Right inside the parking lot to River Park there are several signs posted stating that it is a violation to drive, over night camp, or have a fire within the park's property. Yes, homelessness is not a crime but the above listed infractions are. The fire department has
been called out to the encampment several times. Trash is building up and blowing all over their area up to Wilson Ave. It is not sanitary! I have heard the people to contact are GVR. These folks need to be relocated. This city and its leaders need to find them safe and suitable housing!!!! This city can do better!!!

Thanks for your comments and addition of facts...

Why is it illegal to remove them? Whyndoes the city keepntelling us that? It is NOT illegal tonremove them, especially when they are the ones breaking the law.

Are you telling me there is not a single open bed in any shelter anywhere? B.S.

Why does the City keep hiding behind this one law?

The bottom line is...they are breaking the law camping over night, driving and parking their cars, creating fires etc. River Park is not a camp ground!!! It is very frustrating that the "powers that be" can not find these folks a place to live. No one should be living in the street...period.

Three day eviction notice. Then show up , haul em off to jail if they don't leave.
Hire them to go with a city truck and clean up illegal camp debris all over the city.

If they want to camp / live outdoors, it's up to them to find a place where they go un-noticed , and not get caught and forced to move. I've seen plenty of places...

There's lots of open space on Mare Island

The two 3-story 60 unit Studio apartment bldgs (right across the bridge on right side) on Mare Isl. that sat unprotected since 1996 when given to the city .......would have been PERFECT!!!! Until damaged and trashed over the years .....then ultimately demolished a few yrs ago.....
What a waste...... Hilarious.....

We are watching our beloved waterfront get destroyed. Here is a pic of a recent fire in this homeless encampment. This has been reported and ignored for far too long. DO SOMETHING, City of Vallejo!!!!

City of Sacramento being sued bt thier own DA because the mayor refused to enforce the law regarding this issue.

Maybe our Mayor should be sued too. Waste some more tax dollars. Bunch of Thieves on our city council.

Code Enforcement Division is assigned these requests and they copy paste responses from their office, they close the requests and no action results… ad infinitum

Junk is piling up everywhere in this area…

Does the City Management plan for mutual aid for our limited police presence.

The Mutual Aid System in Caliis an extension of the concept of “neighbor helping neighbor.” The Law Enforcement Mutual Aid System was established in 1961 and has been used to restore order during emergencies, including civil unrest, and to provide assistance to local agencies during other unusual events or catastrophic disasters. As a component of the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), the Mutual Aid System is based on four organizational levels: cities, counties, regions, and the State. The state is divided into seven Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Regions. The County Sheriff serves as the “Operational Area Mutual Aid Coordinator”. In each of the seven regions, one Sheriff, elected by his or her peers, serves as the Regional Mutual Aid Coordinator (RMAC). Cal OES Law Enforcement Branch has Assistant Chiefs assigned to each of the seven regions for direct coordination with law enforcement chiefs and sheriffs within each region.

In this spontaneous homeless event, there appears that it should result in a request for mutual aid or some other special resource, an early call to the Cal OES Law Enforcement Branch is encouraged. A regional Law Enforcement Branch Assistant Chief will work directly with the jurisdiction to assist in plan development and resource coordination.

svalenti designou esta questão a vpd_traffic

Thanks for reporting this issue! A work order has been created for this issue. Staff will be scheduled to investigate this issue. We will keep you updated on our action.

FYI, it's a terrible ruling from an Idaho court, that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, making it illegal to remove the homeless from any publicly maintained property, including streets and sidewalks. (Unless there is room in a shelter located in that community to move them to). The case is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I'm sure the VPD is just as frustrated as the citizens. SF is now interpreting the ruling that if they refuse housing and/or have other housing they can be removed.

There is no law saying you can not remove them from the streets!!! There are shelters with empty beds all over the place!!
Dont let the City Lie to you. They can remove them anytime they want.

Anyone notice all the campers remove from the waterfront during fleet week?? And now they are back.

City needs to be sued for not fulfilling thier duties and misappropriation of tax dollars.

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/9th-circuit-court-orders-cities-and-towns-cannot-force-homeless-people-off-the-street/

We are frustrated! The case does allow us to move/tow them if there is room in our homeless shelter for them and they refuse to go there.

The article talks about removing the people, not their vehicles. I don't see why that part of the law couldn't be enforced. At the very least, park in the parking lot.

The news interviewed an unsheltered woman on the streets in SF. She had housing in a tiny home but stated she didn't like living there because it didn't have running water and a bathroom (as if she has these amenities while living on the street.)

To: vpd_traffic-- Read the Law. You can not remove then UNLESS there is an available bed to offer them. There are available beds all over the county!! Offer them.

This has been the go-to excuse for you and your colleagues to NOT address the issue for way too long.

You are lying to the public in order to sell this idea that your hands are tied.

Call the shelters, ask how many beds they have... then remove that number of people from the street. That is what the law says.

The property is protected by the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution. The government has a right to maintain land & realty for PUBLIC USE. The Federal laws are not suspended by Ninth circuit courts decisions.

Inverse condemnation is an action or eminent domain proceeding initiated by a person having an interest in realty rather than by the government condemnor. GVRD should start an Inverse condemnation action in conjunction with the City of Vallejo.

Doesn’t the City of Vallejo have an attorney on staff who could help solve this problem?

It's still not legal for a vehicles to park there, for drugs be done there, fires to be there. Trash to pile up, and many other broken laws.
Let's mix drugs and campfires.That's a great idea! Maybe that will cause a few fires....oh...wait...that's already happened.
The other day, I saw someone so high on drugs they were frozen standing up and leaning over. Seriously, the ruling was over 5 years ago and while it's understandable the cities/counties would have to scramble to get help and funding. It's like everyone is STILL completely disconnected. Now...it's an emergency. Get this camo cleaned up. No cars, no fires no drugs, no trash. And hurry up and get coordinated with non profits, emergency funds, and whatever resources you can. Residents here are disgusted by the neglect of white Slough and now this won't be tolerated at River Park much longer because the dangers are even more threatening. None of the conditions that are at both places are what the 9th circuit ruling allowed. The condition they are in and the dangers are what the city and county have allowed.

Don't complain about fires....... fire is one of the best ways to remove these people, destroy their tent and belongings, harangue, hassle, bother, burn out, ..........maybe, just maybe , then, ......they will then go somewhere else, less.conspicuous.

Kiethsurf - That's just beyond ridiculous on so many levels that I am guessing your facetious. We all need to be safe. Just because residents want safety doesn't mean they would be for what you recommend.