RULES COMMITTEE: 8/20/2025
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 25-254
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: August 20, 2025
August 7, 2025 – August 14, 2025.
ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Letters from Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Letters from the Public
1. Over 100 emails of substantially the same language were received between August 7 – August 11, 2025, re: Conservancy Initiative regarding Plaza de Cesar Chavez. One example is enclosed. You may contact the City Clerk’s Office to view all letters received.
2. Letter from Andrew Siegler, dated August 11, 2025, regarding: 8/12 City Council Meeting Agenda Item Open Forum: RE: Stop the August 18th Columbus Park Encampment Sweep — Organizational Sign-On Letter.
3. Letter from Andrew Siegler, dated August 11, 2025, regarding: 8/12 City Council Meeting Agenda Item Open Forum -- GRACE Open Letter.
4. Letter from Sandra Asher, dated August 11, 2025, regarding: Columbus Park Sweep Lacks Common Sense.
5. Letter from Rose Gregorio, dated August 11, 2025, regarding: asking for your kind heart.
6. Letter from Rudy Ortega, dated August 12, 2025, regarding: 1-Minute Speech for San Jose Abatement Protest.
7. Letter from Nicole Jackson, dated August 12, 2025, regarding: Comments addressed “to whom it may concern.”
8. Letter from Emily Serrano, dated August 12, 2025, regarding: Ethical and Evidence-Based Alternatives to the “Responsibility to Shelter” Arrest Provision.
Rules and Open Government Committee
August 6, 2025
Subject: Public Record
9-12. Four letters from the public, dated August 12 - 13, 2025, regarding: Restore Virtual Comments at City Council meetings.
____________________________
Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
200 East Santa Clara Street, Tower 14th Floor
San José, California 95113
Telephone (408) 535-1260
FAX (408) 292-6207
Office of the City Clerk
Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Clerk
Date: 8/14/2025
RE: Rules and Open Government Committee Public Record: 8/20/2025 The City Clerk’s Office received over 100 letters from members of the public with substantially the same language re: Conservancy Initiative regarding Plaza de Cesar Chavez were received between August 7 - August 11, 2025. One example is enclosed. You may contact the City Clerk's Office to view all letters received.
____________________________
Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
Plaza de César Chávez, a cornerstone of our city, should be prioritized for improvements. This Plaza could become a more inviting, comfortable, and vibrant destination—not just for attendees like me, but also for families, visitors, and the artists and producers who bring these events to life. Every other city of comparable size has a better bandshell than ours. It’s scandalous that a city as first class as SJ in all other ways does not have a functional bandshell to welcome the performers who come here from all over the world.
Accordingly, I fully support the vision put forth by The Plaza Conservancy. Their plan to enhance the park —with a permanent stage, quality sound systems, real restrooms, shaded seating, and small-scale concessions—makes perfect sense.
These upgrades have already been successfully implemented in other cities and conservancy-led parks, and it’s time for San José to follow suit.
Moreover, The Plaza Conservancy's model is financially sound—relying on earned income and private donations rather than the city budget.
This initiative is a win for community members like me, a win for event organizers striving to make productions financially viable, and a win for San José's future as a vibrant, event-friendly city.
Thank you for your time and your ongoing leadership.
I sincerely hope you will support The Plaza Conservancy's thoughtful, community-focused plan.
Regards,
Bonnie Margaret Ross
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
8/14/25, 11:45 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MTc0NwAu… 2/2 Public Record: 2
August 11, 2025
Mayor Matt Mahan
Vice Mayor Pam Foley
Councilmember Rosemary Kamei
Councilmember Pamela Campos
Councilmember Anthony Tordillos
Councilmember David Cohen
Councilmember Peter Ortiz
Councilmember Michael Mulcahy
Councilmember Bien Doan
Councilmember Domingo Candelas
Councilmember George Casey
City Clerk Toni Taber
200 E. Santa Clara Street
18th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
RE: Stop the August 18th Columbus Park Encampment Sweep — Organizational Sign-On Letter
Organizational Statement Opposing the City of San Jose Sweep of Unhoused Residents at Columbus Park
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers, and City of San Jose Staff, The City of San Jose has, through sweeps over the past several months, corralled hundreds of unhoused San Jose residents into Columbus Park. The City then made the decision to sweep all residents out of Columbus Park starting August 18th, so far without offering anywhere for residents to go, whether permanent affordable housing or shelter. This devastating plan is further exacerbated by the city’s plan to begin towing vehicles with expired tags without warning beginning August 17th, as well as the recently implemented “responsibility to shelter” policy, which criminalizes homelessness. We, the undersigned organizations, in support of Guadalupe Residents Advocating for Community Empowerment (GRACE), strongly oppose this cruel and inhumane sweep as it will violate the dignity, safety, and rights of our unhoused neighbors. Our communities deserve permanent, accessible, affordable housing and parking options, not harassment.
The residents of Columbus Park formed GRACE to organize in response to the upcoming sweep. Their demands are as follows:
1. STOP THE SWEEP
• Delay the sweep of Columbus Park until more shelter beds are available with the opening of the Navigation Center, Cherry Ave. and Rue Ferrari this September. This would mean the addition of 200 shelter spaces and 56 triage spaces.
• Sweeping people does not solve the problem; it only displaces people throughout the city, making it harder for them to be contacted for housing offers and medical treatment, exacerbating the crisis.
• Sweeping further traumatizes people who have survived so much already due to the failure of San Jose in meeting its RHNA goals for low and extremely low-income housing and failure in providing adequate housing options that meet people's basic needs. • Sweeping is a waste of tax dollars, public resources, time, and services that the city should be conserving considering it is experiencing a budget deficit.
2. OFFER NEEDS-BASED HOUSING AND SHELTER
• Understand that each person and family that is unhoused is unique and requires and is deserving of housing that adequately addresses their specific needs. • Do not arrest people who are unhoused for declining shelter that doesn’t meet their needs. • Trust that each individual has lived experience and expertise about the housing option that is appropriate for them and if this is ignored we will continually see people end up back on the streets.
• If a person is forced to give up their RV to enter a program and then becomes unhoused again, the City must agree to replace it.
• Provide shelter spaces, tiny homes, Safe RV parking sites/spots, and actual sanctioned encampment areas—the Navigation Center is not a sanctioned encampment. • Provide RV safe parking at all tiny homes, hotel programs, and shelters or provide offsite RV safe parking in addition for residents in those programs. Trailers and vans should be included.
3. PROVIDE SERVICES AND OUTREACH
• Provide adequate lighting for safety of disabled, seniors, and children residing at Columbus Park.
• Provide clean drinking water throughout entire day for health of disabled, seniors, and children residing at Columbus Park.
• Provide financial assistance with vehicle registration with all vehicles that are at least six months late on registration.
• Provide specific outreach to LGBTQIA+/undocumented communities that is from within those communities and can provide MEANINGFUL housing options. • Provide daily outreach to individuals at Colombus Park and share available housing/shelter/ parking options.
• Conduct on site VI-SPDATs.
• Assist people with disabilities with requested reasonable accommodations.
Additionally, offers for shelter must do no harm by providing shelter and services in a manner that exceeds a person’s current situation. For example, if someone has temperature control at Columbus Park, they should be offered shelter that includes temperature control.
Additionally, offers of shelter should equal home living as much as possible and include places to sit, rest, and have guests, temperature controlled areas, and the ability to be at the Navigation Center 24/7 or access food 24/7. This is especially important for diabetics or those who may miss programs’ scheduled meals due to illness, work schedules, or exhaustion.
Experts across the board point to a lack of deeply affordable housing as the primary driver of homelessness. San Jose is one of the least affordable cities in the world, let alone the nation. Yet instead of offering permanently affordable, accessible housing, every level of our government is focused on villainizing unhoused people—from the local level with Mayor Mahan’s so-called “Responsibility to Shelter” initiative, to the federal level with the White House’s statement on “ending crime and disorder on America’s streets.” This onslaught has been accompanied by misguided demands for quick fixes that imply a desire for good publicity with next to no lasting results.
The reality is that sweeps do nothing to resolve homelessness. Sweeps take what small semblance of stability unhoused people have and disrupt it with devastating consequences.
Personal belongings are destroyed and thrown away, including necessary medications and legal documents. These sweeps traumatize and re-traumatize an already-extremely-disenfranchised community. When people are swept, they lose contact with social workers and other service providers, cutting them off from possible housing opportunities. Additionally, sweeps leave unhoused people vulnerable and unsafe—evicted from a community where they knew the landscape and trusted their neighbors, and forced to find shelter in unfamiliar areas surrounded by unfamiliar people. This upheaval has deadly consequences, especially for unhoused people with marginalized identities, such as members of the LGBTQ+ community.
