Sacramento City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood has issued the following statement on the status of Camp Resolution and variance required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, which allows the site at 2225 Colfax St. to be used as a safe parking location for people experiencing homelessness:

****

“The residents of Camp Resolution are facing a critical situation created by the actions – and the puzzling inaction – of the people who claim to be their advocates.

When Camp Resolution was established, the City agreed to lease the site to an advocate for those camping there. This lessee, Safe Ground Sacramento, run by attorney Mark Merin, promised to provide running water and electricity and to facilitate City and County staff’s work to secure needed services and alternate housing for the residents.

To date, none of these promises have been kept. Residents have no water and no electricity. Access to the camp by social and health workers has been obstructed and subjected to unnecessary delays and court actions.

Camp Resolution sits on land designated as hazardous by the state Water Quality Control Board.  The board granted a temporary ‘variance’ allowing residents in vehicles to remain at the site but forbidding tent camping on the ground. It was agreed that the lessee would be responsible for complying with the conditions of the variance and seeking an extension to this critical state permission.

For reasons that remain unclear, no extension to the Water Board’s variance had been sought by the lessee, despite it being the lessee’s responsibility under the terms of the lease.  As far back as August 2023, the City has reminded Safe Ground Sacramento that it is their responsibility to comply with the variance and the lease, including but not limited to seeking an extension thereto. Expiration of the variance means the site would become out of compliance with state health regulations. The City could not legally allow continued occupancy without the necessary variance.

The City just yesterday (May 29) received a letter from the Water Board stating that Safe Ground Sacramento had finally applied for a six-month extension of the variance and that the Water Board intends to grant it. The City is currently reviewing the letter. As stated previously, the City has never taken a position that it will object to or oppose an extension of the variance. The City’s concern is that the lessee complies with the terms of the variance and the lease agreement.

This crisis was 100 percent avoidable. It could have been prevented by the simplest of actions by the lessee, Safe Ground Sacramento, who knew that the terms of the lease agreement placed the requirement to comply with and obtain an extension of the variance solely in its court.

The litigation filed by the Sacramento Homeless Union should have been directed at Safe Ground Sacramento.  Instead, those who purport to be advocates for the homeless delayed actually helping those experiencing homelessness and instead spent their time filing needless litigation in court and preparing press releases.

Throughout the trial of Camp Resolution, the residents’ advocates have largely refused to allow social services staff to enter the camp and have resisted multiple efforts to begin the process of providing residents needed health and social services by identifying campers and their needs. Further, these advocates consistently have refused to meet with City staff to discuss in a meaningful way a resolution to the very real problems facing the individuals at the camp.

On multiple occasions, the union and advocates for the camp residents have rejected offers of more suitable and sustainable housing.

Today, the City has 54 indoor shelter spaces reserved for all Camp Resolution’s occupants to be immediately sheltered. However, the attorneys for the Sacramento Homeless Union and Safe Ground Sacramento have refused to allow the City to enter Camp Resolution to offer entry to these spaces.

It is difficult to understand how an officer of the court, or the leadership of a union, could repeatedly choose to put aside the most basic needs of their members or clients. Likewise, with each new refusal of alternate housing, it becomes more difficult to accept that the best interests of the residents are a priority for their union and legal representatives.

The people at Camp Resolution face significant challenges. These challenges have been made far greater by the actions of the people and organizations claiming to be their advocates.

The City of Sacramento entered into this historic lease agreement with the best of intentions and the earnest expectation that the lessee would follow the requirements set forth in the agreement and the variance. We continue to hope these advocates will do their part to find solutions that work for the residents and our community.”