In a pandemic and housing crisis, enforcing this Sacramento policy risks community health

The city of Sacramento is increasingly at odds with itself, struggling to balance its code enforcement policies with the agenda of the City Council.

The tension over homelessness policies during the past year, which devolved into a community-wide skirmish last month when the council retained enforcement grounds for problematic vehicle encampments, is a clear example of this. As the council’s $100 million homeless plan comes to fruition, code enforcement officials are undermining trust and cracking down on vehicle encampments across the city, despite a lack of new shelter sites.

Another example of this is the city’s handling of court-appointed receivership for blighted residential properties. In the midst of a pandemic and the twin California crises of housing and homelessness, Sacramento is enforcing code issues that often result in low-income homeowners losing their homes.

A Sacramento Bee analysis found that the city filed petitions to appoint receivers for 33 homeowners over the last five years, including a dozen during the pandemic when removing people from their homes poses a public health risk. Multiple households entangled in these lengthy legal proceedings are seniors on fixed incomes. They told The Bee that if they ultimately lose control of their property, they could become homeless.

Having policies and code enforcement options to address hazardous or unsanitary conditions and structural violations are important tools for public safety. But keeping seniors or low-income families who are less resilient in their homes must be the priority for Sacramento officials, pandemic or not. Cracking down on vulnerable groups and launching into complicated legal processes should always be a last resort.

This is something Sacramento City Councilman Sean Loloee wants to address, and it’s worth supporting. Loloee told The Bee that he’s crafting a policy that would prevent the city from putting seniors into receivership, except in rare cases when the home is at risk of collapsing. He would rather see the city address code violations for older residents instead of using enforcement policies that could ultimately take their homes away.

“When you get seniors who have fixed income and (are) all by themselves, I think it’s our obligation to step in and help them out and to clear out their code violations,” Loloee said. “If they can’t afford the $150 to tow, then the idea of taking away their house so we can pay for the towing doesn’t make sense.”

The city of Sacramento has the capacity to do this. The City Council has taken steps to create anti-displacement funds in recent years and push policies that keep Sacramento residents in their homes. In the $50 million community benefits deal for the Aggie Square development in Oak Park, at least $5 million is dedicated to upkeep and helping nearby residents stay housed.

Since 2018, the city has spent nearly $1 million in Measure U funds to support abandoned vehicle removals and add six full-time code enforcement positions for that very purpose. Similar investments could also be made to assist property owners with blighted residences so long as every other remedy has been exhausted.

Given the magnitude of California’s housing crisis and the severity of homelessness in Sacramento, city officials should be doing everything possible to avoid taking actions that make them worse. Using public policy to sustain community health and investing in programs that aid the most vulnerable among us are the type of measures that Sacramento officials should be striving for.

If Sacramento has the capacity for enforcement, it also has the capacity for service. They are not mutually exclusive. Preserving public safety must always be a priority, but cracking down on people who need help is not the way to achieve it.

This story was originally published January 12, 2022 at 5:00 AM.