Davis voters on Election Day will decide if one of the largest housing projects in the city’s history can move forward.

If it passes, Measure V would reshape the agricultural northern edge of Davis, a community that has historically curbed new development outside its urban boundary lines. The measure would authorize the construction of Village Farms Davis, an 1,800-unit residential development spanning 498 acres with a 15-year build out.

The proposal has sparked a contentious campaign between supporters and opponents. Supporters say Village Farms will provide a much-needed boost to the city’s housing supply and help reverse its declining school enrollment. Critics, meanwhile, say the large development will cause traffic gridlock and strain the city’s resources while jeopardizing environmental safety. 

Project developers North Davis Land Company also plan to donate 16 acres of land and $6 million towards affordable housing, designed to ensure high competitiveness for state tax credits for non-profit developers.

The community would also include several parks, bike trails, and land dedicated towards habitat conservation, according to the development plans. 

In addition, land will be dedicated to Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) intended for pre-K facilities and an educational farm.

Under the city’s Measure J/R/D ordinance, originally passed in 2000, any development which impacts agricultural preservation and the “provision of an adequate supply of housing” must be approved by voters. 

The "Missing Middle" and school enrollment

At the heart of the debate is how much the development could alter the small-town nature associated with the city of Davis.

Proponents of Village Farms argue the project could bring in a younger generation of families. That, in turn, could help the overall financial health of the Davis school district, which has seen a drop in enrollment over the years.

In November, school district officials said enrollment had declined by 300 since 2019 with the district projecting a loss of around 1,000 students over the next decade.

Some think Village Farms may be one solution. The district estimates the new community could add 1,100 new students over time.

Lois Wolk, who served two terms as mayor of Davis in the 1990s and is a former California State Senator, told the Davis City Council in January the development was “long overdue.” Wolk said while UC Davis continues to “dramatically” expand, the city has yet to respond to make room for new home and business owners. 

“Our schools’ problems reflect that very missing generation,” Wolk told the council.

Changing Davis’ small town nature

Opponents say the project is too big and that market home prices will be far too high to benefit the local workforce. They point to a fiscal study conducted by BAE Urban Economics.

Eileen Samitz, a representative for the No on Measure V campaign and former Davis Planning Commissioner, estimated the average home prices could range from $740,000 to $1.2 million, which she said is not the “affordable” housing promised.

"That means a $6,000 to $9,000 plus per month house payment once you cover the mortgage, property taxes, and insurance," Samitz said. "Young families cannot afford that huge monthly payment. Village Farms will not bring in hundreds of kids as the school district would like to believe.”

Sandy Whitcombe, a project manager for Village Farms Davis, disputes those figures, pointing out that those prices only represented an average for a specific tier of mid-density housing. 

“Our market rate housing is attainable by design. That's the crux of our whole concept," Whitcombe said. "Over 1,000 of the lots are required to be under 5,000 square feet, but they are, in fact, much smaller than that. Attached homes will start in the $400,0000 [range] and small single-family homes will start in the $500,000 [range]"

Independent housing analyst and appraiser Ryan Lundquist said Davis remains a high-barrier market. “This year, when you look at every single sale [in Davis], the average price is about $950,000. It's definitely a higher price point," Lundquist said. “A lot of people would appreciate more of an entry-level product. That's going to resonate with some.”

While it's difficult to predict what the housing market will be years from now, Lundquist said it's “hard to imagine” these smaller units would leap to over $1 million.

The Affordable Housing Plan

The housing plan for Village Farms designates 20% of the project, or 360 units, for affordable housing. However, some are wary of the fine print.

Samitz called the affordable housing initiative "more of a scam than a plan," pointing to a clause in the development agreement regarding a final-phase 100-unit apartment fallback.

"The word is ‘may’, not ‘shall.’ The city ‘may’ build 100 affordable apartments in the very last phase," Samitz said. "The developer could simply walk away from building these affordable apartments…there's nothing binding about it at all. It could be completely renegotiated."

Whitcombe strongly pushed back on this interpretation. She emphasized that the clause was added towards the end of the process by the city council as a “worst-case scenario.” Instead, she argued the core plan relies on an unprecedented donation of land and capital.

"We're donating 16 acres of land, which is by far the largest land dedication ever for affordable housing in the city," Whitcombe said. "We are also donating an unprecedented $6 million to help meet the financing stack towards construction... Affordable housing non-profits are going to be salivating for this opportunity. Absolutely salivating."

Traffic Gridlock and Financial Liability

The "No on Measure V" campaign projects severe quality-of-life impacts. 

The development is estimated to bring 15,000 new daily car trips onto local roadways according to the 5,000 page Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Samitz believes that this number might be an understatement because the EIR relies on what she says is an unrealistic set of transit expectations.

"The EIR assumes that a significant number of residents would be using public transit, walking, and biking daily, which is just unrealistic," Samitz said. "They're claiming to bring families, but families rely on cars to bring kids to and from. Davis doesn't even have a school bus system."

Samitz notes that under the current development agreement, the city could find itself on the hook for major infrastructure costs, saying the developer can be reimbursed for up to 97% of the costs for two promised grade-separated transit crossings.

Whitcombe completely rejects fears of traffic impact and the financial critique, stating that the project’s infrastructure improvements are structured as mandatory baseline features funded entirely by the development.

"The project funds tens of millions of dollars in upgrades at every intersection adjoining the project," Whitcombe said. "If you read the EIR, it actually concludes that each corridor peak hour flow will be at acceptable levels after we put in the improvements... There's no taxpayer burden, not a dollar."

Environmental Integrity

The physical site of the proposed development presents its own set of critical debates. The northern edge sits next to an unlined, 50-year-old municipal landfill and a sewage treatment plant. Recent monitoring wells also detected the presence of forever chemicals in the local groundwater known as PFAS.

Samitz warns that construction on the property will dangerously interact with this shallow groundwater, which has been measured as close as 6 to 9 feet from the surface.

"They're going to reroute Channel A, the main drainage system of North Davis, into a convoluted circle that looks like a moat around two neighborhoods, digging down 9 to 10 feet," Samitz said. "The contaminated groundwater will communicate with the channel runoff, continuously feeding these contaminants through the adjacent Wildhorse neighborhood, the Yolo Basin, and eventually into the Sacramento River."

Whitcombe points to the EIR which studied the site and proved that historical organic landfill contamination has completely dissipated. She emphasized that the deep PFAS groundwater will remain entirely isolated from residents.

"The groundwater where this PFAS is found is 30 feet below the surface on average and it will never be touched," Whitcombe said. "It's not used for irrigation or drinking. All water at Village Farms will be City of Davis municipal water... The state regulatory authority formally stated that the groundwater at the site poses no risk to future residents."

Two Divergent Paths for Davis

Recent data from the California Department of Finance has shown cities around the Sacramento region are among the fastest growing in the state.

"Sacramento, Roseville, Elk Grove, and Folsom are all making the list in terms of most units added. But you have a city like Davis that's not making that list," Lundquist said.

Lundquist said residents and the city council will have to decide what the city will look like if families can't afford to live in Davis.

“It's just going to be engineers, architects and professors and doctors. I think that's problematic,” Lundquist said. “If you have more units then you can have more people there and more units tends to help with affordability.”

For Whitcombe and proponents of Measure V, rejecting the development means accepting gradual decay.

"This starvation of new housing for over 20 years is not making things better," Whitcombe said. "We want Davis to thrive. We don't want Davis to turn into a retirement community that is slowly dying.”

For Samitz and the No on V campaign, the goal is not to stop growth, but to stop what they view as a flawed, fast-tracked plan in favor of superior alternatives like the upcoming Willow Grove, Palomino Place, and Bretton Woods projects.

"We want good planning. We reject bad planning," Samitz said. "Village Farms is the problem, not the solution."

Update 5:05 p.m. May 13:

Sacramento County’s homeless population jumped 13% this year to an estimated 7,458 people, according to results from the 2026 Point-In-Time Count released on Wednesday. 

That’s up from the most recent count two years ago, but is noticeably less than the county’s record high of nearly 9,300 unhoused residents in 2022. 

Joseph Smith, chair of the Continuum of Care Board that oversees the region’s homelessness response, said that a single night can never fully capture the experiences of people living outdoors and in shelters.

“That data is useful, but it also reminds us how large and complex the work still is,” Smith said. 

Sacramento County Board Supervisor Rosario Rodriguez said that Sacramento County is investing more than ever in addressing homelessness.

“Our approach is simple. We have to do whatever it takes to move people off the streets in a better, safer and more stable situation,” Rodriguez said. “[Success] is not measured by how much money we spend. Success is measured by the outcomes and fewer people living on our streets."

Unsheltered numbers spike in Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights

Another key finding in the report was that the number of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness spiked in some suburban cities in the region. Unsheltered residents are those living on the street, in cars or abandoned buildings. 

While the cities of Sacramento and Folsom saw a decrease in unsheltered populations, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, Galt and unincorporated county land saw an increase. In Rancho Cordova, the total tripled while in Citrus Heights the amount jumped one and a half times.

Samantha Lieuwen, a city spokesperson for Rancho Cordova, largely dismissed the report’s findings.

“The most recent Point-in-Time count reflects just that—a point in time,” Lieuwen said in an email to CapRadio. “We thought 2024’s low count was an anomaly. We believe this year’s higher count is an anomaly, as well, since neither count aligns with the data our four Homeless Navigators collect seven days per week, year-round.”

She went on to say “Regardless of the count, the City of Rancho Cordova is committed to its strategy of assisting individuals and families experiencing homelessness. We believe in a service-first approach, which means working with homeless individuals and families who are actively seeking help and support.”

Rodriguez represents some of the suburban cities that saw an increase in unsheltered homelessness, based on the report’s findings. Her District 4 seat on the Board of Supervisors, covers the northeastern portion of the county and parts or all of Orangevale, Folsom and Citrus Heights. She said she didn’t know the reason for the sharp increases, but she had a proposal.

“I want more affordable housing in Sacramento County. The problem is we don’t have enough funding to be able to help developers create more affordable housing,” Rodriguez said. “We have the land to be able to build it, but it's getting it built.”

Ralph Tikker, an unhoused man living in Sacramento for seven years, in a shopping center off Stockton Boulevard on Jan. 26, 2026.Ruth Finch/CapRadio

Cost of living ‘untenable’ 

Every year since 2019, Sacramento Steps Forward has asked unhoused people what they thought would most help prevent homelessness. Every year, the most popular answer has been the same: more affordable housing. 

Jeff, is a military veteran who declined to provide his last name and has experienced homelessness in the past. He was at Friendship Park outside of Loaves and Fishes, a Sacramento nonprofit that assists the homeless population in Sacramento.

Jeff said he receives housing vouchers and that he thought more jobs need to be brought to California, and that the state needs more affordable housing. 

“There needs to be some sort of more affordable infrastructure, because the cost of living in California has just become untenable,” Jeff said.

While Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty has focused heavily on building tiny home communities to help address homelessness, he also said that affordable housing is an issue in the region.

“The lack of affordable housing is hindering our opportunity to transfer people off the streets,” McCarty said. He also worried about federal funding running dry.

“I got an urgent message from the US Conference of Mayors telling us… the federal government is looking at zeroing out not only Continuum of Care Funding, but federal housing monies,” McCarty said.

More unhoused residents turn to shelter

Sacramento County’s sheltered population saw a significant 21.8% increase to 3,253 compared with two years ago, according to this year’s report. This includes people who lack permanent housing, but live in emergency shelters or safe havens. Meanwhile, the unsheltered homeless population saw a smaller 6.6% rise to 4,205.

McCarty said despite budget concerns in the tens of millions of dollars, the city of Sacramento will not be closing any shelters. He also said while no new formal agreement has been reached regarding city and county cooperation on addressing homelessness, officials from the two local governments will be meeting on a monthly basis to help tackle the issue.

Homeless advocates have criticized the city for banning camping around city hall and increasing the removal of encampments in the area. Angela Hassell, the executive director at Loaves and Fishes, said that enforcement can displace those without permanent housing.

“[Ordinances] we have on the books in the city and county of Sacramento allows for larger encampments to be swept. It happens over and again,” Hassell said. “That pushes folks out of areas into some of the further reaching areas like the county or Rancho Cordova.”

However, McCarty said he doesn’t think stepped-up enforcement in the city of Sacramento led to the larger homeless numbers in neighboring cities.

“Sacramento has been criticized for not having enough enforcement,” McCarty said. “I think it's more of the issue that poverty and homelessness has no boundaries… We’re all in this together.”

According to Hassell, removing encampments can destabilize unhoused people’s lives and make it harder for them to find housing. 

“We’re asking the impossible of people. If people don’t have a home base, a place that’s consistent … it can be a tent, it can be a tiny home,” Hassell said. “We have to be providing the housing and pathways to stability in order for any of this to move forward.”

Riley Palmer contributed reporting to this story.

Original story:

Sacramento County’s homeless population jumped 13% this year to an estimated 7,458 people, according to results from the 2026 Point-In-Time Count released on Wednesday. 

That’s up from the most recent count two years ago, but is noticeably less than the county’s record high of nearly 9,300 unhoused residents in 2022. 

The federally-mandated count was conducted in January by thousands of volunteers who spread out across the county’s urban and suburban neighborhoods, and included measurements of both sheltered and unsheltered residents. 

The survey results help determine funding for the homeless services regionwide.

Here’s what to know:

• There were 843 more people in the Sacramento region experiencing homelessness, both sheltered and unsheltered, in 2026 compared with two years ago. In 2024, the survey counted 6,615 people compared to this year’s 7,458. 
• Sacramento County’s sheltered population saw a significant 21.8% increase to 3,253 compared with two years ago. This includes people who lack permanent housing, but live in emergency shelters or safe havens.
• Meanwhile, the unsheltered homeless population, meaning people living on the street or in vehicles, saw a smaller 6.6% rise to 4,205.
• Unsheltered people experiencing homelessness are becoming more geographically spread out. There was a decrease in unsheltered populations in the city of Sacramento, but an increase in all other counted regions beside Folsom. That includes Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova and Galt.
• More people are experiencing chronic homelessness. Over 700 more people in the Sacramento region reported experiencing chronic homelessness since 2024. The majority of that increase was from people who were sheltered at the time of the count.
• More unhoused people with self-reported serious mental illnesses are being sheltered. 2026 saw a  71% increase in people with serious mental illnesses from 2024 in shelter beds. However, there was still an overall increase in people with serious mental illnesses experiencing homelessness in the region. 

When the Station Fire roared through the Angeles National Forest in 2009, Colleen and Jason Warnesky could see it from the front porch of their Altadena, Calif., home. Eleven years later, the family witnessed the Bobcat Fire from the same spot as it became one of the largest fires in Los Angeles County history.

Their house remained standing after both close calls. So when the Eaton Fire struck more than 3 miles away in January 2025, they were certain they'd again remain unscathed.

"We couldn't imagine how it would get from all the way over there to our house," Colleen Warnesky told NPR, as she pointed to the lush mountains on a recent Sunday afternoon.

Fifteen months later, the couple is pacing around the fenced-in dirt lot that was once the site of their 1,400 sq. foot home. So far the land has been cleared of all toxins, and they're waiting on the city to approve drainage permits before construction workers can start pouring the foundation.

The Warneskys are among the dozens of families in the immediate neighborhood who have opted to rebuild with manufactured homes. They were swayed by a local program launched by city-LAB UCLA, a center founded by the University of California, Los Angeles' Architecture and Urban Design Department, which included a showcase of six prefab housing options and a guide to help navigate the process and secure financing.

The spate of wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods fueled by man-made climate change that have plagued vast swaths of the country in recent years is changing the housing industry. That's because people like the Warneskys, who are seeking to rebuild in disaster-prone regions, are searching for greater peace of mind. As a result, they're turning away from stick-builds and embracing prefabricated homes that are made using materials that are fire-resistant and can withstand extreme weather, and that are now considered standard, and are often more affordable.

Manufacturers are meeting that demand with innovative and safer alternatives. Many companies are designing prefab houses that can withstand category 5 hurricane winds — up to 250 mph — earthquakes, hail storms, massive snowfall and fire. Depending on customizable preferences, prices can vary from below $100 per square foot to over $500 per square foot, excluding land. But even those prices often fall under traditional on-site building costs in many parts of the country.

"We're working with Honomobo, which is one modular company out of Canada. And then the people across the way are working with another company called Bevy House. And then there's a whole set of three families on Harriet that are working with a third modular company," Warnesky said, pointing out various vacant or half-built lots in the neighborhood.

"It was a combination of factors," Warnesky said, explaining why they have opted to forgo a traditional build. After losing everything, and the stress of dealing with the seemingly endless insurance paperwork, they had decision fatigue. The idea of picking something out of a catalog that would arrive fully built seemed like a lifesaver.

"But a big part of it was also safety," Warnesky clarified. She added, "I think that we both felt early on, if there was a way to make it so that we had less to worry about if another fire happened in the future," we'd go with that.

For their own house, which will largely consist of glass, steel and concrete, the Warneskys said they bought a package that is specifically designed for a wildland urban interface environment, known as WUI. These are areas where real estate developments and infrastructure butt up against wildland vegetation.

Jason Warnesky described some of the features of the old, post-WWII-built home. It was modest but comfortable. It had a redwood deck that spanned a big section of the backyard, he said.

"I would suspect that was probably one of the first things that went up on our house," he said.

"We won't do that again," his wife added.

The building prefab business

The Manufactured Housing Institute reports that as of 2024, nearly 21 million people in the U.S. live in manufactured or mobile homes. And manufactured homes made up more than 9% of new home starts in the same year. Meanwhile, consumer prices have remained largely unchanged over the past three years, making them increasingly attractive to first-time buyers.

The same study noted that three U.S.-based companies account for about 83% of the nation's market share. Most of those sales are happening in states with nearly annual flooding, hurricane or wildfire disasters — Texas, Florida and California.

Given the escalating climate risks across the country, Harrison Langley, CEO of MDLR Brands, believes that traditional on-site building is unsustainable. His company has built single-family prefabricated homes, apartment buildings and commercial structures in the Bahamas following 2019's Hurricane Dorian and in California, Tennessee and North Carolina.

"The building materials space is run by dinosaurs," he told NPR. "The way we've been building for the last 100 years really hasn't changed. But the materials have gotten less strong. A two-by-four is no longer two-by-four. It's smaller."

The company offers manufactured kit homes as well as custom-designed projects that are built using composite structural insulated panels. Each one has a 30-minute fire rating, meaning "you could hide behind this wall without the heat coming through for 30 minutes," he explained, adding that the panels can be hardened even further by using a cement board on top of the panels. "That could give you about an hour to get out of a building," Langley added.

Another bonus is that the panels are also more elastic than a wooden frame, making the houses better capable of withstanding earthquakes. And, he said, because the panels have an exterior fiberglass layer, they can stand up to category 5 hurricane winds. (Third-party certifiers test it by shooting a two-by-four traveling at 170 mph, Langley explained.)

According to Langley, America has been on the cusp of embracing modular and prefabricated homes for some time. But, he believes, the growing ubiquity of accessory dwelling units is serving as "proof of concept" for potential clients. "People are used to seeing them now," he said.

Beyond a boxy modular style

For some people, the reluctance to embrace a modular or manufactured build has less to do with costs and more to do with style. Or a perceived absence of it.

Across the street from Colleen and Jason Warnesky are Linda and Liam Mennis. They also lost their 1940s 1,600 sq. ft. home in the Eaton Fire. Initially, they were thinking of going with a traditional stick-build home, but after a discussion with their architect, they learned they could design a customized manufactured home.

"We couldn't do a cookie-cutter house," Mennis told NPR. "We didn't want to pick something from a catalog that would look exactly like somebody else's house."

They're now working with Bevy House, whose tag line is, "The conventional home building process is broken. We're the solution." Instead of boxy structures, they take personalized architectural plans and figure out how to make them modular so they can be fabricated at their facilities and put together on site. A majority of the company's builds are installed in California, and they've worked with several fire victims.

Following the destructive 2018 Woolsey Fire in Ventura and Los Angeles counties, they built one of the first homes to receive occupancy post-fire, according to their website. It's a Spanish revival, five-bedroom, seven-bathroom, nearly 8,000-square-foot spread that features custom reclaimed beams. The project was a partial rebuild, as a large portion of the original home was lost in the fire. 

For Mennis and his wife, it was a streamlined process. After finalizing a design plan, he said, Bevy House "makes sure they can break it up into modules" in a 3-D rendering system, and they get started on production.

Prefab's past

The idea of creating aesthetically pleasing and affordable modular homes on a mass scale is not a new one. Seventy-seven years ago, famed architects and furniture designers Ray and Charles Eames, came up with a modernist blueprint for a system composed of inexpensive and off-the-shelf materials from industrial and commercial catalogs that could be easily assembled. Their own iconic home and studio space, Case Study No. 8 house, served as a model of what could be done.

Eames Demetrios, director of the Eames Office and chairman of the Eames Foundation, has revived his grandparents' dream. Together with Spanish office furniture brand Kettal, Eames Office rolled out the Eames Pavilion system last week at the Triennale di Milano exhibition in Italy. It is a modular, pre-fabricated kit that uses aluminum frames with interchangeable glass, wood, and composite panels. The initial product is only for a single room that can serve as an office or studio space. But by 2027, Demetrios said, it will expand to allow for customizable configurations of single or multi-level dwellings.

"What is wonderful about it is it isn't a copy of the Eames House," Demetrios told NPR. "It's not a facsimile. But it certainly has the spirit of it. And when you look closely, you realize that it's something that is different, which is really trying to create a system out of it."

The kits will be on the pricier side of prefabricated homes, but Demetrios said they intend to keep costs below $500 per square foot. Clients will also have options to swap out materials that may suit the building site better, he added. Because it is a modular system, Demetrios explained, "as innovations happen it is possible to include those in a more dynamic way."

He added: "I'm predicting in about five years we'll have houses that people will almost not be able to tell are from the same system. And I think that that's part of the power of it. And that's part of the opportunity of it."

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors is opposed to a state Senate bill that would require the cities within the region and the county to form a new agency to address homelessness. 

In February of 2025, State Senator Anqelique Ashby introduced controversial legislation that would reform how Sacramento leaders work together on homelessness. Senator Ashby paused the bill after outcry from cities within the region a few months later, but the bill is now poised to go through the legislative process this fall. 

Her bill, SB 802, would require the cities and county to enter into what is called a Joint Powers Authority (JPA).The legislation would reform the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency and rename it the Sacramento Housing and Homelessness Agency. It is one of the latest attempts to figure out how the region can best work together to combat homelessness, a conversation that has spanned decades.

Over the last few months the county has publicly spoken out against the bill. In March, Sacramento County’s legal counsel analyzed the bill and asserted it is illegal.

