Main Menu Close Menu

mail Contact

Search Close

Translate

Department

Community Development

Department

Community Response

Department

Convention and Cultural Services

Department

Finance

Department

Fire Department

Department

Human Resources

Department

Information Technology

Department

Mayor and Council

Department

Office of Public Safety Accountability

Department

Office of the City Attorney

Department

Office of the City Auditor

Department

Office of the City Clerk

Department

Office of the City Manager

Department

Office of the City Treasurer

Department

Police Department

Department

Public Works

Department

Utilities

Department

Youth, Parks, & Community Enrichment

Category

hiking Activities

Arts & Culture

Camps

Classes & Group Activities

Community Centers

Events & Entertainment

Sports

Swimming

Category

pets Animals & Pets

Animals & Pets

Category

domain_add Building & Planning

Construction

Inspections

Planning

Property Lines & Surveying

Zoning

Category

store Business

Business

Cannabis

Economic Development

Innovation

Suppliers & Vendors

Category

account_tree City Administration

Accountability & Oversight

Boards & Commissions

City Attorney

City Manager

City Structure & Policies

Customer Service

Elections

Mayor & City Council

Transparency

Category

category City Assets & Data

City Buildings & Property

City Vehicles

Records

Transparency

Category

explore City Regions

Council Districts

Neighborhoods

Property Lines & Surveying

Zoning

Category

diversity_4 Community Support

Accessibility

Community Centers

Community Engagement

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Homelessness

Housing

Older Adults

Volunteering

Youth

Category

theater_comedy Culture & History

Arts & Culture

Events & Entertainment

Sacramento History

Category

business_center Employment

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Employees & Retirees

Employment

Volunteering

Workforce Development

Category

directions Infrastructure

Bridges

Drinking Water

Information Technology

Infrastructure Finance

Stormwater & Flooding

Streets & Roads

Trails

Wastewater & Sewer

Category

gavel Law, Code & Compliance

Code Enforcement

Inspections

Law & Code

Permits

Category

payments Money

Accounting

City Budget

Claims, Rebates & Discounts

Debt Management

Economic Development

Grants

Infrastructure Finance

Investment & Cash Management

Payments & Fees

Taxes

Category

park Outdoors & Sustainability

Bicycles

Boating

Camps

Climate & Sustainability

Parks

Scooters

Sports

Swimming

Trails

Trees

Weather

Category

local_police Safety

Alternative Response

Crime

Emergency Management

Emergency Response

Fire

Inspections

Police Department

Prevention & Personal Safety

Stormwater & Flooding

Weather

Category

directions_car Transportation

Bicycles

Boating

Driving

Electric Vehicles

Parking

Public Transportation

Scooters

Traffic

Walking

Category

delete_sweep Utility Services

Drinking Water

Recycling

Trash

Wastewater & Sewer

Back to categories Back to Departments

Search for content

SITE NAVIGATION

Katie's Desk - District 4 News

2022 04/09 Joint Statement With Councilmember Vang

Katie's Desk - District 4 News

2022 04/09 Joint Statement With Councilmember Vang

Re: Emergency Shelter and Enforcement Act

Three days after the worst tragedy in our city’s history, and after just one day of public review, our colleagues on the Sacramento City Council voted 7-2 to put forward a ballot measure that will fundamentally detract from the work Sacramento has put into addressing our homelessness crisis.

Special interests were able to bully city leaders into making a shameful and dangerous decision to put a measure that was negotiated behind closed doors on the November ballot. The proponents used the threat of current signature-gathering efforts for a financially devastating ballot measure, along with the very real and justifiable frustration of the entire community, to push through an ill-conceived and harmful ordinance.

Current law and practice allow the city to enforce laws against trespassing on private property — and against any illegal activity — regardless of housing status. What we cannot do is remove someone from public property without a bed to offer them.

In an effort to address camping on public property, the ordinance requires the city to provide shelter for 60% of the unhoused population. Refusing shelter at that point would potentially result in prosecution under the existing unlawful camping ordinance.

Proponents of the measure advertise this as a solution to the crisis on our streets. But the details of the proposed policy are troubling.

This ordinance does not build on the practices that have worked best in other cities. It does not ensure that we will have the mental health, substance abuse and other supportive services unhoused people may need. And it does not address the root issues that are leading to the exponential growth in our local unhoused population.

There are many problems with a one-size-fits-all approach to shelter. Some unhoused people may decline available services because they don’t meet their needs. Nearly 75% of women without homes have been sexually assaulted, for example, and it’s unacceptable to force an assault victim to move into a co-ed shelter. Over two-thirds of homeless veterans suffer from untreated post-traumatic stress disorder, and it would be unacceptable to force them into a congregate situation in which their condition could be exacerbated.

Compelling people to put themselves in situations that don’t work for them is inhumane and harmful, and it flies in the face of the goals the ballot measure’s proponents say they want to achieve.

While we disagreed with the overall approach and circumstances of the measure, we offered amendments to give it a chance to create a real path forward.

Our language would have integrated the practices of experienced homeless service providers into the initiative. We also wanted to link implementation by the city to action by the county, without which we cannot hope to provide the necessary services or scale of facilities to address the need in our community. Our amendments also included stronger language to protect historically disenfranchised communities from an overconcentration of emergency shelters in their neighborhoods.

Those amendments were largely rejected.

Fifty years ago, redlining was used to push Black, brown, Indigenous, immigrant and other populations into underserved neighborhoods. Though the target may have changed, the unintended consequences of this week’s shortsighted decision will lead to the same outcomes: Forcing unhoused residents out of sight and out of mind without any concern for what they may face as a result.

ON THIS PAGE