5PM City Council (Special Meeting) [Updated 04/06/2022 @ 12:15 p.m.] Meeting Time: 04-06-22 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council (Special Meeting)
[Updated 04/06/2022 @ 12:15 p.m.]
04-06-22
17:00
13 46 6 37 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
5PM City Council (Special Meeting) [Updated 04/06/2022 @ 12:15 p.m.] 04-06-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
1. Ordinance: Emergency Shelter and Enforcement Act of 2022 [In Lieu of Pass for Publication Ordinance to be Published in its Entirety] File ID:
2022-00823
46 6 37 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 1. Ordinance: Emergency Shelter and Enforcement Act of 2022 [In Lieu of Pass for Publication Ordinance to be Published in its Entirety] File ID: 2022-00823 Overall Sentiment
Barry F. Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 8:40pm 04-06-22
This Agenda Item should be tabled until it is Publicly noticed with ample notification for "ALL" City of Sacramento Residents have the opportunity to submit their questions, comments and/or concerns! This rushed proposal without true financial caps (this proposal could/would bankrupt the City of Sacramento) will further the detriment Community's of Color and/or Low-Income Community's.
Language must be included in this proposal that states "NO OVER CONCENTRATION" in any Sacramento Council District.
The "Planning" of 25% of the 25+/- Acres of the recently purchased 102 Acres at 3100 Meadowview Road will go to Hope for Sacramento (a nonprofit Homeless Advocate) to build a permanent building, in addition allotting 25 Acres for an array (Tiny Homes, Container Homes, etc.) of housing that would be a center point for Sacramento's homeless.
I'm in favor of finding housing for the unhoused but, in an "EQUITABL Y EQUAL" manner that involves "ALL" of Sacramento's City Council Districts!
Nancy Kitz
Location:
Submitted At: 8:27pm 04-06-22
The Comprehensive Siting Plan included 20 sites for shelters, tiny homes, safe parking. The idea was to approve a large group of sites at once to avoid individual neighborhood opposition. Implementation was to be of highest urgency + $100 million funded the siting plan. None have opened.
Districts were supposed to fairly share shelter sites however overconcentration of unhoused residents in unsanctioned sometimes encampments with zero services has increased in underserved districts levying a huge impact in these struggling neighborhoods. This will continue in this unholy brokered deal.
Measure tonight is a set up for further failure. How does CM Hahn who hasn’t been able to open any sites going to find 6,000 units to satisfy the requirements of the measure? City running out of funding to keep current 1100 spaces beyond July. Council has failed to meet the crisis and now staff recommends caving to outside pressure.
Lack of transparency and public participation makes this a nonstarter.
Nick Montoya
Location:
Submitted At: 7:42pm 04-06-22
The proposed initiative is counterproductive, wasteful, & inhumane. We want housing, not new ways to circumvent Martin V. Boise. Start listening to unhoused advocated instead of private business interests.
Kimberly Sow
Location:
Submitted At: 7:16pm 04-06-22
My name is Kimberly Sow and I oppose this. This does not help the unhoused. It does not address the core issues. It is not fiscally responsible.
Meg White
Location:
Submitted At: 6:28pm 04-06-22
As a home and brick and mortar business owner in Sacramento - I strongly oppose this act. The city has tried the punitive approach to homelessness, it clearly doesn’t work. This Act does not address the needs of the people who are most impacted by homelessness - the people living outdoors. Instead this Act focuses on forcing people into unsafe situations, and further criminalizing homelessness. We must create long-term housing - in the meantime go to encampments - put a dumpster with regular service, bathrooms, showers, and at the very least send social workers with wrap-around services there. City programs have a history of not treating people with dignity, and being literally impossible to navigate. The city needs to work with Sacramento Homeless Union, the Poor People Campaign, The People’s Budget and other community org - to get in touch with the community to form a culturally informed solution. It’s time to offer resources without strings attached.
Trevor Jones
Location:
Submitted At: 6:01pm 04-06-22
Hello, my name is Trevor and I am a resident of District 4. Currently working as an Analyst with the CA Victims Compensation Board. I am speaking today as a resident of this city who has grown up here my whole life. I may not own a business or own a home but hope my comment can be heard by the City Council.
I am opposing this proposition by the city because this is no way to act on this issue. There are community groups that have direct relationships with our unhoused neighbors who have been working on safe, humane, and respectful to help our neighbors get the resources they need because the love they have for them. As someone who regularly see's the consequences of victimization, making an ordinance which will rapidly criminalize people in an already vulnerable position will only keep people unhoused and under resourced. Please listen to the voices of who will be directly uprooted by enacting this ordinance rather than to those who have more capital and property. Life over property.
Aimee Williams
Location:
Submitted At: 5:59pm 04-06-22
My name is Aimee and I have 20 years of social service experience, both with homeless and foster youth. This is a short sighted ordinance. I oppose it for the following reasons:
1. It doesn't address the core needs of the homeless population.
2. The fiscal consequences are going to be astronomical.
3. It appears to push shelters outside of the city into poor residential neighborhoods in the county.
UNACCEPTABLE.
4. One of the PROPOSED LOCATIONS IS DIRECTL Y NEXT TO THE CHILDREN'S RECEIVING HOME OF SACRAMENTO. There are over 300 transient sex offenders that will be drawn to the shelter for services (According to Megan's Law website). It nee
5. We need a better plan that addresses long term problems and one that actually helps this vulnerable population.
Mike Lozano
Location:
Submitted At: 5:57pm 04-06-22
Please note: The proposal from Vang and Velenzuela to distribute homeless shelters evenly among districts doesn't recognize that fact that City owned lands are not evenly distributed among districts. See the map they just presented. Furthermore, Valenzeula's assertion that city owned lands are not evenly distributed among districts is evidence if "racist" policies is offensive and ignorant of how the City acquired these lands in the first place.
Tiffany Tran
Location:
Submitted At: 5:55pm 04-06-22
My name is Tiffany Tran and I am a medical student at California Northstate University and Advocacy Co-chair of Sacramento Street Medicine. I strongly oppose this ordinance, as it merely criminalizes homelessness and does nothing to address the needs of some of the most vulnerable members of our community. This is an ordinance that is costly and unrealistic with no tangible solution toward ending homelessness. Funding and resources should be used instead for services and opportunities directly to those experiencing homelessness, including behavioral health services, substance use disorder services, and affordable housing. The language of the ordinance is largely misleading, and should NOT be placed on the ballot as so.
Antoine Ganivet
Location:
Submitted At: 5:43pm 04-06-22
My name is Antoine Ganivet and I am a medical student, resident of Sacramento City, and outreach and advocacy volunteer for Sacramento Street Medicine. I strongly oppose this ordinance as it grossly reduces an entire vulnerable population of Sacramento to “out of sight, out of mind”. The ordinance will not provide any services, protection, or opportunities for our unhoused neighbors. It will do nothing to prevent homelessness, nor will it make any progress towards ending homelessness. Instead, it will force them to relocate without any choice, causing significant trauma and putting them at risk of legal ramifications. This ordinance will do nothing but burn through public resources while producing no tangible results, making it even more difficult for us to make progress in the future.
STEVEN MAVIGLIO
Location:
Submitted At: 5:38pm 04-06-22
Please put this initiative on the ballot. Sadly, this is what needs to be done to light a fire under the city and county to take action. Do it tonight!
Charles Duckworth
Location:
Submitted At: 5:38pm 04-06-22
Friends of Del Paso Park are generally in favor of this proposal with this caveat...
Unhoused relief should be equally shared among ALL the districts, not just the ones that already bear the brunt of the homeless crisis. Or be so located that they better the living environment for all the community. Including free from fear while shopping or for visiting a public park..
Friends of Del Paso Park
As a personal aside: until we actually and publicly recognize that the homeless crisis is more about drug addiction than anything else, we will NEVER solve the problem.
Charley Duckworth
Johann Park
Location:
Submitted At: 5:24pm 04-06-22
Hello Council members, my name is Johann and I am a medical student at California Northstate University and an outreach camp lead with Sacramento Street Medicine. As a member of the community who serves, works with, and listens to our friends experiencing homelessness, I urge you to oppose this ordinance. Like many have already stated, this ordinance and the terrible reasoning behind it will do nothing to end or prevent homelessness in our city and further, will take away money which could be better allocated towards health services, substance use disorder treatment, and realistic affordable housing solutions. Raiding where people reside and forcing them elsewhere is inhumane. Criminalizing houselessness puts these folks in a vicious cycle and dehumanizes and traumatizes them in the process. If someone were to have a single conversation with our unhoused friends, they would be able to better understand these things and more adequately exposed to meet the needs of our community.
Alex Toshich
Location:
Submitted At: 5:10pm 04-06-22
My name is Alex Toshich and I am a medical student and resident of Sacramento County. This ordinance is a rash and myopic attempt to take action on one of the most challenging policy issues affecting the City of Sacramento and California as a whole. Section 1. H of the ordinance mentions that "[t]here is nothing compassionate about letting people deteriorate and ultimately die on our city streets." How is there compassion in charging those same members of our community with a misdemeanor? Furthermore, how will a criminal record help people achieve permanent housing in the future? The majority of our unhoused neighbors live in encampments which is something this ordinance failed to mention and would not provide the same protections that other parts of the ordinance offered under section 12.100.030.
The current language of this ordinance is misleading at best, and should not be presented to voters this fall.
Dan Ruiz
Location:
Submitted At: 5:06pm 04-06-22
How are you going to fund this?
Nabeal Dean
Location:
Submitted At: 5:06pm 04-06-22
Dear City Council,
As a medical student at California Northstate College of Medicine, and as an advocate for Shifa Clinic, a clinic that provides care to underserved members of the Sacramento community, I strongly oppose this bill. This ordinance is harmful for Sacramento for the following reasons:
First, it criminalizes people who experience homelessness because they are poor and have no home.
It does nothing to end or prevent homelessness.
It will cost a lot of money and not produce tangible results.
It does not include any provision for Sacramento County to provide mental health services.
It does not include any provision for Sacramento County to provide substance use disorder services.
This bill does not help end or prevent homelessness, and instead criminalizes those who currently have no other options. These resources should be diverted to preventing homelessness or promoting the health and wellbeing of those affected by it with evidence-based solutions.
Sid Kurkure
Location:
Submitted At: 4:55pm 04-06-22
My name is Sid and I am a medical student at CNUCOM and an outreach volunteer with Sacramento Street Medicine. I strongly oppose this ordinance because it represents a gross human rights violation of one of our most vulnerable populations. There is nothing provisioned for mental health services, substance use disorder services, and it will do nothing to end or prevent homelessness. Banning the residences of our unhoused neighbors and forcing them to move will only add to the trauma that they must experience. We should be earning their trust and using compassionate methods that have been shown to work. There is nothing compassionate about this. I urge the City Council to oppose this ordinance! Crystal Sanchez
Location:
Submitted At: 4:53pm 04-06-22
The Sacramento Homeless Union opposes this! We must quit enforcing enforcing people and compelling them to go into services. As an on the ground outreach worker and a voice for over 2800 unhoused there services aren't available. Tents are not housing and you are wasting millions on the idea. Chico vs warren states shelter must be brick and mortar. Shoving people to where ever without realistic services and housing will just continue this cycle. We already have the rights to sue. Unhoused individuals do not have the money to fight against the businesses or City. This is a business deal it will allow people to sue the city and bankrupt it. So much money is being spent on band aid ideas on a bleed out situation and not on the actual need! Which is the services and actual housing. Here's our demands and there is more then this! Doors open and the conversation for solutions need to include all voices at the table
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HCKYGtNxmiUgubFBXdpFR7jTZMYh7VwY/edit Leah Bourgan
Location:
Submitted At: 4:46pm 04-06-22
Dear City Council, my name is Leah Bourgan and I am a Medical Student at California Northstate University as well as a Co-Director of Clinica Tepati, a clinic that provides care to underserved members of the Sacramento community. As someone who has worked closely with medically neglected members of the local community, I strongly oppose this bill. In order to protect the humanity and health of underserved individuals, the City of Sacramento should be making changes that promote: mental health services, substance use mitigation, and, at the bare minimum, respect for the lives of houseless. This bill does not help end or prevent homelessness, and instead criminalizes those who currently have no other options. These resources should be diverted to preventing homelessness or promoting the health and wellbeing of those affected by it with evidence-based solutions.
Natasha Arief
Location:
Submitted At: 4:42pm 04-06-22
My name is Natasha and I am a medical student at California Northstate University. I strongly oppose this ordinance because criminalizing people for being unhoused is an ineffective and inhumane approach to ending homelessness. There is nothing compassionate about displacing an already vulnerable population and forcing them to vacate spaces where they have established community and security. This ordinance will divert resources away from sustainable solutions for ending homelessness, such as mental health services, substance use disorder treatment, and affordable housing. I encourage the City Council to oppose this ordinance and instead support public health initiatives that prioritize the safety and well-being of the unhoused.
Nadya Godoroja
Location:
Submitted At: 4:33pm 04-06-22
My name is Nadya Godoroja, and I am a medical student at CNUCOM. I strongly oppose this ordinance. The ordinance does not make any efforts to benefit the unhoused community. Moreover, it criminalizes and further traumatizes people who are in great need of resources and support. The funding should be channeled toward providing the unhoused community with the right resources that would help them battle the many challenges they face. The funding must be allocated towards providing the unhoused with job opportunities, mental health programs, substance use disorder treatments, affordable LONG term housing, etc. such as substance use disorder treatment, mental health services, employment opportunities .
Maggie Grazela
Location:
Submitted At: 4:23pm 04-06-22
While there are some people who support this bill because their lives have been inconvenienced by the existence of the unhoused, this bill does nothing to solve the problems causing people to become unhoused or to help people move out of homelessness, and so does nothing to help the unhoused or to help those who dislike having unhoused people living near them. Criminalization of homeless encampments will only traumatize and further marginalize people who are already incredibly vulnerable, waste the city's time and money, and simply cause homeless encampments to have to continuously reform in new places, rather than working to actually end homelessness. Homelessness and things associated with it (ex: "camping/loitering" bans) are already broadly criminalized: it has done nothing to end homelessness. Efforts and money would be much better spent on mental health services, substance use disorder services, and housing programs that may actually make an impact on the lives of the unhoused.
Bill Motmans
Location:
Submitted At: 4:20pm 04-06-22
This ordinance was a bad idea when the mayor first floated it. It is a bad idea now. Putting it on the Agenda at the last possible moment should provide the rest of the council further evidence of the shortcomings of the ordinance, and should be voted down. Whatever happened to the Haven For Hope discussion surrounding homelessness issues?
Zoe Dove
Location:
Submitted At: 4:17pm 04-06-22
My name is Zoe Dove and I am a medical student and resident of Sacramento. I grew up in a community in Oakland with many unhoused folks, and I can tell you that criminalizing their experience will not benefit unhoused people or their neighbors. I strongly oppose this ordinance - criminalizing people for being unhoused does not help people find housing nor does it address any of the causes of homelessness in Sacramento, and there is no evidence to support any of the propositions in the ordinance. Resources should instead be allocated towards evidence-based solutions on ending homelessness such as mental health programs, substance use disorder treatment, and affordable housing.
Jennifer Larr
Location:
Submitted At: 4:15pm 04-06-22
I support the perspective of experts in this subject---loaves and fishes as well as the National Homeless Law Center, which condemns policies exactly like this. This is a cruel policy that serves no one but the egos of those who manifested it.
Aimee Miller
Location:
Submitted At: 4:09pm 04-06-22
My name is Aimee Miller and I am a medical student at California Northstate University as well as the Operations Director of Sacramento Street Medicine. I am in strong opposition to this ordinance. Criminalizing and forcibly removing people who are experiencing homelessness will do aught to help our unhoused neighbors. This will do nothing to provide any support for our unhoused neighbors, this will do nothing to prevent homelessness from occurring, nor will this will do anything to help our neighbors experiencing homelessness find housing. If anything, the only substantial results from enacting this ordinance will be to inflict further suffering and trauma against one of the most vulnerable populations in our community. Criminalizing unhoused members of our community and further destroying any sense of security that they may have will do substantially more harm in both the short/long term and is a shameful use of resources that should instead be used to help our unhoused neighbors.
Angela Hassell
Location:
Submitted At: 4:08pm 04-06-22
At Loaves & Fishes, we understand there is immense political pressure to “do something” about homelessness in our city. However, this proposal will not provide services, protection or opportunities for people to transition into housing. Instead, it provides an enforcement mechanism where people can be charged with a misdemeanor for not moving into an offered space, and with no choice over where they will sleep. The recent report from the National Homeless Law Center provides an appropriate analysis of such proposals: “...temporarily hiding homelessness helps no one. Rather, this strategy produces acute harm by wasting precious public resources on systems of punishment and segregation that will inevitably fail to reduce homelessness, and its visibility, while the crisis worsens.” (Litigation Manual Supplement 2022, p. 10). One of our guests at L&F recently said, “None of us are out here by choice. If we had housing we could afford, we wouldn’t be out here.” Her words point the way.
Victor Berkland
Location:
Submitted At: 4:07pm 04-06-22
This ordinance is terrible for Sacramento for the following reasons:
First, it criminalizes people who experience homelessness because they are poor and have no home.
It does nothing to end homelessness.
It does nothing to prevent homelessness.
It will cost a lot of money and not produce tangible results (see previous two items).
It does not include any provision for Sacramento County to provide mental health services.
It does not include any provision for Sacramento County to provide substance use disorder services.
To summarize, the ordinance will further traumatize people who are already experiencing the trauma of homelessness, moving them from one place to another without any real help.
What the ordinance will accomplish is it will take away any arguments about where a designated camping/parking/shelter space can be located. The City Manager will have final authority to make those decisions and establish sites regardless of what neighborhoods and businesses desire Chelsea Fink
Location:
Submitted At: 3:38pm 04-06-22
This is a blatant attempt to sidestep Martin V. Boise, and it’s not a good look.
We could be spending the money used on enforcement to support preventive measures like housing and services instead of catering to shortsighted business interests and property owners who either don’t grasp or don’t want to deal with the human suffering on their doorstep.
Supporting this ballot initiative are people whose primary concerns are property damage and offer nothing in the way of solutions beyond punishment and banishment.
Opposing this ballot initiative are medical professionals, mental health professionals, homeless advocates, and community members with a deep understanding of the issues facing our city and neighbors. They offer a range of human-centered, research-based solutions that, in many cases, have already proven successful.
Do you genuinely want to make progress?
If so, vote no.
Beverly Lo
Location:
Submitted At: 3:28pm 04-06-22
My name is Beverly and I am a medical student at the at California Northstate University and Managing Director of Sacramento Street Medicine. I strongly oppose this ordinance. By criminalizing the most vulnerable populations, you contribute to the self-fulfilling issue of homelessness in our community. Putting misdemeanors on our unhoused neighbors adds to the already near impossible task of finding work and creating upward mobility for themselves to find permanent housing. According to a 2015 assessment by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States. At a minimum, 140,000 or 25 percent of these people were seriously mentally ill, and 250,000 or 45 percent had any mental illness. Instead of using this allocated budget for services that would actually improve the forward trajectory of your own constituents, you are electing to perpetuate instability and trauma in our unhoused neighbors.
Katie Pavy
Location:
Submitted At: 3:11pm 04-06-22
Dear Council Members,
My name is Katie and I am a medical student at California Northstate University. I serve on the advocacy committee of our Sacramento Street Medicine chapter. I strongly oppose this ordinance, as it criminalizes homelessness without providing sustainable housing solutions. The ordinance makes no attempt to prevent homelessness--it simply allows displacement of unhoused communities. Furthermore, people experiencing homelessness are disproportionately affected by mental health concerns and substance use disorders, and the ordinance fails to acknowledge and address these needs. Our unhoused neighbors deserve a more comprehensive solution.
Richard Estes
Location:
Submitted At: 2:50pm 04-06-22
This is a shameful moment in the history of Sacramento. City Manager Howard Chan covertly negotiates for an anti-camping ordinance with the business community to be placed on the ballot, and then, with the Council's support, exploits the shooting deaths downtown to call for a special meeting to approve it with only one day's notice for the public to respond. His hatred for the unhoused is truly boundless, after all, 6 homeless people died after he refused to open shelters during a severe storm, and anyone on the Council who votes to place this on the ballot should be confronted about it anytime they appear in public. This is a grotesque abuse of process, one that reveals who really runs this City, and if placed on the ballot and approved, it will inevitably result in the deaths of more unhoused people. Instead of developing the resources necessary to address homelessness, this ordinance criminalizes it, with tremendous disruption of their lives.
Garrett Shields
Location:
Submitted At: 2:49pm 04-06-22
Last June, When the mayor gave one of his speeches about how he was going to address homelessness in Sacramento, folks warned that incarceration and harassment of the homeless would follow. Now, we have a proposal that says “it’s too hard to do anything, but we need to disappear these people and camps.” It’s sickening.
The way it’s written clearly sympathizes with businesses and citizens who would rather not have to see encampments. The Sacramento main jail population that is in for a misdemeanor is over 50% homeless. Y ou are not identifying any solutions here! This is not surprising as they can barely coordinate with the county to provide any services. The mayor got to smile and get national press last year as some sort of champion of the homeless when everyone knew this bait and switch was coming. A vote to approve this is shameful and cowardly.
Teza Harrison
Location:
Submitted At: 2:25pm 04-06-22
My name is Teza and I am a medical student here at California Northstate University, associated with the advocacy committee of our Sacramento Street Medicine chapter. I am writing this in strong opposition of this ordinance. I strongly encourage the city council to oppose this ordinance. This proposal will take funding away from resources and existing programs that can be used to help our unhoused neighbors get the services they need. It is frustrating to see city council making efforts to criminalize and forcibly remove our unhoused neighbors instead of helping the same individuals find safe shelters to live in. With this act, City Council is part of the problem rather than adding to the solution.
Joseph Smith
Location:
Submitted At: 2:23pm 04-06-22
This ordinance is terrible for people experiencing homelessness for the following reasons:
First, it criminalizes people who experience homelessness because they are poor and have no home.
It does nothing to end homelessness.
It does nothing to prevent homelessness.
It will cost a lot of money and not produce tangible results (see previous two items).
It does not include any provision for Sacramento County to provide mental health services.
It does not include any provision for Sacramento County to provide substance use disorder services.
To summarize, the ordinance will further traumatize people who are already experiencing the trauma of homelessness, moving them from one place to another without any real help.
What the ordinance will accomplish is it will take away any arguments about where a designated camping/parking/shelter space can be located. The City Mgr will have the authority to make those decisions and establish sites regardless of what neighborhoods and businesses desire.
Michelle Williams
Location:
Submitted At: 2:14pm 04-06-22
I don't even know where to begin with this! it is an attempt to worsen an already horrific initiative, by lowering the threshhold of required options for unhoused Sacramentans before the city justifies uses force to "remove" them and destroy their belongings -- citing the impact it would have on existing services that are doing NOTHING to address the actual problem which is the cost and availability of housing. The city is arguing over how to continue pouring resources into "bridges" to NOTHING. This is the homeless industrial complex.
We need to also talk about this shameless process! I was never under any illusions that there was any democracy in this city but I still am going to need some answers at how a ballot measure written behind closed doors by the wealthy & unelected is being fast tracked through the council with almost no public notice just days after one of the most traumatic events in this city's history. It is appalling. Scrap this garbage.
Hilary Harkins
Location:
Submitted At: 1:56pm 04-06-22
This ballot initiative is a step in the right direction. Much work is still needed to address this public health crisis, but this is a workable starting point. We live in a community directly and profoundly affected by the houseless crisis for years (a block away from large-scale encampments). Our neighborhood contends with trespassing, theft, vandalism, littering, illegal dumping, illegal parking, public urination and defecation, public lewdness, drug use and paraphernalia, and aggressive panhandling on a daily and weekly basis. We support a significant expansion of supportive programs and housing, but also understand that the current approach is not working, and the budget cannot currently support these long-term goals and efforts. Something must bridge the gap and this ballot initiative is just that. Please support of this ballot initiative as a reasonable, realistic, and necessary first step towards reaching our collective goal – improving public health and outcomes for all.
Lily Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 1:39pm 04-06-22
Dear Council Members,
My name is Lily and I am a medical student at California Northstate University, Advocacy Co-chair of our Sacramento Street Medicine chapter, and resident of District 1. I strongly oppose the passing of this ordinance as it does nothing to accomplish the goals of ending homelessness and addressing the needs of our unhoused neighbors. What this will accomplish is criminalize already traumatized communities for being poor and not having a place to live. Not to mention the fact that this ordinance takes away the public’s say in where designated shelter space can be located regardless of the wishes of neighborhoods and businesses. This ordinance is an unconscionable waste of both resources and time that can be used for real solutions such as mental health and substance use disorder services.
Bob Erlenbusch
Location:
Submitted At: 1:28pm 04-06-22
SRCEH- is opposed to this proposal for reasons:
1. It is clearly a compromise between the LA Alliance for Justice, the city and the business community, with no input from our unhoused neighbors, service providers and advocates;
2. This is a bad public policy process: compromising the lives of our unhoused neighbors to avoid the huge price tag of the first version of this initiative;
3. abandoning the Comprehensive Siting Plan and settling for over 800 - 1,000 tents on lots across our city,
4. It continues the failed public policy of criminalizing people experiencing,
5.continues a long policy approach of "managing" rather than "ending and preventing" homelessness.
6.Our unhoused neighbors live in encampments in order to stay as safe as possible
7.The proposed draft says nothing about the “spaces” being relatively evenly distributed across each city council district -
8.This proposal is an obvious attempt to circumvent the Boise decision and we feel it is unconstitutional.
Bethany Harman
Location:
Submitted At: 11:54am 04-06-22
I am a resident of D4 and strongly urge city council to oppose this ordinance. I am appalled that it is under consideration, and with only 24 hours notice for community review. At a recent meeting Howard Chan stated it would be very difficult to staff 24-hour shelters or warming/cooling centers-a bare minimum amount of services.
Where are the warming/cooling centers that were promised in March 2021? There has been little noticeable progress from the comprehensive siting plan. And now you are quickly jumping ahead to criminalizing the unhoused for refusing shelter options that DO NOT EXIST. I have personally witnessed calls to 211/311 for homeless services that go unresolved. Knowing the city has done little to provide permanent supportive housing for the homeless, this ordnance passing means the city would rather jail people than build the housing they need.
Shereef Abdou
Location:
Submitted At: 9:56am 04-06-22
As a resident whose community has been directly impacted by the homelessness crisis in the area, I support this initiative. Our area has seen a dramatic increase in trespassing, property damage, littering, public lewdness, fecal matter, drug use and near physical altercations over the last several years. I believe this ballot initiative is an important stepping stone that will improve the public health and security of those experiencing homelessness and the communities they are a part of.
Madison Lee-Rosen
Location:
Submitted At: 9:47am 04-06-22
I am a constituent of Eric Guerra and I urge him and other council members to oppose this act. Criminalizing homelessness and costing the city millions of dollars is not the way to handle this issue. This costly and inhumane proposal will take funds away from existing social programs and make it a misdemeanor to refuse shelter. This would lead to the forced removal of already marginalized individuals and cost tax payers more when people ultimately refuse and are taken to jail.
Lisamarie La Vallee
Location:
Submitted At: 9:33am 04-06-22
This ballot initiative is an important step toward truly and seriously addressing the overwhelming homelessness crisis our city is facing. As a resident in an area highly impacted by encampments and persons experiencing homelessness, I can say first hand that the current state is not safe for the individuals living in these conditions or the communities surrounding them. Further as someone who works in healthcare with this population, I see that change such as the ballot initiative proposed is urgently needed to continue to build a strong response and framework that supports the individuals experiencing homelessness. The approaches taken so far have not served these individuals or the communities in the ways needed to make lasting change. This ballot measure is a stepping stone to lasting, impactful, and systemic change. It is an important step to continue to build upon to continue to address this issue and I fully support it. Support! Grant Mack
Location:
Submitted At: 9:15am 04-06-22
The pervasiveness of homeless encampments throughout the City of Sacramento is simply unacceptable. These encampments continue to foster problematic and troubling activity that is causing ongoing public health and safety issues throughout the City. My neighborhood has borne the brunt of these impacts for many years, including property damage and near-physical incidents. Though the City has made progress over the years at helping the people at these encampments, who seem to largely be facing drug abuse and mental health challenges, more assertive policies and actions are needed. I fully support both the original proposed ballot initiative as well as the alternative proposed ballot initiative. Though both proposals may not address all of the needs and underlying causes of the homeless crisis, they are still another step forward in addressing the issue.
Please Support!
Muriel Strand
Location: 95820, Sacramento
Submitted At: 8:38am 04-06-22
Mr Schenirer sent me an email yesterday about the proposed ballot initiative alleging to be a solution to the homeless problem: "It’s pretty bad initiative. There is work being done replace or to improve it." However what's proposed is about 99.999% identical to the proposal that he said is bad.
Back in 2015 the council made some promises about affordable housing that I doubt have been kept or tracked:
August 2 2015
http://sacramento.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=3672 How many rapid rehousing units have been built in the central city? Does staff know? September 1 2015
http://sacramento.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=3677 Has the housing trust fund fee been tracked and increased? I can only conclude that the city is happy to have the homeless population continue to grow, because nobody in charge is taking effective action. Talk is cheap and that's all I'm hearing.
Matt Huber
Location:
Submitted At: 9:05pm 04-05-22
Do not fool yourself that there is anything compassionate about this proposal. Raiding existing homeless communities and forcing people into city run camps with a 10'x10' plot per person is the definition of concentration camps. Everyone who votes for this will share the cruel history of those who forced Japanese Americans into internment in WWII. Similarly nominally to protect the "general population" from the threat of the other. Disgusting. Barbaric. Not fit for a vote. Human rights are not up for debate. For God's sake, just house people.