Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Responsibility To Shelter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County officials urge caution on new homeless enforcement; San Jose council members debate joint action and triage approach
Summary
County leaders, including Board President Otto Lee, the sheriff and the district attorney, told San Jose officials that additional arrests tied to a proposed responsibility‑to‑shelter policy could harm public safety and overload criminal‑justice resources; councilmembers disputed whether the city should press ahead without deeper county cooperation.
A letter from county leaders including Board President Otto Lee, the sheriff and the district attorney, circulated to San Jose councilmembers this week warned that new criminal penalties or increased arrests tied to a proposed “responsibility to shelter” approach would “not advance public safety” and could strain county criminal‑justice resources. Councilmembers debated the letter’s implications during the city’s budget study session.
Councilmember Condellis read the letter into the record and cited its central concern: “arresting and releasing individuals for low level offenses does not advance public safety, and in fact, it diverts the already limited public safety resources away from enforcement efforts that keep our community safe.” Condellis urged the council to consider the county’s view as the council develops policies the county would be expected to implement.
Councilmembers offered mixed reactions. Several members, including Councilmembers Salas and Casey, said county resources have been insufficient and that the city must act to address urgent public-safety and unhoused-population pressures. “We have a feckless county who's been derelict in their duty…and the idea that we're gonna let that letter…dictate what we do is ridiculous,” Casey said.
The mayor said he regularly meets with county leadership and invited the board of supervisors to a joint meeting, while also noting “different institutional goals and pressures between the city and county.” He emphasized continued collaboration on shared responses—inviting joint meetings, requesting county clinicians for 911 and PERT teams, and seeking other cooperative steps—but added that the city needs ways to intervene when individuals repeatedly refuse shelter and appear deeply in need of behavioral-health treatment.
Councilmember Condellis and others noted the county’s letter arrived late in the review process. Condellis read the letter to highlight the county’s expressed willingness to work with the city on “productive, timely solutions that help protect public safety and deliver services, shelter, and housing solutions for those in need.”
No ordinance or formal enforcement policy was adopted during the session. Councilmembers asked the city manager and staff to continue outreach to county leadership and to consider joint meetings to align responses where possible. The mayor said staff will seek continued collaboration and that county representation would be invited to future discussions.
