5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins at 4:00 PM) [Updated 1/30/2023 @11:10am]
Meeting Time: 01-31-23 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council (Closed Session Begins
at 4:00 PM) [Updated 1/30/2023
@11:10am]
01-31-23
17:00
32 112 10 94 6
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 (Closed Session Begins at 4:00 PM) [Updated 1/30/2023 @11:10am] 01-31-23 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Consent Calendar 2 1 1 0
1. City Clerk’s Log of Councilmember Pending Requests File ID: 2022- 02576
1 0 0 1
2. Establish Capital Improvement Project and Budgetary Adjustments:
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study (T15235000) File ID: 2022- 02456
4 0 3 1
4. Agreement: Lease of Winn Park Building and Establishment of a MYOP File ID: 2022-02249
1 1 0 0
10. Suspend Competitive Bidding and Authorize Request for Proposals Process (RFP) for the Purchase of Bicycle Racks (Two-Thirds Vote Required) File ID: 2022-02342
2 2 0 0
13. Contract: Armored Multi-Terrain Loader (Two-thirds Vote Required) File ID: 2022-02197
97 3 89 4
14. Third-Party Appeal: 7909 Bruceville Road - Proposed Storefront Dispensary (P22-020) [Noticed 01/20/2023] File ID: 2022-02448 3 2 1 0
Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda 2 1 0 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 Consent Calendar
Overall Sentiment
Kristina Rogers
Location:
Submitted At: 2:19pm 01-30-23
Please leave item #13 on the agenda. Law enforcement need the tools to deal with the rise in gang/gun/cartel violence in Sacramento. Violent criminals don't care about race, who is "marginalized" or following the law. They will harm anyone they desire and our police need to be prepared for dangerous situations that could harm ANY citizen from ANY neighborhood.
If police can't do their job properly, there will be more victims - many who are not white.
Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako
Location:
Submitted At: 10:32am 01-30-23
Regarding Consent Item #13: Please pull this item off the Consent Calendar. A $439,894 gift to the Sacramento Police department in the form of an "armored critical incident vehicle" or rook is NOT in the best interest of the City. This purchase adds to the militarization of the Sacramento Police Department, which has demonstrated excessive force against Sacramento's most vulnerable, most marginalized, and most disenfranchised residents.
SWAT teams frequently use a range of militarized equipment, and SWAT deployments also disproportionately impact Black and Latinx households. An ACLU study of SWAT deployments by 16 law enforcement agencies found that Black people were between four and 47 times more likely to be impacted by SWAT deployments than whites. Moreover, these deployments impacting Black people were much more likely to be used for search warrants, while deployments impacting white people were more likely to be in hostage, barricade or shooter incidents. It is in the BEST interest of the City of Sacramento to NOT give Sac PD any more militarized equipment.
Agenda Item: eComments for 1. City Clerk’s Log of Councilmember Pending Requests File ID: 2022-02576 Overall Sentiment
Susan Herre, President of ECOS
Location:
Submitted At: 6:28pm 01-30-23
Dear Mayor and Council Members, please pull this item from the Consent Calendar and see our letter attached.
Thank you.
Agenda Item: eComments for 2. Establish Capital Improvement Project and Budgetary Adjustments: Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study (T15235000) File ID: 2022-02456
Overall Sentiment
Heather Fargo
Location:
Submitted At: 8:53pm 01-30-23
Please remove this item from the consent calendar and send it back to staff for further analysis.
I have had personal concerns about this project for decades, as it treats Truxel Road as an alternative to I-5, moving freeway traffic to a mostly residential street, without any mitigation to improve safety, noise or aesthetics.
In fact, earlier presentations to the community have called for removal of the valley oaks on the east side of the street by the community decades ago to make room for light rail. While South Natomas (built as a transit oriented community without much transit) could benefit from improved transit service, it must be done in a way that does not harm the residential fabric of our community. It must come with enhancements.
Truxel Road is already impacted by excessive speed and volume of traffic, failing sound walls, and poor lighting. It is generally considered unsafe and unpleasant to walk or ride bikes. Truxel will have to be tamed to avoid severe impacts and to gain support in the South Natomas community. There isn’t even a reference in the staff report to known impacts in South Natomas from the increased traffic. And the reference to improved access to the American River Parkway is just not true. Driving over the parkway does not improve access to Discovery Park or the parkway.
This project is currently being treated as an engineering project only without regard for existing communities and residents, on either side of the river. That should change, Thank you for considering my comments.
Heather Fargo
Location:
Submitted At: 8:53pm 01-30-23
Please remove this item from the consent calendar and send it back to staff for further analysis.
I have had personal concerns about this project for decades, as it treats Truxel Road as an alternative to I-5, moving freeway traffic to a mostly residential street, without any mitigation to improve safety, noise or aesthetics.
In fact, earlier presentations to the community have called for removal of the valley oaks on the east side of the street by the community decades ago to make room for light rail. While South Natomas (built as a transit oriented community without much transit) could benefit from improved transit service, it must be done in a way that does not harm the residential fabric of our community. It must come with enhancements.
Truxel Road is already impacted by excessive speed and volume of traffic, failing sound walls, and poor lighting. It is generally considered unsafe and unpleasant to walk or ride bikes. Truxel will have to be tamed to avoid severe impacts and to gain support in the South Natomas community. There isn’t even a reference in the staff report to known impacts in South Natomas from the increased traffic. And the reference to improved access to the American River Parkway is just not true. Driving over the parkway does not improve access to Discovery Park or the parkway.
This project is currently being treated as an engineering project only without regard for existing communities and residents, on either side of the river. That should change, Thank you for considering my comments.
Susan Herre, President of ECOS
Location:
Submitted At: 7:25pm 01-30-23
Dear Mayor and Council, please pull this item from the Consent Calendar and see the ECOS letter attached.
Thank you.
Tom Matoff
Location:
Submitted At: 5:53pm 01-30-23
I encourage the Council to remove this item from the consent calendar, and return it to staff for amendment and re-submittal in accordance with comments in the attached letter. Thank you.
Agenda Item: eComments for 4. Agreement: Lease of Winn Park Building and Establishment of a MYOP File ID: 2022-02249 Overall Sentiment
James Kreidler
Location:
Submitted At: 8:21pm 01-30-23
I support this because LCAC will bring more life to Winn Park by leasing the building there.
Agenda Item: eComments for 10. Suspend Competitive Bidding and Authorize Request for Proposals Process (RFP) for the Purchase of Bicycle Racks (Two-Thirds Vote Required) File ID: 2022-02342 Overall Sentiment
Jordan Leigh
Location:
Submitted At: 7:28am 01-31-23
This is a great move for the city. With climate change worsening, we need to make the city more accessible to bicycles, and other modes of transportation. One of the biggest challenges we face is safety and accessible areas to lock our bikes.
Matt Anderson
Location:
Submitted At: 7:17am 01-31-23
Thoroughly support! Big thank you to council and staff for supporting actions like this making tangible steps to address our climate emergency.
Agenda Item: eComments for 13. Contract: Armored Multi-Terrain Loader (Two-thirds Vote Required) File ID: 2022-02197 Overall Sentiment
Michael Skinner
Location:
Submitted At: 9:20am 01-31-23
Spend this money on methods for combating crime that actually happens, not on making it easier for police to get into gunfights. When was the last time Sac PD solved a vehicle break in or cat theft? If you want to play soldier you can do like I did and join the Army. Unless you would rather shoot at your fellow Americans I guess.
Christiaan Havelaar
Location:
Submitted At: 9:19am 01-31-23
Militarization of the police force is a problem. This is an unnecessary use of public funds.
Gurjeet Barayah
Location:
Submitted At: 9:10am 01-31-23
Certainly the city can find a better way to spend nearly half a million dollars than yet another TANK for this police department.
No more finding for the PD until they begin to serve our citizens again. No traffic enforcement, nonresponse to local crime, this PD is horrendous.
Ope Tudor
Location:
Submitted At: 8:59am 01-31-23
Spend that money to help people, not play GI Joe.
Jacob Bredberg
Location:
Submitted At: 8:58am 01-31-23
From: Marilynn Mackey
SAC MAYOR STEINBERG PUTS $ ITEMS ON CONSENT CALENDAR ILLEGALL Y Steinberg continues his corruption with the new Sac City Council. Every item since the New Y ear that requires a hearing so Residents can debate has been put on the consent Calendar where the 3 new Council Members and the remaining 5 scared council members vote 100% to approve.
Remember Steinberg set up an investigation into current Council Member Loloee residency three months ago because he voted and spoke out against a housing issue Steinberg was pushing through! Now Loloee votes in favor of the consent calendar.
Steinberg did not get the approval of the Calif Supreme Court to serve as Judge in the 3rd District Court of Appeals this month. Literally everyone dislikes Steinberg and wrote the Supreme Court at [email protected], about why.
Marilynn Mackey
Michala Mahoney
Location:
Submitted At: 8:29am 01-31-23
As a tax payer I see this purchase as woefully irresponsible. The sherrif and police departments have had continuous year over year budget increases, without year over year improvement to public safety. This money could be spent on youth programs or enriching our public spaces - which research shows will have an impact on public safety.
I oppose the militarization of our local police forces and urge you to vote no on this contract.
Pablo Quijada
Location:
Submitted At: 8:25am 01-31-23
Police don’t need military vehicles. If the Boys in Blue want to ride a military vehicle, I recommend they join the military & leave the police force. Likely, they’re too cowardly to do so, hence, they want to waste money on an unnecessary toy.
Vlad Yr
Location:
Submitted At: 8:22am 01-31-23
I don’t see what problem this is solving. No specific past situations listed in rationale suggesting this could have helped. Just funneling money to a corporation without competitive bidding even.
Requires more rationalization than “could be useful”.
This is not an action movie.
Katie Gresham
Location:
Submitted At: 8:20am 01-31-23
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
My name is Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako. I am a licensed psychologist in private practice, a community mental health advocate, and a resident of District 7. I am writing to urge you to pull item #13 off the Consent Calendar for the 1/31/23 Sacramento City Council Meeting and please vote against this purchase.
Item #13 asks you to approve the purchase of an Armored Critical Incident Vehicle, whose purchase totals almost half a million dollars. A $439,894 gift to the Sacramento Police department in the form of an "armored critical incident vehicle" or rook is NOT in the best interest of the City. This purchase adds to the militarization of the Sacramento Police Department, which has demonstrated excessive force against Sacramento's most vulnerable, most marginalized, and most disenfranchised residents. SWAT teams frequently use a range of militarized equipment, and SWAT deployments also disproportionately impact Black and Latinx households. An ACLU study of SWAT deployments by 16 law enforcement agencies found that Black people were between four and 47 times more likely to be impacted by SWAT deployments than whites. Moreover, these deployments impacting Black people were much more likely to be used for search warrants, while deployments impacting white people were more likely to be in hostage, barricade or shooter incidents (refer to American Civil Liberties Union, War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing, 2014, pp. 36-37, at: https://www.aclu.org/report/war- comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-police).
This armored critical incident vehicle will cost the City an additional $8000 per year for maintenance, and an unknown amount for officer training.
Sacramento PD already has two armored vehicles and they have access to the very same armored critical incident vehicle from the Sacramento County Sheriff.
It is in the BEST interest of the City of Sacramento to NOT give Sac PD any more militarized equipment.
Thank you,
Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako, PsyD, LMFT
Ariel Elliott
Location:
Submitted At: 8:13am 01-31-23
I watched the Sacramento police department misuse thousands of dollars of their drones, bomb robots & military vehicles, on one single woman, while they laughed and had a great time. They do not need more toys! They need social worker babysitters until they learn how to be mature adults! I live in oak park and see them harassing people for no good reason, always laughing to each-other like child bullies. It’s disgusting.
Stephanie Doute
Location:
Submitted At: 8:05am 01-31-23
Absolutely opposed to further militarization of the police. Sac PD are already in possession of 2 armored vehicles and have access to this Rook via the Sac County Sheriff.
Use the money to actually help our community. Mental health services. Deal with the homelessness crisis. Fix roads. Invest in schools and teachers. We have so many actual needs, the police are already well funded.
This is not why we elected you.
Julia Vandermat
Location:
Submitted At: 8:02am 01-31-23
Not a needed item, invest in de-escalation training, training on how to interact with those who had mental disorders/disabilities, community outreach, anything else other than using a tank to plow citizens down.
Michelle Jenkins
Location:
Submitted At: 7:56am 01-31-23
Please do not waste money on this. What an absurd use of funds that could be spent on actually helping people.
Just no. Stop militarizing the police.-Michelle Jenkins, RN Muriel Strand
Location: 95820, Sacramento
Submitted At: 7:55am 01-31-23
this: https://therook.ringpower.com/ is not the kind of improvement sacramento police need. it's overkill. if 2nd story access is needed, the fire dept or the tree care dept can help. if suspects are barricaded, patience and conversation are in order. and the peaceable assembly for redress of grievances typically only turns into a riot when police overreact or when agents provocateurs sabotage the situation. $500,000 could help dozens of homeless people find apartments, jobs, and start paying taxes. would the police really not prefer that allocation? if so, they should be replaced. please do the sensible thing and reject this militaristic idea.
Jordan Leigh
Location:
Submitted At: 7:22am 01-31-23
I oppose the purchase of additional military equipment for Sac PD. The timing of this is especially insensitive with the recent police brutality of one of Sacramento’s own. How can the city claim to mourn with the victims family and then turn around and consider approving further militarization of our police force. This just further proves that everything the city government says in times of crisis is nothing more than “thoughts and prayers”. There are much better uses for our taxpayer dollars in the city, like helping our neighbors who are suffering on the streets.
The police are not here to protect us, they’re here to protect the wealthy, and their property and profits. Anyone living in Sacramento who has tried to actually call the police for assistance knows they aren’t here to assist us.
Liliana Magaña
Location:
Submitted At: 7:01am 01-31-23
I oppose spending money for another police vehicle. The money should be utilized to fix our roads that are in dire need of repair.
kas rivers
Location:
Submitted At: 7:01am 01-31-23
What the f is WRONG with you people? I OPPOSE weaponizing our police force when they are already a group of terrorists that murder our citizens instead of serving and protecting. How about you fix our roads. How about you GIVE A F about our unhoused population. How about you do something useful with yourselves? Absolute disgrace. Y ou should all be ashamed for even considering this.
Ken Kruse
Location:
Submitted At: 6:30am 01-31-23
This is simply unnecessary and wasteful. Couldn’t the city council find a better use for this money, this might be an opportunity for them to reflect on perhaps giving the law enforcement budget in general a decrease for a change, if they think this item is a priority, they aren’t hurting for resources.
Joe Gamble
Location:
Submitted At: 5:09am 01-31-23
I oppose the proposal to spend over $400,000 on yet another military grade piece of equipment.
Sacramento PD has seen substantial year-over-year budget increases.
How many murders has Sacramento PD solved in the last two years? How many crimes have been prevented by increasing the Sacramento PD budget? What else could this $400,000 be spent on?
I respectfully urge you to vote NO on this item.
Brooke Baker
Location:
Submitted At: 4:44am 01-31-23
The gross amount of taxpayer dollars that would be wasted on a vehicle such as this can be better spent in any other place in our beautiful city where it would actually impact crime. Supporting communities is always a better crime prevention than more expensive equipment. Sacramento police department already has a bad reputation of using excessive force. What do they need this vehicle for? How will this address the issues of police overreach? It won't, it will only cause outrage.
Joey Barrett
Location:
Submitted At: 3:30am 01-31-23
If you're a criminal in Sacramento and want to keep your crime spree going, vote YES, because giving Sac PD another tank isn't gonna help them solve crime in our city.
Sabrina Glover
Location:
Submitted At: 3:29am 01-31-23
We do not need to make this a priority in Sacramento.
Kristan Culbert
Location:
Submitted At: 1:34am 01-31-23
I am concerned about the use of this piece of military-grade equipment against residents of my city. Respectfully, I do not support the purchase of this piece of equipment. Instead, I urge city leadership and attendees to identify other ways to dedicate $400,000 to benefiting our community -- this could provide salaries for mental health service providers, park maintenance, resources for unhoused people and/or at-risk youth.
Caty Franco
Location:
Submitted At: 1:25am 01-31-23
Further militarizing our police force makes us feel anything but safe. Please do not spend additional funds on our police force, especially not on things like this, plus costs of ongoing costs for maintenance and training.
Kl La
Location:
Submitted At: 1:13am 01-31-23
This is the last thing we should be spending money on. Purchasing this military grade equipment does nothing to address poverty or other root causes of crime.
Lindsey Anderson
Location:
Submitted At: 11:50pm 01-30-23
An armored vehicle is an absolute WASTE of taxpayer money, that should instead be spend on the worsening homeless crisis.
Jake Somerhausen
Location:
Submitted At: 11:44pm 01-30-23
At the time of writing this there are roughly 82 comments on this item. Three of them support it. How can you be a representative of the people if this is how you spend taxpayer money when nearly every citizen that has come to make a statement on it is strongly opposed to it. This does nothing for crime prevention, this does nothing for safety, the PD already has access to one through the sheriffs office, and this will only seek to escalate violence at otherwise peaceful protests as it has done in the past. Stop militarizing police.
Blake Aboueljoud
Location:
Submitted At: 11:18pm 01-30-23
Our PD is full of a bunch of lazy, useless clowns. Why should we waste our tax dollars on something that is going to terrorize us?
AJ England
Location:
Submitted At: 11:07pm 01-30-23
This would be a gross and excessive use of funds that could instead be allocated towards something directly useful to the taxpayers of Sacramento. Ie further mental health response training, deescalation training, and/or police therapy/ptsd resources.
Fred Astaire
Location:
Submitted At: 10:33pm 01-30-23
Tax dollars could be better utilized for finding a remedy for homelessness or social services related to victims of domestic violence, or paying for better services for the mentally ill. Which in turn will help the first two issues as well. Not cure them but a step in the right direction, or funding can be used to help pay for education which in turn will lower crime rates.
Violence begets violence and constantly playing cold war with crime hasn't worked so far and stats show the way to fix crime isn't by scaring your populace into submission Grant Watkins Davis
Location:
Submitted At: 10:29pm 01-30-23
This is a terrible waste of resources. How much maintenance spending will be required in perpetuity to maintain this vehicle? The lifetime cost is much greater than the initial procurement cost. All the money spent on acquiring, maintaining, and operating this vehicle would be much better utilized on methods of crime prevention and traffic safety that are actually shown to be effective such as addressing poverty, health issues, and poorly designed areas of the city.
Megan Hamaker
Location:
Submitted At: 10:11pm 01-30-23
The police are not a military and do not need military grade equipment. Please use the money on actual social services to help house homeless and provide economic opportunities for our citizens. The police don’t need another tool to hurt the people of Sacramento.
William H.
Location:
Submitted At: 10:09pm 01-30-23
Are you crazy? No.
Bryan Burnitt
Location:
Submitted At: 9:55pm 01-30-23
#1 - fix your comment portal so it is clear you must have an account to submit so folks don’t have to retype this on mobile.
#2 - armored vehicles have no place in domestic policing. Police violence is a national catastrophe, and police are used to silence the citizenry against their Constitutional rights. Moreover, the initial capital cost of this vehicle is followed by years of annual maintenance and upkeep. No more police budget hike until real effort is pursued to address the root cause of crime - POVERTY . Enough said - this is wasteful and does nothing to improve Sacramento.
Chandra Miller
Location:
Submitted At: 9:47pm 01-30-23
Equipment like this is not going to better day to day life here in Sacramento. Extremely poor use of tax payer money.
Roger Cleaves
Location:
Submitted At: 9:46pm 01-30-23
Why do you need this?
KC W
Location:
Submitted At: 9:42pm 01-30-23
Although it unfortunately appears that approval has already been given to purchase another (unnecessary) militarized piece of equipment, the staff report fails to address why competitive bidding for the purchase should be suspended. At a time when Sacramento is facing major public health and safety issues regarding homeless and police responses to protests, what steps have been taken to ensure that this particular contract is the best and most fiscally prudent option? There is no indication that alternatives were considered and found lacking, or why competitive bidding would not be appropriate. The City Council should not be rubber-stamping requests for military equipment for a municipal police department without at least a minimal amount of fiscal supervision.
Andrew Deeringer
Location:
Submitted At: 9:38pm 01-30-23
This city does not need this vehicle. Even if we did, I wouldn't trust this police department with one. But if the city *must* purchase one, why on earth would you make taxpayers pay *more* for it by suspending competitive bidding???
Items like this destroy my faith that this city council is interested in solving real problems rather than play-acting at some phony version of strength. Save city resources for more urgent needs like housing. Stop doubling down on an overpriced militarized police force.
Mina Abdelmessih
Location:
Submitted At: 9:35pm 01-30-23
We don't need a military police
Matt Wilkens
Location:
Submitted At: 9:32pm 01-30-23
I respectfully urge you to vote NO on this item.
I oppose spending over $400,000 on another military grade piece of equipment for our civilian police department, when there are so many other, more pressing needs that our city faces.
Police brutality and excessive force remains a problem, and Sacramento PD already has more than one military- grade equipment item like this. This represents an unnecessary extension into further militarization and scariness, from the people who are meant to be the best protectors of our community - not the aggressors in it.
Purchasing this military-grade equipment does nothing to address poverty or other root causes of crime, only exacerbates the divisions between the police and the community.
We need more support for those who have the least, not more heavily armored vehicles. What else could this $400,000 be spent on?
Maleka Quettawala
Location:
Submitted At: 9:27pm 01-30-23
It’s unbelievable that we are going into a recession and with the public distrust of police that this would be brought up for vote. Please vote no and this is ridiculous
Willem Dannenbaum
Location:
Submitted At: 9:18pm 01-30-23
It is unconscionable to spend $400k on ANOTHER tank for the cops while Sacramento citizens are underserved AnneMarie H.F.
Location:
Submitted At: 9:06pm 01-30-23
We can do better than this.
Skyler Karlsson
Location:
Submitted At: 9:05pm 01-30-23
I respectfully urge you to vote NO on this item.
Jason Danales
Location:
Submitted At: 8:58pm 01-30-23
There are far greater needs than this. What is the justification for such an extravagant purchase? Brittany Estrada
Location:
Submitted At: 8:57pm 01-30-23
This is waste of taxpayer money.
Sara Freid
Location:
Submitted At: 8:56pm 01-30-23
No more militarism of PD
DJ Pack
Location:
Submitted At: 8:38pm 01-30-23
This is a disgusting waste of money, with 400k the department could engage in training to better prepare our police with de-escalation tools. We could equip our police with more non-lethal alternatives so that we don't see more people shot while holding cell phones in the dark of their yard. 400k of public funds could be spent on better youth intervention programs, better lighting, and cops walking beats in downtown/midtown. 400k could be spent to start an independent civilian oversight committee to investigate cases of police misconduct instead of leaving it up to the police to investigate the police. Hire more psychologists, spend it on sensitivity training, teach cops that it isn't them versus the citizens of the city.
Libbey Durkee
Location:
Submitted At: 8:34pm 01-30-23
Ridiculous waste of funds.
James Kreidler
Location:
Submitted At: 8:34pm 01-30-23
I oppose the purchase of the Loader all together however that is not being considered.
Therefore, I oppose part a) of the motion to suspend competitive bidding. The purchase of a 439k vehicle without competitive bidding does not sound like good governance to me. One usually needs an emergency or some critical exemption to cut out competitive bidding and this situation does not appear to be an emergency. Sac Sheriffs already have one of these tanks if an emergency happens meaning the county is already prepared. This purchase does not meet any reasonable emergency standard in my opinion to absolve it of competitive bidding, especially at this high price. Pentagon gets a blank check, does our police department? What if there is a vehicle that can meet all the standards of this 439k vehicle at half the price? We should look into cheaper options.
Competitive bidding is there to prevent corruption and inflated government contracts. Please vote no on part a), let competitive bidding and good fiscal responsibility happen. Voting no on part a) stops part b) and c) from happening.
Sasha Ganji
Location:
Submitted At: 8:25pm 01-30-23
Excessive equipment and we do not need to further militarize out police. Hard NO on this.
Dawn Whitney
Location:
Submitted At: 8:23pm 01-30-23
Sacramento should not strive to militarize its police. Policing needs deescalation these days, not more violence and materiel capable of careless murder. This is a very bad and immoral purchase. I live in District 6.
Mary Prather
Location:
Submitted At: 8:23pm 01-30-23
This seems like an excessive purchase for tax payers, with little to no potential use.
Sunny Kenner
Location:
Submitted At: 8:22pm 01-30-23
Please vote no on any additional tax payer funds towards citizen control officers (police) and give the money directly to the Departments that can assist to alleviate the actual problems in this city such as the homeless issue.
Placing a bandaid, dressed as armored trucks, on the crime issue is not the fix. Read the room guys.
Bradin Heimbach
Location:
Submitted At: 8:09pm 01-30-23
Excessive piece of equipment whose funding would be better spent in other areas.
Dave Smith
Location:
Submitted At: 8:08pm 01-30-23
The SPD does not need any more militarized vehicles. $400,000 dollars would be better spent on a fancy pants picture that shows the difference between a phone and a gun. Or, for training to stop the militarization of the SPD.
I've lived in several countries. I've seen friendly police as in South Korea. I know it can be done.
James Willig
Location:
Submitted At: 7:50pm 01-30-23
Police don't need military equipment. They're not at war with us.
Stephanie Lake
Location:
Submitted At: 7:46pm 01-30-23
A waste of resources, this city needs to set it's priorities for it's citizens. Equipment like this isn't going to better anyone's day to day life
Jonathon Temple
Location:
Submitted At: 7:43pm 01-30-23
Resident of city of Sacramento. Strongly opposed
Andrew Hotz
Location:
Submitted At: 7:40pm 01-30-23
I strongly oppose this item, and I respectfully urge you to vote NO on this item.
Please stop the militarization of the police.
There's no protecting and serving from inside one of these.
Gabby Lin
Location:
Submitted At: 7:38pm 01-30-23
I respectfully urge the council to vote NO on this item. As a recent resident of Sacramento, I have had one interaction with the Sacramento police department while my car broke down on a busy intersection. The main officer who I interacted with was rude, pushy, and not at all helpful to the situation. I do not believe I want individuals that have little training in respect, deescalation, or empathy to have more access to highly destructive equipment. In addition, in light of increased police brutality that is occurring across this nation, this would be an irresponsible purchase that would make this city look tone-deaf to what has recently happened in our country (and just a few days ago to Tyre Nichols who was a past resident of Sacramento). The funds could be allocated to helping the homeless through mental health services or even in other areas like public transportation or helping fight climate change. There is no need for the “rook” to be purchased unless we want to be seen as a violent, tone-deaf city.
Sarah Carroll
Location:
Submitted At: 7:37pm 01-30-23
Stop this ridiculousness. This is wasteful spending. Stop criminalizing the regular citizenry. For the love of god can’t you find a way to use this money to actually help us? Our roads are embarrassing. Our school are crap. We have one of the worst homeless problems in the nation. Please, please cut the crap. Does no one on these committees read anything about successful policing practices? It isn’t this. It’s never been this. Use this money to increase the police force if people are scared. Give them a reasonable work load so they can have the time to do their jobs adequately without crushing stress. And if you want actual buy in from your constituents hold these meetings at times where they can participate. Everyone who pays for these things are still working at 4.
No No
Location:
Submitted At: 7:33pm 01-30-23
Use funds for something actually beneficial to residents.
Suzanne Zev
Location:
Submitted At: 7:31pm 01-30-23
I strongly urge you to vote NO on the Armored Multi-Terrain Loader.
I oppose spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on military grade piece of equipment for our civilian police department
Police brutality and excessive force remains a problem. The police do not need military equipment. Despite this, Sacramento PD already has military-grade equipment and multiple armored loaders already.
Purchasing the "Rook" military vehicle is fiscally irresponsible and will cost tens of thousands of dollars a year in maintenance after the initial purchase.
Purchasing this military-grade equipment does nothing to address poverty or other root causes of crime.
Sacramento PD has seen substantial year-over-year budget increases, while civilians continue to suffer.
Kate Enos
Location:
Submitted At: 7:14pm 01-30-23
I respectfully urge you to vote NO on this item.
We can spend over $400,000 of taxpayer money on public services, education and better alternatives which benefit the Sacramento community.
Dani Brann
Location:
Submitted At: 7:10pm 01-30-23
I respectfully urge you to vote NO on this item.
I oppose spending over $400,000 on another military grade piece of equipment for our civilian police department Police brutality and excessive force remains a problem, and was a problem during the 2020 protests Sacramento PD already has more than one military-grade equipment item like this Purchasing this "Rook" military equipment is fiscally irresponsible and will cost tens of thousands of dollars a year in maintenance after the initial purchase
Purchasing this military-grade equipment does nothing to address poverty or other root causes of crime.
Sacramento PD has seen substantial year-over-year budget increases Reagan Tran
Location:
Submitted At: 7:07pm 01-30-23
$400,000 could be used in much better ways than giving more military-grade equipment to our civilian police force.
Ronit Zavodivker
Location:
Submitted At: 7:03pm 01-30-23
I oppose this proposal as a tax paying resident of this city who believes the focus of the department should be demilitarization, especially in light of the recently disbanded Scorpion unit that resulted in the death of an ex Sacramento resident.
Ryan Hernandez
Location:
Submitted At: 7:02pm 01-30-23
This Is an egregious request to misuse funds desperately needed for use in alleviating social strife faced by many Californians. Spending priorities such as hunger, homelessness, and climate related disaster far supersede the need for creating a dangerous militarized police force Adrianna Lucero
Location:
Submitted At: 6:48pm 01-30-23
I oppose this proposal. We should not be continuing to militarize our police force. There are so many more important things to spend $400,000 on.
Chris Brown
Location:
Submitted At: 6:33pm 01-30-23
While we face the challenges of climate change and the impacts on our community, especially on the unhoused we need every extra dollar to go to our most urgent needs. This proposal is immoral in its its commitment to violence and irrelevant to the real emergency we face.
Joshua Oren
Location:
Submitted At: 6:29pm 01-30-23
I oppose spending over $400,000 on another military grade piece of equipment for our civilian police department Audrey Boochever
Location:
Submitted At: 6:23pm 01-30-23
I respectfully urge you to vote NO on this item.
I oppose spending over $400,000 on another military grade piece of equipment for our civilian police department Police brutality and excessive force remains a problem, and was a problem during the 2020 protests Sacramento PD already has more than one military-grade equipment item like this Purchasing this "Rook" military equipment is fiscally irresponsible and will cost tens of thousands of dollars a year in maintenance after the initial purchase
Purchasing this military-grade equipment does nothing to address poverty or other root causes of crime.
Sacramento PD has seen substantial year-over-year budget increases.
What else could this $400,000 be spent on?
Lynne Perry
Location:
Submitted At: 6:21pm 01-30-23
Please, we do not need to further militarize the police. In what scenario is a 4th armored vehicle like the Rook needed? In light of the recurring incidents of police violence towards the public we should be looking at ways of creating a more humane police service that communicates with, and has a relationship with the community it is supposed protect. It is a mistake to keep arming them like they are a military force against the people in that community. Enough already!
Alaina Boys
Location:
Submitted At: 6:05pm 01-30-23
There is absolutely no reason for Sacramento PD to be purchasing what amounts to a mini tank. What "war" are they fighting again, exactly? Legal protests? The public speaking their minds? This is a waste of money & it further encourages officers to overstep their roles. It has been seen that in other cities, when they purchase their million dollar mini tanks, that they cannot find enough uses for the tank - what makes Sacramento any different? Sweeping houseless person encampments is already done in such a brutal manner - what is this tank going to add? It's going to sit in a vehicle yard gathering dust and dragged out for parades. That's all it's used for in other cities. And think about the cost of upkeep! The vehicle has to go to a specialty mechanic & the parts & tires are extremely expensive. Is the city willing to spend multi thousands a year on a vehicle rusting in some yard, forgotten, only to be brought out to brutalize the public when protests erupt & for National Night Out? Couldn't this be used in a more useful manner - like hiring non-badged mental health advocates or similar? What a waste of all of our time!
Sarah Reiwitch
Location:
Submitted At: 5:58pm 01-30-23
I strongly oppose this item. The last thing this city needs is to give Sac PD a third armored. In addition to those two they already have, they also have access to the Sac County Sheriff's "Rook." Further militarization of our police is not helping keep people safe, it's actually causing us a lot of harm both physically and psychologically. It's really terrifying to watch how our police are becoming more and more like a military being used against the good people of Sacramento. Just look at how many severe and life-altering injuries law enforcement inflicted in 2020 on our people who were (ironically) peacefully protesting police violence. Have you been following the news lately and seeing all the abuses of police power that have resulted in death of our citizens in Atlanta, Memphis, and more? The answer to law enforcement violence against our people should not be to give law enforcement agencies more tools with which they can terrorize, mame, and even kill us with.
Additionally, with around 10K folks living outside and needing social services/housing/help, the nearly half million $ to purchase this vehicle plus the $8K per year in maintenance would be so much better spent helping them.
This money should instead go to mental health assistance, substance use disorder support, and housing for our people. If you vote yes on this, you'll show the people of Sacramento that you're not only tone deaf, you'll make it very clear that you do not care about the people of this city. Do the right thing and vote no.
Scott Bolli
Location:
Submitted At: 5:57pm 01-30-23
Hello,
I oppose this expenditure and the militarization of the police department. There's no protecting and serving from inside one of these.
Thank you.
Timothy Irvine
Location:
Submitted At: 5:41pm 01-30-23
I oppose the proposal to spend over $400,000 on yet another military grade piece of equipment.
Purchasing this "Rook" military equipment is fiscally irresponsible and does nothing to address poverty or other root causes of crime.
Sacramento PD has seen substantial year-over-year budget increases.
How many murders has Sacramento PD solved in the last two years? How many crimes have been prevented by increasing the Sacramento PD budget? What else could this $400,000 be spent on?
I respectfully urge you to vote NO on this item.
Timothy Irvine, South Natomas (D3)
Will Gillaspy
Location:
Submitted At: 5:27pm 01-30-23
Absolutely not, civilian police forces have absolutely no need for military vehicles. Any money that could be spent on military surplus toys for an already over budgeted police department could easily be better spent giving actual services or benefits to the community, which would have a much greater impact on crime than any armored vehicle sitting in the police parking lot would.
Jess Walker
Location:
Submitted At: 4:17pm 01-30-23
Sacramento can absolutely do better without this purchase. For our community to see improvement is not the need for police militarization but for more resources to serve the citizens of the community.
Jillian L.
Location:
Submitted At: 4:07pm 01-30-23
I oppose this unneccesary spending on this frivolous purchase. Vote no.
Connie Reeder
Location:
Submitted At: 4:03pm 01-30-23
I strongly oppose this contract which will further militarized Sac PD. Police brutality is at an all time high, this contract is a slap in the face to all families and community members who have been impacted by police violence.
Mel Yu
Location:
Submitted At: 3:47pm 01-30-23
I am in strong opposition to this contract. Sacramento Police Department has a horrible track record of violence against civilians already. Should we really be granting them even more militarized gear? (Absolutely not!) Police already hold a monopoly on violence; we should not enable them further. Let's at least put this money to services that make Sacramento more hospitable to all, rather than make it more of a playground for the police to enact their violent fantasies.
Robert Longer
Location:
Submitted At: 3:45pm 01-30-23
I absolutely oppose the further militarization of the police. Aside from the obvious ongoing budgetary impact for maintenance and other associated costs, there is the very real question of our priorities as a city: what we spend our limited resources on matters. I do not believe that we should spend taxpayer dollars in any shape or form on the militarization of law enforcement. Please oppose this! Austin W
Location:
Submitted At: 3:34pm 01-30-23
This is absolutely embarrassing that the city continues to pump money into reactionary policing instead of actually trying to solve issues. The city continue to be tight on money to help home those experiencing homelessness and improve transit or infrastructure but the police want more toys and the city has all the money it needs.
Literally most our taxes go to the police. Its silly and this request is absurd. Stop it.
Gordon Maag
Location:
Submitted At: 3:19pm 01-30-23
I think it is ridiculous that our city would think that further militarization of our police force is an action that could in any way help our community. Please vote no against this waste of taxpayer money.
Andrew Barnes
Location:
Submitted At: 3:19pm 01-30-23
It is deranged that this is up for consideration. That any functional adult would consider this an appropriate use of funds is beyond baffling to me. Why can’t we put that money instead into supportive services for our unhoused neighbors? Put it towards our comically underfunded public schools? Infrastructure? No we need a big new play toy for our burly boys in blue! I guess they feel they need it for fear dissenters get any more uppity? If we are too unimaginative and cowardly to work towards defunding or abolishing the police, we should at least aim to have them be less (not more!) militarized.
Acacia Keith
Location:
Submitted At: 3:16pm 01-30-23
I oppose the further militarization of the police, and I oppose the purchase of a $439,894 Rook that will cost an additional $8,000 per year for maintenance. The Sac PD is currently being sued by a former veteran police officer for a culture of racism and racial discrimination, this is not a department that needs additional weapons to use against its citizens.
Jennifer Larr
Location:
Submitted At: 3:15pm 01-30-23
Instead in investing in more half million dollar toys for the police department, maybe they should apply their current budget to actually contend with their current work load. I don't see a purpose in authorizing more funding for expensive military equipment to add to the every growing law enforcement armory when they still have 1500 untested rape kits. The majority of police work is responding to non-criminal calls or engaging in traffic issues, neither of which requires another tank. This request is a gross misallocation if city resources that should otherwise be going to helping people recover from storm damage, eduction, housing the homeless, or basically anything else materially useful beyond giving police another tank to mess about with.
Chris Scheel
Location:
Submitted At: 3:12pm 01-30-23
This is a ridiculous proposal. We do not need further militarization of the police. We should be going in the opposite direction. Please, look at the news across the country.
Karen KM
Location:
Submitted At: 2:57pm 01-30-23
The men and women of our police department work very hard to keep everyone in the city safe, even the people that DO NOT support them. They still show up for the people that yell and scream and commit the majority of the crimes. They need the equipment to keep themselves safe during the times when they are in great harm. The need updated equipment to keep up with the amount of crime that is taking place in Sacramento. As you all know, crime is on the rise in Sacramento and they need to see that the city council supports them. After all, the city council is working for all the citizens of Sacramento. And as far as I can tell, the majority of people want the police around to protect them from harm. Please do that right thing and support the police.
AV Sliman
Location:
Submitted At: 2:48pm 01-30-23
Our police department is still understaffed, overwhelmed, overworked, and are under constant attack by the "defund and decarcerate" movement. Don't let their loud voices fool you. Our police department needs the tools to be prepared for attacks from the gangs and the drug dealers. If that means they need a new armored vehicle, then that's what they should get. I always find it interesting that the people that don't support the police dial 911 when they feel threatened or are of victim of a crime. And goes what, the police will respond to even those that don't support them. Please let the police department get the tools they need.
Kristina Rogers
Location:
Submitted At: 2:13pm 01-30-23
Our officers are under staffed and overwhelmed in Sacramento. Early release, decarcerate, and the so-called "ACAB" movement are making Sacramento a paradise criminals. the data proves it. Gang violence, cartels, drugs and gun violence are on the rise. If the police need an armored vehicle, then they need it. Period. When someone is shooting up your neighborhood, or terrorizing citizens, who else are you going to call for help? And if police don't have the proper tools, how successful will they be? "Militarize" is a buzz word and it means nothing here. Sacramento law enforcement works hard to connect with our communities and be part of the solution to crime in Sacramento.
Matthew Kessing
Location:
Submitted At: 11:47am 01-30-23
It is insane for our City Council to even consider this proposal. The staff report makes no attempt to present a justification for why the Rook, or its $440,000 price tag is necessary. I strongly oppose this measure.
Renee Zapata
Location:
Submitted At: 11:36am 01-30-23
I oppose the further militarization of Sac PD. There is absolutely NO reason for a vehicle of this kind to be in the streets of Sacramento. It is unnecessary and elicits fear among people. The city needs to do a better job prioritizing public safety, security, health and wellbeing. An armored vehicle does not make us feel safer and more secure; in fact, it does the opposite.
Casey Thompson
Location:
Submitted At: 9:34am 01-30-23
It is unconscionable that the council would even consider the further militarization of the city’s police force at any time, but especially following a year when police nationwide killed more civilians than in any previous year.
Combined with record numbers of our neighbors and community members sleeping on the streets of the city every night, and it is clear that the city manager and some members of the council’s priorities are way out of line.
Sacramento needs increased funding for social services, not more weapons of war for a police department that already behaves like an occupying force on our streets.
Matt Anderson
Location:
Submitted At: 12:14am 01-30-23
Genuinely curious the value in purchasing a third armored vehicle for our police force? Have there been multiple situations where the Bearcats just couldn’t cut it?
If we’re just spending down CalOES money, can we maybe pay overtime or do something else financially prudent (or even beneficial to the community) with it?
Agenda Item: eComments for 14. Third-Party Appeal: 7909 Bruceville Road - Proposed Storefront Dispensary (P22-020) [Noticed 01/20/2023] File ID: 2022-02448
Overall Sentiment
Dan Baez
Location:
Submitted At: 6:55am 01-27-23
Good morning Mayor and City Council members,
I would like to express my appreciation for taking time to consider and hear this matter. I believe it is important for all voices to be heard in this process.
I understand that the proposed dispensary has been met with some opposition, but I believe it is important to take a closer look at the facts and evidence. It has been proven that the appellant and her rehabilitation center in question was not operating legally at the time of their move, and they have admitted to not properly researching the area before opening. Had they done so, the would have discovered this proposed cannabis dispensary amongst other businesses in the immediate vicinity providing legal access to the very things their own website says they treat, “drug (specifically opioids) and alcohol addiction.” I believe it is important to hold all parties accountable for their actions, and I respectfully request that a deeper legal examination be conducted into the operations of the appellant and their organization.
I also believe that equity and fairness should be at the forefront of this decision-making process. Per public record, the proposed dispensary has been transparent and cooperative throughout this process, and I believe it would be beneficial for the community to have access to the services they offer.
Furthermore, I believe that it is important to consider the impact that this decision will have on the community. The proposed dispensary has the potential to provide much-needed services to and will help fuel the coming in an underserved neighborhood and I believe that working together with the rehabilitation center to expand these services would be beneficial for everyone involved. I cannot figure out why the appellant refuses to work with the applicant, but it is very suspicious.
I urge you to approve the dispensary considering all facts of this case as well as the researched and published facts that debunk the unwarranted stigma, assumptions, and general opinions surrounding cannabis.
I thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to a fair and just resolution to this matter.
Sincerely,
A concerned community member.
Christina Xiong
Location:
Submitted At: 6:32am 01-27-23
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to bring to your attention the recent situation involving the proposed dispensary in our community and the rehab center that recently opened near it.
As a community member, I have been following this issue closely and have seen the evidence that has been presented in favor of the dispensary. The rehab center has admitted on recorded hearings that they were not yet fully legal and had not looked at the area before moving there. Despite this, the narrative the appellant is pushing forward and in the media is still that the dispensary is trying to open next to the rehab center, when there should be an outrage over the rehab center coming to open in such close proximity to a variety of businesses that sell [legal] drugs (opioids) and alcohol.
I am frustrated that the rehab center is still trying to stop the dispensary from finishing the process they started before the rehab center even signed a lease, by providing a false narrative and misleading dates and information.
It has taken the dispensary 10 times the effort to prove their innocence.
I ask for fairness and for the truth to be revealed. The dispensary is an honest and transparent business that is trying to help expand rehab services to our impacted neighborhood. The appellant, on the other hand, is causing trouble for the dispensary by being misleading and not taking accountability for their actions or illegal operations for a significant duration of time. The media coverage of this issue has been biased against the dispensary and I urge you to consider this when making your decision.
In addition, please enact legislation that prevents this unfair interference.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Charles Thomas
Location:
Submitted At: 5:12pm 01-26-23
I am writing to express my support for the proposed storefront dispensary at 7909 Bruceville Road. I believe that this establishment will bring significant benefits to the community, and I urge the city council to deny the Third- Party Appeal that stands in the way of its establishment.
It is crucial to note that this location was secured for the proposed dispensary before the rehab facility moved to the area, and any concerns about proximity to the facility are unfounded. In fact, the proximity of local retailers that serve alcohol and hospitals that provide opioids present a greater risk of relapse for patients, but it appears these are of no concern to the appellant.
Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that cannabis does not cause addiction nor lead to relapse and is not a gateway drug.
It is also crucial to have legislation put in place to prevent intentional and competitive interference in legal processes. I believe the proposed dispensary will bring positive change to the community, and I urge you to approve its establishment and firmly deny the unfounded appeal.
Agenda Item: eComments for Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda Overall Sentiment
Mark Henderson
Location:
Submitted At: 12:24pm 01-29-23
I just moved from Southern California on January 21, 2023 to 1928 15th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811. As I was unpacking I was forced to evacuate my home for a couple of hours as a result of a giant fire next door at 1916 15th Street. I understand that this is the third or fourth fire at this long abandoned Chinese Gospel Mission in a relatively short time span and that it has caused massive damages on more than one occasion to my neighbor's home at 1924 15th Street.
The shell of the former structure at 1916 15th Street, with more combustible materials, asbestos, mold, toxic substances, and homeless people occupying the property despite fencing around it, continues to be unsafe. It not only endangers the health, safety and lives of the public at large and adjacent homeowners and their families, but also those of Fire Department personnel and City inspectors.
Any and all prior civil citations for public nuisance including, but not limited to administrative penalties, monthly monitoring fees, assessments for Fire Department costs, etc., have been clearly insufficient to force the property owner to take any action. It is abundantly clear that any demolition and removal of debris can only be accomplished by the City of Sacramento because any order to the owner to do so would be futile in light of his repeated acts of obstinacy and non-compliance thereby just lengthening the abatement process indefinitely.
However, a cheaper and quicker alternative exists in the form of utilizing a Health & Safety Receivership. This property should be exempt from the 18 months compliance period following the issuance of any Notice and Order to Repair or Demolish (N&O) because they property continues to be immediately dangerous and of such a nature that the health and safety of residents or the public is substantially endangered.
Therefore, it is respectfully requested that either (1) the City immediately issue an order that the subject property be demolished and secured at City expense or (2) that the City Attorney be consulted for an emergency court filing for a Health and Safety Receivership.
At the very least, the Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board should be directed to hold an emergency hearing for the sole purpose of discussing and taking action regarding this worst and costly offending property.
Kind regards,
Mark Henderson
Matthew Kessing
Location:
Submitted At: 11:37am 01-27-23
I'm a resident of Curtis Park, and live down the street from the Sierra II park, one that has recently been revisited by the City due to it's unofficial off-leash dog park. I'm not interested in the topic because I'm a dog owner (I'm not), or even because my kid loves to go there to play with the dogs (she does). What interests me about the dog park debate is the fact that it is one of the few third places that remain intact in my community, and I see the powerful community building that goes on there on a near-continuous basis. A "third place" refers to a location that is neither home nor work, but a place where people can gather, socialize, and build a sense of community.
The dog park at Sierra II is an ideal third place for dog owners (and even some nondog-owners), as it provides a space for multiple generations from all economic levels to come together to socialize. Research indicates that this impact is even more valuable for the elderly in our communities, as third places are linked to lower levels of loneliness and social isolation, something we are in desperate need of in the post-COVID world. Additionally, the foot traffic to and from the dog park leads to healthier community and more security for the neighborhood.
Research conducted by the University of Western Australia found that neighborhoods that has more active dog walkers were healthier, but also had higher perceptions of safety and community connection.
Removing the dog park from Sierra II would be a horrible loss for our community, and I strongly encourage the Council to find a way to fund the necessary improvements to the park to make it suitable for this use. We don't all need to be dog owners to see the clear benefits this space has for everyone in the community.