CapRadio’s Local Government Reporter Riley Palmer spoke with District 2 Sacramento County Supervisor Patrick Kennedy to understand why the county opposes the bill, and what’s at stake. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity

Could you explain what SB802 is for listeners and then flesh out the county's position on the bill?

Senator Ashby has introduced Senate Bill 802, which would essentially create a Joint Powers Authority among the city of Sacramento, the county of Sacramento, and the suburban cities, to oversee homeless programs.

?The county is very concerned with the bill. I appreciate Senator Ashby's concern over homelessness. We all are, but it's really a simplistic approach to a very complicated problem.

?First of all, it's not legal. It violates contract law because you can't force parties to enter into an agreement that negates the agreement part.

What do you make of trying to force people to work together in that way?

?Not only is it against the law, but it's also not necessary to create another JPA, another level of bureaucracy. In my opinion, added bureaucracy and added layers of government never means efficiency.

That's what this would do. So not only is it wrong from that standpoint, but it also does not accomplish what it is I think that the senator wants to accomplish, and that’s to pool resources in order to be more efficient. 

What it does is it takes resources that we’re currently putting toward homeless programs and it bifurcates them because you can't just take state and federal money and give it to another organization and say go spend it.

?For example, let's say that if we have community block development (CDBG) grant money that would go into this new organization. Currently we're using CDBG money in my district to help build more affordable housing. We would lose the ability to do that by giving it to this organization. We would no longer have that funding available for things like in-fill development, affordable housing and that type of thing.

At the heart of this issue or SB802, what it's trying to do is create a productive way for cities and counties to work together to address homelessness. In your view, given what we just talked about, what would then be like a happy middle ground in between what Senator Ashby is proposing and the board’s opinion on it?

?I represent half of the city of Sacramento, so I have a very close working relationship with all of the city council members and the mayor. That is not lacking. 

We have the county city partnership agreement on homelessness, which has been extremely successful. Now, the senator has been quoted as saying that it has produced nothing. I take high offense at that because that's simply not the case. 

?I think we need to continue doing what we're doing. Nobody thought that homelessness was going to be a one and done thing. It's going to be something that we're gonna be dealing with for generations. So I think that the working relationship that the city and the county have, which is probably 80% of your homeless population, is in the county of Sacramento between the city and the county. 

The suburban cities have a much smaller homeless population than the city of Sacramento and the unincorporated part of the county. I think that we should focus where the problem lies, and the problem lies in the city of Sacramento and the unincorporated parts of Sacramento County, and by continuing to work together, by continuing to build upon the partnership agreement, we can address those issues in a way that's more targeted and makes more sense, it's more efficient. Bringing in all of the suburban cities when they have no interest in even doing it. I don't know where that gets us. 

What’s at stake for the county if this were to pass?

?What's at stake would be less local control. What's at stake would be less dollars available to solve the problem. It would be a fragmented system, which is ironic because I think her intention was to make it less fragmented, but it actually does the complete opposite. We would be dealing with a problem that is so complex in a simplistic manner that would, in my opinion, slow down the progress that we're just now starting to see.

Read and listen to Sen. Angelique Ashby explain SB802 and why she wrote the bill here.

By Danielle Venton, KQED

Candidates vying for the position of state insurance commissioner in the June primary election met at a forum in downtown San Francisco on Thursday to make the case for why they’re right for the job.

The normally sleepy race is attracting a lot of attention as wildfires and inflation have caused a crisis in the state’s home insurance market — where coverage can be both difficult to obtain and costly.

The state’s insurance commissioner has the primary job of setting the rules insurance companies need to follow in the state. It’s a role currently held by Ricardo Lara, who is termed out in November.

Asked about what would be considered a benchmark for success, state Sen. Ben Allen said with a laugh, “One real benchmark would be that there would be less interest in the insurance commissioners’ position. Because it’s always been kind of under-the-radar. It’s become so high-profile because of all the problems that we have.”

The future commissioner will need to balance requirements for insurance companies with being business-friendly enough that companies still want to sell policies in California.

Steven Bradford (center), a former California state assemblymember and state senator, speaks during a forum for candidates for California insurance commissioner at the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR).Beth LaBerge/KQED

They will also face widespread problems with the FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, and concerns about how to keep a healthy insurance market amid the acceleration of climate-fueled disasters.

“I think everyone wants the insurance Commissioner’s position to go back to just doing work as opposed to this existential crisis that we’re in right now,” Allen said.

Most candidates expressed similar aims, with varying plans for how to achieve them. Ideas ranged from creating a public disaster insurance program to securing more money to help neighborhoods harden homes against fires.

Eight candidates will be on the ballot for the June primary, with the top two advancing to the November general election. Five of those were in attendance at the Thursday forum hosted by SPUR, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association — a nonprofit public policy organization.

Allen represents portions of Los Angeles that were affected by last year’s fires. He spoke of bills he’d authored to improve consumer and environmental protections, including Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond passed in 2024 that provides money for climate resilience, including wildfire prevention.

He spoke of the need to focus on community-wide fire risk reduction and push insurance companies to better support customers.

Steven Bradford, former State Assemblymember and Senator, highlighted the need to give the Department of Insurance more resources and more modern tools. He also spoke of wanting to have the department approve rate adjustments more quickly and for insurance companies to be more transparent in their rate-making.

Merritt Farren, an attorney and tech executive, speaks during a forum for candidates for California insurance commissioner at the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) in San Francisco on April 9, 2026.Beth LaBerge/KQED

Merritt Farren, a media and technology executive, lost his home in LA during the fires and was part of fighting State Farm’s recent rate hikes in court.

He spoke of his experience working for Disney and Amazon, saying these companies could provide inspiration for simplifying the process of regulating and buying insurance and creating new tech jobs.

He also proposed a public reinsurance program, modeled after Florida’s catastrophe fund for hurricanes and the U.K.’s public–private reinsurance program for floods.

Jane Kim, a former San Francisco supervisor, perhaps had the most concrete suggestions for radical change.

She proposed creating a single-payer public disaster insurance program run by the state, which would guarantee coverage and be modeled on programs in France, Spain and New Zealand.

Patrick Wolff, a financial analyst, speaks during a forum for candidates for California insurance commissioner at the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) in San Francisco on April 9, 2026.Beth LaBerge/KQED

Beyond home insurance, she suggested expanding the low-cost nonprofit auto insurance program created by the legislature in 1999 and guaranteeing healthcare for every child in California. “I think California can do it,” she said.

Patrick Wolff, a financial analyst, worked in the 2000s building an insurance brokerage for a bank, which, he said, gave him insights into how the industry operates.

He suggested the FAIR Plan should have broader coverage and said the state was starting to make progress in allowing companies “to operate more economically and effectively, but there’s a lot more that needs to be done.”

It has been seven months since Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty announced his plans to ramp up shelter production for the thousands of unhoused residents on local streets.

Despite council tensions, a legal battle in North Natomas and budgetary constraints, city officials say they are still working to get the initiatives off the ground.

McCarty laid out what he called his “six-point plan” to address homelessness at a September city council meeting last year. It includes strategies to increase shelter, reform the city’s emergency motel voucher program and establish a grant program for nonprofits to help build tiny homes.

The plans for additional shelter included:

• Three identified locations in council Districts 1, 5 and 8 for 40-unit, city-funded tiny home communities. They would focus on unhoused seniors 55 years and older. 
• One safe camping site in Sacramento’s River District with 100 spots.
• A safe parking site in District 6 for 60 to 80 vehicles. 
• State-funded tiny home communities in Districts 2 and 5.

McCarty, who was sworn in as Sacramento’s mayor in December of 2024, campaigned on the promise of addressing the city’s homelessness crisis. He maintained that boosting the city’s supply of tiny homes would be a cost-effective way to meet that promise. 

