8.4 23-842 City Initiatives Roadmap: Recreational Vehicles Communities Support Parking and Emergency Interim Housing. - TO BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY WITH ITEM 8.5
Our Berryessa Community already shoulders an extraordinary amount of the homeless burden. From several low-income and senior housing complexes on King, Section 8 housing on Mabury, a tiny home community on Taylor, the City Team Homeless shelter on Brokaw, and the future VTA shelter on Lundy. The city must really hate the children attending Vinci Park Elementary which is within walking distance of all of these projects. Why don't you put one of these projects in Almaden Valley???
Strongly oppose. The safety and littering problem would be huge. We have already seen unsafe situations such as stolen packages, mail thiefing, trespassing to the buildings in our neighborhood.
This neighborhood already has a tiny home transitional housing community on Taylor, several large low-income housing communities on King Rd., Section 8 housing on Mabury, the VTA low income housing project on Capital, and City Team Homeless Shelter on Commercial Rd. Putting more in this area is going to exacerbate crime, drugs, and bring down property value. We all deeply oppose making this community shoulder the burden of San Jose's homeless problem. No more homeless projects here! Opposed
The unfortunate event of a killing/injuring spree of innocent people that took place very recently in this city is a reminder that our police force is saturated and could not contain serious crimes. The suspect was captured by the Milpitas PD. To place all the burden of all the RVs and unhoused neighbors in one location, without any maximum stay rule, is asking for more serious crimes in one location! And the staggering amount of money taken from the housed neighbors to support the unhoused.
We had been bothered by the homeless people around for a long time. It makes us feel uncomfortable and unsafe. The interim housing could only increase the risk of unsafety for the neighborhood. definitely against!
I support expediting all available sites for placement of the unhoused. I do not support Council member Jimenezs position/memorandum that the City deprioritize choices District 2 until some future date at the cost getting the entire project done in the most reasonable time frame. I trust the city staffs effort to move expeditiously throughout the area.
Strongly opposed. Tax dollars should be focused on solving city’s homeless problem in the long term, rather than be squandered on such shortsighted interim solution which is 1)not welcomed by its immediate neighborhood, 2) economically unwise, and 3)has already been proved to be ineffective elsewhere.
I strongly oppose this idea because I have safety concerns for kids & teens here. Also, there be potential drugs and mental issues arise in the neighborhood.
I strongly oppose the proposal to have a Berryessa Shelter RV Parking for fear of my family safety. If this proposal is approved we will see more homeless people just loitering around our community. They don't care about our communities. They might have health or mental issues. This will increase crime, trash, traffic and will definitely drive our property prices down.
This neighborhood is a very good community and embraces a good diversity of residents. The proposed RV parking significantly threatens the human rights of all residents in this community to protect their personal property and living environment from the violence and chaos. Every act proposed should not sacrifice the human rights of one group to support the other group. This obeys the Constitution that every citizen has the equal rights.
I vote - Oppose!
Our Berryessa Community already shoulders an extraordinary amount of the homeless burden. From several low-income and senior housing complexes on King, Section 8 housing on Mabury, a tiny home community on Taylor, the City Team Homeless shelter on Brokaw, and the future VTA shelter on Lundy. The city must really hate the children attending Vinci Park Elementary which is within walking distance of all of these projects. Why don't you put one of these projects in Almaden Valley???
I vote - Oppose
Strongly oppose. The safety and littering problem would be huge. We have already seen unsafe situations such as stolen packages, mail thiefing, trespassing to the buildings in our neighborhood.
This neighborhood already has a tiny home transitional housing community on Taylor, several large low-income housing communities on King Rd., Section 8 housing on Mabury, the VTA low income housing project on Capital, and City Team Homeless Shelter on Commercial Rd. Putting more in this area is going to exacerbate crime, drugs, and bring down property value. We all deeply oppose making this community shoulder the burden of San Jose's homeless problem. No more homeless projects here! Opposed
Oppose. The safety and littering problem would be worse for the community.
Oppose
Oppose
The unfortunate event of a killing/injuring spree of innocent people that took place very recently in this city is a reminder that our police force is saturated and could not contain serious crimes. The suspect was captured by the Milpitas PD. To place all the burden of all the RVs and unhoused neighbors in one location, without any maximum stay rule, is asking for more serious crimes in one location! And the staggering amount of money taken from the housed neighbors to support the unhoused.
We had been bothered by the homeless people around for a long time. It makes us feel uncomfortable and unsafe. The interim housing could only increase the risk of unsafety for the neighborhood. definitely against!
I support expediting all available sites for placement of the unhoused. I do not support Council member Jimenezs position/memorandum that the City deprioritize choices District 2 until some future date at the cost getting the entire project done in the most reasonable time frame. I trust the city staffs effort to move expeditiously throughout the area.
Oppose this as it risks the safety around the community.
We have potholes that are over 4years old and why can’t we focus on dining basic task from this elected officials?!
Strongly opposed. Tax dollars should be focused on solving city’s homeless problem in the long term, rather than be squandered on such shortsighted interim solution which is 1)not welcomed by its immediate neighborhood, 2) economically unwise, and 3)has already been proved to be ineffective elsewhere.
I strongly oppose this idea because I have safety concerns for kids & teens here. Also, there be potential drugs and mental issues arise in the neighborhood.
I strongly oppose the proposal to have a Berryessa Shelter RV Parking for fear of my family safety. If this proposal is approved we will see more homeless people just loitering around our community. They don't care about our communities. They might have health or mental issues. This will increase crime, trash, traffic and will definitely drive our property prices down.
I firmly oppose Recreational Vehicles Communities Support Parking and Emergency Interim Housing
Oppose it. Worry about safety and cleaness issue
Opposed it. Concerns of safety, security, environment, and traffic. we don't need a Shelter RV Parking to make our neighborhood getting worse.
This neighborhood is a very good community and embraces a good diversity of residents. The proposed RV parking significantly threatens the human rights of all residents in this community to protect their personal property and living environment from the violence and chaos. Every act proposed should not sacrifice the human rights of one group to support the other group. This obeys the Constitution that every citizen has the equal rights.