Recently a notice to attend an open forum came floating to my door in South San Jose (District 2). The city is proposing to develop a number of tiny houses, made to house unhoused individuals, directly next to my current housing complex on Branham Lane and Monterey Road. Although I haven't had much time to research, I am on board.
My family and I moved to this complex in 1988, when it was originally developed. In the 29 years we've lived here, the lot proposed has not been used for anything other than tall weeds and homeless encampments often shut down by police. The proposal seems interesting and creative – especially for San Jose. Any step towards improving the safety and stability of our unhoused neighbors is a step towards progress. I figured I wouldn't be in the majority, but I decided to attend the meeting to voice my support.
The forum was met by droves of mostly angry residents. The community meeting room was overflowing with folks in seats, lining the walls, and filling any vacancies by sitting on the floor. New rooms had to be accessed for overflow where residents could listen to the meeting via speakers.
The forum was held by District 2 Councilmember Sergio Jimenez and was designed to provide information on the progress and need for the proposals, with information from a panel of experts on issues of housing, mental health, homelessness, and law enforcement. According to Councilmember Jimenez, the city is in the very early stages of planning and nothing has been voted on officially.
Although the plan is in its infancy stages, District 2 is not having it. The room roared in anger and fear over crime, drug abuse, loss of property value, and concerns of safety. In response to the noise, the experts gave the facts. Seemingly, most of the concerns were based in stigma but not backed up by data. While some residents have concerns over burglary, according to the San Jose Police Department, there has been no evidence to support a correlation with home burglary and homelessness. If the plan goes through, occupants will be vetted, and most, if not all, are already employed.
I was grateful to hear from currently and formerly homeless community members who all echoed their desire and desperation for stability, especially in the now declared most unaffordable city in the United States according to the Demographia International Housing Stability Survey: 2017.
In response to safety, especially safety for children, I have my own response. Years before this proposal, as an adolescent, I was followed into my complex by an adult who tried to get me into his car. There was no evidence that this person was unhoused. Unfortunately, the issue of safety is not new to the area. It is wise for parents to be on alert regardless of who they think their neighbors are, as access to housing has no correlation to a potential for predation. According to the Megan's Law website, there are 136 registered sex offenders within a two-mile radius of the proposed development. These are people already living in neighborhood homes.
Despite, the fears of my neighbors, I applaud the city for taking action and thinking creatively about how to solve the homelessness crisis. As stated, the issue will not just disappear. Unhoused people will not disappear. Just the opposite, with the exponentially rising cost of living, and low wages, more and more San Jose residents are at risk for becoming unhoused. In addition, homelessness is overwhelming faced by marginalized communities.
What is clear is that homelessness is a circumstance, not a crime, and not a character trait. It is an issue our city cannot ignore and in the end, I hope my District 2 neighbors can have hearts for the homes of ALL our community members.
Related Media:
When Google and the City of San Jose Make Plans Behind Closed Doors
Displacing the Unprofitable and Undesirable in San Jose's Fountain Alley
Sam Rodriguez Opens Creative Dialogue Between SF and San Jose with New Show
