Hi Cogmeyer, In regards to your first question. I think you answered it yourself in one of your earlier posts- the homeless flock to Sacramento (and San Francisco for that matter) because of the temperate climate. The availability of services obviously plays a role; you don't see the homeless in Rocklin even though the climate is the same. I don't know what the draw would be if a Safe Ground site was established. I think you would need to shut down Loaves & Fishes and start George's busing system if you wanted to reduce the number of chronically homeless in Sacramento. Or I suppose you could try the South Park method and just hand out brochures talking about the amazing homeless programs in San Francisco. But I doubt any of those options are going to happen, which means that we are stuck with the residents that we have. If that is the case, then I think we need to create a better situation than we have now. The cost of this program seems to be a big concern for you and slpnsac. i don't think that it would be unreasonable to ask the Safe Ground proponents to prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis, which would estimate the cost of the project to the City. But then I think that FIAs should be prepared for almost everything. My understanding is that the program will be funded by donations, not government grants, similar to Loaves & Fishes. It is rare that local governments directly fund homeless programs, even if they are funded via government grants. Our programs were mainly funded by the federal government (HUD), with some money coming from the State (CalWorks). The County would administer the grants, so there were some administrative costs there. (Though I believe that function has now been taken over by Sacramento Steps Forward.) If the City donates the land, that will obviously be a cost. But I'm guessing they are not going to give away a high-value parcel. I suppose they will miss out some property tax money by giving the land to a non-profit instead of a private developer. But property taxes don't count for much post-Prop 13, and if the deal results in Loaves & Fishes selling their valuable parcels downtown to private developers that will cause an increase in property taxes that would more than offset that cost. In terms of infrastructure, it sounds like it will be limited maybe some water and sewer lines. I would imagine that the monthly water bills, electric bills, etc. would be paid for by the nonprofit, not the City. Ditto for security. We had a private security firm that monitored our sites. And it should be noted that the City is currently paying quite a bit to provide services to these citizens (police, ambulance, park maintenance, street cleanup, etc). It is entirely possible that an FIA would show the costs being less to the City. In terms of liability, since the City is not running the program (an independent nonprofit is), I can't foresee a scenario where the City would be sued based on events that occurred at the Safe Ground site once it was up and running. I suppose they could be sued under CEQA in the early approval stages. All the more reason to keep it away from existing neighborhoods and the potential for NIMBYs! They certainly will not be sued under the "attractive nuisance" theory, which is about leaving dangerous things on your property that attract children and doesn't even apply in CA anymore. (Sorry, George :).

This is a problem that I have spent many hours thinking about. As a former resident of Mansion Flats and a current resident of Woodlake (which is right off of the lower American River between Cal Expo and Discovery Park), I am well aware of the toll that homelessness takes on these neighborhoods. But as a former staff member at a local nonprofit for homeless families and single women, I know how difficult it is to access services in Sacramento. It is easy to say that these people would have a bed if they wanted one, but we regularly turned away 100 people a day and funding was much greater then than it is now. So some people at the river now may rather be in a shelter, but beds are simply not available. Of course there is another large segment of this population that does not want to enter the shelter system and abide by the strict rules- no alcohol or drugs, case management plans, constant supervision, etc. I don't think that means that these people would avoid the Safe Ground if it was established, especially if that was the only place locally where they could camp legally. Once in the Safe Ground area, they may be more amenable to counseling services. There has been some success with this model, dubbed "housing first."The idea is that it is easier to get people to change their behaviors once they are in a stable environment than if we require that they change on their own before ever accessing services. I don't think anyone here would debate the fact that the current method of dealing with the homeless, especially the chronically homeless that are camping along the river, isn't working. Campsites are just shifting from one area to another, leaving a path of trash and feces in their wake. So why not try Safe Ground and see if it can do a better job? Of course even if we agreed to try this model, the real fight, as described above, will be over the location. Personally, I would like to see the camp located in North Natomas near the airport. The area will be served by light rail eventually, and having Safe Ground there will act as a deterrent to more sprawling development. When Portland created its Safe Ground, they chose land near the airport (see Dignity Village). While homeless advocates were originally hesitant to move so far from the city center, they accepted the land that was offered and transportation to services has not been a problem from what I have read. It is likely that if the Safe Ground area was established outside the city center, Loaves and Fishes and Salvation Army would move to provide onsite services. This would aid the redevelopment efforts in Mansion Flats, the River District, and Old North Sacramento, further reducing sprawl. Many apologies for the thesis.

Am I the only one that remembers Roots N Kulcha? It was a Caribbean, vegan food truck that used to park on that lot. I think they went to the bay area after the anti-food truck ordinance passed in 2006. So the lot wasn't completely empty for the last 10 years.

The new Kaiser Medical Center in South Elk Grove definitely gets my vote for the leapfrog development of the year!

I just heard that a project is in the works for the Grand involving the founder of Hot Italian: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/18/4128577/del-paso-boulevard-faithful-try.html