The best comments from local online discussion threads

This week, the fine readers of the Merc, Spotlight, and SJ Insight, check in on housing controversies,The Flea Market, and more.

On SJ's first population decline in 10 years
Mark 6/9
Living in San Jose I’ve seen steadily increasing crime and homelessness, with all the fear and trouble this brings – and a consistently understaffed police force, along with policies consistently enacted to make everything here worse and not better, all while making it ever harder for law-abiding citizens. It’s no wonder people are leaving. Just yesterday the city released this, which will only serve to hurt good citizens while actually helping criminals. Even the article seems to admit this. We, too, will be leaving absolutely as soon as possible…and no doubt criminals and more homeless will readily fill the gap and further the damage here.

Frank Nemec 6/10
The trend is simply explained. SJ has long been the bedroom community for Silicon Valley, especially as cities like Mountain View refused to allow new housing development. Now SJ is seeing a significant increase in business development, without a corresponding increase in residential development. What some bemoan as gentrification involves displacement of demographics and cultures of multigenerational housing and lots of kids by younger couples with few or no kids as the workforce shifts from manual labor to professional. This detail is lost when population is represented by a simple body count. 2020 includes the short-term phenomenon of closed businesses and remote work not yet replaced by new or returning workers as in-person work resumes. There will be no downward spiral. Silicon Valley is far too valuable for that to happen.

Concerned SJ Resident 6/10
Don’t blame COVID for San Jose’s decline. It’s been on a downward trajectory before the pandemic hit. Just look at our dilapidated and dreary downtown with so little to offer. Not even one retail store – what other city can claim this sad state of affairs. And trust me, Google ain’t going to change this!

On housing crisis
Mark W Hinkle 6/4
A big reason for the lack of affordable housing are 3 issues: 1. zoning restrictions, 2. building permit fees, and 3 construction codes. All controlled by local and state governments. Since the government is a significant cause of the housing crisis, it’s unlikely they’ll provide the solution. But, they can, if they just get out of the way.
hoapres 6/4
If you are not in tech then you have no future in SV.

On homeless encampments
Prophet 6/5
Sanctioned encampments, also known as humanitarian zones, failed to be passed by the City Council San Jose for many reasons. First the Council requested a proposal from the Housing Department on the feasibility of sanctioned encampments for the duration of the pandemic only. Thus there was no serious consideration given long term humanitarian zones from the very beginning.
We are aware the State plans to reopen on June 15 so any humanitarian zones would have had a short shelf life. In addition, the Council tasked the severely understaffed Housing Department to research and set forth a proposal. The Housing Department lacked the bandwidth to properly set forth a recommendation despite holding several advisory meetings with unhoused advocates who provided solutions for immediately designating existing encampments as humanitarian zones without requiring a massive influx of additional funds or a service provider. Rather than proposing the recommendations from unhoused advocates, the Housing Department essentially punted citing the need for more staff and resources to provide the Council with a well informed and researched proposal. While criticizing the efforts of the Housing Department is not the aim here, it was disappointing that the recommendations of the unhoused advocates were not presented to the Council.
More importantly the opponents of humanitarian zones were able to seize control of the dialogue and misrepresent what a humanitarian zone would cost in terms of additional funding and labor by the City. Discussion ensued about the need to provide 24-hour security, building large prison-like walls around the humanitarian zones and the need to contract a service provider to oversee the humanitarian zones, among other things. All these arguments were nothing but noises intended to raise fears and substantially ramp up the associated costs. As pointed out numerous times by unhoused advocates humanitarian zones required limited City services such as port a potties, wash stations, and the continuation of meals on a weekly basis or more often if possible. These basic services are already being provided by the City at various encampments throughout San Jose.
The only additional component requested by unhoused advocates was a demand to stop the sweeps. Stopping sweeps is the most critical component of a humanitarian zone as it provides individuals with stability. An unhoused resident needs to have a place to call home each night as well as storing personal belongings. It is virtually impossible to engage in the overwhelming task of finding housing when you are constantly being swept from your home every few weeks. Personal belongings and home infrastructure are lost or destroyed with every sweep. The physical and mental anguish compound with every sweep until you finally reach the point of hopelessness and entertain thoughts of committing suicide. This is why an unhoused resident will tell you that no sweeps are the most important element of a humanitarian zone.
Unhoused advocates identified existing encampments which already receive limited support by the City as good candidates for humanitarian zones. Despite assertions to the contrary a service provider is not required to oversee a humanitarian zone. While additional services might be beneficial they would merely serve as a barrier to the establishment of humanitarian zones at this time. Indeed opponents utilized the cost of a service provider as another weapon to defeat humanitarian zones.
To establish even pilot humanitarian zones requires nothing more than limited support services from the City and no sweeps. Encampments are self governed and other than some very basic rules such as the size of the encampment in a humanitarian zone there should be little to no intervention by the City in the governance of the encampment.
In the end, opponents of humanitarian zones were able to grossly overinflate the costs associated with establishing and maintaining humanitarian zones. Even those in favor did a disservice to passing humanitarian zones by constantly referencing the need for a service provider thereby substantially raising the associated costs. The reality is that encampments already exist that receive basic services from the City and are self governed in a way that the public would support. The only component missing is the immediate stoppage of sweeps which disrupt the potential to gain housing and continually knock individuals backwards.Would a higher level of services be helpful? Of course. The more help which can be provided increases the opportunities to gain housing. Yet the most critical service is no sweeps which must be done first.
This point while made to the Council appeared to get lost in the myriad of other alleged requirements for humanitarian zones. Eventually the voice of opponents based upon manufactured arguments drowned out the proponents and humanitarian zones did not pass. The other critical piece is the Council failed to hear directly from those most affected by their decision — unhoused residents. Those most affected by the decision should be invited to the table and be part of the discussion. This is a common problem for the unhoused community. Others with no real understanding of the unhoused or their needs purport to make decisions on their behalf.

Paul not Saul 6/5
I have a sister that has been homeless for most of the past 15 years, the exception being the two times I tried to have her live with me. It was a disaster both times. I nearly lost my place to live.
You see, my sister’s main problems are two sides of the same coin. She has been a chronic drug and alcohol abuser since her early teens (she’ll be 60 this year). She’s also developed severe mental difficulties like bipolarism and schizophrenia. She’d go into loud, vulgar profanity laced conversations with her voices, usually in the middle of the night, waking up all my neighbors. She’s a hoarder, so she was constantly stashing things outside all over the common areas. Medication helps, BUT SHE REFUSES TO TAKE THEM AND NOBODY CAN MAKE HER. Even though she’s probably no longer capable of managing such conditions by herself.
I understand why the law was made to allow people the right to refuse treatment. But that law is keeping my sister where she’s at. It’s not helping her. My sister is mentally ill, and needs to be institutionalized, at least temporarily. My parents could never afford that. I certainly can’t, especially now that I’m on SSDI. She has nowhere to go. She won’t go to any encampment or homeless shelter because she knows she will be kicked out within a couple days, because of her outbursts (which many could interpret as being capable of violence because of her tone, but her “venom” is actually directed towards her voices).
There are many other homeless that do not have my sister's problems. They would react better to receiving assistance that helps them get back on their feet. I hate it when people harass those that are genuinely, temporarily, down on their luck.
Unfortunately, those who do have problems like my sister’s are the “lowest common denominator” that opponents point to as an illustration of all homeless people. (And, of course, proponents see things the other way around).
There is no one size fits all solution. Different circumstances require different solutions. And lastly, when Americans focus too much on cutting costs (key term: too much), we end up wasting alot of money on stuff that never quite solves the problem. When Americans focus on solving the problem, WE GET IT DONE.

Kevin Case 6/5
I think the reason they keep refusing sanctioned encampments is they do not put money into the “nonprofits” like PATH, who provide a lot of campaign contributions. Follow the money, and very very little of the millions being spent actually helps the homeless. And supportive housing doesn’t address the large percentage of those living along creeks and in parks who have mental issues, drug dependencies, and consider living outdoors a lifestyle. If we suddenly had a million hotel rooms or apartments for them,many would refuse.

On paying for homelessness projects when county land is available

San Jose Mercury News
Mr. Smith 6/11
This is a classic example of what economists call the “Agency” problem. Government agencies cannot solve the problems they’re charged with because then they would no longer be needed. Instead, these organizations make small or meaningless progress toward a goal while spending the bulk of their efforts studying the problem, creating reports, and lobbying for more resources.
This is why - despite an entire industry of activists and billions of dollars spent, homelessness is actually worse than it was a generation ago.


On Zoom democracy
San Jose Spotlight
HB 6/10
Either way the meetings are like watching paint dry. We are forced to watch virtue-signaling and Kabuki Theater presentations about issues that have actually already been decided.They could vote on everything in the first five minutes and spare us the elitist lectures.

If all of the members of the Board of Supervisors would make a pledge they they will not run for re-election nor will they seek any other elected office for at least five years, their credibility might increase.

On water restrictions
WILLIAM ASHBLESS 6/10
Emergency mask restrictions. Check.
Emergency Wildfire restrictions. Check.
Emergency water restrictions. Check.
We live in a constant state of emergency.

On the flea market negotiations
Erik Schoennauer 6/5
We (The Flea Market owners) have met with vendors over several years. In our most recent meeting, the vendors said their two most important priorities are: 1) the physical space to create a reimagined market and 2) financial support for the vendors during the transition to a new market. With theleadership of Councilmember Cohen, the plan now allows an urban public market to be created in the BART and central plazas of the new development. And, The Flea Market owners will contribute $2 million to a fund to support vendors during the transition. In addition, The Flea Market owners are offering a $500,000 matching grant to match contributions from others who want to support the vendors. We are working hard to design win-win solutions.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity