliable transportation. This leaves residents far from the downtown services and healthcare hubs that they may urgently need. The services originally intended for this project have significantly reduced, and the only remaining service will be security although the level of security has not been defined. I have worked professionally to aid and advocate for the homeless and disenfranchised individuals and have learned that successful outcomes occur when all resources are identified and work in a comprehensive and cohesive manner. People facing homelessness need case managers or social workers and reliable access to the social services required for meaningful progress and long-term stability instead of isolated housing without these critical components.
Importantly, the land is less than 500 feet from Sundance. If a city ordinance or prior policy requires a minimum of 500-foot buffer from parks for certain interim housing or similar developments (as has been referenced in past Sacramento homeless housing discussions0, this location is non-compliant. The City must demonstrate full adherence to all applicable zoning, land use, and safety laws before advancing this project on that parcel.
The handling of this proposal has raised serious questions about transparency, resident input, and compliance with laws and best practices. Councilmember Lisa Kaplan and Vice Mayor Karina Talamantes have proposed a far more suitable alternative location--one with existing infrastructure, better access to services, lower risks, and cost efficiencies. This alternative would better serve the intended population while respective the valid and legitimate concerns of District 1 residents.
I urge the Sacramento City Council and all relevant departments to:
• Immediately halt progress on the Arena Blvd/ El Centro site.
• Prioritize the alternative location supported by our District representatives and our Vice Mayor.
• Conduct a full, transparent review of flood risks, ordinance compliance, transit access, and safety policies.
• Engage meaningfully with North Natomas residents before any further decisions.
The Arena / El Centro site disregards the inherent dangers and inadequacies, prioritizing political expediency over prudence. I implore the City to prioritize safer, more accessible location that truly supports those in need while preserving the safety of all North Natomas residents. It is not too late to choose a responsible path that truly helps those in need without compromising the safety. Please do the right thing--relocate this project to a viable site now, before more foreseeable and preventable tragedies arise. Thank you for considering this urgent and vital matter.
Respectfully,
Ashley S. Hamidi
North Natomas (District 1)
ashamidi@alumni.ucdavis.edu
Dear Honorable Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty & City Council Members:
On behalf of all of us at the Health Education Council (HEC), we want to thank you for your continued support (financially and through your outstanding Sacramento City Staff) of Sacramento’s Financial Empowerment Center (FEC) of which HEC is one of them.
The FEC’s efforts will importantly and literally empower our HEC constituency, and our new contacts that we outreach to in the community, to learn financial skills such as budgeting and banking and other aspects of financial education. Through learned skills application, our FEC participants will share what they've learned with friends and family and return those dollars wisely back to Sacramento businesses, some of which they may own or own one day, through spending efforts to support, with multiplying effect, the financial and economic well-being of our city and its citizens.
Connection to Mission: For 35 years, the HEC has cultivated health and well-being in the Sacramento Region, Northern California and beyond, for low-income neighborhoods by leveraging the power of collaboration. HEC believes this approach is essential to a community’s overall health strategy by programmatically addressing issues of Health Access, Social Connection, Economic Well-Being/Workforce Development, Community Safety and Wellness Education. This takes community-wide investment—of time, talent, treasure, and trust from community members and leaders like you!
On mission,
Martin Ross, MBA
Deputy Director of External Affairs, Partnerships & Workforce Development at HEC
Dear Mayor,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed micro-community development near the Sundance Lake neighborhood. While I understand the importance of addressing housing challenges and supporting vulnerable populations in our community, I have serious concerns about placing this type of development in close proximity to an established residential area.
Residents in the Sundance Lake neighborhood value the safety, stability, and quality of life that the area currently provides. Introducing a micro-community in this location raises concerns about increased traffic, strain on local infrastructure, potential impacts on public safety, and the overall character of the neighborhood. Many families live here specifically because it is a quiet and safe environment for children and seniors.
Additionally, I believe the community deserves greater transparency and meaningful engagement before decisions of this magnitude are made. Local residents should have the opportunity to be fully informed, ask questions, and provide input about developments that may significantly affect their daily lives.
I respectfully urge the city to reconsider the location of this proposed micro-community and explore alternative sites that would better balance the need for housing solutions with the interests and wellbeing of existing neighborhoods. Thoughtful planning and collaboration with residents will lead to more sustainable and widely supported outcomes.
Thank you for your time and consideration of the concerns raised by members of the Sundance Lake community. I hope the city will take these perspectives seriously as it evaluates the future of this proposal.
Sincerely,
Mann family
We are OPPOSING the micro-homes our home values will go down and we do not have the right resources for these families. I also, am worried about the security. This is a very family, affluent area for us and I do not want our homes to be devalued.
Sacramento cannot provide the services these folks need in Natomas. Build this project closer to where they can easily access care, because they won’t have anything available in North Natomas, of all places. This is just a horribly planned idea and is going to hurt local businesses and property values. The city cannot even provide police services to us, this will create even more crime and headaches for us hard working family. Oppose this bad idea!
Reye Lozoya
Please please please, crime is falling with our "skeleton staff of police", it has been for decades. If we fund things like the quick build program and homeless services that have real tangible effects on safety that will free up the police to focus on the "dangerous situations" that members of the public are afraid of. I just get so frustrated with the city, politicians and leaders in general when they care more about appeasing the demands of loud, ignorant, or malicious residence instead of actually trying to solve their problems. When a person says we need to clean up the streets from homeless people using the police they mean one of two things. I don't want to see homeless people or I like when people suffer. Only one of those is ethically solvable and statistically the police are terrible at it. So unless the problem you are trying to solve is not enough suffering in Sacramento just do the things that statistically actually solve the real problems and stop trying to appease the ignorant or malicious demands of the the worst among us.