Sacramento leaders are quick to approve millions of dollars for shelters, navigation centers, consultants, amendments, emergency contracts, and continued operations. But where is the same urgency when it comes to direct oversight?
How many of you regularly visit these sites unannounced?
How many of you personally inspect living conditions, cleanliness, safety standards, staffing levels, maintenance problems, or whether clients are actually receiving quality care?
Too much of this city’s oversight appears to happen from behind desks, through PowerPoints, contractor reports, and carefully managed presentations. That is not accountability. That is bureaucracy pretending to be leadership.
The public deserves answers:
Are shelters safe, sanitary, and well maintained?
Are vulnerable residents being treated with dignity?
Are repairs completed properly, or are taxpayers paying twice to fix the same problems later?
Are contractors meeting performance standards, or just cashing checks?
You vote on funding increases and contract extensions, but many residents see little evidence of serious hands-on monitoring from elected leadership.
If a facility is important enough to fund, it is important enough to inspect.
If a contract is important enough to approve, it is important enough to audit.
If people are important enough to house, they are important enough to protect.
I specifically urge stronger oversight of the Meadowview Women’s Navigation Center and every shelter citywide. Do not just rely on staff summaries. Show up yourselves. Walk the property. Talk to workers. Talk to clients. Look at the bathrooms, kitchens, sleeping areas, plumbing, repairs, security, and sanitation with your own eyes.
Leadership is not cutting ribbons or approving agendas. Leadership is showing up when nobody wants cameras there.
Stop governing by paperwork. Start governing by presence, scrutiny, and accountability.
Real leadership means taking responsibility and taking action on difficult issues—not avoiding them, delaying them, or pretending they will solve themselves. Homelessness, shelter oversight, public safety, neighborhood impacts, and accountability are not easy matters, but that is exactly why leadership is required. GO DO YOUR JOBS!!!!
I live in District 2. We have recently been advised that there are plans to build a crematorium in our neighborhood (permits #28330 & #28334). This is very concerning for a number of reasons I will address in this letter. We have held a "community meeting" with the air resource district and our city council member, Roger Dickinson. At this meeting, we were told that there was nothing that we could do to stop this crematorium because it did not violate any code. I ask how is this allowed in a neighborhood, and even worse, less than 500ft from Babcock Elementary.
My main concerns are as follows:
There was no information given to neighbors and people who will have to deal with this for the rest of their lives. The only way we found out is that a parent at the school posted in NextDoor that they had been given a document telling them this was going to happen less than 500 ft from the school (you can see the crematorium from some of the classrooms). My home is directly next to Babcock and we were not informed.
We were told that we would have to live with this and there was nothing that could be done because of zoning. Roger Dickenson recognized that the zoning for our neighborhood, Swanston Estates, does not represent our community. While we do have a handful of auto shops- mostly small community owned shops, and a few car dealerships, we learned that this zoning would allow for a crematorium to be built in our area without so much as a second thought to the thousands of people who live in this neighborhood. We need to do better. City hall needs to adjust what can be considered light industrial and make these types of businesses operate where people do not live, or children learn.
This has become an issue of rich vs poor and the city is the only one who can stop this. 93% of district 2 residents live below the poverty line. Within 1000ft of this crematorium, there are at least 6 low income housing apartment complexes that cater to Babcock elementary. The residents here do not deserve to have their health taken into the hands of rich real estate investors who target our neighborhood because the land is cheap. And for the homeowners like myself, we are looking at a drastic drop in our property value on top of the mounting health risks. I am a person who suffers from low immunity and would suffer immensely from the crematorium pollution. I am not rich, and not able to leave the neighborhood and take a loss on the home that my partner and I have worked our whole lives to buy.
When speaking with the people who are building the crematorium- we found out that this will also host large (150 people) gatherings. Our roads cannot handle this increase in traffic. Just trying to pick up kids from school shows that the road cannot handle any more traffic.
When the Chevron gas station was put in- directly behind the crematorium- it took months of research by the city to make sure that it was environmentally safe and that our neighborhood could handle the uptick in traffic. This has not been done for this project which will bring many more people and risk to the neighborhood.
There are already 4 other crematoriums within a mile of this location. We are already dealing with these health hazards and to have the air board some in and tell us that the risk is minimal while not taking into account the other crematoriums is laughable. We are being told to calm down while not being allowed to have a say on the future of our neighborhood. There needs to be a limit to the number of these large emitting type facilities that are allowed to be within a certain distance of each other.
We are asking that you stop the issuance of the permit to operate for the San Sangar cremation facility on Albatross and update the zoning and zoning rules so this cannot happen in any other neighborhood. If this was happening in East Sacramento or Landpark, this project would not have been pushed through as easily. We ask that you consider us, the people who don't have money to throw at this to stop it, and need our elected officials to act for us with swift and decisive action.
WHY Are We Rolling Back Protections for Children, Families, and Vulnerable Populations around marijuana dispensaries in marijuana consumption lounges?
Dear Sacramento,
I want to ask a very simple question:
Why?
Why are we here?
Why are we even having this conversation?
Why are we considering rolling back protections that have been in place for over a decade—protections that were intentionally designed to safeguard children, families, and vulnerable populations?
And most importantly—
Why are we now considering allowing marijuana dispensaries and on-site consumption smoke lounges to locate directly next to the very places we have always agreed should be protected?
For years, the City of Sacramento established clear, common-sense boundaries—sensitive-use buffers—to ensure that marijuana-related businesses were kept at a safe and appropriate distance from environments where children gather, families live, and vulnerable individuals seek care and stability.
These were not arbitrary rules.
They were not accidental.
They were deliberate safeguards.
So I ask again—
Why are we undoing them?
Why are we talking about allowing these uses next to:
* Churches and places of worship, where children attend services, youth groups, and community programs
* Parks and recreational areas, where families gather and children play
* After-school programs and youth-serving facilities, where kids go every single day for development, mentorship, and safety
* Residential neighborhoods, where families are raising children and building their lives
* Drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers, where individuals are actively fighting addiction and trying to rebuild their lives
* Childcare centers and school-adjacent environments, specifically designed to protect early childhood development
Why are we even opening the door to place marijuana storefronts—and more importantly, active smoking lounges—directly next to these environments?
Because this is not theoretical.
This is not abstract policy language.
This is real-world proximity.
Children will see it.
They will walk past it.
They will be next to it.
And in the case of smoke lounges—
they will be next to environments where marijuana is actively being consumed.
So again—
Why?
Why are we normalizing exposure at younger and younger ages?
Why are we increasing the risk of impaired driving in areas where families and children are present?
Why are we placing individuals in recovery directly next to environments where marijuana is actively used—knowing full well the risk of relapse that creates?
Why are we allowing the clustering of high-cash, high-target businesses into residential and youth-centered areas—when we already acknowledge the risks by requiring armed security guards at dispensaries?
Let that sink in.
The City itself recognizes the risks associated with these businesses to such a degree that it mandates armed security.
So if those risks are real—and they are—
Why would we move these uses closer to children, not farther away?
Why would we reduce distance instead of increasing it?
Why would we weaken protections instead of strengthening them?
And why are we replacing clear, enforceable buffers with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)—when we already know a CUP does not guarantee protection?
A CUP is not a safeguard.
A CUP is a process.
It allows a project to be reviewed—but it does not prevent incompatible uses from being approved.
We have already seen this fail.
We have seen projects approved in direct proximity to sensitive uses despite community opposition.
We have seen decisions made that prioritize development over compatibility.
So again—
Why are we going backwards?
These protections have worked for over a decade.
They created:
* Consistency
* Predictability
* Distance
* A baseline level of safety across every neighborhood in Sacramento
They ensured that no matter where you lived, your children, your home, your church, your park, or your recovery center had a basic level of protection.
And now—
we are not talking about improving those protections.
We are not talking about refining them.
We are talking about removing them.
Why?
Why now?
What has changed so significantly that justifies this shift?
Because from a public health and safety standpoint, the concerns are not decreasing—they are increasing.
We know:
* Impaired driving remains a serious and ongoing risk
* Youth exposure to marijuana increases the likelihood of early use
* Individuals in recovery are vulnerable to environmental triggers
* High-cash businesses can attract crime and create spillover impacts
These are not opinions.
These are widely understood realities.
So again—
Why are we moving in the opposite direction?
Why are we introducing greater proximity, greater exposure, and greater risk into environments that were intentionally protected?
And perhaps the most important question—
Who benefits from this?
Because it is not children.
It is not families.
It is not individuals in recovery.
It is certainly not the communities who have relied on these protections for years.
This is not just a policy discussion.
This is a decision about values.
A decision about priorities.
A decision about what kind of city—and what kind of region—we want to be.
Do we continue to protect children, families, and vulnerable populations?
Or do we accept placing them directly next to environments involving smoking, impairment, and exposure?
Do we maintain common-sense safeguards that have worked?
Or do we dismantle them and hope that a discretionary process will somehow replace what has been a clear and enforceable standard?
Because once these protections are gone—
they are gone.
And the impacts will not be theoretical.
They will be visible in our neighborhoods.
They will be felt by families.
They will be experienced by those in recovery.
And they will be difficult—if not impossible—to reverse.
So I ask you again—
Why are we doing this?
And more importantly—
Is this a decision you can clearly explain and justify to the families, the parents, the faith communities, and the individuals in recovery who rely on these protections every single day?
Because if the answer is not clear—
if the reasoning cannot be confidently explained—
then that should be a signal.
A signal to pause.
A signal to reconsider.
A signal to protect what has already been working.
I urge you—strongly and respectfully—
Maintain all existing sensitive-use buffers.
Do not weaken them.
Do not replace them with discretionary processes that do not guarantee protection.
Stand with the communities that rely on these safeguards.
Because if we cannot clearly answer “why,”
then we should not be making this change.
Sacramento leaders are quick to approve millions of dollars for shelters, navigation centers, consultants, amendments, emergency contracts, and continued operations. But where is the same urgency when it comes to direct oversight?
How many of you regularly visit these sites unannounced?
How many of you personally inspect living conditions, cleanliness, safety standards, staffing levels, maintenance problems, or whether clients are actually receiving quality care?
Too much of this city’s oversight appears to happen from behind desks, through PowerPoints, contractor reports, and carefully managed presentations. That is not accountability. That is bureaucracy pretending to be leadership.
The public deserves answers:
Are shelters safe, sanitary, and well maintained?
Are vulnerable residents being treated with dignity?
Are repairs completed properly, or are taxpayers paying twice to fix the same problems later?
Are contractors meeting performance standards, or just cashing checks?
You vote on funding increases and contract extensions, but many residents see little evidence of serious hands-on monitoring from elected leadership.
If a facility is important enough to fund, it is important enough to inspect.
If a contract is important enough to approve, it is important enough to audit.
If people are important enough to house, they are important enough to protect.
I specifically urge stronger oversight of the Meadowview Women’s Navigation Center and every shelter citywide. Do not just rely on staff summaries. Show up yourselves. Walk the property. Talk to workers. Talk to clients. Look at the bathrooms, kitchens, sleeping areas, plumbing, repairs, security, and sanitation with your own eyes.
Leadership is not cutting ribbons or approving agendas. Leadership is showing up when nobody wants cameras there.
Stop governing by paperwork. Start governing by presence, scrutiny, and accountability.
Real leadership means taking responsibility and taking action on difficult issues—not avoiding them, delaying them, or pretending they will solve themselves. Homelessness, shelter oversight, public safety, neighborhood impacts, and accountability are not easy matters, but that is exactly why leadership is required. GO DO YOUR JOBS!!!!