Complicating matters, the mayor and council have contended with a $66.2 million structural budget deficit during much of McCarty’s early tenure. The mayor told CapRadio in April that this means tough decisions will be made.

“We want to keep intact our resources for our homeless response. We’ve been successful in decreasing the number of unsheltered homeless,” McCarty said. “We’re not done.”

6360 25th Street in District 5 has been identified as a location for one of Mayor Kevin McCarty's micro-communities for unhoused seniors 55 and up.Ruth Finch/CapRadio

Before McCarty took office, the latest point-in-time count data from Sacramento County in 2024 showed homelessness dropped by 29%, a number disputed by advocates in the region who have said that unhoused numbers are increasing or staying the same. 

Homeless advocate and Sacramento State Professor of Social Work Arturo Baiocchi said he’s not opposed to adding more shelter, but is wary of controversial elements to the mayor’s plan, such as charging unhoused seniors 30% of their income to live in the tiny home communities. 

“They’re just not used to doing that,” he said. “It’s a big psychological jump for them.”

Baiocchi said last fall he is also worried about warehousing people, noting that social services and support are just as important as having somewhere to sleep. 

“?People are gonna be there for years,” he said in October. “You need to think about those tiny homes as little communities. Here's a community garden, here's a rec center. People still need some kind of support.”

City-funded tiny home communities 

McCarty’s plans call for three tiny home sites for unhoused seniors. They’ll be located as follows: 3511 Arena Blvd in North Natomas, 6360 25th St in South Sacramento and 2461 Gardendale Road in Meadowview. 

Brian Pedro, director of the city’s Department of Community Response, said the plans are going through the building department right now and the city is on schedule to break ground by mid to late spring of this year. 

“Likely the first one will be built, if we stay on schedule, spring of 2027,” he explained. “The first one is always the slowest and once you get rolling on it we pick up speed.”

Pedro said every tiny home cost the city around $17,000 to buy, but with amenities each will cost around $85,000. The overall price tag for each community is approximately $3 million to $4 million. 

The tiny homes are intended as interim housing, and tenants will pay 30% of their income. Plans call for each 120-square-foot tiny home to be temperature controlled and come with a bed and a desk. The sites will have shared bathrooms and kitchen areas. 

The city has maintained that the “micro-communities” are not considered emergency shelters and are meant for stable individuals on fixed incomes who aren’t able to get into affordable housing. 

Pedro told CapRadio that city officials are looking to find a location in District 7, which includes the Pocket and Greenhaven neighborhoods, but finding buildable land has proven challenging.

“?We're looking at various sites and trying to determine if any of them are usable and without extensive site preparation, driving the cost up,” Pedro said.

Conflict over District 1 site 

Not everyone is in support of the locations chosen for the mayor’s plan. Some constituents have formally opposed the District 1 tiny home location and filed a lawsuit to halt the site’s development on March 30.

The Advisory Council for Legal and Ethical Oversight, made up of Natomas residents, claims the location violates city code, will decrease property values, and does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

3511 Arena Blvd in District 1 has been identified as a tiny home community location for Mayor Kevin McCarty's six-point plan, though neighbors surrounding the site have filed a lawsuit to stop the project from going through.Ruth Finch/CapRadio

Rosalee Lehr lives at a mobile home park nearby and is one of plaintiffs. She told CapRadio that many at the park oppose the site.

“I have never seen as many for-sale signs as I have just recently here in my park,” Lehr said. These people have been here for years, and they’re wanting to move because of this whole homeless shelter business.”

District 1 Councilmember Lisa Kaplan, who is running for reelection, initially supported the site. Since then, Kaplan has sided with her constituents and has been vocal about opposing it.

In her Feb. 20 weekly newsletter, Kaplan said she would support her constituents if they decided to take action but declined to comment on the lawsuit. 

“The last remaining option I have in my power is to attempt to get a council vote to stop the construction of the micro-community,” Kaplan wrote. “That is unless someone in the community sues to stop its construction. I will stand beside you, if that lawsuit is filed.” 

Kaplan declined to comment on the lawsuit. Fellow Natomas councilmember Karina Talamantes confirmed with CapRadio that she does not support the site, which sits on the line between the two districts.

The two, along with Councilmember Jennings, have asked to repeal an ordinance that gives the city manager sole power to approve temporary homeless shelter contracts under $5 million.

Talamantes said in a written statement to CapRadio that the request will not appear on a city council agenda. 

“I still oppose the current location and hope that our Department of Community Response can be proactive on providing answers to the questions my community members may have,” Talamantes said. 

McCarty and Pedro told CapRadio they are unsure if the lawsuit will impact the development’s timeline. 

Safe Camping in the River District

While plans for the city-funded tiny home communities are still in the works, Sacramento broke ground in February on a safe campground in the River District with 100 spaces and expects to have the site open within the next month or so.

The fenced in campground– located at 291 Sequoia Pacific Blvd– will host tents under a metal canopy between two shipping containers to account for weather. The site will also have bathrooms, kennels for animals, on-site security, and case management services. 

Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum represents District 4. He said he supports the six point plan but outlined the district specific concerns. 

“Some are concerned about the concentration of services that we’re providing in the River District,” Pluckebaum said. “Others are welcoming the opportunity to provide people already there sleeping on the streets, a place to be that's not the street, more dignified, even though it's still tents under shade.”

Earlier this year, Pluckebaum introduced an ordinance at the city’s Law and Legislation Committee that would cap the number of shelter beds the district could offer, a measure he said was already in place prior to the safe campground plan.

“?About a year ago we lifted the cap on the amount of services that we could provide in the River District, in part to make space for that campground,” he explained.

Pluckebaum said the ordinance will come to the full city council towards the end of 2026. 

Safe Parking Site in District 6

City officials are still scouting a location for the safe parking site laid out in McCarty’s six-point plan, which will include 60 to 80 parking spaces for those living in RVs or cars. 

The site is intended to provide restrooms, trash collection and places to charge electronics. It will be staffed with outreach personnel to help connect people to services, according to the city. 

Pedro said the parking site will be more geared towards families and individuals in an area that is close to businesses and schools.

At the September council meeting, Pedro initially pointed to a location at 4625 Cosumnes River Blvd in South Sacramento. But in April a city spokesperson said they have chosen to move forward with a separate, undisclosed location.

“We do have a site we’re looking at in District 6. We don’t have any final confirmation,” Pedro said. “With all of this, we have that site and a backup to a back up because if anything falls through we want the ability to pivot.” 

District 6 City Councilmember Eric Guerra said there is no timeline yet for the safe parking site, but noted business owners support the idea and are helping find a location. 

“?They see it every day. There are people parking in front of their businesses and around industrial and manufacturing sites that are dangerous,” Guerra said. “They want to find a good solution moving forward.”

State funded tiny homes in Districts 2 and 5

Along with its city-funded initiatives, Sacramento is also seeking state money to help build permanent supportive housing. Two such examples include future tiny home communities on Rio Linda Blvd in District 2 and Mack Road in District 5.

Pedro explained that the tiny homes at these future communities will be twice as large as the  120-square-foot models at the other sites, and will come with a bathroom and kitchenette inside. The sites will also include long term supportive services.

2461 Gardendale Road in District 8 is slated to become a tiny home community as apart of Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty's six-point plan to address homelessness. The site would have 40 tiny home units for unhoused seniors 55 and up.Ruth Finch/CapRadio

According to Sacramento's Housing Element report on March 24, the city applied for state Homekey+ funding in May and June of last year. Pedro said officials are still waiting to hear back. 

“We have two applications in. We’re going back and forth right now, it’s a very extensive process,” he said. 

Pedro said costs for permanent supportive housing can range up to $600,000 a unit, whereas using a tiny home model will cut costs to around $200,000 a unit.

“Because it is permanent housing, you’re putting in roads, you’re putting in sidewalks,” Pedro said. “...There is no cheap way to do it.”

The state helps local governments across California through the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grant program. The future of that program is uncertain but California awarded the Sacramento region $32 million on Wednesday.

Despite facing a challenging financial future and some community pushback, Sacramento officials maintain they will continue to make shelter and housing a priority in their city budget. 

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

A six-story apartment complex slated for a block of Alhambra Boulevard in East Sacramento is headed to city council after two opposition groups filed appeals on Monday. But new state laws may prevent the council from doing anything but approving it.

The proposal includes 332 market-rate apartments, a ground floor for commercial shops and a parking garage with 322 stalls. It would require the demolition of the existing buildings, which include the former production space for Mary Ann’s bakery.

Carl Seymour heads the Casa Loma Terrace Neighborhood Association, one of two neighborhood groups opposing the project.

“It’s a colossal error,” Seymour said. “?It's a permanent bad mistake of large scale with major negative impact on the city's greenhouse gas reduction goals, on safety for pedestrians, on traffic safety and on the neighborhood.”

Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation, the other challenger, echoed similar statements. They requested the project go through an environmental review process, known as a California Environmental Quality Act evaluation and said the proposed height of the building violates neighborhood standards.

Applicants HRGA Architecture Firm are behind the project. They did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

The Sacramento Planning and Design Commission unanimously approved the development on Feb. 12, determining it did not need a CEQA evaluation. Many residents spoke for and against the project at the commission meeting.

The proposed redevelopment project will take up a whole city block, and is surrounded by Alhambra Boulevard, C Street, and 30 Street. The Sacramento City Planning Commission unanimously approved the project Feb. 12.Courtesy of The City of Sacramento

Supporters, including advocacy group House Sacramento, see the project as a way to reduce air pollution because it would lessen commute times for those who work in Sacramento’s downtown region.

Michael Turgeon, president of House Sacramento, told CapRadio his group sees it as a way to attract younger families and professionals, which would have positive impacts on the local economy.

“It's an awesome site. It's obviously a site where a lot of people today really wanna live judging by the home values and the rents,” Turgeon said. “It would be great if more people had the opportunity to live there.”

The neighborhood is largely made up of single family homes, and is walking distance from McKinley Park, one of Sacramento’s biggest and most popular parks.

The lone tenant on the block is Morgan Burgess. He works on old cars in one of the brick buildings that now has boarded up windows and graffiti.

He said he knew the project was coming prior to renting out the space.

“These are cool buildings, I wish they’d be restored,” Burgess said. “But Sacramento needs housing.”

State law could limit council authority

The city council will be responsible for approving or denying the apartments, but state legislation passed last year limits the authority local governments have to deny projects based on environmental concerns.

SB131 reformed the CEQA process in an effort to streamline housing development. CEQA is often weaponized by NIMBY groups to slow down or stop them completely.

The project is in City Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum’s district. He said this law makes it challenging to oppose projects.

“The state legislature has tied our hands a little bit,” Pluckebaum said. “If someone brings a project forward that is consistent with our land use and the zoning and code, we would have to make public health and safety findings to say no.”

The neighborhood opposition groups frame their arguments through a public health and safety lens, but Pluckebaum said those arguments must have a direct correlation to health.

“It would have to create an unsafe condition,” he said. “If the project would cause cancer, vehicular deaths or something like that.”

Pluckebaum said he expects the project to come to city council within the next month.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

In the fall of 2023, the California Legislature tasked the state’s fire safety regulators with writing a report that some housing affordability advocates say could make it easier to build bigger, airier and better lit apartment buildings in California’s housing-strapped cities. 

The Office of the State Fire Marshal was given until Jan. 1, 2026 to come up with a report on single-stair apartment buildings — a type of mid-sized multifamily development legal in much of the world, but effectively banned across most of North America.

More than a month later, single-stair advocates are still waiting on that report — though a draft version obtained by CalMatters hints that the office may be considering a modest change to the state building code. 

“They were given a deadline,” said Stephen Smith, founder of the Center for Building in North America, which advocates for cost-reducing changes to building regulations.

That safety-minded code is meant to provide residents with multiple escape routes in the event of a fire. But it has also become a focal point of criticism among a growing number of housing advocates, architects and urbanists, who say it raises the costs of multifamily construction, limits where apartments can be built, pushes developers toward darkened studios and away from family-sized apartments and provides limited health and safety benefits.

“I know there’s been a real desire among politicians in California to change the state’s image as a slow moving state, but in this case I don’t see it,” said Smith, who was also a member of the working group of fire service professionals, building code experts and housing advocates tasked with writing the first draft of the report for the state Fire Marshal. The group’s last meeting was on November 4. 

“This report is still under review and we will publish the report as soon as it is approved for publication,” said Wes Maxey, CAL FIRE’s assistant deputy director of legislation, in an email. He would not say when the report is expected to be released or what the hold up is all about.

The state legislature regularly assigns research reports of this kind to various corners of the state bureaucracy — and, as CalMatters has reported before, the state bureaucracy regularly blows past its assigned deadlines.

But the single-stair analysis has garnered considerable interest outside of Sacramento.

Current rules in California (with the one, recent exception of Culver City) require apartment buildings higher than three stories to have at least two staircases connected by a hallway. 

The Legislature was clearly interested in raising that height limit when it ordered the report in the first place.

“Many European countries allow buildings with single staircases and have better records on fire safety than the United States,” said Assemblymember Alex Lee, a Milpitas Democrat, urging a “yes” vote on his bill in the summer of 2023. “I believe having the Fire Marshal conduct the study will start the conversation about leveraging existing fire and emergency response technologies and strategies to maximize housing projects.” 

Local fire marshals, fire chiefs and fire fighting unions have, by and large, opposed easing staircase requirements in the building code wherever they’ve been proposed. 

The final report is likely to disappoint either those organized fire services, a politically powerful constituency, or “Yes In My Backyard” advocates that have found an ally in Gov. Gavin Newsom. 

A draft version of the report circulated among stakeholders in late October included a half-hearted endorsement of a change to the state building code. If the State Fire Marshal recommends new policy, the draft reads, the change should only be from a three-story maximum up to four. Any new four story single-stair structures should also be restricted in size and abide by a number of other added safety-oriented restrictions, the report added.

Culver City, west of downtown Los Angeles, passed a single-stair ordinance last year to nix the second-stair requirement in certain apartment buildings up to six stories. Six stories is also the cut-off in the four other jurisdictions that go above three: New York City, Seattle, Honolulu and Portland, Oregon.

The draft report, which is not final, also went out of its way to emphasize “the near unanimous feedback from California Fire Departments who are opposed to permitting single-exit stairway construction … greater than 3 stories.”

Whenever it is finalized and published, the report won’t have the force of law. But should state legislators opt to take up the issue in the future, its final recommendations are likely to carry weight with undecided lawmakers. 

Ralph Tikker has been living outside in Sacramento since 2019. While he’s had some respite through the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, he’s back on the street. 

The shelters he’s tried to stay in can't accommodate his power chair, something Tikker's needed to use since he fell while riding his e-bike a year and a half ago. At 65, he sees a gap in resources for people with disabilities in his age group. 

“I can’t fit this on a bus for transportation, I’m stuck here with no battery,” Tikker said. 

Ralph Tikker is one of hundreds of people living on the streets of Sacramento County being counted in Sacramento Steps Forward’s 2026 Point-In-Time, or PIT count. This year, they’re sending 800 volunteers out to get a sample size of the number of unhoused people in Sacramento. 

The PIT count is federally mandated and has been conducted every two years on the last week in January in Sacramento since 2009. The federal Housing and Urban Development Department uses the data to determine funding for shelters and programs that assist unhoused people across the country.

The survey gives community members a way to directly interact with those experiencing homelessness and better understand their challenges.  

Amongst the volunteers was co-chair of Sacramento Steps Forward’s Partners With Lived Expertise Committee, Darrell Rogers. The committee helps advise the organization’s Continuum of Care board on how best to close gaps in the care of unhoused people in Sacramento. He said that when faced with homelessness, he chose to go to prison instead.

“I would rather go sit in a cell and get three hot [meals] and a cot and medical, than just being on the street,” Rogers said. “I was actually causing more harm to myself and to my family, living that life.”

Rogers said that when he got out, after being in youth authorities and jail from age 13 to 37, he decided to go back to school and make a change for himself.

“To date, I’ve been home and successfully housed and for eighteen years I haven’t had a traffic ticket,” Rogers said. “I needed to go through what I needed to go through to get to where I’m at.”

He said that while doing the PIT count allows for funding to be allocated, there’s more to doing the count.

“It’s important for [people] to see the condition that people are in,” Rogers said. “Talk to them, let them know that they’re loved, and there is someone thinking about them.”

Rogers said that he believes that the best way to help unhoused people is to help them help themselves.

“You have a built-in workforce. You don’t have to rely on such an overburdened budget because that same group of people will help themselves,” Roger said. “We’ve been pushing that for sometime.”

This sentiment was echoed by Eric Rock, who said he’s been living on the streets for three years.

“The city can’t do anything without the people involving themselves as well,” Rock said. “The city needs to provide better areas with bathrooms, places to charge phones, places to rest safely, places where we don’t have to get our things stolen or thrown in the trash.”

However, he said that it can be hard for unhoused people to feel able to be productive and help themselves.

“Each day of my life, I'm not welcome in many stores, and I understand the reason. I understand the root, I understand where it comes from," Rock said. "For us to keep a positive attitude and be productive and want to help solve the problem, it's nearly impossible when you’re treated like that all day long."

City and county officials show out for PIT

Eric Guerra takes down answers to survey questions during the Point-in-Time Count on Jan. 26, 2026.Ruth Finch/CapRadio

Another volunteer that helped with PIT count was Councilmember Eric Guerra, who represents District 6 in Sacramento. In addition to volunteering, he was helping connect people to services.

“We’re scheduling time to get them connected to the shelter locations,” Guerra said. “We have folks getting signed up to our different shelter locations.”

He said that many of the people he’s talked to have been seniors, struggling with disabilities and PTSD. According to Guerra, it can be difficult to get services to people who need them on the borders of his district.

“As someone who lives here, part city, part county, you have this issue of who’s working with who,” Guerra said. “We’ve gone a long way there, but we definitely still have a lot more work to do.”

He said that after living in his car when he was 18 and dealing with his father being in and out of correctional facilities, he wants to ensure people can succeed.

“We have to make sure that we don’t set people up to fail,” Guerra said. “We [have to] make sure we create opportunities for people.”

Sharon Jones, who was with another group at the PIT count, founded Camp Resolution, a self-governing homeless camp that was shut down in August 2024. She said that while the last PIT count in 2024 showed a drop in the number of unhoused people, she doesn’t believe that the count was accurate.

“They had swept everybody beforehand,” Jones said. “We only came across like eight people for the whole thing.”

A “sweep” is a term used to describe when police officers or park rangers come into an encampment and seize unhoused people’s belongings after being issued a notice to vacate. 

“We just started a few minutes ago,” Jones said. “This is more people than we saw last time.”

Lisa Bates is the CEO of Sacramento Steps Forward. She said that the PIT count is an estimate, and that across the country the count is going to be lower than the actual number of unhoused people.

“I think what’s important to remember is the trends,” Bates said. 

She said that the PIT count will now become an annual event, instead of every two years.

Rich Desmond is Sacramento County’s Supervisor for District 3. He attended the PIT count in 2024, and said that the weather plays a factor in the number of people counted.

“I don’t think the decrease was as dramatic as it would have been had the weather been better two years ago,” Desmond said. “First time in a while we’ve seen some sun.”

Desmond and Guerra joined other city officials at the PIT count kick off event, including Sacramento City Councilmember Rick Jennings, County Supervisor Patrick Kennedy and Mayor Kevin McCarty.

“That’s why you see so many dedicated elected officials here, because at the local level, that’s what it’s about,” Desmond said. “To actually be out there on the streets, in our open spaces and see and interact with folks who are living unsheltered, there’s no better way for us to get an understanding of what their needs are.”

Darrell Rogers, in his work with Sacramento Steps Forwards Continuum of Care board, helps the organization understand unhoused people’s needs.

“I like to meet system-level work with ground-level work,” Rogers said. “[I] try to merge the two and work out what works and what doesn’t.”

He works directly with people who are making first contact with people experiencing homelessness.

“Instead of just having a person sit down and start filling out paper,” Rogers said, “maybe make them feel human and ask them, ‘Is this a good time? Have you eaten?’”

Through that work, he said they’re able to reach out more effectively.

“We teach that those things alone will get you a whole lot more information,” Rogers said. “Just by showing that you care.”

Data from the PIT count is usually released in the summer.

By Marisa Kendall and Ben Christopher, CalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened many times to withhold state homelessness funds from cities and counties that aren’t doing enough to get people off the streets. 

This year, those threats seem more real than ever. 

Newsom’s administration and the Legislature are adding new strings to that money, which they hope will help address one of the state’s most obvious policy failures: Despite California’s large recent investments in homelessness, encampments are still rampant on city streets. But cities and counties already are chafing under the tightening requirements, which they worry will make it harder to access crucial state funds without directly improving conditions on the street.

To access state Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention money, cities and counties are being pressured to enact a policy regulating homeless encampments that passes state muster – a potential challenge in a state where local jurisdictions’ rules on encampments vary greatly, and many localities have no policy at all. The state also wants localities to get a “prohousing designation” – a special status awarded to places that go above and beyond to build housing. It’s a distinction that only 60 of California’s 541 cities and counties (home to just 15% of the state population) have achieved so far.

Newsom, the Legislature, local officials and other stakeholders likely will spend the next several months fighting about those terms, and hashing out the conditions for the $500 million in homelessness funding proposed in this year’s budget. 

Until those details are resolved, exactly what standard cities and counties will be held to – and what will happen to those that don’t comply – is unclear. But one thing is clear: The state is done freely handing out cash. 

Some counties are already feeling the heat. They report increased scrutiny as they apply for the homelessness funds already approved in the 2024-25 budget (which, thanks to lengthy bureaucratic delays, have just been made available.)

“They’re holding the counties’ feet to the fire,” said Megan Van Sant, senior program manager with the Mendocino County Department of Social Services. 

Newsom’s administration and legislators in favor of the new accountability measures say cities and counties for too long have been scooping up state funds without proving that they’re using them wisely. The new message to locals is clear, said Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, a Democrat from La Palma in Orange County: “The state has been moving forward, not only with the investment in dollars, but also with legislation. Now it is your time to show that if you want these dollars…you have to show us what you’re doing.”

But the new requirements may make it more burdensome to access crucial homelessness funds.

“I worry that, one, we may leave more cities out,” said Carolyn Coleman, executive director and CEO of the League of California Cities, “and, two, that we may cause delays in the ability to get more people housed sooner, which I think is the goal.”

A tougher application process

Applying for state homelessness funds “absolutely” feels different now than it did last year, and the state is asking tougher questions, said Robert Ratner, director of Santa Cruz County’s Housing for Health program.  

Fortunately, the county just approved an encampment policy in September, and has started working on getting a pro-housing designation, he said. But the state still returned the county’s application with plenty of notes.

“It has felt, at times, like the goal post keeps moving a little bit,” Ratner said.

