San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan is stepping up his defense of his “Responsibility to Shelter” initiative to aggressively move people in tents and encampments into temporary housing and treatment programs.
In a public statement Sunday, he doubled down on his controversial plan, attempting to build public support before a council vote in June. The announcement from Gov. Gavin Monday calling on every local government in the state to adopt ordinances that restrict public camping lent additional weight to Mahan’s approach.
Mahan said local government needs to come to the aid of “people who fall through the cracks because we dismantled the mental health system in this state and didn’t rebuild an adequate system in its place…people too deep in the throes of mental illness and addiction to make a rational decision about their own well-being.”
In his statement, Mahan acknowledged that his approach is “a break from the status quo.”
He said his plan does not criminalize poverty and homelessness. “It’s focused on engaging and intervening when people repeatedly show that they are unwilling or unable to accept a hand up and out of homelessness,” he wrote.
He said his plan will not put homeless people in jail, but will push them into treatment. “In Santa Clara County, people do not serve jail sentences for trespassing or most other low-level misdemeanors, which our sheriff recently confirmed,” said the mayor. “But we can use repeat, non-violent misdemeanor charges to work with the Mental Health and Drug Courts to help compel people to engage in treatment.”
Mahan also said the city’s growing number of interim housing sites are “safe and dignified, with mostly private rooms with doors that lock and en-suite bathrooms.”
“We don’t have a curfew and we don’t kick people out after a predetermined number of days or months,” he said. “We have separate sites for families with children. There's a reason our sites run at nearly 95% occupancy and are effective at graduating people into more permanent housing solutions. People are much safer when they choose to come indoors than when they decide to stay on the streets.”
“When shelter is offered, we expect people to accept it,” he wrote. “If there is a place available, we expect it to be used. This is about compassion paired with accountability — recognizing that a path off the streets is both a right and a responsibility.”
The mayor said he wants to create a special unit within the police department to “maintain public safety and enforce the updated Code of Conduct and quality of life crimes, whether committed by housed or unhoused residents.” He also said the city will work with county mental health officials, so police officers “can bring people directly to access support services after three refusals of shelter.
“We know that many of our homeless neighbors are struggling with addiction or mental health challenges that make it harder for them to make a rational decision about their own well-being,” wrote Mahan. “This partnership would allow us to connect them with treatment faster and more effectively.”
Refusing to accept shelter is a misdemeanor? Forced abandonment of pets. No right to have a drink. If you’re homeless you forfeit markers of human dignity? Sounds like criminalizing status to me.
What if the unhoused refuse an experimental injection, too? What should be done with them? If you’re Mahan, you terminate their employment and ban them from civic life. He’s done it before.
Our mayor is quick to resort to perceived solutions which are totalitarian in nature.
Your email is entitled “Mayor Targets Homeless”.
Sensationalizing does not give me confidence in your stories when you do this. Please stop.
We never agreed to surrender public space, community centers, increase in crime, damage to vehicles. Intentional fires, or reduction in property values due to ppl becoming homeless and living in the streets. Those that feel the enforcement of mandatory housing is unjust – please consider sharing your home with unhoused who refuse to take shelter and prefer to live outdoors. For the unhoused that wish to return to living in a building this new opportunity comes with a commitment to increase the quality of temporary shelter that is safe and clean. Putting families and seniors in shelters that stink, have bugs, and a mix of people that have psychological and or drug abuse issues is not a solution. We need better shelters that have resources needed to get folks back on their feet and into their next home ( in San Jose or else where).
Realistically, some people are staying in areas they cannot afford nor will they be able to afford and yet they choose to stay in the streets to their detriment and others.
It does not make sense to me when people insist that the city should make new housing to accommodate the homeless who will likely be unable to pay rent in San Jose. Are we supposed to subsidize that? I’m taxed out.
I agree with the council’s decision to move forward with giving ppl 2 opportunities to get sheltered, off streets and public areas, and challenged individuals the help they need. Let’s make sure the shelters are setup to help folks that want help.
Ps. Fur babies are our family too. Let’s keep families together.
It is completely unfair to force housed city residents to put up with large camps of unhoused. These camps are filthy and unsafe. If they are in a park, children can’t play there. If they are on the trails, then people now can’t hike and run those trails. If they are on the creek beds, than the water gets polluted and filthy.
Like the mayor said, because a significant portion of the unhoused have mental health and/or addiction issues, they need to be compelled to make the right decisions. And letting people live in squaller isn’t a solution.
Sure. Have a drink if you want. Just don’t usurp public common areas that city residents pay taxes to enjoy to live your lifestyle, if that’s what you’re referring to.
Most of these shelters accept pets, by the way.
When the homeless (or unhoused if you prefer) stop damaging the property I live on, I will have a sympathetic ear. Over the last 8 years I’ve lived in a north San Jose development, our HOA has had to spend thousands on repairs to our clubhouse that has been broken into several times. We’ve also spent hundreds on our water being syphoned and utility closets being broken into several times. I’ve lost count of how many phone chargers we’ve found hidden. They ransack our trash and recycling nearly every week and leave the receptacles with litter everywhere. How many stories have we read about the homeless walking into a Target or CVS and just taking whatever they want with no consequence?
I agree that the cost of living if outrageous. I don’t envy those that find themselves in this position. But it doesn’t give them the right to destroy and vandalize property with impunity. It doesn’t give them the right to steal. It they need water and power, they can accept the help from the city. And if they refuse help, GTFO. The carrot hasn’t worked… it’s time for the stick.