Vice Mayor Dr. Paul Dhanuka Hosts Community Meeting on River Ranch Facility Proposal
- Kari Chilson
- 8 hours ago
- 3 min read
Redding, CA (July 7, 2026) — Vice Mayor Dr. Paul Dhanuka held the latest “First Mondays” community gathering on Monday evening, July 6, at Redding City Hall. While the monthly forum opened with broader local concerns — including park maintenance, public safety, and homelessness services — the majority of the roughly two-hour meeting focused on strong resident opposition to a proposed county correctional and reentry facility in the River Ranch area near the Sacramento River.
Residents from the River Ranch neighborhood (located in unincorporated Shasta County, outside Redding city limits) expressed deep frustration over the project’s proposed location adjacent to their homes. The facility, driven primarily by the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, is intended as an alternative custody/reentry program for lower-level offenders, potentially including work programs, transitional support, and capacity to ease overcrowding at the main county jail. Some descriptions referenced a larger-scale development that could include hundreds of beds.
Key Resident Concerns
Lack of Transparency and Notification: Many residents said they were not adequately informed early in the process. Because the neighborhood lies outside city boundaries, they learned of the plans primarily through a limited 300-foot zoning notification rather than broader public outreach. Agendas reportedly used parcel numbers or vague descriptions (sometimes referring to it as a “park facility”), and some claimed key details were altered at the last minute.
Safety and Neighborhood Impact: Speakers highlighted risks to children, limited ingress/egress (a single main road crossed by railroad tracks prone to blockages), fire hazards on the 90+ acre site, and potential flooding concerns near the river. One resident noted homes could literally share a fence line with the facility.
Location Choice: Residents repeatedly questioned why this riverside site was selected when other county- or city-owned properties (such as areas near Clear Creek, the old transfer station off Old Oregon Trail, the old courthouse, or surplus land elsewhere) appeared available. They argued the location would harm the scenic Sacramento River corridor, which supports tourism, fly-fishing businesses, and quality of life.
Effectiveness and Broader Impacts: A letter from the Board of Supervisors referenced in the meeting cited an approximately 8% success rate (92% recidivism) for similar programs. Concerns were raised about importing 60% of participants from outside Shasta County, potential strain on local services, and whether state funding would reliably cover operations long-term.
Process Criticism: Residents described the decision-making as largely driven by the Sheriff, with limited early community input and limited visibility into formal environmental review. The project is currently in litigation, which has restricted some discussions.
Dr. Dhanuka’s Response
As the only city official present, Dr. Dhanuka (a physician and one of five Redding City Council members) was careful to outline the limits of his role.
He emphasized:
The project is primarily a county/Sheriff-led initiative; the city’s involvement was mainly leasing surplus land.
He could not promise any specific outcome or relocation.
He invited residents to share concerns, alternatives, and mitigation ideas so he could raise them effectively in future discussions.
He noted the value of this informal setting for open dialogue compared to formal council meetings and encouraged continued engagement with all elected officials.
Dr. Dhanuka acknowledged the passion and legitimacy of “not in my backyard” feelings when developments affect homes and families. He listened attentively, asked clarifying questions (including about alternative sites and infrastructure issues), and committed to carrying the feedback forward. He also reminded attendees that broader systemic challenges — such as jail capacity, mental health services, prosecution, and probation monitoring — require comprehensive solutions beyond any single site.
Next Steps
The project remains under litigation (extended to August). County officials have indicated future public forums (possibly later in July and September) with drone/AI visualizations of the site plans. Residents plan to continue advocating for alternative locations and greater transparency.
The meeting exemplified the “First Mondays” goal of direct constituent conversation, with Dr. Dhanuka staying afterward for informal follow-up. For updates from Dr. Dhanuka, email jenniferm@giredding.com or pauldhanukacor@gmail.com.
This gathering highlighted ongoing tensions between regional public safety needs and localized community impacts in Shasta County. Further developments will likely unfold through county processes, litigation outcomes, and continued resident engagement.
