Title
Prospective Parcels for a SafeGround Sacramento’s Request for Proposal for Land Development

Author

Amanda Becker
American River College, Geography 350: Data Acquisition in GIS; Spring 2011
manbecks87@gmail.com

Abstract

This project will utilize Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to identify parcels that could meet the needs of SafeGround Sacramento’s efforts to establish a permanent tent city community, as laid forth in their Request for Proposal for Land Development. Results will be two shapefile, one for Sacramento County parcels and another for Sacramento City parcels that meet the requested criteria, along with two map documents displaying results for both city and county shapefiles. A list of APNs for results available upon request.

Introduction

On April 2, 2011,SafeGround Sacramento Inc., a community based non profit organization, published a Request for Proposal for Land Development to the public, looking for public, private or faith based owned land to either sell, lease, or lease to sell to SafeGround . SafeGround began as a homeless advocacy group in the wake of recent issues surrounding the discovery of large tent cities in Sacramento. On any given night in Sacramento, after shelters and other homeless services are full, between 1,200 and 3,000 homeless persons are left to sleep on the streets(Hubert, 2010), often resulting in the establishment of tent cities. Camping in unsanctioned areas, even on privately owned land, for more than twenty four hours is illegal in Sacramento, essentially criminalizing those who have no place to live. In a press conference regarding the issue, Mayor Kevin Johnson admitted that homelessness was already a problem when he took office in 2008 and that “the city has swept this under the rug, ignored it”(Hubert, 2010) .

Since then, Safe Ground has worked hand in hand with city officials to gain insight into the needs of those living on the streets. One of thier biggest effort so far is attempting to establish a permanent site where camping is legal. Their proposed land development includes fifty to one hundred semi-permanent cabins with communal kitchen, eating and restroom facilities. Boarders would be allowed to stay in the facility for up to eighteen months, granted they follow the zero tolerance policy for drugs and alcohol, which Safe Ground feels the community could self govern. In the words of leader Stephen Waters (2010), Safe Ground Sacramento “is about people seeking to help themselves while trying to survive without many of the benefits of society and about providing Sacramento with a model solution that can be cost effectively repeated elsewhere” .

The goal of this project is to identify parcels fitting the zoning, sizing and distance from public transportation requirement set forth by SafeGround Sacramento in their Request for Proposal for Land Development. SafeGround Sacramento believes that, due to Sacramento City’s broad zoning categories, proper permits could be acquired for parcels zoned R, C or M. In unincorporated Sacramento, SafeGround seeks parcels zoned RD-40, SC, LC, GC, CO and DW. They ask that parcel size be between two and five acres and are no more than a quarter mile from established Regional Transit bus and light rail stops. The results of this analysis are intended only for identification of parcels as a preliminary for more in depth studies and possible community outreach.

Background

Although a lot of attention has been brought to tent cities due to the recent economic downturn, the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) stresses that the prevalence of established tent cities has been growing in America over the past decade due to economic policy and the criminalization of the homeless. In thier report Tent Cities in America: A Pacific Coast Report (2010), the NCH profiles many tent cities along the Pacific Coast, pointing out that the phrase “tent city” is used to describe a variety of temporary housing facilities. Similar communities exist in Portland, Oregon and Ventura, California, and are being researched as examples for possible solutions in Sacramento because, in fact, the Pacific Coast has led the movement to formalize tent cities.
Dignity Village
Photobucket
Photo by Josh Seaman

Portland, Dignity Village is one of the oldest established tent cities, having been officially established in 2001 when an existing informal tent city was forced to relocate to Sunderland Yard, a leaf composting site, due to threat of a police sweep. Its location is seven miles from downtown Portland, far away from residential neighborhoods, and contains fifty wooden structures made from recycled goods which house sixty residents. Originally, the camp consisted of tents, teepees and makeshift houses, but over the decade housing has improved to the point that it now meets or exceeds the American Red Cross and Mercy Corps.’ sanitation requirements for emergency relief camps. Dignity Village is completely self sustained as it is self funded and self governed. Although there is a strict code of conduct, including sobriety, non violence, mandatory community service and the opportunity to participate and vote on the community council, there is no screening process for residents, or a time limit on how long boarders can stay. Dignity Village is unique in that it” furthers this sense of ownership and allows the homeless to make both tangible physical and social improvements to their community” that they would other wise not be able to in a mobile or transient environment (NHC, 2010).

River Haven Domes
Photobucket
Photo by Bruce Label
In contrast to Dignity Village’s lax admission requirements and lack of evaluation of its members’ rehabilitation progress, is River Haven in Ventura, California. Although River Haven began in 2004 as a tent city modeled similarly to Dignity Village, organizers felt that internal conflict and policy procedures actually facilitated chronic homelessness. Since then, River Haven has switched to a transitional housing model which targets those who are motivated to contribute to the community and positively change their situation. This is very much in line with the goals of Sacramento City in their effort to establish a permanent tent city, which has been characterized as a "stepping stone" towards permanent housing for the chronically homeless rather than a permanent living situation (Hubert,Cynthia 2010). Also, unlike Dignity Village which is fully self sufficient, River Haven is run mainly by The Turning Point Foundation, a non-profit fiscal agent and sponsor of River Haven, as well as city and government funding. This governance and fiscal model is also very similar to that proposed for Sacramento between SafeGround and Sacramento City. River Haven sits on three quarters of an acre and is four miles from downtown, far from any residential neighborhoods. Like Dignity Village, it has a communal rudimentary kitchen, porta-potties, communal picnic tables and a large tent for socializing. There are twenty one residents living in nineteen U-Dome shelters.

Tent City 3
Photobucket>
Photo by Renee Byer
House next to this Tent City 3 location valued at $700,000

Another model for tent cities that is not being considered for Sacramento, but is worth noting, is the rotating model like that of Seattle, Washington's Tent City 3 and Tent City 4 and Olympia, Washington's Camp Quioxte. All three camps rotate from church to church every ninety days and are often located in affluent, residential neighborhoods. Tent Cities 3 and 4 are opperated by the non profit Seattle Housing and Resource Effort (SHARE) along with its sister organization the Women's Housing Equality and Enhancement League (WHEEL), collectively known as SHARE/WHEEL, while Camp Quioxte partners with its local non profit organization, Panza. The partnered non profits are responsible for raising funds, organizing host church locations, working with the internal government of the camps and acting as liason between the camp, the community and the local government. Despite the burden of moving locations every ninety days, rotating tent camps require community involvement and develop awareness and familiarity towards the homeless that is not necessarily present in permanent camps like Dignity Village and River Haven. (NHC, 2010) beleives that it is the combination of community invovlement and the prescense of a strong non-profit partner that gives the camps legitimacy and eventaully gains community support.

Methods

County data was obtained from the Sacramento County GIS Data Library website. Shapefiles for parcels, lightrail lines and stops as well as city and county boundaries were downlaoded as zipped files from the library website. Bus stop data was provided by Sacrament County Regional Transit through the GTFS Data Exchange website in text format. The GIS function used for this analysis is queries, both attribute and spatial. Since SafeGround Sacramento is looking for different zoning classifications for Sacramento City and unincorporated Sacramento parcels, two separate query processes occurred in order to separate parcels in Sacramento City from other city parcels in Sacramento County.

Parcels in Sacramento City were isolated by performing the attribute query “CITY”=’SACRAMENTO’ on Parcels_wo_Owners.shp.. Once Sacramento City parcels were isolated, an additional attribute query was performed from the current selection, "ZONE" LIKE'R%' OR "ZONE" LIKE'M%' OR "ZONE" LIKE'C%' AND "LOT_SIZE" >=87120 AND "LOT_SIZE" <=217800 in order to find parcels zoned M, R, C that are between 8,7120 square feet (two acres) and 21,7800 square feet (five acres). Finally, two more spatial queries were performed in order to extract from the selection, parcels within 0.25 miles of bus stops (Bus_Stops.shp) and add to selection parcels within 0.25 miles of light rail stations (Light_Rails_Stops.shp.). A layer was made from selection and then exported to create SacCity_Poss_Parce.shp..

Parcels outside of Sacramento city were identified by performing the zoning and lot size attribute query “ZONE”= ‘SC’ OR “ZONE”= ‘LC’ OR “ZONE”= ‘GC’ OR “ZONE”=’CO’ AND LOT_SIZE" >=87120 AND "LOT_SIZE" <=217800. From this selection “CITY”=’SACRAMENTO’ was removed. The spatial attribute queries for parcels within 0.25 miles of bus stops (Bus_Stops.shp) and add to selection parcels within 0.25 miles of light rail stations (Light_Rails_Stops.shp.) was performed, resulting in the shapefile Poss_Parc_Uncrp.shp..

Results

The two resulting maps display the prospective sites for a permanent tent city in Sacramento City and Unincorporated Sacramento County respectively. Because there were 187,039 total prospective parcels between SacCity_Poss_Parce.shp. and Poss_Parc_Uncrp.shp., the maps each display a general county wide view containing Sacramento City prospective parcels and Sacramento County prospective parcels, as well as two zoomed frames of either Sacramento City or Sacramento County parcels, depending on the theme of the map. The zoomed data frames hold no value over non zoomed sections of the overview map and are intended to give the reader a detailed glimpse of how many parcels were returned. An excel file is available upon request.

Figures and Maps

Prospective Sacramento City

Prospective Unincorporated Sacramento County Parcels

Analysis

Zoning classifications associated with parcel data did not contain any parcels zoned RD-40. RD-40 classifies residential parcels that can hold up to forty units and is one of the property types for Sacramento County parcels asked for in Safe Ground Sacramento’s proposal. The largest unit allowance in Sacramento County’s parcel data is ten. Therefore, the resulting Uncrp_Poss_Parc.shp does not include any residentially zoned properties . The results also do not include parcel ownership, but for the purpose of this analysis that is not necessary. It should also be noted that when layered, there is a discrepancy between the Sacramento City boundary (Cities.shp) and the queried Sacramento City parcels, with many parcels attributed to Sacramento City lying outside the city boundary shapefile. It is to be assumed that the city designated in the Parcels_wo_Owners.shp attributes is the city in which the parcel is registered and, therefore, the city whose zoning codes are to be followed. For this reason, an attribute query was performed, rather than the originally planned spatial query, between Cities.shp and Parcels_wo_Owners.shp. in the effort to separate Sacramento City parcels from unincorporated Sacramento County parcels. Although Cities.shp was not used in analysis, it is displayed on the resulting maps as a reference point for readers familiar with Sacramento to see where about prospective parcels are located.

Conclusions

The identification of parcels that could possibly meet SafeGround Sacramento’s needs is only a stepping stone in the process of finding a suitable site for a legal, permanent camping residency for the homeless; just because parcels have been identified does not mean they are available for sale, lease or lease to own. This data, however, could be joined with an owner address list and more in depth community outreach could be performed in an effort to gain parcel owner support. The next step for SafeGround Sacramento would be to use these maps, shapefiles and their attribute data to identify areas within Sacramento where the homeless would best be served and use this data to reach out to those communities.

References

Byer, Renee C. "Tent City 3". Tent City 3. The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento's future may be found in Seattle's tent cities'. 20 March, 2011.http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/20/3489412/sacramentos-future-might-be-found.html

Camp Quixote. 5/1/2011. http://quixotevillage.com/

Camp Quixote. "Panza Partnership". 5/1/2011. http://quixotevillage.com/about/panza/

Citizens Info. "Tent City Seattle". Tent City Seattle. 'Sacramento's future may be found in Seattle's tent cities'. 20 March, 2011. http://news.citizensinfo.com/sacramento_ca/sacramentos-future-might-be-found-in-seattles-tent-cities/
Delaney, Arthur and Grim, Ryan. “Tent Cities: An American Tradition”. The Huffington Post. First Posted 06/17/2010. Last Modified 03/23/2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19/tent-cities-an-american-t_n_175665.html

Dignity Village. 5/1/2011.http://www.dignityvillage.org/

“Editorial: Big Surprise: Blight returns to river”. The Sacramento Bee. Published 1/30/2011. Page 6E.http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/30/3360930/big-surprise-blight-returns-to.html

GTFS Exchange.Shapes.txt.Sacramento Regional Transit.http://www.gtfs-data-exchange.com/agency/sacramento-regional-transit/

Hubert, Cynthia. “Breaking Sacramento’s homeless cycle”. The Sacramento Bee. Published 2/21/2011. Page 1A. Last Modified 2/21/2011.http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/21/3418106/breaking-sacramentos-homeless.html

Hubert, Cynthia. “Fong ‘embarrassed’, Johnson ‘proud’ of Sacramento’s progress on homelessness”. Published 10/12/2010. The Sacramento Bee.http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/12/3099639/fong-embarrased-johnson-proud.html

Hubert, Cynthia. “Sacramento’s nomadic winter shelter deemed a success, but what next?”. The Sacramento Bee. Published 4/6/2011. Page 1A. Last Modified 4/6/2011.http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/06/3531277/sacramentos-nomadic-winter-shelter.html

Hubert, Cynthia. “Sacramento task force plans campground for up to 60 homeless”. The Sacramento Bee. Published 08/18/2009.http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2117430.html?storylink=pd

Kalb, Loretta. “Schwarzenegger, Johnson part toer address homeless issue”. The Sacramento Bee. Published 3/25/2009.http://www.voa-sac.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=XdL13IXFwpA%3D&tabid=3064

Label, Bruce. "River Haven Domes". River Haven Domes. 'Shelter Design For Good'. 6 Oct, 2009.http://docucinema.com/shelter/category/production/

National Coalition for the Homeless. 5/1/2011. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/

National Coalition for the Homeless. Tent Cities in America: A Pacific Coast Report. March 2010. www.nationalhomeless.org.http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/Tent%20Cities%20Report%20FI AL%203-10-10.pdf

Request For Proposal For Land Development. April 2, 2010. SafeGround Sacramento.Inc. http://www.safegroundsac.org/_pdf/sg_rfp_April_final.pdf

Sacramento County GIS Centerlines.shp.. Creates by AutoCAad. 2/2010. http://www.sacgis.org/GISDataPub/Data/

Sacramento County GIS Library. Light_Rail_Lines.shp.. 12/2006. Provided by SACOG. http://www.sacgis.org/GISDataPub/Data/

Sacramento County GIS Library. Light_Rail_Stops.shp.. 3/2007. Provided by SACOG. http://www.sacgis.org/GISDataPub/Data/

Sacramento County GIS Library. Parcels_wo_Owners.shp..Produced by Assessor AutoCad.http://www.sacgis.org/GISDataPub/Data/

Sacramento County GIS Library.Sac_Cities.shp.. 12/2009 http://www.sacgis.org/GISDataPub/Data/

Sacramento County GIS Sac_County_Bound.shp.. 12/2008 http://www.sacgis.org/GISDataPub/Data/

Seaman, Josh. "Dignity Village". Dignity Village. 'Photos by Josh Seaman'.http://www.redsemillaroja.org/Projects/Live%20Debris/LD9artists/DignityVillage.html

Seattle Housing and Resource Effort/Women's Housing Equality and Ehnhancement League. 5/1/2011.http://www.sharewheel.org/Home/tent-cities

Seattle Housing and Resource Effort/Women's Housing Equality and Ehnhancement League. "Tent Cities". 5/1/2011.http://www.sharewheel.org/Home/tent-cities

Turning Point Foundation. 1/5/2011. http://www.turningpointfoundation.org/about_us.html

Waters, Stephen.“View Points”: Let’s set the record straight about SafeGround’s goals and motives”. The Sacramento Bee. Published 2/19/2011. Page 11A.http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/19/3414837/lets-set-the-record-straight-about.html