I think the public library is very much escaping the ax that is coming down on other public services in our county. A 2% cut is unlikely to impact library services at all. What is likely to happen is that all services will be provided with attempts made to provide them in a way that is just a tad more economical. This can be healthy for the library, or any organization, to see what it can do more efficiently. I have one suggestion where money can be saved [and, btw, I hate offering this up because I take advantage of this "flaw" in their system]: Right now, printing documents from their catalog computers is free if the document is 5 pages or less. Because it is easy to print any long document by a series of five-page print jobs, I never have to pay for catalog computer print jobs. And some documents I print can be long, if they are magazine articles or academic essays. I haven't felt bad about my "immoral" conduct because the Central library, unconscionably, makes it difficult NOT to overpay for use of their copier or printing pages using their microfiche machines. [There are long explanations for this, which I won't go into here -- but, hey, Ms. Sass: post a reply to this comment and I'll give YOU the skinny.]

C'mon, y'all! It's a cut of something just over 2%. Two percent! Right now, the library is refusing the help of volunteers in an effort to keep jobs. That is understandable. But next year, volunteers can do much of the work reshelving books and otherwise helping out to keep things running. Volunteers can easily keep the library functioning as it has been, until the economy bounces back. Also, it is not unjust to press the library to find efficiencies to perform better. Sacramento will continue to have a public library system that is remarkable and loved in a county that greatly supports the many branches of the Sacramento Public Library.

Rhys02, I think I'm right in saying that Merin passed a part of his fee for the suit against the county to Loaves & Fishes, which got its own bundle of money out of the county suit, and, then, all that was received disappeared into the L&F black hole. Certainly, nothing was forthcoming for the homeless during the recent very cold and wet winter in the way of shelter -- which is, supposedly half of L&F's mission. SHOC also got $100,000 relating to administrative responsibilities, which is a joke. There is only one person identified as responsible for SHOC, and that person is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, if you catch my meaning. While it is excellent and appropriate that the homeless are compensated for city police/employee misadventures with people's property, how the money disappears and is distributed is, in large part,, a moral black hole. But some percentage will get to victims who deserve compensation.

Maybe if Anaheim steals our Kings, we could find a billionaire to buy the Angels, disband the team, and insert the River Cats into the American League. Tit for tat. Or, tit for Cat.

I had the pleasure of being in attendance for this game, my first at Raley Field. It was great fun. I cannot wait to go again to root on the home team. Nice article & pics, guys!

I think the count is highly inaccurate -- it explicitly counts the majority of the homeless, then supposes it can extrapolate the count to those areas where no one was sent to find homeless people. The Los Angeles County count from 2009 showed a huge surge in the homeless population that has to have been significantly bogus. SSF could give us some kind of slightly cooked figure of what confidence we can take in the final total -- you know, what the standard deviation is, sumpin like that -- but that isn't provided, of course. So, what bothers me the most is they seem to give us a total number they mostly pretend is precise, delivered by Pan, direct from Mt. Olympus. It is a Statistics 101 class calculation to determine what the likelihood is that there were fewer homeless in 2011 than in 2009. It's probably something like an 80% likelihood because of the wiggly figures, but we won't get the numbers to do that kind of a calculation. We are supposed to BELIEVE; have FAITH that what the number is, now, magically, explains the SUCCESS -- IT'S A SUCCESS! -- SSF supposes it has had in its other activities. It may be that I am over sensitized, but in the wide homeless-services industry, which includes some politicians, certainly including Johnson, there is this weasel quality -- this inability to be authentic and fully forthcoming -- that is wearisome and worrisome.

The agreement that Sacramento had with the Maloofs has to have defined the terms of repayment of the loan. I don't think that a state law can, retroactively, rewrite the agreement. Hopefully, there isn't wording in the loan, as written, that precludes it being repaid appropriately. City/county officials who bind the public in massive loan arrangements are the ones who are supposed to look out for us, at the getgo -- not lawmakers courting voters many years later.

Sonny, Your series, here, is splendid. I am hopeful that you've achieved more than you intended: Putting in the minds of many what the truth of the circumstance of being homeless is. The story of each homeless person is unique, but we are each confronted by the boggling homeless-services bureaucracy, which is two parts bad for every good and salvific thing it does. I praise to the skies your Warrior Spirit, courage and perserverence! [And, yowza, your excellence at the writing craft!] Keep it up, O Mighty brother! I know you are no longer homeless, but I hope to meet you out on the streets, or along the avenues in my journey, always in progress. Always, always. It is a great good that you've shone some light of truth in a situation that is darkened by the bathos coming from many charities, and journalistic laziness of the professional scribes who never leave the desk in their office [and, thus, mostly bellow into the echo chamber of homeless myths]. Right on! Oh, and write on, too!! -- Homeless Tom

I'm not sure how you would know, Dr. French, living in Roseville with clientel from there. The Rosevillians, famously, do little for the homeless other than pushing them into Sacramento county. That is, the homeless there are pushed out. While, from my experience, talking to the guys, it is true that some guys move around, going to those places where conditions for them are best, most have connections in the one place where they stay. But I'm not sure why this is always thought to be such a horrible problem. You've been practicing for 40 years, right? That means you're old and probably somewhat stink and aren't so nice to look at. Shouldn't the city and people of Roseville be thinking of ways to sluff you off onto some other community!? If I may speak for Sacramento County, we don't want you. Go die somewhere else.

Charity Navigator believes that nonprofit executives should be paid on a par with corporate executives, which is outrageous. Corporations are [ideally] in competition and there are benefits derived for the corp. and society if creating better products, independently, are derived from incentivizing high executive pay. A part of how a charity gets a higher rating comes from being well capitalized. And having a building [instead of spending money to help homeless people] enlarges the Loaves & Fishes empire. I say to you that charities SHOULD NOT act as corporations. They should be co-operative with other charities and focus on THEIR MISSION and not AN EMPIRE. A recent article in Fast Company magazine, "Why Charities Should Have an Expiration Date" [ http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/151/do-something-why-charities-should-die.html ] makes the case that for-profit companies come and go — they don't live forever … like vampires. Whereas not-for-profit organizations just attach themselves to a new mission when what they are doing turns sour, for one reason or other. Rotted nonprofits, like Loaves & Fishes, forget what they're about and succomb to the "vampire principle": suck blood for the purpose of sucking yet more blood out of people so that it can go on to suck more blood and continue to exist to suck more blood. It's a bloody business. The article concludes thus: The broader principle here is that companies and organizations don't exist simply to exist. A not-for-profit should ideally be not-for-perpetuity. [They] should not be donor-funded jobs programs. People give not because they believe in [charities as places with] employable human beings but because they believe in what nonprofits do. Once [the nonprofit's mission is accomplished, its employees] should wear a termination notice as a badge of honor. In other words, it's time we all invested in wooden stakes.

I am wholly pro economic activity in our metropolis. I do want sports and entertainment venues appropriate for our wonderful metropolis as it is now, and for our triving more populous metropolis as it will be in the future. I'd love it if a deal to keep the Kings can be found, but not if it means further enriching the Maloofs with a fat bribe in a tug-of-war over a basketball team. Sacramento will find its way even if the Kings leave and the blow to state workers is severe and permanent. We need new industries and other attractions to bring conventions and tourists. And we should be poised to bring in some other professional sports team. In the meantime, we can love the River Cats all the more.

Here the rudist and most straightforward and NECESSARILY non-sugar-coated opinion piece I know of since George Carlin died. http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2010/11/bill-maher-takes-on-jon-stewart-and-stephen-colbert-and-challenges-them-to-take-a-stand-and-hes-righ.html We need more of this -- and, really, only this. Say what you mean, by locating where the truth is, as best you can. Here some of the criticism Maher delivered, critical of the Jon Stewart rally in DC last November: "Martin Luther King spoke on that Mall in the capital and he didn't say, 'Remember folks, those southern sheriffs with the fire hoses and the German shepherds, they have a point too.' No, he said I have a dream, they have ...a nightmare...Liberals, like the ones on that field, must stand up and be counted and not pretend that we're as mean, or greedy, or short-sighted or just plain bat-shit as they [the Republicans] are. And if that's too polarizing for you, and you still wanna reach across the aisle ... try church" It's brilliant, and could only have been said with brio Would this not pass the Barton test? Of course, Barton is delivering the Stewart message, and Maher is, savagely, showing that Stewart (and Barton; sorry, David) is/are wrong, both with WHAT Maher says AND in the way he says it.

I'm a huge fan of Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They are on TV, of course, not in print, but break every rule of uber-politeness, which appears to be the thrust of the instruction that Barton gave in writing opinion pieces (based on this article; I didn't attend the seminar). Sometimes you just have to tell people what you think. I prefer from others that which is uncooked rather than sugar coated. So, at least I'm not a hypocrite.

Loaves & Fishes is building a $1.5 million Welcoming Center. Isn’t that precious. At the homepage of the burgeoning bureaucracy-choked donations-grabbing charity the top-of-the-page banner reads “Sacramento Loaves & Fishes; feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless.” Ha! In these hard economic times, the gang that runs the joint takes money from others [many of whom are themselves suffering economically but want to aid others they perceive to be suffering more], then the money, a small fortune, is used in large part for administrators to have spiffy new digs. It’s an outrage. When the public’s city and county coffers are empty; when a thousand homeless people are unsheltered, living on the streets and under bridges,during a severe winter in our metropolis; when one of our food banks suffers a major fire, Loaves & Fishes builds a stately new building for its administrators. Recently, homeless people seeking a meal at the so-called charity’s soup kitchen were served frozen-meat sandwiches. That’s right; the cold-cuts had just left the freezer and were as hard and icy as the hearts of those on L&F board of directors. Just yesterday morning, the rain was pouring down super heavily, but Loaves & Fishes management wouldn’t open the library in Fiendship Park to let the homeless out of the monsoon rain. They were forced to stay outside and get drenched to the bone until the scheduled opening time of 7:30am, while Libby was in her “inadequate,” soon-to-be-jettisoned office over in the Ivory Tower*. Note that this “welcoming center” is where donations are to come. It’s not the homeless who are welcomed at diabolical Loaves & Fishes, but anything [“Money’s best!” ] the fat, unethical bureaucrats can snag from the unwitting public. It was once a charity, decades ago. Today, Loaves & Fishes is a racket, straight from a Dickens novel [Oliver Twist, I have in mind], with top administrators’ thinking themselves viceroys. If Loaves & Fishes was run by Gandhi and not Gangsters, the entrance to the mall of services would have a sign that read like this [this is LITERALLY what Gandhi said (See http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070425204904AAImDik ), except , to make it more appropriate for today & L&F nomenclature, I’ve substituted “homeless guest” where Gandhi said “customer” and “they” where Gandhi said “he”]: Homeless Guests are the most important visitors on our premises. They are not dependent on us. We are dependent on them. They are not an interruption of our work. They are the purpose of it. They are not an outsider to our organization. They are part of it. We are not doing them a favor by serving them. They are doing us a favor by giving us the opportunity to do so. -- Mahatma Gandhi for Loaves & Fishes Dear citizens of Sacramento. Clutch your purses tight to your side, button the pocket where your wallet is kept. Help the homeless and not those organizations that use us as props for their revenue-greedy enterprize. ----- *a name given by lower-echelon employees to the current second-storey offices of the administration.

Joe, I am totally about opposition to the idea of "victimization" and "entitlement" and "enabling" in the realm of homeless help. And it is also important for me to say that I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE FOR THE HOMELESS. I haven't been elected or otherwise chosen by any agregated collection of the Sacramento Homeless. And allow me to add that nobody else is a homeless advocate either. Certainly, Joan Burke of Loaves & Fishes, whose title is Director of Advocacy, IS THE FURTHEST THING FROM BEING AN ADVOCATE FOR THE HOMELESS. In America, we don't let people curl up and die by the side of the road. It is to the benefit of us all if, when we fall, and we need help, we get dusted off, picked up, and put back into society as productive citizens. Humans are pack animals. We are all about each other. But you are right, Joe, individual responsiblity is a vital component to life and is a central element in the success of this nation. That is why what I do advocate for is an end to the "Warehousing the Rabble" philosophy that has been central in Sacramento for decades and a big move to "Pathways of Responsibility." It would be a sea change in the way things are. Homelessness IS NOT a disability, and guys on the street should not be getting SSI checks to fund their addictions. NOBODY writes about THAT more than I do. But we do need to start to take care of the many who are genuinely mentally ill and 'out of it' that NOBODY takes care of. The outreach effort to them ended years ago. They are out on the street lost and confused. A society is not civilized unless it does that.