The purpose of a society is to protect its people. The bare minimum level of protection a society can give is providing its people with shelter. In a city where there is so much accumulated wealth, it is a moral failing that such a large portion of our community remains unhoused. It is a violation of human and civil rights that unhoused residents of our city are punished for the mere crime of being priced out of the local cost of living. Housing is a human right. Continuously sweeping encampments is a fundamental violation of the human right to housing.
We stand together to demand a halt to this violent displacement, and we call on the City of San Jose to stop the sweep of Columbus Park, halt the new vehicle towing policy, and work with GRACE to find a resolution that will uphold the rights of San Jose’s unhoused residents.
Sincerely,
Guadalupe Residents Advocating for Community Empowerment (GRACE) 50501 San José
Afro-UPRIS Democratic Club
Asian Law Alliance
Bay Area Super Heroes (BASH)
Bibleway Christian Center
Coalition for Justice and Accountability
Community Service Organization (CSO) San José
Food Not Bombs San José
Hero Tent
Human Agenda
Party for Socialism & Liberation (PSL)
Rapid Encampment Support Team
Sacred Heart Community Service
San José Against War
San José Clothing Swap
San José Nikkei Resisters (SJNR)
San José Peace and Justice Center
Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Santa Clara County Silicon Valley De-Bug
Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists of America (SVDSA) South Bay Queer Solidarity (SBQS)
Unhoused Response Group (URG)
Public Record: 3
August 11, 2025
Mayor Matt Mahan
Vice Mayor Pam Foley
Councilmember Rosemary Kamei
Councilmember Pamela Campos
Councilmember Anthony Tordillos
Councilmember David Cohen
Councilmember Peter Ortiz
Councilmember Michael Mulcahy
Councilmember Bien Doan
Councilmember Domingo Candelas
Councilmember George Casey
City Clerk Toni Taber
200 E. Santa Clara Street
18th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
An Open Letter Regarding the Impending August 18 Sweep of Columbus Park by GRACE (Guadalupe Residents Advocating for Community Empowerment) an advocacy group made up entirely of Columbus Park residents that represent a cross section of all park residents and supported by a host of other sister groups Most people don't think they are at risk of being unhoused. But the truth is, 2-3 people/ families become unhoused every day in Santa Clara County and these numbers keep growing. Those of us who are unhoused are experiencing unscrupulous and unrelenting targeting by the mayor and the city of San Jose that we are compelled to speak out about it.
People need to know the truth about what the mayor is doing and why we think he should be stopped. He is doing this to us, the most vulnerable, and he will certainly try to do it to anyone in the future who is being priced out and left without a home. Maybe even you.
According to the latest data, there are 3,959 unsheltered unhoused people in San Jose.
If you listen to Mayor Mahan, it’s no problem sweeping everyone out of their homes (RVs, tents, hand built shelters), because he’s got a place for everyone. But does he? Via del Oro recently opened with150 tiny homes, the Rue Ferrari expansion of 144 tiny homes and Cherry Ave. are supposed to open in September with 136 more very tiny homes, at 70 square feet, they’re the smallest homes yet. With every unit full, that brings it down to a minimum of 3,673 unsheltered unhoused.There are several motels that are being converted to homeless housing, where we allegedly can stay for a year, but all those rooms combined total 330, leaving 3,343 of us unsheltered. It’s also worth noting that these hotel rooms will not be online prior to August 18, the day hundreds and hundreds of us are swept from Columbus Park.
There are many of us that have already lived in tiny homes (mostly run by HomeFirst) and left of our own volition or been exited due to punitive rules that disconnected us from our loved ones, pets, belongings or street family. And don’t get us started on the shoddy construction of these places, most recently at Branham Lane. There are many of us that have already lived in converted motels that could not pass code inspection, had providers (Abode, HomeFirst, Life Moves) that were not held accountable by the city or county and clearly didn’t house us. When the city swept the area near Children’s Discovery Museum, they shoved a bunch of camps into the Arena Hotel (HomeFirst) which continues to be a problem.There are two safe parking sites in San Jose, Berryessa with 86 RV spots (WeHope) and Santa Teresa with 42 RV spots (LifeMoves), both usually full and LifeMoves seems to be having issues with case management at Santa Teresa. The city is starting a punitive, destabilizing program to tow RVs that have registration that is at least six months lapsed.
According to the city, there are 4,200 vehicles with tags that fall into that category, and of those, nearly 1,000 are RVs. Are they offering any assistance to us akin to homeless prevention, because people who lose their RVs are then literally on the street? No. Are they opening another safe parking site before this plan is implemented? No. Is there outreach being done to relocate us from Columbus to the safe parking sites? No. The mayor’s goal is simply to punish unhoused/marginally housed people, rip their homes and belongings from them and force them into government run camps. This is blatantly obvious because the plan goes into effect the day before Columbus Park is swept.Columbus Park/Guadalupe Gardens is the largest camp in San Jose, it’s grown larger each time another camp was swept by the city, without offering those residents any housing, so they sought refuge at Columbus. There are families with children here, there are lots of seniors here, lots of disabled folks, lots of queer folks, many sober people and yes, there are people with mental health and addiction issues. We look similar to your neighborhood, just less doors. Most of us are from San Jose so we probably grew up in your neighborhood.Later this month, the mayor’s latest idea, the Navigation Hub (HomeFirst), might open, where he’s going to force people out of their tents and into city ice fishing tents where mental health issues will be exacerbated by living in such close proximity (4-10 feet, max). It will hold 56 people, offer little parking and NOT be a “sanctioned encampment” as the mayor wants you to believe, it will be a resettlement camp for people forced out of their homes at Columbus Park.The tents have no shade, no electricity for things like fans in the summer heat and there’s not even a curb to prevent people in tents from being run over by vendor or client vehicles.
Latinos are 40% of the unhoused population and they are rightfully terrified of being forced into any camp/shelter, especially since ICE has been prowling L.A. shelters.
Whether they are “legal” or not is irrelevant, they are brown and that is all it takes for ICE to pick people up and make them disappear. The mayor has been inadequately mum on this issue and that only makes fear fester.
There are currently only 18 shelter beds for LGBTQIA+ people, that will not cover the high percentage of LGBTQIA+ folks at Columbus who have no safe place to go. Both of these groups need to be protected, to be assisted in keeping their RVs, to be outreached to by providers from within their communities–which has not happened.Where is our councilmember? We saw him when he toured the camp last Friday, but Mr. Mulcahy doesn’t seem that interested in ensuring everyone gets outreached to, or has viable housing options that suit their needs before being swept away. Although people at Columbus aren’t being offered Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), we know it has a host of problems because of the providers the city continues to give contracts to–mostly Abode and HomeFirst as well as John Stewart Company the property manager for nearly all unhoused-related housing. It’s crucial that all residents receive steady and sustained support while they live there and that is repeatedly not the case. Residents go through case managers faster than milk expires. Nearly every PSH site has had ongoing issues with keeping the elevators in operating condition, a must for buildings full of seniors and disabled people. Resident whistleblowers regarding elevator issues say they have been retaliated against–at several properties. Relatedly, all these PSH properties are being built with zero - a handful of resident parking spaces for buildings full of seniors, disabled people and people who drive to work. We deserve better.For the lucky few of us who make it through two years at PSH (which is a Project Based Voucher (PBV)) and on to a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), allowing them to move wherever they wish and subsidizing their rent, it’s not as easy as it seems.
Because of federal cuts by HUD, July 1 the Santa Clara County Housing Authority notified PBV holders that should they move, they will not receive a HCV due to a pause in funding. This makes vacancies in PSH even harder to come by and why PSH needs to be funded to create more units.This year, the city cut the homeless prevention budget in half, potentially adding 600 more households to the streets. 950 Santa Clara County families living under an Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) may lose their voucher due to HUD funding. Additionally, if Trump (who the mayor is not distancing himself from in the least) has his way, there will be even more cuts to vouchers for families with undocumented members. Where will all of these people go? Where do we go?Let’s go over the numbers again:
3,959 unsheltered unhoused
-430 of new tiny homes
-330 of converted motel rooms
-56 at the navigation center
+600 new unhoused people/families entering homelessness due to budget cuts+ 950* new families that lost EHV due to HUD cuts
=3,743* people who are unsheltered unhoused and being swept to nowhere, maybe a neighborhood near you*950 of these are countywide
We’ve been here before, when the city wanted to clear Columbus, they pushed us all into short-term housing and we’re still here because much of that housing pushed us back out. The city council keeps voting to use your tax dollars to increase funding for short-term housing and all but eliminate the funding for what works, PSH. It would work much better for us, the end users, with increased oversight and real accountability (which isn’t happening if they can’t even follow seven recommendations given to them by last year’s audit).Knowing that between February and July there’s the Super Bowl, March Madness and World Cup in San Jose or adjacent cities, the city’s real impetus for making us disappear quickly, why would we accept the same short term offers sold to us before? We are well aware they just want to make the streets clean for these sporting events and our long-term sustainability is irrelevant.
The solution to homelessness is real, genuinely affordable housing, where residents pay no more than 30% of their income. Modern homelessness began in the 1980s, when the wealthy slashed affordable housing spending to line their own pockets with generous tax cuts. As a result, Silicon Valley and Wall Street today are filled with multibillionaires who do not pay their fair share of taxes. In fact, the top 1% of Americans just received a $1 TRILLION tax cut from the Big Bad Bill approved by Congress. Yet the multi-billionaires are never held accountable for the homelessness crisis that they created and still perpetuate today.
Again, we ask you, where do we go?
Public Record: 4
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I urge Mayor Mahan and the City Council to heed to the Demands of the Columbus Park residents by:
Stopping the Sweep!
Sweeps traumatize people, displace people from their networks of survival, waste tax money and resources that the City in a budget deficit cannot afford, make people harder to find for housing opportunities and medical emergencies, and force people to scatter throughout the city aimlessly with nowhere safe or stable to go.
Offer Needs Based Housing and Shelter
Please respect and accept that people need and are deserving of housing options, programs, and resources that are appropriate for their circumstances and/or challenges.
Unhoused residents should not be arrested if they decline housing that does not meet their needs. Meet people where they are at by providing a variety of housing and shelter options, which include: shelter spaces, tiny homes, Safe RV Parking sites/spots, actual sanctioned encampment areas, the Navigation Center is not a sanctioned encampment. Provide RV safe parking at all tiny homes, hotel programs and shelters or provide offsite RV safe parking in addition for residents in those programs. Trailers and vans should be included.
The economy and cost of living make it extremely difficult to have financial and housing stability. RVs and vehicles are people’s security, lifeline, and protection from being exposed to the outside.
3. Provide Services and Outreach
Provide adequate lighting, clean drinking water throughout entire day, financial assistance with vehicle registration with all vehicles that are at least six months late on registration. Provide specific outreach to LGBTQIA+/undocumented communities from outreach workers with shared identities. Provide daily outreach conducting VI-SPATS and reasonable accommodations upon request.
Sincerely,
Sandra Asher
***************************
Sandra Asher
Director, Governing Board
Community Solutions
Creating Opportunities. Changing Lives.
Donate Now at https://communitysolutions.org/
Director, Governing Board
Parents Helping Parents
https://www.php.com/
Member,
Safety for All Disability Justice Coalition
8/13/25, 8:42 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 Public Record: 5
# Rally Speech - Rudy Ortega
**1-Minute Speech for San Jose Abatement Protest**
--- Good afternoon. My name is Rudy Ortega. What I'm about is constitutional justice and protecting the rights of San Jose's most vulnerable residents. I stand for due process. I stand for the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure of property. I stand for the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. San Jose's OLIVE Program targets over 2,000 vehicles citywide without constitutional protections. The city destroys personal property, displaces people with disabilities, and conducts enforcement without individualized assessments or reasonable accommodations. What I'm about is holding this city accountable. People experiencing homelessness deserve the same constitutional protections as every other resident. They deserve due process before their property is seized. They deserve ADA accommodations. They deserve to be treated with dignity. I'm about ending these systematic violations of civil rights. I'm about demanding that San Jose follow the law and invest in real solutions - permanent housing and services, not criminalization. Constitutional rights aren't suggestions. They're requirements. And I'm about making sure this city follows them.
Public Record: 6
8/13/25, 8:54 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https:!/outlook.office365.corn/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/MQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2QOLTZjNmZjNTk5MT. .. 2/3 Public Record: 7
8/13/25, 8:54 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 3/3 Public Record: 8
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Ending the process of remote participation, is to deny a large segment of the community the opportunity to participate in our democratic process. Some examples include:
— Disabled residents who rely on technology to speak, or who otherwise have to arrange rides with Paratransit.
— Immunocompromised residents who take on unnecessary risks to their health by spending hours in a packed room.
— Working people without the ability to arrange their schedules around hours-long council meetings. — Parents with small children who can't take time off to attend City meetings.
For example, budget season is the most critical time of year for civic engagement. The ban on remote comments means the people most in need of an equitable city budget will be sidelined throughout the process.
