After much back and forth, the Santa Clara City Council reaffirmed a decision it made more than a year ago to support an interim supportive homeless project.
At a special meeting Tuesday night, the council unanimously approved a 30-apartment homeless housing project earmarked for families. The project, located on the southeast corner of Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street, is on county-owned land.
State funding for the project, designated as part of Project Homekey, failed to come through during last year’s budget cycle, causing the council to have to handle the matter again. While the council unanimously approved allocating the $6.59 million the city would need to contribute over seven years as part of its budget process, the vote to get there was more contentious.
To get to that point, the council narrowly approved entering into a three-way agreement with Santa Clara County and the site’s operator, LifeMoves.
Many of the same concerns reared their head at the council’s most recent meeting. Most prominent among the concerns were LifeMoves’ reputation, the cost of the project and its “low-barrier” status.
Council Member Kevin Park, whose district the project is in, spearheaded the opposition last time around. During that meeting, he was joined by Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Council Member Raj Chahal in voting against the project.
Park was no less vocal this time around, speaking several times, coming dangerously close to filibustering the meeting. In particular, he fixated at length on the site’s “low-barrier” status, which he said concerned him since it heavily implied residents would not need to undergo criminal background checks to live there.
“With children, we have to be very, very, very proactive,” he said. “Homeless children deserve just as much happiness as housed children, which means they should not have any fear, either from the streets or from their homes.”
Park said he was “disappointed” the county failed to provide more clarity surrounding the project.
Public comments were almost evenly split between proponents and opponents. Many pushed back on Park’s assessment that “low-barrier” would mean the complex is unsafe.
“The truth of the matter is people in poverty commit crimes as a matter of necessity. Sometimes, just sleeping rough outside can cause a criminal record,” said Alan Altman. “Being a criminal, as in having committed a crime, does not make you a bad, evil or dangerous person, per se.”
Sara Ford, with Santa Clara Housing Advocates, said critics’ concerns are “grounded in fear, not fact.” People never know the criminal history or background of the neighbors where we live, she added.
“We are talking about people’s right to a home. We are talking about someone’s child, someone’s sister, someone’s brother, someone’s parent. I have seen the impact of homelessness and poverty on children and families. I’ve studied it,” Ford said. “It is humiliating and traumatic for families to be ripped from their home and live in their car or even in a traditional homeless shelter.”
Further, several reports claiming LifeMoves’ dismal management of similar sites in Milpitas and Mountain View gave many pause. Although a representative from LifeMoves was online, texting answers to questions to city employees, he was unavailable to appear on camera for questioning.
Additionally, although none of the money to pay for construction would come from Santa Clara, the $35.1 million price tag — along with its more than $3 million a year in operating costs — still turned many heads. The complex will feature 24/7 security and 24 full-time employees providing services such as mental health counseling.
John Haggerty called the proposition a “boondoggle.”
“You could buy a house for each of those 30 families with that [money],” he said.
The project saw much public backlash when initially presented as a 124-apartment project. More than 4,000 neighbors signed a petition opposing it; roughly 1,000 neighbors signed the petition in support. However, it was unclear Tuesday whether those who opposed it opposed the project’s most recent iteration.
Despite the concerns, the council unanimously approved reaffirming allocating the money.
Gillmor was absent.
The next regularly scheduled meeting is Tuesday, Nov. 12 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Ave. in Santa Clara.
Members of the public can participate in the City Council meetings on Zoom at https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306; Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or call 1 (669) 900-6833, via the City’s eComment (available during the meeting) or by email to PublicComment@santaclaraca.gov.
Related Posts:
Homeless Housing Development Still Raw with Public
Homeless Housing Project Is A Go Despite Public Outcry
City Delays Action on Temporary Housing Development
The public was not given proper advance notice for this meeting. In the interest of transparency and public buy in this should be resolved. I think a procedural mechanism needs to be put in place.