Racial Equity Committee
Meeting Time: 10-25-22 10:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Racial Equity Committee 10-25-22
10:00
15 2 1 0 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
Racial Equity Committee
10-25-22 10:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
3. Status Update on Cannabis Racial Equity Study File ID: 2022-01828 1 1 0 0
4. Sports Field Equity Lens Dashboard File ID: 2022-01835 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 3. Status Update on Cannabis Racial Equity Study File ID: 2022-01828 Overall Sentiment
Alex Hoch
Location:
Submitted At: 8:54am 10-21-22
I'm glad you are still focused on this, but we've had years to address these issues at this point... Commercial consumption has pushed way too many demographics out of this market. Furthermore, the complex regulatory regime that we have created in California serves no one but larger business interests. And at this point, I'd go as far as saying those very same business interests are the reason we wont see legalization at the national level.
With Oregon's surplus supply, they would wind up flooding every other market... Not exactly what we were bargaining for through the ASA and NORML... At least its harvest season...
Agenda Item: eComments for 4. Sports Field Equity Lens Dashboard File ID: 2022-01835 Overall Sentiment
David Rice
Location:
Submitted At: 8:06am 10-24-22
The purpose of this item needs to be clarified. The stated purpose is to address disparities in park services, which I take to create equal access to park services. This is an important goal and should be pursued by the City. This can be accomplished by comparing the quality of services of the different parks and perhaps factoring in the child density ratio. Then, the City should prioritize those parks that have lower scored. However, by including in the lens CalEnviroscreen and income data, the lens seems to deviate from that purpose. Because the dashboard link is dead, I can't look at it myself. But, based on the description, it would seem that two parks with the same quality of service and same child density ratio would have different scores based on the income of the neighborhood and the CalEnviroscreen score. What exactly does this mean? How are funds apportioned and services prioritized?
Additionally, if the goal is that all Sacramentans get equal access to park and rec facilities, then the intensity of use should also be considered. For example, some parks are simply used more than others and need more services. For example, the Southside Park playground is used much more heavily than the Sierra 2 or Curtis Park playgrounds, even though the child density may be greater in the Curtis Park/Sierra 2 playgrounds.
Similarly, Land Park is packed every weekend with all manner of sports events, family bbqs, and other events.
And, as a destination park, the users aren't necessarily reflected in neighborhood composition. Without a doubt, Land Park needs more bathrooms and other amenities because it is used so heavily by those throughout Sacramento--and this should be factored in the lens.