STORYLINE Sacramento News

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Nag, nag, nag

by Raoul Kleven, published on March 16, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Storyline: Sacramento News RSS Feed

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images

 

Monday evening, a group of business owners, politicians and concerned citizens gathered at the Hart Senior Center for the March meeting of the Sacramento Neighborhood Advisory Group.

The Neighborhood Advisory Group is a monthly meeting for residents of Sacramento's Area 1 to discuss issues pertinent to residents and business owners in the area. It is a partnership between neighborhood leaders and the city's Neighborhood Services Department.

Monday’s meeting began with a brief speech from Mayor Kevin Johnson, followed by a question-and-answer period. Light on specifics, Johnson's speech focused on the idea of Sacramento as a city of neighborhoods, Johnson's commitment to making Sacramento a "world-class destination city," and his assertion that his administration would be responsive, transparent and accessible to citizens. Johnson committed himself to maintaining each neighborhood's distinct and unique character, saying that Sacramento's diversity was "a strength."

In the Q&A session following his speech, Johnson was asked about the centralization of homeless services in the Alkalai Flats neighborhoods, and the problems that it causes. He admitted that "there's a general consensus that there is an overconcentration of our homeless population in one area," and called for a regional approach to tackle the problem. Johnson also discussed the need to develop Sacramento's riverfront areas, mentioning the Railyards and Cal Expo as well, calling them "two of the biggest in-fill projects that could be developed anywhere in the country," and a tremendous opportunity for sustainable growth. He concluded the Q&A by calling for increased volunteerism among Sacramento citizens, encouraging them to use handsonsacto.org to coordinate their work.

Following Mayor Johnson, Lt. Mike Bray of the Sacramento Police Department presented the Area 1 Police Department activity report. He reported that the incidence of robberies had fallen by 10%. Bray announced "some great arrests" of several minors who had stolen cell phones, backpacks and laptops in the Downtown area, as well as the identification of a suspect in five burglaries also in the Downtown area. Bray urged residents to lock their doors and windows to "harden the target" against potential criminality.

After the police report, the meeting was opened to announcements from attendees. Residents were urged to attend a City Council meeting on the subject of a proposed streetcar system to connect West Sacramento and Downtown taking place next week. City Councilman Steve Cohn weighed in on the subject, saying the current plans would serve West Sacramento far more than Sacramento, and that they should be changed to be more useful for residents of the Midtown and Downtown neighborhoods.

The staff of the Finance Department spent much of the meeting presenting an update of the budget. They projected a 50 million dollar deficit, but Councilman Cohn said that half of the deficit could be managed by obtaining labor concessions, citing the decision by the Police Officer's Association to defer a five percent raise, which Cohn said allowed the Police Department to abstain from firing any officers. He went on to say that similar measures should be applied to other departments.

Director of Finance Leyne Milstein stated that "we are in the middle of a multi-year economic downturn," and that the city's capacity to generate revenue was limited by circumstances, with sales and property taxes both in decline. She proposed a "reduction-only budget," saying that Sacramento needed to "plan for the worst," hoping for concessions from unions to alleviate budget problems. She did note that city management was taking a one-day-a-month furlough.

Concerns were raised over the city's lack of adequate reserve funds to cope with crises, to which Milstein replied, "hindsight is 20/20," and "two years ago, no one saw [the housing crisis] coming." Sacramento had set up a reserve fund of 50 million, of which 10.5 million remains. Councilman Cohn commented that Sacramento was "prepared for a stormy day, even for a stormy year... but what we were not prepared for was a stormy decade." Despite the comments of Director Milstein and Councilman Cohn, one woman present said that "we were like a bunch of drunken sailors, spending every dime we had, and we overspent."

One suggestion Cohn had to ease budget troubles was the institution of a tax on parking in garages and pay-to park lots to generate revenue from visitors to the city, including those who work downtown but live elsewhere. Councilman Cohn said a tax of 10 percent would generate 15 to 20 million dollars, and suggested that it be presented to voters as a way to offset other taxes on city residents. Response to this suggestion was generally positive from those in attendance.

The March Neighborhood Advisory Group adjourned following the suggestion of the parking tax. Meetings are held on the third Monday of every month, with the next taking place on April 20 from 6:15 to 8:30 p.m. Meetings take place at the Hart Senior Center, 915 27th Street.
 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