I live in District 2. We have recently been advised that there are plans to build a crematorium in our neighborhood (permits #28330 & #28334). This is very concerning for a number of reasons I will address in this letter. We have held a "community meeting" with the air resource district and our city council member, Roger Dickinson. At this meeting, we were told that there was nothing that we could do to stop this crematorium because it did not violate any code. I ask how is this allowed in a neighborhood, and even worse, less than 500ft from Babcock Elementary.
My main concerns are as follows:
There was no information given to neighbors and people who will have to deal with this for the rest of their lives. The only way we found out is that a parent at the school posted in NextDoor that they had been given a document telling them this was going to happen less than 500 ft from the school (you can see the crematorium from some of the classrooms). My home is directly next to Babcock and we were not informed.
We were told that we would have to live with this and there was nothing that could be done because of zoning. Roger Dickenson recognized that the zoning for our neighborhood, Swanston Estates, does not represent our community. While we do have a handful of auto shops- mostly small community owned shops, and a few car dealerships, we learned that this zoning would allow for a crematorium to be built in our area without so much as a second thought to the thousands of people who live in this neighborhood. We need to do better. City hall needs to adjust what can be considered light industrial and make these types of businesses operate where people do not live, or children learn.
This has become an issue of rich vs poor and the city is the only one who can stop this. 93% of district 2 residents live below the poverty line. Within 1000ft of this crematorium, there are at least 6 low income housing apartment complexes that cater to Babcock elementary. The residents here do not deserve to have their health taken into the hands of rich real estate investors who target our neighborhood because the land is cheap. And for the homeowners like myself, we are looking at a drastic drop in our property value on top of the mounting health risks. I am a person who suffers from low immunity and would suffer immensely from the crematorium pollution. I am not rich, and not able to leave the neighborhood and take a loss on the home that my partner and I have worked our whole lives to buy.
When speaking with the people who are building the crematorium- we found out that this will also host large (150 people) gatherings. Our roads cannot handle this increase in traffic. Just trying to pick up kids from school shows that the road cannot handle any more traffic.
When the Chevron gas station was put in- directly behind the crematorium- it took months of research by the city to make sure that it was environmentally safe and that our neighborhood could handle the uptick in traffic. This has not been done for this project which will bring many more people and risk to the neighborhood.
There are already 4 other crematoriums within a mile of this location. We are already dealing with these health hazards and to have the air board some in and tell us that the risk is minimal while not taking into account the other crematoriums is laughable. We are being told to calm down while not being allowed to have a say on the future of our neighborhood. There needs to be a limit to the number of these large emitting type facilities that are allowed to be within a certain distance of each other.
We are asking that you stop the issuance of the permit to operate for the San Sangar cremation facility on Albatross and update the zoning and zoning rules so this cannot happen in any other neighborhood. If this was happening in East Sacramento or Landpark, this project would not have been pushed through as easily. We ask that you consider us, the people who don't have money to throw at this to stop it, and need our elected officials to act for us with swift and decisive action.
We cannot afford not to fund Prevention and Intervention.
WHY Are We Rolling Back Protections for Children, Families, and Vulnerable Populations around marijuana dispensaries in marijuana consumption lounges?
Dear Sacramento,
I want to ask a very simple question:
Why?
Why are we here?
Why are we even having this conversation?
Why are we considering rolling back protections that have been in place for over a decade—protections that were intentionally designed to safeguard children, families, and vulnerable populations?
And most importantly—
Why are we now considering allowing marijuana dispensaries and on-site consumption smoke lounges to locate directly next to the very places we have always agreed should be protected?
For years, the City of Sacramento established clear, common-sense boundaries—sensitive-use buffers—to ensure that marijuana-related businesses were kept at a safe and appropriate distance from environments where children gather, families live, and vulnerable individuals seek care and stability.
These were not arbitrary rules.
They were not accidental.
They were deliberate safeguards.
So I ask again—
Why are we undoing them?
Why are we talking about allowing these uses next to:
* Churches and places of worship, where children attend services, youth groups, and community programs
* Parks and recreational areas, where families gather and children play
* After-school programs and youth-serving facilities, where kids go every single day for development, mentorship, and safety
* Residential neighborhoods, where families are raising children and building their lives
* Drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers, where individuals are actively fighting addiction and trying to rebuild their lives
* Childcare centers and school-adjacent environments, specifically designed to protect early childhood development
Why are we even opening the door to place marijuana storefronts—and more importantly, active smoking lounges—directly next to these environments?
Because this is not theoretical.
This is not abstract policy language.
This is real-world proximity.
Children will see it.
They will walk past it.
They will be next to it.
And in the case of smoke lounges—
they will be next to environments where marijuana is actively being consumed.
So again—
Why?
Why are we normalizing exposure at younger and younger ages?
Why are we increasing the risk of impaired driving in areas where families and children are present?
Why are we placing individuals in recovery directly next to environments where marijuana is actively used—knowing full well the risk of relapse that creates?
Why are we allowing the clustering of high-cash, high-target businesses into residential and youth-centered areas—when we already acknowledge the risks by requiring armed security guards at dispensaries?
Let that sink in.
The City itself recognizes the risks associated with these businesses to such a degree that it mandates armed security.
So if those risks are real—and they are—
Why would we move these uses closer to children, not farther away?
Why would we reduce distance instead of increasing it?
Why would we weaken protections instead of strengthening them?
And why are we replacing clear, enforceable buffers with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)—when we already know a CUP does not guarantee protection?
A CUP is not a safeguard.
A CUP is a process.
It allows a project to be reviewed—but it does not prevent incompatible uses from being approved.
We have already seen this fail.
We have seen projects approved in direct proximity to sensitive uses despite community opposition.
We have seen decisions made that prioritize development over compatibility.
So again—
Why are we going backwards?
These protections have worked for over a decade.
They created:
* Consistency
* Predictability
* Distance
* A baseline level of safety across every neighborhood in Sacramento
They ensured that no matter where you lived, your children, your home, your church, your park, or your recovery center had a basic level of protection.
And now—
we are not talking about improving those protections.
We are not talking about refining them.
We are talking about removing them.
Why?
Why now?
What has changed so significantly that justifies this shift?
Because from a public health and safety standpoint, the concerns are not decreasing—they are increasing.
We know:
* Impaired driving remains a serious and ongoing risk
* Youth exposure to marijuana increases the likelihood of early use
* Individuals in recovery are vulnerable to environmental triggers
* High-cash businesses can attract crime and create spillover impacts
These are not opinions.
These are widely understood realities.
So again—
Why are we moving in the opposite direction?
Why are we introducing greater proximity, greater exposure, and greater risk into environments that were intentionally protected?
And perhaps the most important question—
Who benefits from this?
Because it is not children.
It is not families.
It is not individuals in recovery.
It is certainly not the communities who have relied on these protections for years.
This is not just a policy discussion.
This is a decision about values.
A decision about priorities.
A decision about what kind of city—and what kind of region—we want to be.
Do we continue to protect children, families, and vulnerable populations?
Or do we accept placing them directly next to environments involving smoking, impairment, and exposure?
Do we maintain common-sense safeguards that have worked?
Or do we dismantle them and hope that a discretionary process will somehow replace what has been a clear and enforceable standard?
Because once these protections are gone—
they are gone.
And the impacts will not be theoretical.
They will be visible in our neighborhoods.
They will be felt by families.
They will be experienced by those in recovery.
And they will be difficult—if not impossible—to reverse.
So I ask you again—
Why are we doing this?
And more importantly—
Is this a decision you can clearly explain and justify to the families, the parents, the faith communities, and the individuals in recovery who rely on these protections every single day?
Because if the answer is not clear—
if the reasoning cannot be confidently explained—
then that should be a signal.
A signal to pause.
A signal to reconsider.
A signal to protect what has already been working.
I urge you—strongly and respectfully—
Maintain all existing sensitive-use buffers.
Do not weaken them.
Do not replace them with discretionary processes that do not guarantee protection.
Stand with the communities that rely on these safeguards.
Because if we cannot clearly answer “why,”
then we should not be making this change.
Sincerely