San Jose public hearing centers on mayor’s homelessness plan, pay-for-performance and Measure E funding

San Jose — At a public hearing on the proposed 2025–26 operating budget and related capital and fees proposals, residents and advocacy groups sharply debated Mayor Matt Mahan’s “responsibility to shelter” policy, a proposed pay-for-performance approach to elected and department pay, and a plan to temporarily reallocate Measure E dollars for homelessness programs.

Supporters told the council the mayor’s plan pairs expanded shelter capacity with accountability and urgency. "Creating shelter, additional shelter opportunities will get everyone indoors," resident Anil Babar said, adding that “with over a thousand shelter beds opening this year, progress is being made, and now is not the time to stop.” Several business owners and neighborhood leaders said they support tougher steps when people repeatedly refuse offers of shelter, citing fires, waste and encampment impacts on safety and commerce.

Opponents — including tenant and immigrant-rights organizers, homeless-service providers and speakers who said they had lived outdoors — warned the council the proposal would criminalize people without addressing the root cause: a shortage of long-term affordable housing and insufficient, accessible services. "Weaponizing our police department against our fellow homeless residents is a radical step," Jaime Alvarado said. Several speakers and service providers cautioned that enforcement without available, appropriate interim and permanent housing could lead to more trauma, legal risk and displacement.

Context and competing proposals

Speakers repeatedly urged the council both to build more shelters and to expand prevention and permanent affordable housing. Multiple public commenters asked the council to keep the original Measure E voter intent — funding deeply affordable housing — rather than permanently redirecting most Measure E revenues to temporary or enforcement-led responses. Several speakers urged the council to pause ordinance or code changes until the city had a clearer, equity-informed implementation plan.

Several presenters also supported linking pay increases for elected officials and department heads to measurable results. Supporters framed pay-for-performance as accountability that reflects private-sector norms; critics said it could politicize service delivery and harm representation in neighborhoods with greater need.

What happens next

The council was reminded that the formal budget vote was scheduled for the council meeting the next day. At the hearing no formal votes were taken. Members of the public from neighborhoods across San Jose spoke for one minute each; dozens urged either decisive enforcement paired with shelter or a reorientation toward long-term housing, prevention and expanded non-police crisis responses.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the public-comment period. The council adjourned after more than four hours of testimony and noted the budget vote remained on the council docket.

Ending

Council members will consider final votes at the scheduled council meeting the following day, where they must choose between competing priorities of expanded shelter plus enforcement, expanded prevention and permanent affordable housing, or a hybrid approach requested by multiple community groups.