March 17, 2009 | 10:14 AM
I'd agree that Johnson's speech was very light on specifics. Lots of standard tropes about world-class cities, transparency and accountability, and other rhetoric that we have heard before in pretty much every other speech, but very little actual information. The only real piece of information about what he plans to do was a response to a question about the Development Oversight Commission's proposal to deregulate the Planning Commission and Design Commission into a single body--he supports it. So far, I have been to three public meetings about the issue and, aside from the developers who make up the Development Oversight Commission, I had not heard anyone say anything in favor of the plan--it seems to be universally reviled. But apparently the mayor likes it.
3 1
REPLY
March 17, 2009 | 2:12 PM
At Tent City we're all for a "regional approach" to the homeless problem. The first region we want is Land Park and Curtis Park. Lots of grassy areas for tents in them parks and the folks, we hear, have lots of cash for corner donations. And the Land and Curtis Park people love us homeless people and are always so supportive. There's a likker store or two on Broadway, not too far off. We're all excited about this regional thing and ready to break camp!
4 1
REPLY
March 17, 2009 | 2:18 PM
So, who are you, really? Curiosity - and your "homeless accent" - makes me wonder...
1 0
REPLY
March 17, 2009 | 2:53 PM
I'd say we have a refugee from the Bee comments section on our hands...
2 2
REPLY
March 17, 2009 | 3:24 PM
Sounds about right.
2 2
REPLY
March 19, 2009 | 7:47 AM
Mr. Derelict's writing is not hateful but funny, and it is well punctuated. Thus, in my opinion, it stands head and shoulders above most comments on Bee stories.
2 0
REPLY
March 17, 2009 | 7:01 PM
I'm jus a total derelict who loves to read Sacramento Press. They lets me use the computer over at the libary.
2 1
REPLY
March 17, 2009 | 8:36 PM
I think Total Derelict is totally refreshing. This site has a chance to make it but only if those who comment have diverse opinions. It seems that most of the time people agree on everything. Are they all living in the same part of town, have the same opinions, eat at the same restaurants? How boring. Boredom will kill the Press. Let's allow lively debate and welcome differing opinions and entertaining posts!
3 0
REPLY
March 18, 2009 | 12:05 PM
Well put.
2 0
REPLY
March 18, 2009 | 1:18 PM
I'm a bit skeptical about the suggestion that the main problem with Sacpress is that there aren't enough flame wars. There are plenty of disagreements here, they just tend to be civil because most of the parties involved use their real names.

That being said, I wonder how willing places like Land Park, the Pocket, River Park or Sierra Oaks would be to locate programs for the homeless in their neighborhoods. Second, I am unsure if spreading programs throughout the city or county would serve much purpose: does each neighborhood need its own miniature shelter/clinic/psych services/drop-in center (requiring massive redundancy and vast increases in staffing), or should the shelter be on one side of town, the psych clinic on the other side of town, and the medical clinic somewhere in between (requiring people to commute hours on public transit to keep appointments)?

The one service most needed by the homeless is housing: not shelters, not "transitional housing" but permanent, affordable, safe housing. All the blankets and sandwiches in the world won't take anyone off the street--it may soothe the symptoms but does not address the underlying problem.

I find it a bit mind-boggling that many people seem to think that homelessness is not related to housing or the economy, or that the biggest economic collapse in generations, centered around the housing market, might be the cause of the recent increase in homelessness. They act like being homeless is a permanent disease you catch, or an inherent moral flaw, not a temporary state associated with not having a place to live. Housing turns a "homeless person" back into a person.
1 2
REPLY
March 18, 2009 | 8:06 PM
Well said - I too am baffled at the disconnect surrounding this issue.
0 2
REPLY
March 19, 2009 | 12:15 PM
Decentralizing homeless sites while centralizing all needed services in those sites, including meal and dormitory type HOUSING could be part of the solution. It is insensitive, if not cruel, to make all individuals who become homeless in North Highlands, Citrus Heights, and other suburbs to come downtown to obtain services, creating the over concentration here.

There are five supervisorial districts in the county, and it is the Board of Supervisors who give the final stamp of authority where, how and to whom the federal funding will be distributed. Five sites for 1200 homeless (there are probably more) would mean about 240 homeless per site--more densely populated than some of our small towns in the state. This arrangement would save administrative costs now incurred by the many providers which could be diverted to actual services, including housing.

In addition to enabling many homeless to remain in their familiar home territories, homeless individuals seeking supportive disservices would not be forced to travel to scattered provider sites located throughout the county to obtain services. Phoenix Ariz created a "campus" type of environment when it converted a warehouse area near downtown to serve homeless. Included on that campus are housing, meal and services and most all of the social support and referral services.


0 0
REPLY
March 19, 2009 | 11:47 PM
WB,

Building affordable housing for the homeless would be a good idea in a society that treated housing as a public good, but in this society, the last time I checked, housing is treated as an investment for private wealth. The fact that Americans have watched the value of their investments go down the toilet with the over-leveraged banks has not changed anything, as far as I can tell.

Or have you heard some great hue and cry for public housing? All I've heard were the bitter complaints of the homeowners in North Natomas against Fargo for letting all the low income housing get built in their neighborhoods.
0 0
REPLY
March 20, 2009 | 7:49 AM
We think Total Derelict's response are refreshing and insightful in what would otherwise be an echo chamber of backslapping yuppies.
Your breath might smell like night train, but you are a-ok in our book!
1 0
REPLY
March 20, 2009 | 9:05 AM
Jeff: You are very right--often, the housing itself was considered a public menace, and destroyed in the hope that if one simply destroyed the homes of poor people, they would evaporate. To these reformers, all people should live in suburban homes with manicured lawns, and anyone who couldn't afford or didn't want such a life didn't count as "people." Unfortunately for the social engineers, the occupants of that housing didn't evaporate, they became "the homeless," a permanent underclass.

Basically, what the folks complaining about low-income housing want is for the poor to disappear. I have little sympathy for those folks, other than I agree with the idea that the 15% low-income requirement should be citywide, not just in new growth areas. In the central city, despite all the talk about how gentrified and expensive it is, the housing stock is about 17% low-income (if one takes into account that "low-income" apartments can cost as much as $1000 a month for a 1-bedroom.)
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below.
Use commas to separate your tags.

Cancel Submit

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background