This article was originally published in the Mercury News
A Santa Clara County plan to buy San Jose-owned interim housing sites near Bernal and Monterey roads for a jail diversion program has run into intense backlash from nearby residents, prompting city officials to temporarily delay the $8 million sale.
City officials have removed the purchase agreement for parcels at 6066 Monterey Road and 1072-1082 Vermont Street from next week’s City Council agenda after hundreds of residents accused them of either misleading the public or not being transparent about the county’s plans and how they could further impact safety in the South San Jose area that has struggled with issues around shelter sites.
Joe Lopez, a retired Santa Clara County Sheriff’s sergeant and District 2 City Council candidate, lambasted the proposal, calling it a “direct threat to the safety and well-being of our community.”
“If the county has offered any concrete information about how it would address potential security risks at the new site, that information has not been shared with residents — many of whom share my concerns about what this could mean for our community,” Lopez told The Mercury News.
County officials said they identified the properties in the spring, engaging city staff about their intentions after receiving two grants from the California Health Facilities Financing Authority to help facilitate the transaction. The program’s goal is to “improve residents’ wellness, aid their recovery, and help them transition to long-term housing.”
The county’s engagement with the public included a virtual meeting last week to discuss the proposed purchase. A flyer sent to residents headlined the invitation as a “Neighborhood Meet & Greet.”
Abode Services, which has operated the Vermont Street facility over the past few years, notified the city of its intent to terminate the service-provider agreement in March. San Jose currently contracts with HomeFirst Services to operate the 2.37-acre interim housing site on Monterey Road that accommodates 78 people in 20 tiny homes. The city estimates the costs to maintain that site at $2.5 million per year, though it expects that figure to rise due to inflation.
A spokesperson from the County of Santa Clara Behavioral Health Services Department told The Mercury News that the jail-diversion program had safeguards in place, such as requiring approval from the courts and the District Attorney and Public Defender’s Offices to screen participants and continuously monitor their progress.
“Once accepted, the treatment provider will be responsible for providing regular progress reports to the court, defense, and prosecution,” the county said. “Additionally, participants will be required to meet regularly with court-ordered community supervision staff. Both program sites will have 24/7 staff available, with the Monterey location also featuring security guards around the clock.”
But residents in District 2 and District 10, which also borders the sites, felt that the latest proposal is endemic to the situation the city has put them in the last few years.
Issa Ajlouny, president of Safety Advocate for Empowering Residents, or S.A.F.E.R. San Jose, noted that the proposed jail diversion site already has several interim housing or safe sleeping sites within a mile radius, many of which he said have led to an uptick in crime and deterioration of their neighborhood. This section of San Jose, he said, was taking on a more significant portion of homelessness and social service solutions than other neighborhoods.
“We’re just getting hammered, and they don’t care what we think,” Ajlouny said.
A nearby resident and business owner, Barbara Gallaty, told The Mercury News that a group has attempted to engage with local officials about the crime and illegal camping problems near the sites and got either apathetic replies or heard nothing back.
This week, Gallaty vented to city officials in an email about squalid living conditions, encampments, rabid drug use and the neighborhood’s feeling that it was “on our own.”
“It looks like a third-world country,” Gallaty said in an interview. “It’s just a dumping ground right now.”
Gallaty’s comments were echoed in several of the emails the city clerk’s office received. Through Wednesday, the city has received at least 140 emails asking officials to delay or forgo the purchase agreements.
Representatives from District 2 Councilmember Sergio Jimenez and District 10 Councilmember Arjun Batra did not respond to questions from The Mercury News.
Batra, however, did issue a statement on social media referencing the concerns he’s heard and the need for public outreach.
“Residents have expressed that there was insufficient community engagement, among other concerns,” Batra wrote on social media. “We immediately started working on getting a deferral of this agenda item and can now confirm that the item has been removed from the August 27th Council Agenda and will be deferred to an unspecified date.”
Originally Published: August 23, 2024 at 6:01 a.m.
