They Bought a Warehouse to Shelter the Homeless—Then Paid Security to Keep Them Out

By Christine Bish

Sacramento County’s $64.7 million project raises questions about pandemic spending, years of delay and the decisions that left people waiting.

In California’s capital county, taxpayers financed a troubling contradiction: Sacramento County purchased a warehouse to shelter homeless people, then paid private security while homeless people were kept outside.

I visited and photographed the Watt Avenue property in April 2023. What I witnessed was private security keeping homeless people out of the property the county had purchased to shelter them.

The county’s federal spending records identify Patrol Solutions providing security at the North Highlands Safe Stay site during 2023 and 2024. The county did not announce its groundbreaking until January 23, 2025, more than two years after purchasing the property. [1,2]

The county’s publicized acquisition and construction figure is now $64.7 million. Its website still describes active construction and anticipates residents moving in during late 2026. [3,4]

How did an emergency response become a project that took years to deliver shelter?

“We had to spend it or lose it.”

I questioned former Sacramento County Supervisor Sue Frost about the purchase. Frost had worked in real estate. I asked her why the county would buy a warehouse for human occupancy when, in my assessment, its ingress and egress would never be approved by the fire department for that use.

Ingress means the way into a building. Egress means the way out, including the escape routes people need during a fire or other emergency. A warehouse’s suitability for storage does not establish its suitability for sleeping accommodations.

Frost’s response was: “We had to spend it or lose it.”

That was the explanation I received for a decision involving millions of taxpayer dollars.

A spending deadline does not establish that a property is suitable, reasonably priced or capable of providing help when people need it. The county’s inspection and feasibility records should show what officials knew before committing public money.

A premium purchase, followed by a different plan

The property at 4837 Watt Avenue in North Highlands, an unincorporated Sacramento County community, sold for $12.45 million in September 2021. About fourteen months later, the county purchased it for $22.8 million. An independent appraisal reportedly valued it at $16.9 million. [5]

The county paid $5.9 million above that reported appraisal.

The public deserves to see the evidence supporting that premium: comparable properties, competing offers, alternative sites and the estimated cost of making the building usable.

The original 2022 environmental filing described sleeping cabins inside the warehouse, bathroom and sprinkler work, a kitchen and outdoor vehicle sheltering. It invoked a shelter emergency to support an environmental exemption. [6]

But the indoor plan changed after the purchase.

The Sacramento Bee’s investigation found that officials favored the property partly because it could accommodate indoor cabins. An architectural review subsequently determined that conversion would cost too much. The Board approved moving the cabins outdoors in August 2024. [5]

Why was the affordability of the intended use resolved after taxpayers bought the building?

The county’s early estimate included approximately $17 million in capital improvements. By October 2024, it described approximately $42 million for construction. Those estimates involved changing scopes, so the difference alone does not establish a contract overrun. It does demand an explanation of what changed, who approved it and which costs were foreseeable. [7,8]

What could have opened sooner?

At the time of the purchase, I recall a 112-bed motel being available. Its availability and suitability should be examined against the county’s acquisition records.

A motel begins with rooms, bathrooms and a building designed for overnight occupancy. Repairs, accessibility improvements and operating requirements still matter. But an existing lodging property deserved a documented comparison with a warehouse requiring extensive conversion.

An RV community with utility hookups, sanitation and managed services also deserved consideration. A campground-style approach would have required infrastructure and oversight, but the relevant questions were practical: How much would it cost? How quickly could it open? How many people could it serve?

Could an alternative have delivered shelter for a fraction of this project’s cost? Where is the analysis?

Sacramento County should disclose which properties and approaches it evaluated, why it rejected them and how speed of delivery factored into the decision.

People died while the project remained unfinished

The consequences of delay extend beyond construction bills.

A Sacramento Bee analysis reported 325 homeless deaths in 2023 and at least 162 in 2024 using coroner records. Its broader investigation placed the combined total at least 500 after including additional deaths it documented. These counts include deaths in hospitals and other locations, not solely outdoors. [9,10]

Those figures do not establish that the Watt Avenue delay caused particular deaths. They establish the urgency of the crisis this project was supposed to address.

People needed shelter during the years officials were planning, redesigning and preparing to build.

The county projects that the campus will serve 18,000 people over fifteen years, using that forecast to describe a capital cost of approximately $3,600 per person. That calculation depends on future use and does not include the complete cost of operating the campus. [3]

People waiting outside cannot take shelter in a fifteen-year projection.

Federal money, local decisions

Federal pandemic relief helped finance this project. Sacramento County’s first-quarter 2026 report lists $43.3 million in cumulative American Rescue Plan Act expenditures for North Highlands Safe Stay. [1]

The $64.7 million publicized campus figure combines acquisition and projected construction. It is not $64.7 million in retrofitting on top of the purchase price. A complete, current ledger is necessary to establish final spending.

One seat on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has changed since the purchase. The spending and delays continued, and the Board’s responsibility did not disappear with the departing supervisor. In my view, the continuing waste and abuse—and the unanswered questions about possible fraud—demand an independent investigation of everyone responsible for approving and overseeing this project.

Who challenged the purchase premium? Who reviewed the building’s suitability? Who scrutinized the redesign? Who demanded a realistic opening date?

The financial commitment continues beyond construction. Staffing, security, maintenance and services will require ongoing funding. Sacramento County residents deserve to know the full obligation they are being asked to carry for years to come.

I have requested the acquisition, funding, construction, security and operating records. County release notices identify substantial documents, but those records must be reconciled to establish the full cost and responsibility for avoidable expenses.

Because federal funds were used, I am referring my findings for federal review through President Trump’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud.

An independent financial and performance audit should determine which costs were avoidable, whether federal requirements were met and who is accountable.

The county should publish the purchase justification, alternatives analysis, construction changes, security invoices and operator payments. It should disclose when each component first admitted participants and how many people have actually been served.

Sacramento County purchased a property to shelter homeless people, then paid to secure it while those people remained outside.

“We had to spend it or lose it” leaves taxpayers with a question that deserves a public answer: