Case study Sacramento: When sanctioned encampments go wrong—lessons for SJ
Sacramento’s Camp Resolution was supposed to be a national model of managed encampments for the unhoused. It recently closed in turmoil. The Sac Bee wades through the finger-pointing, providing further warnings and recommendations for San Jose's upcoming Watson Park sanctioned encampment.
When Sacramento officials signed a first-of-its-kind lease with a local nonprofit that allowed unhoused residents to live on city-owned land, local leaders and homeless advocates lauded what they hoped would become a national model.
Dubbed Camp Resolution, the self-governing community of about 50 people — mostly women — fought for a safe haven that would not close until every resident had been placed in “individual permanent durable housing,” as stated in the agreement.
The city provided more than a dozen trailers that had been sitting unused. Local nonprofit Safe Ground Sacramento was responsible for operating the camp, which was self-governed by residents. Unlike the millions it has spent on other shelter sites, the agreement cost the city nothing.
But in August, after roughly 17 months of contention among the city, the nonprofit and a community group that represents the residents, Safe Ground Sacramento moved to terminate the lease.
What happened? That depends on whom you ask.
Safe Ground signed the lease on behalf of Camp Resolution’s residents, but the community was represented by the Sacramento Homeless Union, a local chapter of the National Union of the Homeless. The organization seeks to empower unhoused people to advocate for themselves, rather than rely on nonprofits and government agencies.
That three-party collaboration quickly fractured, with each casting blame elsewhere for breakdowns in communication and cooperation.
“Camp Resolution has proven to be a failed experiment,” city officials wrote in a media release, “largely because of the counterproductive interventions from the Sacramento Homeless Union.”
Officials say the Homeless Union violated lease terms and continuously blocked city workers and social service groups from entering the site. They also accuse advocates of rejecting the city’s efforts to help residents “transition to better shelter and housing options.”
Andrea Henson is the executive director and legal counsel for Where Do We Go?, a nonprofit that advocates against encampment sweeps in the Bay Area. She’s been assisting the Sacramento Homeless Union and said the city’s efforts were rebuffed because they weren’t offering long-term solutions to help people out of homelessness. She accused the city of trying to “destabilize the camp” with its shelter offers.
In a letter to city leaders informing them of plans to terminate the lease, Safe Ground Sacramento Chair Mark Merin said the nonprofit “cannot fulfill its obligations under the lease” and listed a few barriers that he said had undermined the group’s efforts. They included a lack of city assistance to get water and electricity flowing at the site and revising a variance from the local water authority that excludes residents from roughly half the property.
He added that the nonprofit cannot obtain liability insurance and cited concerns that excessive heat and hazardous weather put residents at heightened risk, especially without access to running water and electricity.
In a recent phone interview, Merin also pointed to an “antagonistic approach” by Homeless Union representatives that he said undermined cooperation with the city. He said he floated a plan to relocate the camp to another site and build permanent supportive housing for residents on the leased land, but the union’s representatives wouldn’t go for it.
“We had a good concept going here and unfortunately it’s been ruined,” Merin said. “I feel very bad about that.”
Anthony Prince, lead counsel for the Sacramento Homeless Union, said the group’s resistance came down to the fact that they don’t trust the city and wanted officials to abide by the existing agreement they made to secure permanent housing for residents.
Although the city offered everyone at Camp Resolution alternative shelter, relatively few accepted. According to city officials, 13 people transitioned to city shelters or motels, and one person returned to living with family.
The Homeless Union filed emergency motions for relief, but Superior Court Judge Jill Talley denied those requests and canceled a planned hearing last week. Prince said he was considering holding a public forum to correct what he and other Homeless Union leaders say is a false narrative about Camp Resolution and its residents.
Sacramento police declared the camp a crime scene ahead of its sweep. Four people were reportedly cited for resisting and obstructing, but no arrests were made.
Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Related:
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.