W ayne W. Gazzola
San Jose, CA
T o
San Jose City Council
April 14, 2025
Columbus Park & Matt Mahon’s Proposal to Criminalize Houselessness Dear San Jose city council members,
I am writing in regards to Matt Mahons proposition of making houselessness illegal in the event that a person continuously refuses shelter, and in regards to the proposal to develop Columbus park as a means of deterring the unhoused.
Developing Columbus Park as a Deterrent to homelessness Using infrastructure to bully the unhoused is not a new tactic. On the east coast cities are over 400 years old and by now are so dense that this process likely played out long ago, so it is difficult to ascertain from these cities the effects of this policy.
Cities along the west coast, however, are in their own way still undergoing a more obvious phase of domestication.
I watched the city of Portland (and others in the northwest) go from good to bad to a state which reminded me of downtown Los Angeles. Over a period of about a decade, a series of mayors whose policies demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding of the issue and which were distinctly lacking in innovation or intelligence quickly devolved (as many cities do) to what is close to a last resort of weaponizing their power over infrastructure as a means of bullying unhoused populations in some way which [supposedly] was intended to in some way align with the end goal that some public official had in mind. What that end goal was was usually unclear in that it was poorly articulated, and it changed from time to time. Being one who paid attention though, the common thread I found to their series of actions was not that they were concerned with the wellbeing of the city at large – least not so much as they were concerned with appeasing a few influential business leaders in the downtown and surrounding areas.
The number of bars and fences multiplied, as did the presence of disguistingly large boulders with globs of cement tossed between them along the highways. Whereas before this many campers dwelled in out-of-the-way places which were in many case literally hidden from the public, the cities blind weaponization of infrastructure [not COVID as the public at large presumed] forced the issue onto public sidewalks. In turn the issue only escalated. The prevalence of tents downtown in turn was cause for bike racks to be placed where there was little to no use for them beyond stopping some campers from setting up in front of some local business. In the end, a city which was once renowed as ’the most walkable city in America’ – a city many described as ’chill’, beautiful, safe, and welcoming – became in a matter of years a city which made headlines for how much it had devolved. Many professed that it just did not feel the same, and that they are doubtful it ever will.
By all means, revitalize Columbus park if there is a good reason for it. But lacking leadership who is capable of conceiving more intelligible alternatives is not a good reason. This is a thing which once it is done it cannot easily be undone. It will either cause the unhoused to rebel or to infest other areas.
Something which makes San Jose so unique and pleasant is how it was seemingly designedopposite of San Francisco – as though it learned from that city. Instead of condensing everything, people here sprawled out theire infrastructure and left space for both the public to enjoy nature and for those without a place to go to not feel the need to fight local businessess and pedestrians over every squre inch of pissed on sidewalks. 1/4
Matt Mahon’s Proposition to criminalize outdoor sleeping & Camp- ing
The most glaring problem here – one which will surely undermine Mahon’s inhumane efforts in the long run – is how little has been said with regard to stipulating tenant rights & responsibilities or of the quality standards of shelters. When a person continuosly refuses shelter, the natural and reasonable question to ask is ’why?’. And when it is the case that so many persons who refuse shelter consistently cite the inadequate state of shelters, the unnecessary restrictions of autonomies, and the demeaning treatment people receive when going there, it is in the least case only rational to investigate these claims. Yet somehow, those who discuss these peoples fates usually only speak of the lack of shelters – they say nothing of quality standards. Over ten years of advocating for shelter reform in Oregon has made it abundantly clear to me that reforming shelters so they meet a higher standard is where the real challenge lies, and this is work Mahon and so many others conveniently ignore in an effort to simplify the issue in ways which will fit their own agenda. What attempts there are to study shelter systems today are laughable in their lack of objectivity and the lack of qualitative ethnographic standards.
In the present case, Matt Mahon may well be trying to infuse his fledgling political career with much needed hype, but he has given little thought to the systemic repercussions of the proposals he has put forth, or of alternatives which the city of San Jose might pursue.
Another issue which reflects his lack of thought in this matter is the lack of distinction between sleeping without or without a tent (i.e. sleeping vs. camping). This is another detail which is easily overlooked, but if and when the issue is pressed in court, laws will inevitably need to make a distinction between the two.
I hope council members who are in support of Mahon’s plans consider, A. Mahon was elected at a time when ’homelessness’ was perhaps the most concerning issue for many cities along the west coast, but this is no longer the case.
B. When a man’s greatest idea is how to criminalize people for not going to shelters and he conveniently sweeps the question of why people do not go to these places to begin with under the rug – this is a good indicator that such a man is not in possession of innovative ideas, nor is he capable of strategizing pragmatically.
It is perhaps too much to ask for that those elected as mayors have transcendental qualities or to be a person who is willing to put in the work and make the commitment needed to see through changing deeply fundamental facets of society. But in the least case we should try to ensure the community is protected from opportunists who care more about their own short-term political aspirations than they do about whether their strategy will actually work in the long run, or in what ways it might undermine basic human rights. Any time we find ourselves scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas as San Jose seems to be at the moment, we should default into defensive mode.
About 15 years ago I stayed at the rescue mission in Eugene, OR. It was very different then than it is today in that it had a very large and accommodating day room from which people could come and go as they pleased, access showers when needed, relax, find clean clothes at various times of the day, eat meals, etc. – all without standing in lines out in the cold for hours every day as is the norm in so many shelters today. Still, even then this mission had mandatory chapel service for those who did choose to stay the night. they had issues with power trips and demeaning treatment by staff, and their curfews were not always compatible with employment (nor were they willing to bend on this). Today, this day room has devolved into a holding cell in which new arrivals must submit themselves to being contained in for twenty days straight before ’graduating’ to the upstairs dormitory. Shelters in Portland can no longer be accessed without being checked in by a professional staffer. I watched that town go from good to bad to awful.
The reasons behind why shelters are becoming even less desirable places than they were 10-20 years ago have much to do with the housing first agenda which theNational Coalition to End Homelessness has taken to literally bribing private agencies into adopting. It also has to do with the desire of social workers to professionalize the act of ’serving’ the unhoused and justifying the need for more funds instead of enabling unhoused persons to do for themselves.
There is also a cultural aspect to consider..
About ten years ago a seemingly simple question arose in my mind; ’why not pack a warehouse full of bunkbeds and put them on the free rental market? why have our options been reduced to paying for an arm and a leg for 2/4
our own undersized private unit, being chased around oustide, or of being treated like prisoners in missions?’.
And I thought to myself that people are homeless, not helpless, and they need options more than they need help. My background being in physics, my instinct was proof by disproof; I sought out holes in my own idea.
Instead of finding such a thing cannot be done or has not already worked, I instead found that it (communal living in general) is too easily sabotaged by those with a vested interest against it. Aside from the numerous vested interests there are to be found against communal institutions (especially those which go so far as to legitimize communal living/ sleeping), on a cultural level these places present too much of a contrast to the surrounding domestic society.
For starters – before I ever began reading history books by the dozen – a strange thing I observed in my years of experience is that unhoused peoples coming together as a community in a healthy fashion seemed to be perceived by the surrounding populace as a greater threat than was individual acts of degeneracy by isolated campers. Why would people coming together threaten those nearby more than all the hoarding, stealing, and drug use which a system of compartmentalized tents give rise to? It is because we are still tribal creatures, and this is still tribal warfare. Accordingly, although it is looked down on, it is OKAY to devolve into a street life because you come from a broken family and/ or the domestic social life didn’t fit you; it is OKAY to turn to drugs as a means of connecting to other humans, and it is OKAY to piss and shit yourself after getting high on public sidewalks once the daily ostracism and punishment of domesmtic society takes its toll. It cannot, however, be OKAY for you to come together as a tribe and heal yourselves in holistic fashions, for it is only when it is divided that a family falls.
Basically, I am saying that ’homelessness’ is a family issue more than it is a private housing issue. Healing our families, and legitimizing alternative (or restoring very old) forms of family for those who come from a broken family is really where our focus ought to be if we hope to improve the issue in any meaningful way rather than shuffle it around. Today economists might refer to what I am trying to describe and to suggest we redirect our focus to improving [as opposed to simply housing people] as ’social capital’. Many who experience it out here will tell you ’homelessness’ is a simple matter of loneliness. More specifically, I am arguing it is an attempted return to a tribal way of life for those who have failed to find purpose in the domestic way of life; a street family to substitute for the nuclear family that didn’t work out.
By now I’ve read laundry baskets full of history books, and I am convinced there is a tug-a-war which consistently arises between communal and domestic forms of society. Living communally is in our DNA – we are inherently tribal creatures. Transitioning from a communal scheme to one in which private property, monogomous marriage, the nuclear family, and the private home are all fundamental principles of organization which we accept as ’normal’ today. But these principles weren’t normalized overnight, nor did this occur without mass indoctrination1, centuries of conditioning, and much strife – bloodshed even. There was a time when people were governed according to what social group they belonged to rather than by what geographic territory they currently inhabit. This is such a fundamental paradigm shift in both governmental systems and in the notion of identity construction that only a fool would think he could change it in a short time – in his own lifetime even.
