SJ Housing Dept's outreach process criticized as flawed, partisan, ineffective

The SJ Housing department has a formal obligation to solicit broad and meaningful citizen input on its major policies. With the department's widely criticized COPA program (privileging unaccountable non-profits in the housing market) nearing a council vote, David Eisbach, in an open letter to the community, takes a close look at how that input process actually takes place. He finds more stagecraft than good faith exploration of citizen perceptions and concerns.

When San Jose City wants the Housing Department to research a possible course of action, and make a recommendation to the Council, part of that research is citizen participation or Outreach. This Outreach is what I call Theater Outreach. Rent Control, Tenant Protection, Just Cause, Opportunity Housing, Anti-displacement, Opportunity Housing, and now COPA have all gone the way of Theater.

Here are some examples:

1. Email Shenanigans
Federal law requires a certain amount of notice be given to any proposed legislation. Housing is quick to say it follows these rules, yet all of the above effect the interests of all owners of property. I get many notices because I’ve sought them. Certainly, all of the non-profits get theirs, because they are on the receiving end, while the owners are on the paying end. More clearly stated, Housing does not fairly distribute notices. I offer an example of outreach explanation by the City, regarding the HCDC, Housing and Community Development Commission’s recommendations to change parts of the 2021-2022 Work Plan:
I asked the HD: "Who is on the email to its general distribution list?"
Here's their response: “Accordingly, the City has advertised the availability of the proposed amendments and the opportunity to comment on these amendments on its website five days prior to the hearing, has sent a notice by email to its general distribution list and to its Housing and Community Development Commissioners, and has posted the opportunity to comment on its social media accounts. An email address was provided on the notice where comments can be submitted. In addition, comments will be accepted prior to the hearing via a link on the City Council’s agenda webpage as well as by e-mail to the City Clerk (city.clerk@sanjoseca.gov) by 12:00 noon on the day of the hearing. During the hearing, comments can be submitted via eComment on the City’s agenda webpage as well as by emailing councilmeeting@sanjoseca.gov and identifying the agenda item number in the subject line."

2. Webinar shenanigans:
The last two meetings had audiences of 35 on 12/8 and 31 on 12/15, which seem rather small; small enough to use zoom. Officially, Housing’s Ms. Guzman says, "We conducted the meetings in webinar format so that we could utilize the Q&A function, instead of using the chat to track questions and provide answers. In webinar format, attendees are not able to see one another. No, we don’t know who corrupted the chat. The meetings are open to the public, advertised broadly and anyone is welcome to attend."
Here are some of the problems that ensued:

• The Q&A list disappears, people don’t know where their question is.
  Staff answers some questions directly to the questioner; thus, the full body doesn’t hear.

• If COPA staff cannot use Chat with Q&A, why are they there?
  We don’t know who is there and whom they represent, because this is a program, in which non-profits are the major entity to gain, and everyone has to register, non-profits should register, like a lobbyist, even members of such organizations.
  Note: the COPA meetings on Friday, Jan. 7 start at 1:00 to 2:30pm, Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2022, at 4:00 to 5:30pm. What’s missing is the working public!

• We do not know what the advertising program is. We do know it is largely shielded from the general public.

• The leaders of the meeting stress the delivery of the synopsis of the proposal. Their purpose is not to answer questions or encourage discussion. Questions, especially those critical to the proposal are put off with statements like, we are still working on that issue, or they will say, we will contact you with our findings, or we would like to meet with you for a discussion personally, anything except allowing discussion to be nurtured.

• The use of post-its or the electronic version “Doodle” is another great tactic. Individuals write some thoughts, observations, points of interest and they are thrown all together in categories. There is very little discussion aside from reading the lot. They are gathered by staff, and it disappears into the bowels of Housing, and they make up their minds what is cogent, useful and included, while opposition is minimalized or excluded.

• These Outreach meeting are not designed for debate. At no time, in my experience, has there ever been a show of hands or encouragement for further discussion.

3. Bias toward nonprofits
The non-profits play an overwhelming role in the Outreach process. The city receives grants from the federal, state, local governments or private philanthropy. Those monies are dealt out to these nonprofits, that train, feed, house, give medical and legal protections to the needy. Because most funds are earmarked for those in need, they become champions for the poor and lobbyists in the legislative process. An example is the study group, that worked on Opportunity Housing. There were nearly twenty-seven participants ranging from nonprofits, city housing or planning staff and only three with possible opposing views, Real Estate Board, California Apartment Association, and Bay Area Housing Network (BAHN). In one form or the other this has been the pattern from the expansion of Rent Control to Anti-Displacement and COPA.

4.) Curious timing.
Time is another matter of concern, I haven’t researched special committee meeting times, but the Copa meeting on Wednesday,12/15/2021 for public input was scheduled for 3:00 to 4:30pm, when many people are working.
It looks like we will have public zoom meetings for some time. When the host cuts attendees’ access to the Chat, it eliminates the possibility of side comments or questions. The Q&A is the only way to comment or ask for further information. Occasionally, a question will be answered directly online to the individual, thus eliminating a public airing. In other words, the host controls the content!

This letter is occasioned by the real concern for the process of informing citizens, hearing their response and honestly reporting the results to the City Council.

David Eisbach can be contacted here: deisbach1848@currently.com

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity