Law and Legislation Committee
Meeting Time: 06-21-22 13:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Law and Legislation Committee 06-21-22
13:00
19 74 21 51 1
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
Law and Legislation Committee
06-21-22 13:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
6. Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.24 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Sidewalk Obstructions and Pedestrian Interference File ID:
2022-01224
53 20 32 0
7. An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 2021-0034 and Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy File ID: 2022-00544
20 1 19 0
8. Climate Related Project Updates: New Building Electrification Ordinance, Existing Building Electrification Strategy, and Onsite Water Reuse Study File ID: 2022-01186
1 0 0 1
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 6. Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.24 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Sidewalk Obstructions and Pedestrian Interference File ID: 2022-01224 Overall Sentiment
East Sacramento Community Association East Sacramento Community Association Location:
Submitted At: 8:45am 06-21-22
ESCA (East Sacramento Community Association, formerly known as ESIA) supports (Agenda Item #6) the amendment of the City Code relating to Sidewalk Obstructions and Pedestrian Interference.
Jack Reichel
Location:
Submitted At: 8:31am 06-21-22
Once again we find ourselves blaming and punishing the ppl who are effected by poverty and this cities inability to house them. This ordinance does NOTHING to solve our real issue and just enacts more violence against those most vulnerable. Why do you want them to go ? The street ?the truth is with ordinance like these you are sending a clear and Concise message that you just want poor ppl to die. They live on the sidewalk, but deal. Walk around them, it’s not that hard. Poor us those who are housed and have to walk around and be inconvenienced for 5 seconds… disgusted all around. In relations to the business who are upset, I understand. At the end of the day though this issue is YALLS problem and somehow the blame is on those effected by your inaction and selfish policies. It’s disgusting.
Stephanie Duncan
Location:
Submitted At: 8:29am 06-21-22
There are multiple reasons to keep our sidewalks clear. Sidewalks are for pedestrian use and should remain so.
We also need to ensure that those using mobility scooters, wheelchairs, walkers, etc. are able to have safe passage to their destinations without fear that they will be put in harms way when passing by a camp that has encroached onto the sidewalk. Children also need to be provided with safe passage on their way to school rather than having to maneuver their way around trash, feces, needles, and people who may be experiencing a mental health or addiction episode. Since the City has 100+ acres on Meadowview, I would recommend opening that space now to allow people to camp, which would provide a place for people to go when sidewalks are cleared.
Liz Blum
Location:
Submitted At: 8:15am 06-21-22
I'm a homeowner in District 4. Instead of criminalizing and fining individuals who are trying to survive, we need to be focusing on sustainable solutions building affordable/social/public housing. Please do not pass this ordinance.
I know there are better ways to ensure our sidewalks/walkways are accessible to folks who need to pass through.
This is not a humane or moral solution for anyone.
Jenn Knapp
Location:
Submitted At: 8:01am 06-21-22
Sacramento has become a dump. Allowing people to camp and leave piles of trash, feces and needles on the sidewalk is both a physical hazard and a health hazard. It creates problems for people who have mobility issues and it forces people to walk in the street and put themselves at risk from passing vehicles. It is not acceptable to allow people to take over the sidewalks. Many people on our streets are drug addicts and/or have a mental illness. Children have to dodge needles while walking to school past these camps. There needs to be an incentive for people on the street to accept help to get into rehab/treatment. Enabling people to continue living on the street with no consequences or responsibilities helps nobody. There needs to be consequences for making our communities unsafe. Please pass the amendments to this ordinance, clear the sidewalks, and power wash them due to all the feces and garbage that has been piling up.
Nick Kufasimes
Location:
Submitted At: 7:48am 06-21-22
I support the "sidewalk ordinance " that is being proposed. City sidewalks should be places where people should be able to walk freely and feel safe and not have to step on the street and potentially get hit by a car.
John Frias Morales
Location:
Submitted At: 7:33am 06-21-22
I support amending the Sidewalk Obstructions Ordinance (Chp. 12.24, File 2022-01224) so Case Managers and Peace Officers may clear 4ft. around sidewalks and business entrances. Public commons that benefit everyone are being destroyed by transient encampments and meth addicts.
East Sac seniors with walkers, who must walk to the Pantry at the Hart Senior Center Pantry (Marshall Park/Midtown), have been helped through the bike lanes because camps block underpass sidewalks.
In another case, a retired midtown lawyer has taken a taxi just 3 blocks to the Greek Church (McKinley Park) and Clunie Library because the underpass sidewalks (Business 80) are full of transient camps.
And everyday midtown students on their way to Sutter Middle School are seen walking on busy streets to avoid the obstructive camps.
I support immediate passage of the Sidewalk Obstruction Ordinance.
John Frias Morales
Ann Pieri
Location:
Submitted At: 6:14am 06-21-22
I’m a sacramento native and the idea that an ordinance is needed to ensure our sidewalks are available to pedestrians is appalling. Please pass this ordinance ensuring our sidewalks are available to pedestrians as intended. I have been picking up trash, including drug paraphernalia and human feces, that is creating unsafe conditions for anyone who may inadvertently come into contact with it. Passing this ordinance is a common-sense step forward to addressing this safety issue.
Thank you for your time.
Ann Broderick
Location:
Submitted At: 12:27am 06-21-22
I support this measure. I have lived in Sacramento for over 40 years, and I am embarrassed with the condition of the city streets and parks. There is trash everywhere - on every freeway entrance, exit, underpass, and street gutter around the parks. The city has an anti-graffiti program and ordinance, why not a trash program. This sidewalk measure is a step in the right direction. It is not the homeless against the housed; it is about letting law abiding adults and children being allowed to safely walk on a sidewalk.
Mariana Jimenez
Location:
Submitted At: 11:25pm 06-20-22
I absolutely oppose. The way this city handles poor or unhoused people is criminal. There’s so little critical thinking happening about how punishing people with no resources is just traumatizing people getting arrested and costing the city thousands of dollars. We need to take a good hard look at ourselves this year and what matters most. Our comfort and pristine views or the well being of ourselves and others? Michael Braud
Location:
Submitted At: 10:43pm 06-20-22
Losing housing is an economic issue, not a criminal issue. Sacramento spends $33 million annually on 1,100 beds for individuals without permanent housing--over $30,000 per BED. California's average costs to develop a new affordable unit (with an average in the Sacramento region of around 2 bedrooms/unit) under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program have skyrocketed to over $480,000 PER UNIT not including the cost of land! These costs are unnecessary when there are safe, single-family homes (NOT tiny homes/sheds) for $20,000 to $50,000 in materials AND labor (see: http://ruralstudio.org/project_tags/20k/). Instead of criminalization without offering the unhoused a place to go, lawmakers must update Sacramento's building code to allow cheaper affordable developments to proliferate to expand the amount of long-term housing in the city and county. Criminalizing unhoused persons without an economic solution will surely not address the problem, and will only make the issue worse.
Whitney Delgado
Location:
Submitted At: 10:36pm 06-20-22
I oppose. The city isn't giving solutions, they're just trying to slap a band aid on this and hoping homelessness will go away. It won't and it just gives cops another reason to hassle people.
Meg White
Location:
Submitted At: 10:23pm 06-20-22
I own a business in Hst and 57th street and I strongly oppose this counter productive item number.
As you consider voting on item 6 I have a few things I’d like you to remember:
1. Sacramento has one of the high rates on incarceration, 42.5% higher than other California counties
2. 66% of pre-trial population has a mental health need
3. California has a recidivism rate that has hovered around 50% for the last decade
4. The majority of the county and city budget is already spent the carceral system/ law enforcement The city already doesn’t allow people to block pedestrian walkways and doorways - adding civil/criminal punishment is a direct attack on our most vulnerable community members, and a gross misuse of communal funds.
If you truly want less people blocking sidewalks and doorways, use our resources to fund the services and community organizations that can support giving people safe accessible homes and access to mental health services.
Kaitlin Barrie
Location:
Submitted At: 10:21pm 06-20-22
I oppose
Aimee Hernandez
Location:
Submitted At: 9:52pm 06-20-22
I can't believe the City hasn't been sued for knowingly allowing people to block pedestrian right of way, forcing people to walk in the street or bike lane, further endangering the well-being of law abiding citizens. Why would any of you oppose this??!? ENOUGH OF THIS NONSENSE! The people that are blocking the sidewalks/streets are the same people that are leaving their debris behind (contaminated needles, urine, feces, drugs, trash, etc.).
These people need to be held accountable for their actions. Nobody is exempt from following the laws which keep our civilization CIVILIZED. I support our city trying to clean our sidewalks and make them accessible for families or ANYONE ELSE wanting to walk and bike.
Karen Atkins
Location:
Submitted At: 9:46pm 06-20-22
I strongly oppose this effort to criminalize homelessness in Sacramento. Let's help folks in need into housing, not throw them into a legal nightmare.
Maxwell Odland
Location:
Submitted At: 9:43pm 06-20-22
I strongly oppose this effort to criminalize homelessness in Sacramento. It not only fails to address the root causes of the issue, but inhumanely puts even more burden on our unhoused neighbors.
Effie Crush
Location:
Submitted At: 9:20pm 06-20-22
Adopt this amendment to provide safe sidewalk pathways for all residents. I live very close to McKinley park and the homeless encampments that are found on most every freeway underpass between 29th and 30th streets from E street to Capitol and beyond. The sidewalk are intended for people to be able to safely walk on the sidewalk.
When homeless encampments spill over the enitre sidewalk in several spots it is impossible to walk on the sidewalk and requires people to walk with traffic in the streets. This is safety issue and basic need for sidewalks to be accessible to those that need to walk on them safely. Pass this amendment so that you can create safe sidewalks for all.
Jenny Apekian
Location:
Submitted At: 8:26pm 06-20-22
I own a business at 29th and G St. and routinely walk through under the overpass on G st. My preschool children attend Mckinley Montessori on Alhambra and the my business is only a few blocks away I never feel comfortable enough to walk to pick them up. The sidewalk is never clear and requires me to walk on the street onto oncoming traffic to get across. Unfortunately, our council member does not see this as a problem and continues to put our safety at jeopardy. I urge the city council to help our community, especially, children, elderly, and those with disabilities.
Johann Carrillo
Location:
Submitted At: 8:22pm 06-20-22
Strongly opposed. Gratuitous cruelty that does nothing to actually address the problems that the unhoused residents this city face.
Jassy Grewal
Location:
Submitted At: 8:20pm 06-20-22
As a resident of District 7, I strongly oppose this ordinance. It should not be criminal to habitat near the sidewalks, especially punishable by a misdemeanor. The focus of this city council should be how to provide housing for not further criminalizing individuals who have no other place to go. I urge the city council to reject this proposal and instead look at solutions for housing. Do better.
ZH Harrison
Location:
Submitted At: 8:19pm 06-20-22
We really shouldn't need an ordinance for common sense. Sidewalks, by definition, are for pedestrians. This ordinance is a compromise: homeless people need to leave enough room for others to use the sidewalk and to not block business entrances.
Muriel Strand
Location: 95820, Sacramento
Submitted At: 8:18pm 06-20-22
If I thought this would clear away some of the increasing number of restaurants that have sprawled their serving areas across public sidewalks in downtown and midtown, I would support it. By the way, are these seating areas on public property paying rent?
However we all know that this is about people who have nothing, namely, homeless people who have nowhere to go and without being told to move on and on and on and on. Levying more unpayable fines just makes everything worse. Please develop some real and permanent solutions.
Alec Luciani
Location:
Submitted At: 7:58pm 06-20-22
The idea that we are going to fine our way out of the obstruction of sidewalk problem (we all know what we’re talking about here) is ridiculous. How is collecting more fines from people who can barley feed themselves going to solve this issue? Housing first, rehabilitation, education, reintegration. That, or we’ve lost a big part of our humanity as a community.
Kathryn Walle
Location:
Submitted At: 7:35pm 06-20-22
I oppose this amendment. How exactly will these fines be collected from people struggling to survive? As a homeowner and resident for over 13 years I oppose the criminalization of unhoused people.
Alex Severson
Location:
Submitted At: 7:26pm 06-20-22
Seems like a terrible way to punish people already forced to exist on public property. Is your plan to end homeless by jailing all the unhoused? Shame on you.
Stephenie Alstrom
Location:
Submitted At: 6:51pm 06-20-22
I support this measure as a small and very tiny part to clean up this once beautiful City. It’s turned into a disgusting place to live. The homeless are allowed to freely roam and commit crimes with no consequences. I’m now afraid to walk around a neighborhood I couldn’t wait to move into. Makes me so sad! And it’s not about being unkind to the homeless either so stop making it about that! Chelsea Fink
Location:
Submitted At: 6:14pm 06-20-22
Ask yourselves this: have the efforts to criminalize and further disenfranchise unhoused people worked so far? It'll take a lot of money and effort to keep moving folks from one place to another in perpetuity, and for what? We see it with the ongoing encampment sweeps right now.
People are uprooted, lose everything, and then come back. Because where else are they supposed to go??? This ordinance is not a viable solution.
Please listen to the people in your community who speak from experience, not fear, and put the money and resources you would've put toward terrorizing vulnerable people toward providing them with housing and services, and it could be a win-win for everyone. The cruel approach isn't working; let's switch it up. And bonus, you can say you're a decent human too.
Mary Whisten
Location:
Submitted At: 5:45pm 06-20-22
Being unhoused does not trump being a contributing member to our community. Blocking access to schools, businesses, and community buildings with tents, filth, and general disregard of the public at large does not contribute to our community in any way. Also, the city has spent years creating safe access for the disabled only to now give up that safe access to the unhoused. I strongly support this sidewalk ordinance. Safe streets/sidewalks for all citizens, not just a select few.
Dale Snapp
Location:
Submitted At: 5:11pm 06-20-22
We should not allow the homeless population to claim public sidewalks as their property and block access. The city has spent a significant amount of money over the 10 years improving handicap accessible sidewalks to now block them with homeless camps.
Haley Hoagland Thomas
Location:
Submitted At: 4:38pm 06-20-22
I oppose. Stop criminalizing homelessness!
Anne Eychaner
Location:
Submitted At: 4:31pm 06-20-22
I oppose this criminalization of homelessness. Take action to support these human beings, instead of making it illegal to exist anywhere.
Donna Ruff
Location:
Submitted At: 4:28pm 06-20-22
I support this agenda item. It has been an absolutely nightmare with the homeless encampments blocking our sidewalks not to mention a health concern with the used needles, human feces and trash. I enjoy walking in the midtown area but I am not a fan of having to enter into the street to pass all the tents and fences that are blocking our sidewalks.
Monica Wilkinson
Location:
Submitted At: 4:20pm 06-20-22
Stop penalizing people for their circumstances. We should be housing people, not charging them for being unhoused. How do you expect people to get housing when prices for everything are at an all time high and now you’re charging people just to be on the sidewalk?
Marlene Goetzeler
Location:
Submitted At: 3:35pm 06-20-22
I tried walking with my friend who uses a wheelchair. She pointed out how incredibly difficult it is to navigate our city with tents, bikes, and trash on the sidewalks. She was actually surprised that supporters of the disabled allow this to continue. She has to go on the street into traffic, to avoid the amount of garbage currently on the sidewalks. I don’t think allowing this to continue is fair to others. I can’t even believe there is a discussion about it.
Especially after living with ADA lawsuits we witnessed not so long ago.
Cathy Creswell
Location:
Submitted At: 3:19pm 06-20-22
To propose amendments to the code relating to sidewalk obstructions with out addressing in any way the impact on unhomed people is outrageous. It appears the ordinance is targeting unhomed individuals who are trying to survive and find some shelter from the heat, without in any way acknowledging the fact that there is no place else for people to go. Stop trying to make the problem invisible and prioritize building new affordable permanent supportive housing as a real solution.
Amy Gardner
Location:
Submitted At: 3:16pm 06-20-22
Midtown-East Sac Advocates (MESA) strongly supports the sidewalk ordinance. As an organization with over 200 members in Midtown and East Sac, we know that having a safe path to walk on a sidewalk is important for everyone living here. Often, there is not a safe path to walk from Midtown to East Sac for students at Sutter Middle School or residents who want to enjoy McKinley Park. Folks must walk in the street, around piles of leaves and trash, in order to access the city's amenities. Mothers with strollers must exit the sidewalk and push their babies in the street because tents and homemade fences take up the entirety of the sidewalk. The sidewalk is designed for residents to safely walk to the park, and today it cannot be used for that purpose.
This measure is a reasonable compromise to allow local residents to access our city's amenities. It simply asks our homeless residents to be considerate neighbors to the local residents and allows the sidewalks to be used as designed.
Dimitrios Kiniris
Location:
Submitted At: 3:13pm 06-20-22
Our streets and sidewalks are too unsafe to walk on. The tents covering the sidewalks is a hazard.
