San José Council Approves Mahan’s Shelter Enforcement Plan

The San José City Council approved a controversial plan to potentially arrest unhoused people who refuse multiple offers of shelter — part of a series of votes on Tuesday that delivered a sweeping victory for San José Mayor Matt Mahan and his agenda for reducing homelessness in the city.

With city finances on a stable course, Mahan used the budget process to advance ambitious policy priorities, particularly a more aggressive, shelter-focused approach. That included the shelter-or-arrest plan and an effort to prioritize city homeless funding for temporary housing.

“This will help us end the era of encampments,” Mahan told KQED. “It’s not a silver bullet, but it’s a step in the right direction.”

The votes came as the council balanced a $1.7 billion general fund budget without large workforce cuts, and made a historic investment in legal defense in preparation for increased federal immigration enforcement. Mahan didn’t win support for his entire agenda, as his push to tie a portion of council and mayoral pay to the city’s performance on a variety of metrics was rejected by the council.

As cities across California are weighing more aggressive action on homelessness after the U.S. Supreme Court decision gave local officials more powers to sweep encampments, Mahan pitched his Responsibility to Shelter plan as a more humane alternative to simply clearing camps without offering shelter.

The measure, which passed the council on a 9–2 vote, would add an expectation of accepting shelter to the city’s Code of Conduct for Encampments.

“I don’t think it’s humane or compassionate to allow people to live or die on our streets when they are unable or unwilling to accept the help the city is able to offer,” Mahan said.

San José’s police chief said violations of the code, which include camping near a shelter site, would guide police to prioritize specific encampments for outreach, and eventually arrests, such as for trespassing or illegal dumping.

The measure will also create new police and housing units for outreach and enforcement. Mahan said he hoped to use arrests to compel unsheltered residents into court-ordered treatment.

Responsibility to Shelter faced widespread skepticism from Santa Clara County officials — including members of the board of supervisors, the district attorney and the county sheriff — who argued the measure will push unhoused people into the criminal justice system without adding more housing for them while they receive treatment.

Councilmember Peter Ortiz, who joined Councilmember Pamela Campos in opposition to the shelter enforcement plan, said the measure unfairly assumes that everyone who refuses shelter is suffering from addiction or mental health challenges.

“Someone who simply declines shelter could be susceptible to being arrested, when many reasons for denying [shelter] are relevant and should be taken into consideration,” Ortiz said.

The enforcement plan is likely to be carried out primarily in areas around interim housing sites, where the city has established no-encampment zones. Mahan argued that compelling unhoused people to accept shelter will help improve conditions on the streets around new shelters, which he views as key for maintaining political support for the interim housing program.

To pay for that program’s ongoing costs, the council voted to permanently earmark the lion’s share of tax revenue raised through Measure E, a tax on property sales, for temporary housing and shelter. The new Measure E spending plan sets aside 90% for shelter costs ($47 million in 2025–26) and 10% ($5.2 million) for homeless prevention programs such as rental assistance.

Campos pushed to increase the prevention funding to 15%, but a majority of the council rejected that idea.

“When you are put in this predicament of having to do a lot with less, prevention just makes sense,” she said.

By covering interim housing costs with the Measure E fund, rather than the general fund, the council erased a $35.6 million budget shortfall — and avoided the need for the large staffing cuts needed to balance municipal budgets in San Francisco and Oakland.

“It preserves our staffing, which is really, really important,” Councilmember Pam Foley said. “Because they’re the ones who provide the services that we need to do the work in the city that our residents depend upon.”

With the added fiscal breathing room, the council approved a memo from Ortiz to spend at least $1 million on immigration services, including on-call lawyers and programs to educate undocumented residents about their rights.

“We’re seeing our families being unfortunately hunted down by the federal government,” Ortiz said. “This is more than a budget line, it’s recognition of the vital role our undocumented neighbors play in the vibrancy and resiliency of the city of San José.”

The council also set aside $27 million in reserves to reduce an anticipated shortfall in the 2026–27 fiscal year from $52.9 million to $25.9 million.

Mahan found little support for his idea to withhold 5% of mayor and council pay, dispersing the money only if the city achieved council-approved goals.

Mahan argued the proposal would drive greater council focus to achieve benchmarks such as lower crime and homelessness rates. But many council members said the goals could be easily manipulated to achieve success — or alternatively push council members to pursue goals not supported by their district’s constituents.

“Our job performance is judged by the ballot box,” Councilmember Bien Doan said. He said the plan “hands decision-making power to whoever controls the metric, not the people we serve.”