Bubba, Most addicts and mentally ill homeless people suffer mightily. I want them to suffer less. I want them to have access to services that will help them find their way to more-satisfactory and meaningful lives. The process for accomplishing that is probably not more (or much more) expensive than what happens now in Homeless World. Many truly mentally ill people are next to fully overlooked. They need attention and, in a great many cases, they need to not be on the street.. Addicts need to continue to have opportunities to escape their bear trap and find pathways that encourage them at developing a clean, sober, moderate, happy life. If these things are better accomplished, you won't have addicts and mentally ill people hanging around in your neighborhood, Bubba. Indeed, only lovely and handsome movie stars and fashion models, like yourself, will be within spitting distance of your house. Only the nubile and rich will come to your house for parties. And you'll be able to take your jet skis out on the clear and clean American River to play to your heart's content. Bubba. I promise it could be so. The world was made to be your oyster.

Since we are more than halfway through the winter, and nothing is going to happen fast, there should be a slow build-up of some sort of mini-Safe Ground to see how it goes. We should not heavily capitalize a camp, but the city/county should allow for something small and then ratchet up. I think that Safe Ground, itself, has the funds and can raise more, if necessary, for a real, starter effort. Rather than "litter removal, park clean up's, graffiti abatement" [Sheriffs' Work Detail jobs] I would suggest that jobs be created: running mall kiosks; food wagons; downtown street corner hot food service, that sort of thing. In addition there is REAL TALENT out on the street, and that can be utilized for people to make money, create a life and be productive. There are a great many homeless people who just don't know how to 'exploit' their talents. People have gifts that are being unused that can be fashioned into the basis for MEANINGFUL, STOLID lives. I am not confident that a safe ground would work, but we should give it a chance to be part of the puzzle to fix the circumstance of homelessness in Sacramento.

The circumstance in Sacramento is one of Warehousing the Rabble and putting homeless people on an endless (not-so-)merry-go-round. It is by no means a Pathway to Opportunity, which is the outlook of a focused and truly functioning metropolitan Homeless Plan. The wacky core homeless-services providers in our metropolis are really the core of the problem and we must stop feeding that Cage Full of Beasts. In San Antonio, TX, a metropolis the same size as Sacramento, only with a poorer Middle Class, all the divergent political groups got together, in these tough economic times, and raised $100 million to attack homelessness. In Sacramento, Libby raises $2 million from her little corner of the political spectrum and builds a new empty warehouse. Sacramento homeless-services are the epitome of dysfunction. They whine and empire build while leaving the homeless in a dastardly matrix. And it is THERE that new arrangements need to be made. NEW homeless-services orgs need to arise to meet the challenge of a new directive: Pathways to Opportunity! San Antonio is by no means a perfect template for Sacramento, but the contrast is alarming (and enlightening). Also, we do need to get off this Safe Ground kick. People very wrongly think that Safe Ground is the new center of something. At best, if it matures, it will just be temporary and the corner of something that can be done. For the most part Safe Ground is a fundraising effort and a focus for protest [with unsavory politics that the public mostly doesn't know about]. Meantime, we are all distracted from the Big Picture, that you allude to, Dale.

ceg, I greatly wish what you wrote here was fully true, but it is largely contrary to everything I hear out on the street and have seen, firsthand. SafeGround has, at best, a mixed record in the camps it has created and a demonstrated immaturity in the way in proceeds in its effort to accomplish anything. Every organization, certainly including Loaves & Fishes, sprint away from taking legal responsibility for SafeGround because the risks of giving SG what it wants appear to be enormous. Loaves & Fishes has a mission to shelter and feed the homeless and has money it spent on a freaking warehouse instead of making a Safe Ground "Eden" manifest. Let us get real. The leaders in this city, and the police and DA's office, KNOW what has happened at SafeGround camps. The city and county can't take on the liability of allowing a SG-run, ordinance-waived campground. That is the hard reality. Welcome to Hard Times.

It is still OK in America to visciously verbally attack (1) gays; (2) muslums; and (3) the homeless. We should try to do better than that. The history is that making it socially unacceptable to hide ones hate mongering behind a skirt of "just opinion" relieves society of categorical tribalism. And that is why, Curmudgeon, the Sacramento Press should disapprove of what you write, take what you've written down, and sanction you if you continue to do what you've done, The homeless have just one thing in that is highly common in the community and that is that everybody is poor, has fallen out of their life, and doesn't have a satisfactory base of operations such that they can get their life up and running, again. Stereotypes from the 1950s probably didn't even make sense in the 1950s. What you write, Curmudgeon, doesn't come from an analysis or knowledge base, it is just hate mongering.