My purpose is only partly to erase the dogma preached by housing first advocates – that ’homelessness is a housing issue’. Again,Houselessness is a family issue. From its inception thousands of years ago, the private home was [and it remains] a tool to legitimize the supremacy of and to serve the needs of the nuclear family (as opposed to the tribe which has largely been de-constructed and rendered a taboo topic). Anthropologists often note how labor markets in any society of the last thousand years tend to center around the private home (and by extension the nuclear family). Without a family a person loses motive to perform labor in such labor markets. What the housing first strategy amounts to for many persons who come from broken families is this; they are shoved into isolated and overpriced boxes which in effect separate them from what at some point became their most significant source of family – their street family (their tribe). Drugs become an excuse to reconnect with others in such a divided state. Hoarding of goods and territoriality [characteristics of a domestic existence] instead of a conscious sharing of goods and an unconscious cultivation of trust is the inevitable result of living next to rather than with one another. We see this outcome in tent communities here in California and elsewhere.
What is rarely tolerated however, is outdoor communal sleeping – regardless of the fact that such an approach is much cleaner and cost efficient. For a time I seen this method in effect in Oregon, and it had very positive outcomes – so positive I dare say many observers would be suprised to find it is the cultivation of community more than the establishment of a tent which motivates people. This I’d reason is because it is shame and safety 3/4
that are the feelings which ultimately motivate us. Some degree of safety can be found in tents, but even then many rely on safety in numbers – by the presence of others. When a person arrives to a town and they have no where to go and no encampment established, and especially if they are new to the act of sleeping outside, then it is natural to seek safety in the presence of others who are in the same boat. Shame can and usually is hidden from with the use of private walls and tents. But it is all too often overlooked that in a more natural and human state, we overcome shame with a sense of tribal belonging; so long as we have a group of people close by to call our own and with which we may face the surrounding world, then it matters little what others think of us or how they label us.
My primary purpose however, is not to convince the council that they should pursue shelter reform or to piss in the wind as I have trying to reinvent communalism. It is instead to convince you all that a reasonably educated person has put his life into this matter, and he has come to the conclusion that shelters – communal living arrangements in general – cannot be reformed unless or until government itself is reformed. Like education, housing is a thing that is very difficult to change, mainly because government won’tallow it to change. And this is a thing which goes well beyond any one city or transient body of council persons.
One might wonder if it is possible to just criminalize unhoused persons without worrying about what humane alternatives they have, and to this I can only be optimistic and presume I am writing to intelligent people.
No further consideration of this break in my chain of reasoning warrants considering; to criminalize unhoused people should be considered equivalent to pursuing shelter reform, as pursuing the former will sooner or later require addressing the latter.
So, while I wholeheartedly believe shelter reform is necessary, again, it is futile unless or until government itself is in some way changed. To this I bring to mind the words of the influential economic historian Karl Polyani, "too much change, too fast, is dangerous".
I have come to accept that real change is like planting the seeds to a tree which you may not be around to reap the fruits of. Real change happens gradually and in harmony with its surroundings – it does not violently uproot and overthrow entire systems which people have learned to rely on. People are creatures of ecology; if you suddenly uproot them and force them into a different environment it will surely have unforseen and unintended consequences. In the end it will not serve the city of San Jose. At best, if we let this come to pass, it will serve the political ambitions of one deficient Mayor. My father used to say to me that, ’evil spirits are things you feed, and the more you feed them, the more they’ll demand of you’. What Mahons proposal really is is an attempt to create drama – to create political energy for his fledgling political career to feed on.
Notes: 1 e.g. nomadic tribal spiritual beliefs overlaid with formal religious beliefs which had interwoven into them inherent qualities of the domestic life; centralized/ hierarchical/ patriarchial systems of authority, sedentarism, monotheism and monogomy – rigid loyalty to a set person, group, or god in general.
Thank you,
W ayne W. Gazzola
4/4
April 15, 2025
San José City Council
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
RE: City Council 04/15/2025, Item 7.1: Support for the Columbus Park Revitalization Plan
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
The Guadalupe River Park Conservancy writes in strong support of the Columbus Park Revitalization Plan.
We are the City’s non-profit partner providing community leadership for the active use and development of the Guadalupe River Park. The approval of this Plan marks a critical step in completing the revitalization of a park that holds deep signi
ficance for many San José residents.
