Sacramento just opened a campground and called it a solution. On Tuesday, the city unveiled its River District“safe camping”site — a sprawling setup of tents, showers, meals, and 24/7 security wedged into an industrial pocket north of downtown. It’s positioned as progress. But the timing tells a more complicated story.
Less than two weeks before this ribbon-cutting, a city audit landed a brutal verdict on Sacramento’s homeless services: shelter spending isn’t actually moving the needle on outcomes. The report found no correlation between what the city pours into traditional shelters and whether people actually find stable housing. The culprit, in part, is a lack of data. Translation: Sacramento has been spending big without knowing if it’s working. And now, with that audit still fresh, Mayor Kevin McCarty is steering toward a cheaper alternative.
The numbers speak for themselves. Sacramento spent $2.5 million to build this campground and will spend roughly $1.2 million annually to run it. Compare that to the X Street shelter near Oak Park, which cost $4.6 million per year and served nearly 800 people in its first two years. The River District site holds between 100 and 125 people at once. On paper, this looks like cost-effective innovation. But it’s also a de facto admission: the city’s traditional shelter approach is too expensive and, apparently, not delivering.
Here’s where the story gets real. James Hailey, who’s spent four decades unhoused, said city officials recently approached him about the new site. They promised help with jobs, housing, Medi-Cal, and documentation. He’s planning to move in come July. That’s the human angle that matters — not the capacity numbers, but whether case managers can actually help people climb out.
The catch? Sacramento’s already tried this. The city opened sanctioned campgrounds along X Street near Southside Park and at Miller Park before. Winter storms flattened tents and soaked everything. Those sites eventually closed. Mayor Kevin McCarty acknowledged the trade-offs at Tuesday’s press conference:“There’s not individual AC units. There are not individual bathroom facilities for everybody here. But I’d like to go for a walk 100 yards down the street and ask,‘Is it better than what we have outside?’So we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
City Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum echoed that pragmatism, saying no one aspires to live in tents on a gravel field in an industrial area — but it beats the street and offers dignity and security. Fair point. But the real test isn’t whether a tent is preferable to sleeping rough. It’s whether this site, backed by case managers and services, actually moves people toward permanent housing. That’s what the audit said Sacramento hasn’t proven yet. This time, the data — and the outcomes — will matter.
About the Author
Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson is a contributor to LocalBeat, covering local news and community stories.
