The family couldn’t carry more than a suitcase of family photos and mementos. They narrowly fled air bombs dropped by Saddam Hussein’s regime on their country, fleeing buildings and hospitals where tarps covered windows to hide the people inside. 

Those were my parents. And at three years old, they brought my sister and I to San Jose in search of a better life. I know my story is not unique. Thousands of families made a heroic sacrifice — crossing deadly rivers and scorching deserts — to give their children a chance to live in a land of opportunity. The promise of America — for us to go to school, find good jobs and live meaningful lives.

Now that promise is at risk in our hometown and across the country.

– Ramona Giwargis, CEO

A daily diet of fear has settled over immigrant families and it’s unrelenting. Parents are keeping children home from school, not going to work or shopping, frightened of being arrested and disappearing.

Federal deportation raids across California have not left Santa Clara County unscathed.

The rising anxiety levels are bona fide since U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) doesn’t appear to be vetting most people, especially individuals who look Latino. President Donald Trump’s unleashing of his massive immigration crackdown is destroying the lives of undocumented and documented individuals who’ve been here for decades contributing to the country — and Santa Clara County has the data to prove the federal administration’s heartless policy is blatantly wrong.

The New Americans in Santa Clara County 2024 report in partnership with the  Office of Immigrant Relations shows immigrants in the county paid $5.1 billion into Social Security and $1.8 billion into Medicare in 2021. In a county with a population of close to 2 million people, 765,800 or about 40% are immigrants who contribute to a region where they dreamed of a better life.

Santa Clara County estimates roughly 134,000 individuals are undocumented and about 44% are Mexican. These individuals will never see a dime from entitlement programs, even though they’re helping feed a system where more people are receiving retirement benefits than contributing. The argument these individuals are taking versus giving isn’t true. In fact, 50% of business owners in the county are immigrants, and they generated $1.5 billion locally in business income in 2021, according to county data.

In East San Jose, there are about 600 small business owners who are undocumented. This section of San Jose generates $4.2 million in tax revenue per year and provides up to 8,000 jobs, reports show. Now most business owners live in fear of losing their livelihood and being grabbed in an ICE raid. It’s caused a steep decline in revenue — business is down by 40% as frightened shoppers stay away.

If Trump’s policy results in a major immigrant evacuation, it could cause an economic downturn due to labor shortages. It’s naïve to believe unemployed Americans would fill the void. They didn’t leap into agriculture, construction and hospitality post-pandemic when jobs were readily available. Why would they do so now?

Immigrants are a critical part of Silicon Valley’s labor force, accounting for about 64% of the region’s manufacturing workers and 53% of professional service workers, according to county data. In South County, there are about 8,000 agricultural workers who help bring in more than $300 million for the local economy. Who will do the work with threats of farm raids?

About 42% of all farm workers in the U.S. are undocumented immigrants, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The California agriculture industry could be decimated, as would other immigrant-heavy sectors of industry such as caregivers.

Trump might carve out an exemption from immigration raids at farms and hotels. But so far nothing has changed and he has been mum since he brought it up.

Santa Clara County has remained steadfast in its policy to protect the immigrant community through the first half of this year. It has longstanding policies to not cooperate with immigration enforcement. County resources, information and staff — including law enforcement — will not be shared with ICE for immigration enforcement. San Jose plans to provide at least $1 million in one-time funding for undocumented immigrant support organizations like the Rapid Response Network and SIREN. Similarly, school districts will not comply with ICE.

But none of this means life is livable in an environment of fear and unpredictability.

The federal government says it’s capturing undocumented criminals, murders and rapists, but that’s not what is happening here. Trump’s deportation policy has thrown a wide net into a sea of people and is pulling in those who are decent, hardworking and contributing to society. It’s creating chaos and despair.

The foundation of this country was shaped through those who immigrated to America looking for a better life. It hasn’t all been smooth, but it’s what makes America the country it is today.

Moryt Milo is an editor at San José Spotlight. Contact Moryt at moryt@sanjosespotlight.com or follow her at @morytmilo on X. Catch up on her monthly editorials here. Contact Ramona Giwargis at ramona@sanjosespotlight.com or follow @RamonaGiwargis on X.

The post Editorial: Immigrants are the backbone of Santa Clara County appeared first on San José Spotlight.

The board of trustees had five years to come up with a plan after district voters passed Measure G in 2020 — a $898 million general obligation bond to help upgrade college facilities and consider affordable housing. Trustees had an opportunity to be creative trendsetters in student housing. Instead, the school district plans to purchase a Cupertino apartment complex on McClellan Road and convert it into De Anza College student housing, uprooting 94 families.

Property owner Prometheus Real Estate Group plans to sell, but another buyer could let renters stay. Trustees have slammed the door on that, unless they step back and consider two other options.

De Anza College sits on 112 acres in the heart of Cupertino. The district could carve out a portion of the campus for housing. A number of school districts are considering this approach for teacher housing. Why not do it for student housing, a standard practice at four-year colleges.

The community college has the space and has already demonstrated a willingness to repurpose existing campus property. The district applied Measure G funds to demolish the Flint Center and construct a new event center and student services building. Trustees could have considered housing, but didn’t. The district could still construct a dorm elsewhere on campus and it wouldn’t need to be apartments with kitchens, since the community college has dining services.

Another option is purchasing a hotel and converting it to a dorm. The Cupertino hospitality sector has struggled post-pandemic. Two hotels in Cupertino are in trouble: the 165-room Hilton Garden Inn on Wolf Road and the 123-room Aloft Cupertino on De Anza Boulevard.  Aloft Cupertino has already defaulted on a $34 million loan and is heading toward foreclosure. The Hilton is in financial trouble as well.

The board said the hotel configuration doesn’t work for students because there are no kitchens, and appears quite hung up on this feature. Yet San Jose State University had no problem figuring this out when it converted the second tower of the Signia by Hilton hotel into dorms. The students have dining passes baked into their tuition. The new digs for De Anza students could reconfigure the rooms and repurpose the Aloft’s kitchen for student meals. The college could operate a satellite dining service.

The board might even be able to negotiate a deal with the Aloft lender to pay off the loan and still have more than $30 million for the conversion. The Prometheus deal is $65.6 million — and that doesn’t include the cost of converting the property into a college dorm.

Somewhere during the last five years — despite COVID-19 putting the brakes on life — the school district and the city should have sat down and discussed the situation. The district needed to explain its student housing dilemma. Cupertino could have provided insight on potential properties, since it has insider knowledge on leases and properties changing hands. Neither party benefits from trying to solve this problem in a silo.

The apartment purchase has become controversial and unfriendly due to a lack of communication. It’s time for the city and school district to come together for the community’s betterment.

In Cupertino, affordable housing is slim to none where the average rent is $3,550 a month, according to Zillow. Trustees need to try thinking beyond the easy solution.

Consider these two potential options — build on campus or convert a hotel — to avoid displacing anyone. Trustees see themselves as helping students, and on the surface that’s true. But they need to find another way. Their actions will result in collateral damage by uprooting almost 100 families who may not be able to find comparable housing in the city they call home.

Moryt Milo is an editor at San José Spotlight. Contact Moryt at moryt@sanjosespotlight.com or follow her at @morytmilo on X. Catch up on her monthly editorials here.

The post Editorial: Silicon Valley college board should look elsewhere for student housing appeared first on San José Spotlight.

Residents will be watching and expecting their newly-elected representative to uplift the downtown and help wash away the stain laid upon their neighborhood by disgraced former Councilman Omar Torres. A special election on April 8 will determine who fills the seat and applies those principles.

The most significant of the three qualities is honesty. The seven candidates — mayoral Deputy Chief of Staff Matthew Quevedo, Latina Coalition of Silicon Valley Executive Director Gabby Chavez-Lopez, San Jose Planning Commission Chair Anthony Tordillos, pro tem judge Irene Smith, retired Sheriff Lt. Adam Duran and knife sharpener salesman Philip Dolan and retired family counselor Tyrone Wade — all claim to have it.

Each candidate highlighted their plans for reducing homelessness, increasing affordable housing and uplifting the downtown’s image at a March election forum hosted by San José Spotlight and San Jose Woman’s Club. The candidates talked about whether they agreed with San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan’s vision on key issues, including how to help those with substance use and mental health needs get off the streets — through either supportive services or arrest and jail as the path a toward treatment. They were emphatic in their responses.

So what happens when accountability is factored in? Every candidate claimed donors and special interests groups would not sway their allegiance toward the betterment of District 3. How can residents determine whether it’s true or political jargon?

Following the money trail is a good place to start. How much has each candidate raised and who’s donated to their campaigns? Equally as important are the special interests groups that are backing candidates and spending tens of thousands of dollars on mailers, texts and other collateral to help their preferred candidate win. Quevedo and Chavez-Lopez have raised the most from donors so far, while outside interests have spent heavily on campaign messaging for both of them.

In the end, will any of this move voters enough to mail in their ballots or go to the polls?

Special elections are notorious for low voter turnout. Quevedo even mentioned the problem at the candidate forum. He estimated maybe 10,000 people will turn out to vote. The district has a population of just over 103,000 residents, according to the 2020 U.S. Census used during the city’s restricting.

The last District 3 election happened November 2022 when voters elected Torres. It wasn’t a presidential year, so turnout was low, but San Jose was electing a new mayor. Even then, only 17,764 residents or about 17% of District 3 voted for a new councilmember. Essentially, a minority of district voters elected their representative, a person they trusted and thought would be reliable and accountable. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

It’s conceivable with seven candidates in the race no one will get 50% of the vote, leading to a runoff on June 24. Should that happen, with everything this district has endured, do residents want the top two vote getters in the first round being decided by 10% to 17% of the community prior to a runoff?

Mail-in ballots have already arrived and polls are open at various locations before Election Day. The ballot only has one item. It doesn’t get any simpler.

Take some time to read up on each candidate beyond their ballot statement. Follow the money. Watch the forum video.

No doubt District 3 residents want to make sure the next councilmember has their back.

Moryt Milo is an editor at San José Spotlight. Contact Moryt at moryt@sanjosespotlight.com or follow her at @morytmilo on X. Catch up on her monthly editorials here.

The post Editorial: Will San Jose’s next District 3 leader fit the bill? appeared first on San José Spotlight.

Building more temporary shelters, tiny homes and safe parking and sleeping sites may appear to be an expeditious way to get unhoused people off the streets. But over the long term it doesn’t solve the more pressing problem: the lack of permanent housing. Without a significant, simultaneous investment in this part of the housing continuum, the reality of functional zero is a pipe dream.

The math simply doesn’t work in this unilateral approach. The flow of people will stall and costs for temporary housing will become prohibitive when factoring in needed dollars for ongoing supportive services and facility upkeep.

The San Jose Housing Department estimates operational costs for these temporary solutions at $234 million annually. That’s on top of the $255 million in one-time costs Mayor Matt Mahan said is needed to build out a temporary shelter system to lift an estimated 5,500 people off the streets.

Mahan argues permanent housing is a $5 billion investment, based on each apartment costing $1 million multiplied by 5,000-plus unhoused people. Realistically, it’s more likely multiple people will be living in these apartments and unlikely to be a 1-to-1 ratio.

His calculations are even more questionable based on the housing department’s math, which brings it down to $200,000 per apartment. That’s based on a city investment of 20% per affordable housing project and factors in funding from other resources, such as Santa Clara County and the state.

What’s more disconcerting is how the mayor appears to be pushing to get there. There’s a 2025-26 budget proposal to reallocate $39 million in the Measure E affordable housing bucket toward short-term homeless needs. These funds, meant to cover construction of affordable development for extremely low to moderate income households, would be wiped out for fiscal year 2025-26 and perhaps beyond. If approved, San Jose officials would essentially ignore a voter-mandated measure in order to serve the mayor.

Affordable housing would be shoved to the backburner in favor of more temporary housing, creating a lopsided set of priorities.

City officials need to take a hard look at what is happening here.

Functional zero is not going to work if people on the streets can’t get into temporary housing because those people can’t get into permanent housing. Everything is interconnected. Housing solutions can’t exist in silos, that’s not how a functioning system works. They need to coexist.

Two years ago a Santa Clara County report revealed that for every one household housed nearly two households become homeless. How is that going to change if the city doesn’t balance the scales and only sees the solution through a quick-fix lens?

Moryt Milo is an editor at San José Spotlight. Contact Moryt at moryt@sanjosespotlight.com or follow her at @morytmilo on X, formerly known as Twitter. Catch up on her monthly editorials here.

The post Editorial: San Jose misses the mark with functional zero appeared first on San José Spotlight.

Local elections dominated much of 2024, bringing new faces into government and long-term officials bidding farewell. Other than a congressional race that began with a historic three-way runoff and recount in the primaries and an onslaught of political accusations throughout the season, the outcomes ended without a hitch.

The same can’t be said about other decisions which have rolled into 2025, leaving officials with formidable challenges.

The carryover includes the big four — homelessness, housing, hunger and health care — and one political scandal. There are no quick-fix solutions, except for a special election to replace disgraced San Jose  Councilmember Omar Torres in District 3 come April — unless a June runoff is required.

Even then, the question of how such abhorrent behavior from the former councilman could happen isn’t going to vanish after a new person is sworn in. Such actions are not easily erased.

Nor is tackling homelessness, a problem entangled with insufficient affordable housing, sky-high rents and evictions. The dilemma has been years in the making. The solution — funding affordable housing projects and cutting red tape — must not falter or give way to developer exemptions.

San Jose leaders have to relocate hundreds of individuals being displaced along the waterways. Where are they supposed to go as “no return zones“and buffer zones for encampments and RVs are put in place? There doesn’t appear to be a fully formed plan.

Officials cannot view safe parking and sleeping sites as anything but temporary solutions. The intent is to move individuals into more permanent housing in 30 days. Yet the infrastructure is not there, which brings us back to the housing urgency. Do not turn these sites into refugee camps. This is not a dignified lifestyle.

Hunger is another real problem in our county. Food insecurity exploded during the pandemic and hasn’t let up since. Programs like CalFresh and food providers like Second Harvest of Silicon Valley and Loaves & Fishes Family Kitchen are needed more than ever. This too is intertwined with homelessness and housing.

Health care is the last of the big four priorities. The county rescued Regional Medical Center from being gutted by HCA Healthcare by purchasing it. Good Samaritan Hospital is working on an expansion, as is health care provider Sutter Health. All positive signs of fulfilling need. But officials are still wrestling with a mental health and substance use crisis in the county as the state imposes deadlines for services without funding support.

It doesn’t take much for a sudden turn of events to flip one’s life upside down. A layoff. A health emergency. Medical bills. Missed rent or an eviction. Any one of these things can cause someone to unwillingly find themselves calling their car or the streets home. Their stability lost.

Santa Clara County is one of the wealthiest places in the nation, with the resources to tackle these four problems. Residents expect local leaders to govern smart. To do their research, be accountable for their actions and show sensitivity toward those they represent.

Let’s start 2025 by bringing the number of homeless residents down and the number of affordable homes up.

Moryt Milo is an editor at San José Spotlight. Contact Moryt at moryt@sanjosespotlight.com or follow her at @morytmilo on X, formerly known as Twitter. Catch up on her monthly editorials here.

The post Editorial: Santa Clara County leaders face four big problems in 2025 appeared first on San José Spotlight.

Alum Rock and Berryessa union school districts are predicting enrollment declines of 27% and 22%, respectively. Franklin-McKinley School District is also predicting a 22% drop. Lump in the end of millions in federal COVID funding and the loss of state dollars due to a plunge in student attendance, and districts have found themselves in dire financial straits.

This decline in enrollment didn’t happen overnight. From 2010 to 2022 Franklin-McKinley’s enrollment declined by 38%. The district was able to pass a parcel tax this year that will generate about $3.3 million for the next nine years, but it won’t be enough to cover the loss of state and federal funding as it tackles a $20 million shortfall.

Alum Rock is confronting the same problem. In the last nine years the district has lost more than 2,700 students. It has been so poorly managed, the Santa Clara County Office of Education has been involved in overseeing the administration. But with a $20 million deficit and enrollment dropping, seven schools may close.

None of these districts want to disrupt the lives of families, it’s a superintendent’s worst nightmare. But districts can’t keep schools half full afloat with the same overhead costs. The money just isn’t there.

Bond measures passed for capital needs such as building repairs and upgrades won’t get districts out of the hole either. Funding for curriculum and teacher salaries don’t come out of these bonds.

There are only so many cuts a district can make before there is nothing left but to close or merge schools. Even the Berryessa Union School District in North San Jose needs to cut its operating budget by $6 million, and closing schools may be the only option.

It’s hard to envision these school districts gaining students in the coming years to restore funding, when minimum wage earners living in East San Jose need to work more than one job to pay rent and the cost of gas and food remains high. The inability to maintain a good quality of life in Silicon Valley is pushing families out and preventing others from arriving. Low birth rates are another factor.

Yet what’s happening today is not a one-off situation. In the early 1980s a slew of elementary and high schools closed throughout the county and state in the aftermath of Proposition 13. The proposition, which capped a property tax rate to 1% of assessed value, changed the financial landscape in education. Property taxes were no longer flowing into school budgets and districts began closing campuses or cutting budgets. Decades later the financial loss to schools still stings, especially those in marginalized communities where property taxes are lower.

But the circumstances today have worsened beyond the plight of school districts. Silicon Valley is confronted by a schism between the haves and have nots that has widened exponentially over the years, causing families to leave Santa Clara County for places more economically manageable. School districts have become collateral damage.

What is the same as the 1980s is family angst and disruption, and yet, in the process the money saved could be applied toward enhancing curriculum or restoring programs. Cash-strapped districts could lease closed schools to day care providers, private schools or businesses and use the revenue to improve existing schools. Maybe it’s a new arts or music class or the ability to add a new sports program or wellness center with a counselor.

At this juncture the strongest course of action for families, school boards and administrators is to work together to ensure the best outcomes are achieved for the children in the schools that remain open.

Moryt Milo is an editor at San José Spotlight. Contact Moryt at moryt@sanjosespotlight.com or follow her at @morytmilo on X, formerly known as Twitter. Catch up on her monthly editorials here.

The post Editorial: San Jose school districts struggle to stay afloat appeared first on San José Spotlight.

The disturbing messages show the 43-year-old bragging about performing oral sex on a 17-year-old male on a college campus, describing the genitalia of an autistic 11-year-old boy and asking a Chicago man if he’s got “homies under 18” for a sexual encounter. Torres has since gone into hiding and dodged public meetings.

And yet Torres remains in office. His council colleagues waited nearly a week after the texts came out to call for his resignation — a day after San José Spotlight asked each elected official if he should go. Then they “excused” Torres’ absence from a council meeting, allowing him to keep his job while facing a criminal investigation and abdicating his responsibilities. Mayor Matt Mahan accused Torres of holding his council seat “hostage.”

The scandal is a black eye for the Bay Area’s largest city. It’s time for Torres to step down.

Torres’ defense is stunning. The downtown politician doesn’t deny he wrote the lewd text messages — but, his attorney claims, they are merely fantasies and role-play.

While Torres has not yet been charged or convicted of a crime, he’s admitted to fantasizing about sexual encounters with minors. That alone should be enough to spark outrage in the community — and yet the deafening silence among Silicon Valley’s elite circles is alarming. The Santa Clara County Democratic Party — which Torres has been deeply involved with — has given him a pass, despite condemning other politicos for their misconduct.

Besides Councilmember Bien Doan, no other politician has spoken out against allowing Torres to miss council meetings and remain in office. The lack of action by politicians is now putting City Hall workers in the line of fire — many of whom fear for their own safety due to public backlash about Torres and are uncomfortable being in the same building with someone who fantasizes about sex with children.

By allowing Torres to stay in office, San Jose leaders are setting an incredibly dangerous precedent. They’re setting a standard that will haunt the city’s reputation and question its integrity. How will it attract future business, if the ethics of those in office are viewed as questionable?

How will San Jose be perceived across the state and country, if it tolerates unethical and potentially criminal behavior? This is not business as usual.

Even if Torres did not act on his “fantasies,” the criminal investigation — and the damning evidence that’s been revealed — paint an appalling picture of his judgment, character and ability to be a leader in our community. It’s difficult to fathom that residents in District 3 would want such an individual to represent them.

The scandal began when Torres sent a Chicago man he met online nude photos and videos of himself while in a relationship. The man allegedly blackmailed Torres by threatening to release the images. Torres tried to make him go away by paying him $22,000 in hush money.

When Torres went to police to report the alleged extortion, authorities found all the other text messages. While the justice system will sort out what happens to Torres, San Jose cannot have a leader in power with such an astonishing lack of judgment. How can we trust Torres when he’s at community events with youth and minors?

As mothers, we know there is a line that cannot be crossed with children. We cannot tolerate politicians who have admitted to abhorrent fascinations with minors. We cannot hide behind political expediency.

Torres needs to resign — now. And if he won’t do so himself, it’s time for city leaders to step up and do what’s right.

Contact Ramona Giwargis at ramona@sanjosespotlight.com or follow @RamonaGiwargis on X. Moryt Milo is an editor at San José Spotlight. Contact Moryt at moryt@sanjosespotlight.com or follow her at @morytmilo on X. Catch up on her monthly editorials here.

The post Editorial: Omar Torres needs to resign — now appeared first on San José Spotlight.

Within the gated garden is a bronze monument of a South Vietnamese and an American soldier armed and standing beside each other atop rocky terrain in front of flags from both countries. The statue honors  South Vietnamese fighters killed in the Vietnam War and the friendship between South Vietnamese refugees and the U.S.

But this quiet corner of Kelley Park in San Jose has become a flashpoint in the Vietnamese community. Suddenly, a section of the park that should be open to all is raising concerns about who holds the key and has permission to enter. It has splintered residents and upset San Jose officials and state legislators.

The issue erupted when District 7 Councilmember Bien Doan’s office changed the locks and rules for reserving events at the Vietnamese Heritage Garden. Doan said his office would be responsible for reservations and who could use the garden. This decision raised the ire of residents who had been holding flag-raising ceremonies, as well as state lawmakers who questioned who runs the city’s parks. Nothing has changed since then.

Yet despite this rift, the monument offers a moment of reflection: A reminder of the hardships Vietnamese refugees faced, and the strength it took to leave their homeland and settle in America. San Jose has the largest Vietnamese population for a city outside of Vietnam.

Still, residents are asking who’s in charge of this section of Kelley Park. Technically it’s the responsibility of the San Jose Parks and Recreation Department. It’s a city park, which means it belongs to everyone. So why is it locked, when the city’s more than 200 parks are open and accessible? A parks spokesperson said the only locked area in Kelley Park is the Japanese Tea House within the unlocked Japanese gardens. There are also locks on various athletic fields throughout the city.

Parks officials have said the Vietnamese Heritage Garden is locked because the location has been vandalized in the past. A spokesperson said irrigation and electrical systems were tampered with, fencing was cut and flags were stolen. This is what happens when an area sits neglected and ignored for 13 years. The lack of oversight invites vandals. But that hasn’t been the case since the statue was installed in July, and beautiful places that are tended to express joy and don’t encourage vandalism.

The statue is a striking focal point in a barren garden. It could be the first step in awakening and beautifying this section of the park. The location could become a centerpiece for Kelley Park. It’s easy to envision a cultural garden past the stunning gateway entrance. The landscaped garden could be replete with shaded trees, flowers, benches and features that bow to Vietnamese heritage. A tribute to San Jose’s Vietnamese community similar to the park’s Japanese Friendship Garden.

Although the city plans to open the park on weekends starting in October, it could go a step further and open the gate each morning and close it at night. It could slow walk the effort toward unlocking the gate permanently, putting the garden in line with the rest of the park.

The Vietnamese American Roundtable sees the monument as just the beginning of what this garden could be. The group already envisions the full potential of the space and recognizes it as a “vital San Jose civic infrastructure.” But in a rare gesture, it has spoken out against the garden’s politicization.

Time to move forward and begin a conversation about the garden’s future and end the squabbling. And, the first step is unlocking the gate and letting everyone in.

Moryt Milo is an editor at San José Spotlight. Contact Moryt at moryt@sanjosespotlight.com or follow her at @morytmilo on X, formerly known as Twitter. Catch up on her monthly editorials here.

The post Editorial: Open the gates to the Vietnamese Heritage Garden appeared first on San José Spotlight.

Make no mistake, people were going to die. Ambulances would’ve had to travel further when every minute matters. Residents would’ve been forced to endure longer wait times for critical care because immediate treatment wouldn’t be available. County supervisors knew it, as did the doctors and nurses in our overwhelmed public health system.

Then the county learned it was getting a long overdue reimbursement of Federal Emergency Management Agency funds for COVID-19 health care expenses. The windfall enabled officials to broker a $175 million deal with HCA Healthcare, the hospital’s owner, to buy Regional.

The timing was nothing short of a miracle, as HCA continued to cut life-saving hospital services in a part of San Jose that for decades has been fighting to level the playing field — be it health care, education or housing.

The county could have used those millions to help shore up its $250 million deficit or allocate those dollars to unfunded health care mandates from the state, including CARE Court and conservatorship laws that now require locked acute care facilities for substance use disorders.

But this time would be different.

After the California Department of Public Health and Attorney General Rob Bonta refused to step in, county officials weren’t dissuaded. They began talking to HCA, determined not to let Regional head down the same path as San Jose Medical Center, which closed in 2004 after HCA methodically stripped its essential services. The county was not going to let East San Jose residents lose their hospital or any more critical services. In fact, the plan is to restore previously cut services, such as the obstetrics department and maternity ward. This health care inequity would be reversed.

It’s going to take time to repair the damage done to the hospital, to systemically restore needed services that make people healthier and life better when proper care is accessible. Just knowing Regional will eventually be whole again is like taking a patient off ECMO, a machine that helps a person breathe, when the patient doesn’t need it anymore.

County officials don’t need HCA anymore. They made the right move, the only move left and they knew it.

They fought for the community and East San Jose residents can finally exhale knowing their hospital will no longer be owned by a for-profit company.

Moryt Milo is an editor at San José Spotlight. Contact Moryt at moryt@sanjosespotlight.com or follow her at @morytmilo on X, formerly known as Twitter. Catch up on her monthly editorials here.

The post Editorial: Santa Clara County made the right move buying Regional appeared first on San José Spotlight.

It seems inconceivable that such a problem could exist in a county of such stature, and yet it does, because California’s definition of “general acute care hospital services” has no teeth. What it does have is a glaring loophole in the definition that enables private and publicly traded companies that own hospitals to easily gut services that don’t turn a profit. The language sits in the state’s code of regulations like an unknown cancer that silently metastasizes.

The California Department of Public Health defines the requirements for every general acute care hospital by eight basic services: medical, nursing, surgical, anesthesia, laboratory, radiology, pharmacy and dietary services. But the definition does not require these hospitals to provide emergency medical services, maternity care, pediatric care — including neonatal ICU — psychiatric care and stroke services. All these critical services are defined by the state as supplemental.

Under these requirements the state considers dietary services more important than any of the five critical services above. When was the last time hospitals addressed dietary requirements in their food? How does a pharmacy rank higher than taking care of severely ill children, pregnant women and those having a heart attack, stroke or some other traumatic event? Yes, access to medicine matters, but it doesn’t help if the person who needs it dies en route to the hospital.

Everything about this definition is disparaging, discriminatory and outdated. For a state that touts itself as being progressive, its hospital health care regulations are mind-boggling.

Years ago, this might have not mattered because there was little distinction between private, public and nonprofit hospital services. Hospitals were numerous, even if the quality varied. They offered most of those supplemental services and had the public’s trust. These institutions were there to serve the community, not to make money off the community.

There is legislation at the state level, Assembly Bill 3129, worming its way through Sacramento. It would give state Attorney General Rob Bonta oversight to prevent hedge funds and private equity groups from buying health care institutions and sucking out the profits.

But that doesn’t resolve the definition loophole, which leaves local hospitals at the mercy of for-profit entities, even if this bill passed. It’s the lack of accountability that allows publicly traded companies like HCA Healthcare, which operates Regional Medical Center in East San Jose, to gut whatever it wants — and it’s been having a field day.

The evisceration began in 2004 when HCA closed San Jose Medical Center, the city’s only downtown hospital. In 2020, the corporation shut down the maternity ward at Regional. In 2023, HCA shuttered its acute care psychiatrist services and neonatal intensive care unit at Good Samaritan Hospital in San Jose. Now, HCA plans to shutter Regional’s trauma center in a little more than a month.

If the definition of those eight basic services had been updated years ago would we be even facing this fiasco? Chances are Tennessee-based HCA would have never come to California.

After this next round of cuts there will be only three general acute care hospitals in Santa Clara County providing those “supplemental” lifesaving services: the Santa Clara County medical system, which includes Valley Medical Center, El Camino and Stanford hospitals. All three are non-profit making hospitals in the county, with a population of close to 2 million people.

A state public health spokesperson told San José Spotlight the “reduction of supplemental services is concerning,” but the state’s hands are tied. That’s a poor excuse for lack of oversight in updating regulations to meet today’s requirements.

California needs to review its eight basic hospital services and amend them to appropriate standards, so residents who need lifesaving treatment get the help they deserve — and the health care companies that only care about their bottom line stop getting a lifetime pass for unethical behavior.

Moryt Milo is an editor at San José Spotlight. Contact Moryt at moryt@sanjosespotlight.com or follow her at @morytmilo on X, formerly known as Twitter. Catch up on her monthly editorials here.

The post Editorial: California hospital services definition harms patient health appeared first on San José Spotlight.