The possibility that the ban on remote comments might only last months is no comfort to those who wish to comment on current City Council, Committee and Commission matters in order to ensure that quality of life in San Jose is maximized. I ask that you immediately restore virtual public comment to ensure that you and the City once again benefit from the voices silenced by your recent decision.
Tina Rivera
95127
You may not use my contact information for any purpose other than to respond to my concern regarding the topic listed above, nor may you share my address with any other organization(s) or individual(s).
—
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
8/13/25, 8:52 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. people's First Amendment right to petition their government, however, the City should rise to the challenge of finding solutions to preserve access for everyone while continuing to facilitate public comment by providing a virtual option.
Ending the process of remote participation, is to deny a large segment of the community the opportunity to participate in our democratic process. Some examples include:
— Disabled residents who rely on technology to speak, or who otherwise have to arrange rides with Paratransit.
— Immunocompromised residents who take on unnecessary risks to their health by spending hours in a packed room.
— Working people without the ability to arrange their schedules around hours-long council meetings. — Parents with small children who can't take time off to attend City meetings.
For example, budget season is the most critical time of year for civic engagement. The ban on remote comments means the people most in need of an equitable city budget will be sidelined throughout the process.
The possibility that the ban on remote comments might only last months is no comfort to those who wish to comment on current City Council, Committee and Commission matters in order to ensure that quality of life in San Jose is maximized. I ask that you immediately restore virtual public comment to ensure that you and the City once again benefit from the voices silenced by your recent decision.
The Eastside gets low city services. Why does the Westside have far less homeless, trash in their streets, crime, road shows, and graffiti. Strip malls ate clean and safe. I drive for a living and it is so apparent the Eastside gets the shaft.
Our property values are terribly effective by the low city services provided. Please help us keep our neighborhood, safe and clean.
BTW I think Matt considering the lack of resources you are doing a good job!! Just please focus on the Eastside.
I voted for you and will again!
Thank you for your time on these matters.
Megan
95127
You may not use my contact information for any purpose other than to respond to my concern regarding the topic listed above, nor may you share my address with any other organization(s) or individual(s). —
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
8/13/25, 8:50 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. people's First Amendment right to petition their government, however, the City should rise to the challenge of finding solutions to preserve access for everyone while continuing to facilitate public comment by providing a virtual option.
Ending the process of remote participation, is to deny a large segment of the community the opportunity to participate in our democratic process. Some examples include:
— Disabled residents who rely on technology to speak, or who otherwise have to arrange rides with Paratransit.
— Immunocompromised residents who take on unnecessary risks to their health by spending hours in a packed room.
— Working people without the ability to arrange their schedules around hours-long council meetings. — Parents with small children who can't take time off to attend City meetings.
For example, budget season is the most critical time of year for civic engagement. The ban on remote comments means the people most in need of an equitable city budget will be sidelined throughout the process.
The possibility that the ban on remote comments might only last months is no comfort to those who wish to comment on current City Council, Committee and Commission matters in order to ensure that quality of life in San Jose is maximized. I ask that you immediately restore virtual public comment to ensure that you and the City once again benefit from the voices silenced by your recent decision.
Lynn Kamboj
95120
You may not use my contact information for any purpose other than to respond to my concern regarding the topic listed above, nor may you share my address with any other organization(s) or individual(s). —
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
8/13/25, 9:17 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Ending the process of remote participation, is to deny a large segment of the community the opportunity to participate in our democratic process. Some examples include:
— Disabled residents who rely on technology to speak, or who otherwise have to arrange rides with Paratransit.
— Immunocompromised residents who take on unnecessary risks to their health by spending hours in a packed room.
— Working people without the ability to arrange their schedules around hours-long council meetings. — Parents with small children who can't take time off to attend City meetings.
For example, budget season is the most critical time of year for civic engagement. The ban on remote comments means the people most in need of an equitable city budget will be sidelined throughout the process.
The possibility that the ban on remote comments might only last months is no comfort to those who wish to comment on current City Council, Committee and Commission matters in order to ensure that quality of life in San Jose is maximized. I ask that you immediately restore virtual public comment to ensure that you and the City once again benefit from the voices silenced by your recent decision.
During the pandemic people became much more involved in their civic duties because of this virtual meeting. There are ways to screen out bad actors during this process. Don't use that as an excuse to have a more engaged community.
linda ann reis
95125
You may not use my contact information for any purpose other than to respond to my concern regarding the topic listed above, nor may you share my address with any other organization(s) or individual(s).
—
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
8/13/25, 1:43 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2