Photo: Renfree Field Baseball structure- May 22, 2023
“What’s happening in Sacramento?”
Are Sacramento residents proud of their communities? Do people want to live here? Are new people moving here? Or are people leaving the greater Sacramento metropolitan area? What makes a community desirable and livable?
Watch this 2023 video to take a drive in the City of Sacramento and hear from two nurses- who moved to the City of Sacramento- but now have plans to leave and move elsewhere and why.
Some neighbors in our County neighborhoods near Del Paso Park have made a similar choice and left because of the city’s plan to solve their homeless issues by transporting them into our county neighborhoods. (And the city’s homeless center may NOT actually even truly be helping the people it is supposed to help. We have heard some seriously concerning reports today about what is ACTUALLY going on inside there, but more on that later...)
Read letter from our former longtime neighbor, written to the Mayor and City Council last summer. He ended up selling his home and moving away. We have heard reports about how great the life his family is now enjoying in another state.
We wonder if the same exact program was operating with the same exact situation- IN A PARK right near the Mayor’s residence- if he might feel differently about all of this?? (Yes, that’s a rhetorical question that everyone knows the answer for)
So why is this being allowed in the city’s park here? Because it’s a park with no city residents nearby to vote for the mayor or city council. Same reason the City is not going to be spending city park maintenance $$$ on a park used almost exclusively by County residents.
“Mayor Steinberg, Mr. Chan, City Council members,
I am writing you to express the deep concerns and the surrounding community’s near universal opposition to your plan to place a 24/7 “Outreach and Engagement Center” for the homeless at the site of the former Discovery Science Center on Auburn Blvd. I am a member of a community coalition that is completely opposed to the plan you’ve publicly announced, that being to create a full-time homeless shelter directly between the Sacramento Children’s Receiving Home and a public children’s playground in the city’s Del Paso Regional Park.
Despite years of neglect and the run-down conditions in the park, the playground next to the remains of Renfree Field is frequently used by low-income immigrant families that live within walking distance in nearby apartments and rental homes. The entire community surrounding Del Paso Regional Park has repeatedly expressed our concern about the safety of these kids and their families, due to a lack of law enforcement response in the park.
We are especially concerned for the vulnerable foster children (right next door to the west) in the Sacramento Children’s Receiving Home. A shelter of this type, in this location, will undoubtedly compromise the safety of these children and neighbors even further. We’ve read your “Good Neighbor Policy” which has been presented to the Children’s Receiving Home and found it to be disingenuous at a minimum, given the lack of police and public works response to issues in the park in the past.
Note the operative word children in the above paragraphs. While we have sympathy for the homeless in our community, it does not extend to compromising the safety of our neighbors’ children. Furthermore, there are no social services in the surrounding community that are needed for individuals who would potentially be utilizing this center. These vital services are much more easily accessible at existing sites within the city core, or that the county is offering nearby.
We urge the city to focus on creating shelter sites in other locations within the city limits, where there are higher concentrations of homeless individuals, rather than moving them to this remote “city” location where all the negative impacts will be felt by residents of our unincorporated community and farther away from all available services designated to help these people. They need help, that is not in dispute. What is in obvious dispute is whether or not this facility is the right place to provide that much needed help.
We were all alarmed at Mayor Steinberg’s pronouncement that “there is no reason we shouldn’t be using this building for this purpose”. We vehemently disagree. Here are some very important reasons, many of which are outlined in proposed legislation you are considering for the fall ballot:
1. There are several nearby K-12 schools within a mile radius that will be impacted.
2. There is a designated ”natural habitat” surrounding the facility.
3. Ingress and egress are substandard for this type of facility.
4. It is within 500 feet of a stream or river.
5. It is directly adjacent to a child care facility.
6. It is directly adjacent to a neighborhood park.
7. It is directly adjacent to a playground.
Some of these are pulled directly from your April 6th meeting regarding the “Emergency Shelter and Enforcement Act” of 2022.
We’ve previously offered alternative uses for the building. For example, the mayor’s office received a lengthy, detailed letter describing how the site could be used as a women and children’s center only. Unfortunately, the response we received from an intern at the mayor’s office indicated clearly that this suggestion was not given any serious consideration by the mayor. I doubt he even read it.
We understand that the city does not want this building or property to “sit fallow”, as the mayor stated. We completely agree, and believe a better use for the former science building would be to dedicate it as a nature center, similar to Effie Yeaw Nature Center in Carmichael. Owl and Arcade Creeks, which are both directly adjacent to the building, as well as the rest of the park and surrounding natural habitat would provide an excellent educational backdrop for such a facility, one that would benefit the entire community. This would be of far greater benefit to families and children in the immediate area, nearby students, as well as the entire region. There are many organizations and nonprofit groups that care about the creek and the natural habitat zones that would potentially be able to help with running such a center.
The County of Sacramento is currently working on a plan to help the small homeless population in our area. They have secured a facility and will provide the needed health and human services and programs at a site more appropriately zoned, which is not directly adjacent to such sensitive use areas. We feel that the negative impacts felt by our neighbors and businesses as a result of a city project of this type will not be efficiently mitigated by the city, given the lack of response we’ve seen from 311 and city police in the past.
Neighborhoods of concerned county residents and businesses surrounding the project site feel that we do not have any voice or say in this process, despite the location being in our community. This is city property, and we are all county residents. We can’t help but feel that is a significant part of why this site was chosen. Several of you want to run for higher office. Your vote on this issue will dictate our vote in future elections. We feel that you are prioritizing the needs of the homeless above the safety of the children at the Receiving Home and above the needs of the taxpayers in this community. Your actions will negatively impact our property values and the quality of life in this community. This is simply not good governance.
We respectfully request that you all vote “No” on the proposal when it comes before the council this Tuesday 7/26, as discussion calendar item #24. Please support the children that this will be affecting the most, as well as the homeless in the city that this will help the least.
Thank you for your service to our community. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please give serious consideration to our concerns, and vote “No”.
Sincerely,
(Name withheld for privacy),
Mission Oaks North Neighborhood Watch Leader (Now a resident of the state of Alabama)