Faye Lessler
Location:
Submitted At: 3:11pm 06-20-22
As a homeowner and resident in Midtown Sacramento I wholeheartedly oppose this agenda item. Passing this fine will only result in further police violence and displacement of our unhoused neighbors. Not to mention pushing away all responsibility that the city holds towards community members to provide affordable and accessible housing as well as resources and care for all, especially our most needy community members.
Lucile Ishizuka
Location:
Submitted At: 3:06pm 06-20-22
I oppose. This punitive measure will do nothing to help the root issues; criminalize being unhoused; and cost money with no returns. Absolutely ridiculous.
Bobby Reed
Location:
Submitted At: 3:04pm 06-20-22
MESA strongly supports the sidewalk ordinance. As an organization with over 200 members in Midtown and East Sac, we believe having a safe path to walk on a sidewalk is important for both the homeless community and local residents. Often times, there is not a safe path to walk from Midtown to East Sac for students at Sutter Middle School or residents who want to enjoy McKinley Park. Folks typically must walk in the street, around piles of leaves and trash, in order to access the city's amenities. Mothers with strollers must exit the sidewalk and push their babies in the street because tents and homemade fences take up the entirety of the sidewalk. The sidewalk is designed for residents to safely walk to the park, and today it cannot be used for that purpose. This measure is a reasonable compromise to allow local residents to access our city's amenities. It simply asks our homeless residents to be considerate neighbors to the public and allows the sidewalks to be used as designed.
Hannah Savage
Location:
Submitted At: 3:00pm 06-20-22
I am opposed. Stop criminalizing being poor.
Jasmine Cooper
Location:
Submitted At: 2:57pm 06-20-22
I oppose item 6
Monica Robinson
Location:
Submitted At: 2:44pm 06-20-22
The camps and people sleeping on the streets of Sacramento needs to stop. Our City is turning into an absolute disgusting mess with people living on the streets and blocking the right of way of bikers and other tax paying people obeying the law. Clean up Sacramento enough is enough!!! Karen Korbs
Location:
Submitted At: 2:29pm 06-20-22
STOP THE INSANITY! The people that are blocking the sidewalks/streets are the same people that are leaving their debris behind; contaminated needles, urine, feces, drugs, trash. These people need to be held accountable for their actions. Why can't you understand that just because you live on the street, you believe these people should be exempt from following the rules (or the law)? People living on the street need to clean up after themselves, look for ways to help others clean up, and stop harassing those of us that do follow the laws and the rules. I support our city trying to clean our sidewalks and make them accessible for families wanting to walk and bike.
Paul Andrews
Location:
Submitted At: 1:36pm 06-20-22
Please stop trying to criminalize homelessness. It is blatantly obvious what you are trying to do. Stop using incarceration or punishment as a means with which to affect their behavior. They need housing. Y ou do not provide them adequate housing. It is up to you to provide them housing so that way the least of those in our community are taken care of adequately. And it not only would help our current unhoused neighbors but would also go to ensuring that other neighbors feel like they have a safety net in the event that tragedy or trauma should befall them.
Christina Ung
Location:
Submitted At: 1:15pm 06-20-22
I oppose.
Alice Moylan
Location:
Submitted At: 11:06am 06-20-22
This ordinance will further criminalize our unhoused community members without making any steps to address the root causes of homelessness in Sacramento (insufficient affordable housing and shelters). In fact, criminal charges on people facing economic instability will make it more challenging for people to find stable housing and employment.
Arresting people living on the street does nothing to solve the problem. This ordinance is cruel and unjust.
Furthermore, this ordinance will lead to deepening racial disparities in our community as our unhoused neighbors are disproportionately Black, Indigenous and other people of color. I urge you to uphold the commitment the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors made in November 2020 when it called on all its 7 cities to acknowledge how surveillance, over-policing, and mass incarceration have disproportionately impacted the health and well-being of Black communities and other communities of color and take steps to reverse it.
Vote no.
Adrianna Lucero
Location:
Submitted At: 9:06am 06-20-22
As a midtown resident, I want to see my tax dollars and the time of public servants invested in addressing the root causes of homelessness, not adding additional punishment. I simply don't see the logic of this ordinance whatsoever. First, homeless individuals don't have the money for a place to stay, let alone a fine. This ordinance is wastefully spending our money on processing and enforcement against people who can't even pay. Second, if someone is blocking a door, why would telling them "move or else you will get fined" be any more persuasive for someone in such a horrible situation, than just kindly asking them to move like you would any other human being? I walk all around midtown every day and I have never had an issue with someone blocking my way that couldn't be resolved by saying "excuse me". Our money is better spent finding people permanent places to live and services to help them get back on their feet, not threatening people who don't have anywhere to go.
Amanda Jan, MD candidate
Location:
Submitted At: 8:47pm 06-19-22
This ordinance will further criminalize unhoused community members without addressing the lack of affordable housing or accessible healthcare and services. Under current city code, sidewalks and entrances are already protected and require people to shift their belongings to allow free passage. Adding the threat of criminal punishment will not deter camping and will worsen the crisis by exacerbating unhoused people’s economic instability and making it harder to qualify for housing.
Being homeless is not a crime, but this ordinance will further criminalize the unhoused -- who are disproportionately BIPOCs – and expose them to violence from its enforcement. Sacramento has a public health obligation to reverse how surveillance, over-policing, and mass incarceration have disproportionately impacted the health and well-being of Black communities and other communities of color.
Please vote NO on this ordinance and focus your efforts to tackle the root problems in homelessness.
Debra Murray
Location:
Submitted At: 8:56pm 06-18-22
Provide services to our unhoused neighbors; don’t criminalize them! Please don’t take this inhumane action. Give them water and let them have peace. Do something to ensure reasonable housing for the poor! Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako
Location:
Submitted At: 8:39pm 06-18-22
Why are you putting so much effort, focus, and money into systems around tracking, citing, and clearing when we need to focus ALL of our efforts on transitions into housing? Why are we talking about removing unhoused people instead of focusing on getting them housing?
Study after study has shown that to get people off the street, we need to address the root problem of homelessness: the lack of affordable housing. Rather than spending millions of dollars on code enforcement and an ever-growing police budget, we need to invest our resources into a “Housing First” model that would focus city efforts to successfully house people with whatever support they need. This is how cities such as Houston, TX succeeded in housing over 7,700 people in 2 years by investing $65 million into permanent housing.
We do not have to choose between protecting our sidewalks and entrances or moving people out of sight. Please vote NO on this ordinance and choose to put people and housing first.
Laura Blosser
Location:
Submitted At: 11:59am 06-17-22
I DO NOT support this amendment at all. This amendment adds penalty fees for people sitting on a sidewalk, with a minimum fee of $250. Being homeless is not a crime! Being poor is not a crime! The way to fight poverty is not with more fees! This will only make the lives of people experiencing homelessness more difficult.
As a pedestrian, I do not think this is a worthwhile amendment. As a pedestrian and bicyclist, I would much rather see investments in our transportation infrastructure. I have never had a problem entering a business as a result of someone obstructing the doorway. This clearly punishes homelessness.
This report contains misleading information: under 'Financial Considerations,' it claims that "no additional enforcement costs are anticipated," but with the fees that are spelled out, there will clearly be additional enforcement costs to process these fees. These fines are unacceptable.
Agenda Item: eComments for 7. An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 2021-0034 and Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy File ID: 2022-00544
Overall Sentiment
Trinity Smyth
Location:
Submitted At: 8:41am 06-21-22
I am a Sacramento resident living within City Council District 5, and I am wholly opposed to allowing SacPD to utilize military equipment. This is not the direction the City should be going, there is absolutely no need and no data that shows police use of military weapons reduces crime or violence. This policy would only cause further waste of public funds on “solutions” that do not work or benefit anyone within the Sacramento community. The funds that would be wasted on military equipment must be used for “up stream” interventions that reinvest in the community, not in a white supremacy institution such as the police.
Jenn Knapp
Location:
Submitted At: 8:09am 06-21-22
Please adopt this policy and provide SacPD with the equipment it needs to keep the community and officers safe.
With the significant lack of officers in Sacramento, those we have need to have all the tools necessary to do their job. Maybe the use of the term "military equipment" causes people to be unnecessarily triggered or maybe those opposing this policy think the police should only have pillow fights with people who are doing harm in our community. Police keep us safe. Give them what they need to do so.
Meg White
Location:
Submitted At: 6:37am 06-21-22
I strongly oppose further militarizing the police. Not only are there much better uses for our resources, but they have already have a history of brutalizing our community. During the 2020 Stop the steal protests I went out to observe and do what I could deescalate. Our police force beat and pepper sprayed me so bad my entire right side was covered in bruises and I missed a whole week of work. Almost 2 years later I'm still suffering with intense hip and back pain from those unprovoked attacks. - and my injuries were minor compared to others. For example Nia Love who lost her eye to a rubber bullet and legal observer Danny Garza who was targeted, shot in the head, and pepper sprayed.
Mariana Jimenez
Location:
Submitted At: 11:30pm 06-20-22
Absolutely oppose.
Whitney Delgado
Location:
Submitted At: 10:40pm 06-20-22
I strongly oppose this measure. The city is currently being sued for allowing white supremacists/proud boys protests and start fights while other protestors are assaulted and arrested. The city does not need any more military equipment. The money should be invested in community care, not weapons to harm those in the community that that police are supposed to protect. This is a police department, not the military. The police shouldn't have military weapons, what the city needs is specific teams to go out to calls. Cops aren't equipped to handle everything like they have been. The city budget shouldn't go towards weapons to hurt the public.
Kaitlin Barrie
Location:
Submitted At: 10:22pm 06-20-22
Don’t militarize the police
Karen Atkins
Location:
Submitted At: 9:53pm 06-20-22
I strongly oppose militarizing the police. Law abiding citizens don't want to fear their police in their hometowns.
Maxwell Odland
Location:
Submitted At: 9:47pm 06-20-22
I strongly oppose militarizing Sacramento police. Instead of giving them dangerous new toys that will harm citizen exercising their constitutional rights, we should invest their funding into welfare programs that actually help the city.
Johann Carrillo
Location:
Submitted At: 8:28pm 06-20-22
Unless the Military Equipment Use Policy is a blanket ban on the use of said military equipment, this is a terrible idea — at best, it's yet another example of creeping authoritarianism, at worst, it's an overt move to silence dissent and protest before it can even begin by threatening death and lifelong disability for exercising first amendment rights of assembly and free speech.
This isn't even getting into how irresponsible it is for the city to increase police budget as the needs for greater social services are more evident than ever.
Lily Perez-G.
Location:
Submitted At: 6:59pm 06-20-22
Don’t militarize the police
Olivia Sosa
Location:
Submitted At: 6:40pm 06-20-22
I oppose military equipment for police departments! This kind of equipment is frequently used against minority peoples in their poorer neighborhoods. Police should be able to do their jobs with proper training and without these military instruments and vehicles. I am a resident of Elk Grove, CA. Olivia Sosa Haley Hoagland Thomas
Location:
Submitted At: 4:39pm 06-20-22
Don’t militarize the police
Faye Lessler
Location:
Submitted At: 3:14pm 06-20-22
It is absolutely ridiculous to provide police with military equipment designed for warfare. Why is our police department preparing to be at war with the public??? Our police already receive far too much funding and resources yet those resources do not contribute to increased safety in Sacramento. Military equipment is not only costly but also completely useless for our police department. The funds for this equipment would be better spent on affordable housing and public parks.
Jasmine Cooper
Location:
Submitted At: 3:07pm 06-20-22
I oppose item 7. Sacramento PD should not have access to military equipment especially with a history of discriminatory policing of citizens. This policy does not uphold the protection of the public. Access to military equipment is unnecessary and will be harmful for the public.
Hannah Savage
Location:
Submitted At: 3:04pm 06-20-22
I am opposed to this. Why do the police need to be armed to fight a war when we are not in a war? The answer is: they don’t need to be.
Paul Andrews
Location:
Submitted At: 1:49pm 06-20-22
Other cities are making the right choice and are determining that their police shouldn’t feel and act as if they are at war with those they are trying to protect. In that vein, they have begun demilitarizing their police. I ask that you do the same thing. We are not at war. We are not your enemy. Stop acting as though we are! Y ou don’t need 100 grenade launchers! Y ou don’t need long range weapons. Invest in our communities and none of this is necessary.
Defund communities and you’ll create more desperate situations until you’ve only succeeded in harming those most disenfranchise and discriminated against in our neighborhoods. That’s not a solution.
ELLEN CHAPMAN
Location:
Submitted At: 1:16pm 06-20-22
AB 481 requires City Council to find that this military equipment is necessary, that there is no alternative, and that the use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare and civil liberties. The proposed policy falls short of that in several ways and the Committee should send it back to the Department to amend it.
Adrianna Lucero
Location:
Submitted At: 9:14am 06-20-22
I strongly oppose the police having and using military equipment against civilians. These tools are disproportionately used against Black residents and against peaceful protests. They cost thousands upon thousands of dollars that could be spent elsewhere. This ordinance is pushing forward destructive, expensive, and unnecessary purchases without listening to community feedback that we don't want our money spent this way.
Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako
Location:
Submitted At: 8:52pm 06-18-22
I am strongly opposed to the Sacramento Police Department acquiring ANY military equipment. Why would this committee allow military equipment use by its police department that is currently involved in a lawsuit that alleges police harassment and racist policing? A 2021 report found that while the department’s use of force decreased from 2014 to 2019, Sacramento Police officers are 4.5 times more likely to commit acts of force against Black people. Allowing Sacramento PD to use military equipment jeopardizes the welfare of our community residents.
Do not repeal this ordinance.
Laura Blosser
Location:
Submitted At: 12:07pm 06-17-22
I do not support the Sacramento PD acquiring ANY military equipment. I am especially opposed to the procurement of additional rifles and the 40MM Launchers with chemical agent. These have been misused by Sac PD during peaceful protests.
Agenda Item: eComments for 8. Climate Related Project Updates: New Building Electrification Ordinance, Existing Building Electrification Strategy, and Onsite Water Reuse Study File ID: 2022-01186 Overall Sentiment
Rosie Yacoub
Location:
Submitted At: 11:35pm 06-20-22
Please see attached letter.
Greetings,
I am writing as a member of 350 Sacramento’s electrification team. It is great to see the work going into building electrification, including the drafting of the equity criteria, which are important considerations going forward on the Existing Building Electrification (EBE) strategy. We want to highlight that Advancing Energy Equity involves creating policy that accelerates the adoption of electric appliances and electric vehicles, particularly in disadvantaged communities, because bill burden for continued use of fossil fuels is increasing, and expected to continue doing so.
During the process of creating the New Building Electrification (NBE) Ordinance, the portion that included requirements for electric vehicle charging requirements was separated from the rest of the NBE ordinance and passed, but should still be considered together, as service, panels, and wiring for appliances and EV charging for new buildings will be designed together for new construction. The charging requirements adopted by the City of Sacramento are now weaker than what has been adopted by the State of California, and will need to be re-written. We encourage you to look at initiatives going on at the State level, and adopt strong requirements which would include having every parking spot in multi-family residential have access to charging, some at Level 1 (access to regular 110 V outlets) with a percentage, available to all residents, at Level 2. This effort should be done in concert with the rest of the NBE requirements which start in 2023.
In order to ensure success of any EBE measure adopted, the permitting system for the City should be part of the solution, which can include policy changes, but also needed are: enhanced support for the Permit Department, education and outreach, and improvements in the City's permitting system. For example, the permitting process should be streamlined for the installation of heat pump and induction appliances by contractors who have experience with
installations. This streamlining should reduce the amount of time required by both contractors and City staff to get these installations and their permits completed, and could act as an incentive for contractors to promote installations of induction stoves, heat pump HVAC, and Heat Pump water heaters. According to a study by the CEC (1), permit compliance for appliance replacement is around 10%, which alone will not support meaningful changes in replacement choices. A concept that requires the City to ensure that all improvements have been permitted when required, similar to the resale program in the City of Davis (3), should be considered.
Finally, there are a number of limitations at the service and panel level that may need to be addressed, and the City should work with SMUD to identify where those issues are. The XeroHome tool is very important to this effort, and the City should work with other Cities and the County to extend the use of Xerohome to help with overall strategies to deal with infrastructure issues where they are block or neighborhood level. To address issues at the individual property level, it is important that the permits for additions or alterations that do not include HVAC and/or water heating appliances have a requirements to review and upgrade electrical panel or branch circuit to support these electric appliances in the future. These requirements could be phased with requirements to educate choice first, but the bottom line is that a remodel is an event that allows for infrastructure upgrades in a way that is more efficient, less costly, and will allow for the more convenient replacement of appliances later.
Sincerely,
Rosie Yacoub, 350 Sacramento
1. See CEC Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume I Building Decarbonization, Page 64
3. See Resale Program | City of Davis, CA