Opinion: Council’s Vote On Unhoused Is Inhumane

By Faye Wilson Kennedy | Special to The OBSERVER

On July 29, the Sacramento City Council voted against supporting our unhoused neighbors, instead approving a policy that expands fines and arrests for those experiencing homelessness.

I still can’t fully grasp this. The mayor and the five councilmembers who voted in favor of the mayor’s plan, saying they believe in human rights and support the legacy of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Cesar Chavez.

Mayor Kevin McCarty’s proposed policy would impose fines up to $25,000 and jail time of up to a year for sitting or lying in front of City Hall between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. This would displace many unhoused individuals who have no alternative shelter.

The mayor claims these measures are a common-sense solution, but I firmly disagree. A look at the data shows that since 2009, Sacramento’s homelessness crisis has only worsened, rising from 2,800 individuals in 2009 to 6,615 in 2024, with experts believing this is an undercount.

Imposing fines drains the limited resources of homeless individuals, preventing them from securing housing. Even if they find jobs, they may fall back into homelessness due to wage garnishment for unpaid fines. Furthermore, criminal records resulting from convictions make it nearly impossible to find housing. Arrests and citations have increased significantly, while thousands still await shelter.

Effective solutions are available: we need to expand rental assistance, strengthen tenant protections, invest in eviction defense, and raise the minimum wage to help people maintain stable employment. Sacramento’s unhoused community overwhelmingly supports affordable housing as a solution to homelessness.

The council’s decision shows hesitation to oppose unjust laws and systemic problems affecting poor communities and people of color. Sacramento’s history is scarred by systemic racism:

• Seventy years ago, the City Council approved a redevelopment plan that displaced diverse communities in the West End under the justification of blight and negative effects on public welfare. Local historian Clarence Caesar notes, “The West End was home to a vibrant business community, particularly among Asian, African American, Latino, and Portuguese individuals, who had thriving businesses as well as their homes and institutions like churches.”
• Today, 30%-40% of unhoused individuals are Black and brown, highlighting ongoing inequities. Historically, Black Americans have been denied full personhood, and Indigenous peoples are still striving to reclaim much of their stolen land.
• Two-hundred years ago, Black Americans were considered three-fifths of a person, and at that time, Indigenous peoples lost their land, with many never receiving it back. The “Land Back” movement is actively fighting to reclaim territory, successfully winning back 1,000 acres.
• One-hundred years ago, women in the United States were not allowed to vote, but they organized and fought for their rights. In 1870, Black Americans won the right to vote; however, it was not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that significant legislation was enacted to address racial discrimination and secure voting rights for Black Americans in the United States.

Until we address these deep-rooted issues, we will keep witnessing a worsening homelessness crisis. Sacramento is repeating history from 70 years ago. Moving the unhoused to other residential communities, whether in South Sacramento, Oak Park, or any neighborhood, is wrong. We need affordable, supportive housing in every neighborhood, with expanded access to rental assistance and the removal of barriers. Livable-wage jobs and public transportation must also be accessible and available to everyone.

Policymakers, we must have courage, learn from our history, and prioritize principles over reelection. We also need to acknowledge that unjust laws, statutes, and executive orders should be challenged and overturned. How can policymakers claim to believe in human rights and support the legacies of King, Parks, and Chavez, but then vote to hurt the poorest in the community and those with the fewest resources? I still can’t fully grasp this.