For decades, Columbus Park served as a vital recreational space—a place where families gathered, youth played sports, and community bonds were strengthened. The proposed Plan honors that while meeting the needs of today’s growing and diverse population.
The new 9.4-acre neighborhood sports park will bring back much-needed amenities and provide space for active recreation, supporting both public health and social connection. As stewards of Guadalupe River Park and Gardens, we know
firsthand how access to open space, fitness, and gathering places can uplift communities and improve quality of life.
Importantly, this project complements and strengthens the broader network of destinations within Guadalupe Gardens. Alongside the Rotary PlayGarden, the Historic Orchard, and the Heritage Rose Garden—each undergoing its own renewal—this soccer-focused redevelopment adds momentum to the larger master plan vision for San José’s “Grand Park.” The Plan also reinforces adjacent efforts, particularly around Prototype Park and the future Urban Farm, helping to create a uni fied, welcoming, and
vibrant civic space in the heart of our city.
The Guadalupe River Park Conservancy commends the City for its leadership and commitment to community-focused park investment, and supports the approval of the Columbus Park Revitalization Plan.
Regards,
Jason Su, Executive Director
April 15, 2025
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
Re: Agenda Item 7.1: Require Columbus Park renovation to use natural grass, not toxic turf
Dear Mayor Mahan, Vicemayor Foley, and Councilmembers:
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley—San Jose’s first Climate Smart Champion—is a grassroots group with over 2000 local supporters advocating for a healthy environment today and a livable climate tomorrow for all children. We have not yet taken a position on the proposal to redevelop Columbus Park into a public park. However, should Council decide to approve this proposal, we ask that you make an important modification to protect public health and safety, our environment, and our climate.
The current plan calls for “synthetic soccer fields, courts for horseshoe, futsal, basketball and pickleball, picnic areas and a play area for children.” We ask that you replace “synthetic soccer fields” with “organically-managed natural grass soccer fields” and require that the picnic areas and play area for children use natural materials like real grass and engineered wood fiber rather than plastic grass or pour-in-place rubber surfaces. Pour-in-place rubber contains “polyaromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates, and volatile organic compounds” and often contains additional “additives and binders that could harm the health of children.” See this article:
https://www.eenews.net/articles/toxic-chemicals-lurk-at-childrens-playgrounds/
Artificial turf (synthetic grass) is a petroleum product that is harmful to athletes, public health, air and water quality, and the climate. Consider each of these harms:
● Health impacts: Artificial turf contains many chemicals known to be carcinogenic, including PFAS (forever chemicals), benzene, lead, and other heavy metals that are absorbed through the skin and lungs. ● Safety risks: Studies have shown that athletes playing on artificial turf are at higher risk of knee and ankle injuries and concussions (a major reason why 92% of NFL players prefer natural grass).
● Heat danger: Artificial turf gets very, very hot—up to 60°F hotter than natural grass—and has been measured as high as 200°F on a sunny day. These high temperatures increase the risk of third-degree burns, melting shoes, and heat exhaustion and stroke.
● Air pollution: When heated by the sun, artificial turf releases dangerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs), increasing the risk of cancer. ● Water contamination: When watered (required for cleaning and cooling) and when rained on, artificial turf sheds microplastics and chemicals that flow to our creeks, contaminating our watershed with EPA-regulated PFAS chemicals. ● Non-recyclability: Despite industry claims, artificial turf is not recycled. It needs to be replaced every 8-10 years and the discarded rolls are sent to landfill, incinerated, or repurposed such as at animal shelters and playgrounds despite their toxicity.
● Climate heating: Plastic grass generates heat-trapping gasses at every state of its lifecycle. And unlike natural grass (which absorbs carbon pollution), plastic grass means the loss of the potential to capture carbon in a healthy soil ecosystem and intensifies the urban heat island effect.
For these reasons, the Green Building Alliance considers natural grass a more sustainable and “safer alternative” to artificial turf and the Santa Clara County Medical Association has urged both the Santa Clara County and local school districts to insist on natural grass instead of artificial turf.
We hope you will listen to these experts and parents like us who ask that you protect our children’s and community’s health and safety and our fragile environment and climate by insisting that any athletic fields you help to fund be built with durable, drought-tolerant natural grass rather than toxic plastic turf. Also be sure to use healthy surfaces for children’s playgrounds, not pour-in-place rubber. This will ensure alignment with your commitment to San Jose’s leadership as a sustainable and climate-smart city.
Thank you,
Linda Hutchins-Knowles
Co-Founder & Team Coordinator, Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley