Comments on: San Jose park loitering injunction could spread to other areas

By: Bob Richards

Bob Richards — Fri, 04 Jul 2025 16:59:27 +0000

People should not be barred from public spaces due to one or more mere arrests unless their cases have not yet been resolved and they are free on bond pending resolution of their charges. If they are free on bond their continued freedom can be contingent on a court ordered set of reasonable conditions – such as “Staying 100 yards away from public parks” and the government is free to request that the court amend those conditions as necessary.

However if someone has been arrested multiple times for using or selling illegal drugs and those arrests were legitimate, they should be in prison for quite some time. First time offenders might end up with a modest sentence of incarceration focused on rehabilitation and treatment and a very long probation and/or parole with strict conditions, monitoring, and rehabilitation requirements. However subsequent similar offenses should be shown little mercy. Or, of course, we could just eliminate laws prohibiting people from using, buying, or selling drugs and instead just crack down on those who do stupid illegal stuff as a result of using those substances.

It seems that these people must have been arrested inappropriately, that DA failed to pursue their cases with vigor, that the courts were too forgiving, and/or the law is too lenient. If not, they wouldn’t be out on the street creating the problem being addressed with these band aid “whack-a-mole” solutions.

As well, if some of these arrestees are not in the country illegally, they should just be handed to ICE and deported. That is far cheaper and faster than trying them and incarcerating them. Unfortunately sanctuary city/state policies have a cost associated with them and that cost is paid by law abiding legal residents and taxpayers.

As far as “Allen said his organization is concerned this injunction largely targets Black and brown people”… Why is this? Is there any evidence “people of color” are being arrested while others are not being for the same behavior? Or is it that those engaging in these prohibited behaviors happen to be more likely to be “people of color”? The first would be discrimination, the second would not.

By: Guy

Guy — Fri, 04 Jul 2025 05:05:55 +0000

When I was in second or third grade, back when downtown SJ still had department stores and thriving retail environment, I remember my mom taking me with her to shop at Hart’s, Hales and Penney’s. We’d sometimes cut through St. James Park on a visit to the S&H Green Stamps redemption center. I remember seeing the green wooden park benches stenciled with the words “WOMEN AND CHILDREN ONLY.” I don’t remember ever asking my mom why, but even if I had, she likely gave me some sort of vague or sugar coated answer.

That was over 60 years ago. The problems in St. James Park are nothing new. I’ve never known it to be anything but a haven for vagrants. I’m fine with Mayor Mahan finally taking steps to reclaim it as a place to enjoy for the law-abiding pubic — maybe within my lifetime.

By: nickname

nickname — Fri, 04 Jul 2025 04:48:20 +0000

The difference between an arrest and a conviction is key. Arrested individuals are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. If this applies to anyone who is arrested then we are throwing out due process. As law abiding, upstanding citizens, we might be okay with that being done to other folks we don’t know who we assume are bad folks. But it’s a slippery slope. Not caring about the rights of others is how you eventually lose your own.

By: Aurelia Sanchez

Aurelia Sanchez — Thu, 03 Jul 2025 23:12:24 +0000

When I heard about this injunction I thought I am so glad that our Mayor is thinking about our residents and city instead of always just talking about the problem and not thinking how do we solve the problem. As a person of color and who has lived in a underserved neighborhood for many years I have seen the impact that drug dealers and addicts have on a community. He is trying to figure out how to help the unhoused and also give relief to residents and businesses. I think we are living in difficult times with so many cuts to the poor and needy. In fact, I have been feeling a little depress because I know so many people will be suffering. Drugs can ruin so many lives and I have seen the despair and blight of St. James park for so many years that I hope this helps this park and if successful be tried elsewhere. I wish our politicians, nonprofits and others start talking about how are we going to help the people who are going to go hungry and sick because of all the cuts being made by the federal government. I am not worried about the drug dealers but am worry about the families, seniors and youth.

By: C L

C L — Thu, 03 Jul 2025 22:29:09 +0000

I walk by St James Park regularly and have for a long time. It became commonplace over the last several years to see dealers-dealing and users-using right out in the open. You see them target addicts at the park, and many addicts hang out at the park for access to drugs – which over-time has pushed families out. Dealers also go to Villas On the Park (supportive housing) where we see police constantly because many addicts/mentally ill are concentrated in that building – the “9-1-1” call report to Villas is shocking. St James Park was the BEST when the senior center was there on the 3rd street side back in the day – before they demolished it and consolidated services at Roosevelt.

I have seen more police lately at St James Park – maybe for the last 12 months or so. It is starting to make a difference with the drug dealing issues, though the park is still not a place you’d want to bring your family. The fact is enforcement works and there is a large portion of unsheltered mentally ill/addicts downtown where the status quo hasn’t worked and it’s time to try new approached. I am in favor of what Mahan is doing and I suspect many others in impacted areas like mine support him, too.

Let’s go to Columbus and Roosevelt Parks next. We want our downtown parks to look just as good as those over in Willow Glen or Almaden Valley. I appreciate the Mayor and anyone in San Jose City Hall who has the courage to go against the status quo approach. No longer can we conflate the mental illness/addiction crisis with the broad term “homelessness.” The family or elderly household who are low-income (housing ready – should be prioritized for Housing First) require a completely different intervention than the addict/mentally ill person suffering outside (should be prioritized for treatment, not Housing First).