The county’s application still hasn’t been approved, but it seems to be getting close, Ratner said.

In Mendocino County, the state appears to be holding funds hostage until the county can explain its plans to pass an encampment ordinance, said Van Sant. The county board of supervisors is working on such an ordinance, though it hasn’t come up for a vote yet. 

But the state’s requirement puts Van Sant and her team in an awkward position. As housing administrators, they have no say in any rules the county passes that regulate or prohibit encampments on local streets.

“I wanted to stay out of it,” Van Sant said. “I still want to stay out of it. We’re housing providers. We try to figure out how to provide people housing. We don’t want to weigh in on enforcement. At all.”

This year, the requirements may get even stricter. Under the current rules, the state seems to be satisfied as long as a city or county can show how it plans to get a prohousing designation or pass an encampment policy. In the next round of funding, local leaders worry the state will withhold funds unless cities and counties have actually achieved those benchmarks. 

It’s all about accountability

At issue is the state Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program, which provides the main source of state money cities and counties use to fight homelessness.

Though Newsom introduced the first round of funding, $650 million, as a “one-time” infusion of cash for local governments in 2019, it became a recurring feature of his administration’s strategy to reduce homelessness over the next five years.

For four years in a row, the state awarded $1 billion a year to be divvied up between counties, big cities and federally-recognized regional homelessness funding groups known as Continuums of Care. Each round of funding was described as “one-time.” Even so, at least a quarter of the money has gone to day-to-day operating programs, according to data collected by the state.

Last year, things changed. The budget lacked any extra cash for grant funds, and the state’s main homelessness program received no new money. Instead, the Legislature committed to spend $500 million — a 50% reduction from the last round of funding — in the coming fiscal year contingent on “clear accountability requirements.”

Those requirements for localities, spelled out in a follow-up budget bill signed into law last fall, include:

• Having a state-approved housing plan, known as a housing element
• Having a “Prohousing Designation” from state housing regulators 
• Having local encampment policy “consistent with administration guidance”
• Ponying up some local funding to match the state contribution
• Demonstrating “progress” and “results” on housing and homelessness metrics

These new demands didn’t come out of left field. For several years now, “accountability” has been one of Newsom’s favorite words when discussing homelessness funding. “People have just had it,” he said in 2023. “We want to see these encampments cleaned up.” He has repeatedly threatened to withhold funds, and has gradually ramped up the strings attached to homelessness dollars.

But the current list represents an especially stringent set of requirements for locals hoping for a cut of what has been one of the state’s signature funding sources to combat homelessness.

Quirk-Silva noted that the current list of requirements is not final. She expects the administration to release additional legislative language in February. Legislators will fight over the details through the June budget deadline.

She expected particularly fierce pushback over any kind of “prohousing designation” requirement.

Revoking funds from areas of the state that lack such a designation would be “penalizing service providers for something that is outside of their control,” said Monica Davalos, a policy analyst with the California Budget and Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank. 

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan wishes the state would focus on more concrete measures of success, such as the number of people housed using state dollars, instead of things like a “prohousing” stamp.

“We’re making this way too complicated,” he said. 

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday passed an expansion of the county’s camping ban to include private property. The change, county supervisors say, is meant to deal with encampments on vacant lots and business properties.

The ordinance gives the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office expanded authority to clear encampments on private property when the owner is not there, unreachable or unwilling to act. Until this change, deputies needed a property owner’s request or permission to treat someone as a trespasser.

Critics are warning that this infringes on property owners' rights and deepens the criminalization of homelessness.

District 4 Supervisor Rosario Rodriguez, who introduced the ordinance, says the change is needed after enforcement on public land increased, resulting in many encampments moving onto private land in the region.

“If you make it uncomfortable for them, I’m hopeful that that decision will drive them to accept the services that are offered to them,” Rodriguez said. 

Despite how wide-reaching the change is, the ordinance was approved on the Board’s consent calendar. Items placed on consent are typically reserved for routine matters and passed together without individual discussion unless a supervisor requests otherwise. Consent items are usually reserved for noncontroversial or technical matters, and this item was approved without public debate by the supervisors.

Under the new rules, camping on private property is illegal, except in a few specific cases. People can still camp on their own land or with a property owner’s express written permission. A person may camp for no more than 72 consecutive hours, and no more than three times per calendar year. It also requires that people camping have access to toilets and trash collection, and they avoid creating fire hazards.

With this change, deputies will be able to issue verbal or written warnings or refer individuals to homeless services if those conditions are not met. The new ordinance takes effect in 30 days.

Once it becomes enforceable, law enforcement will be able to remove camping structures and equipment, but personal belongings must be stored for at least 90 days. Refusing to leave or interfering with cleanup can result in a misdemeanor citation or arrest. 

Civil rights attorney Mark E. Merin criticized the ordinance, saying the county already has the authority to address unsafe conditions on private property without creating a new camping ban.

“It’s just an absolutely unenforceable attempt to intimidate people about the use of their own property,” Merin said. “It’s ridiculous. I can’t believe that our elected officials are bothering themselves and us with this kind of nonsense.”

Merin, who has represented unhoused people in Sacramento for decades and has previously allowed unhoused residents to stay on his own private properties, said the ordinance will punish people for being homeless and not protect their health and safety.

“You cite somebody for violating one of these ordinances, you give them a fine. They don’t show up, they can’t pay the fine… then they’re criminalized further… and then they can’t apply for housing,” Merin said.

Some residents told supervisors the change is long overdue.

Holly Tolbert, a member of Advocates for Arden Arcade, was the solo public commenter at Tuesday’s meeting. She described ongoing problems at vacant properties in her neighborhood. 

“When we call the sheriff, they tell us that they do not have the authority to make the report,” Tolbert said during public comment. “So this is now how we live with huge fenced areas around our buildings to keep the mischief away.”

Tolbert described a vacant building near an elementary school.

“The building has had smashed windows, doors, graffiti everywhere, piles of trash and shopping carts all over the street,” she said. “We have had people passed out from fentanyl on the front steps of our building, a block from our local elementary school.”

She urged supervisors to approve the ordinance.

“We need to stop enabling this behavior that has such a negative impact on our community,” Tolbert said. 

Opposition also came from Sacramento Area Congregations Together, known as SacACT, which sent in written comments to the Board ahead of the decision. Mike Jaske of SacACT says the camping exceptions will become so narrow that most unhoused people could not avoid violating them.

“We felt that those exceptions, although they appear on the surface to allow a degree of camping on private property, are so tight as to be virtually a brick wall,” said Jaske.

He said the county, relying on enforcement, ignores the basic reality that there are more unhoused people than available shelter or housing.

“It is very common for when a sweep happens for people to be given information about services that are reportedly available,” Jaske said. “But when a homeless person follows through, a very large proportion are essentially told, ‘Okay, we’ll put you on a waiting list.’ And people are on a waiting list indefinitely.”

According to Jaske, shelter and housing capacity in Sacramento County already falls short of the demand. 

Rodriguez said deputies and outreach teams will continue to offer services before taking enforcement action, including shelter referrals, mental health support, and substance use treatment.

“I don’t want to make it harder for people to be homeless,” Rodriguez said. “But I want to make it so that people are feeling the pressure to take some of the help that is offered.”

Rodriguez argues that the ordinance provides clearer authority to intervene when encampments generate complaints from neighbors and businesses.

If someone refuses services or cannot access them, the ordinance allows the county to remove their encampment and ultimately charge them with a misdemeanor.

Housing advocates like Merin say that this is an attempt to move the homeless from the public eye and disregard their safety. 

“The people who are moved move somewhere else at great inconvenience to themselves… and then they go right back to where they were moved. So it’s just a continuous effort by law enforcement to do what they’ve been mandated to do, and that is to get homeless people out of the view of the public,” Merin said.