Let residents determine the fate of their own neighborhood

An extreme proposal is headed to the San Jose City Council in June that would allow a singlefamily house on your block to be demolished, without a community meeting or public hearing, and replaced with up to six housing units.

Proponents would have you think that eliminating your choice to live in a single-family homes neighborhood is sweeping the nation. This is just not true. In reality, this type of policy has only moved forward in two places: Oregon (2019) and Minneapolis (2020).

Portland’s Willamette Week succinctly summed up the opinion of Oregon homeowners by printing a graphic of a large anvil — with this new state law inscribed on its side — falling from the sky about to demolish a house. This Wizard of Oz inspired graphic has motivated Oregon cities such as Lake Oswego to implement sizable demolition fees to dissuade speculative profit-seeking buyers before the law takes effect in June 2022.

In Minneapolis, this policy has achieved nothing but litigation. The Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled against the city of Minneapolis on Feb. 10 in a lawsuit brought forward by the Audubon Society and Minneapolis residents challenging the controversial policy. In Oregon and Minneapolis, it is simply impossible to know the consequences of this extreme policy and its impact on families who have sacrificed and saved to own their piece of the American Dream.

We learned that most of our fellow neighbors across San Jose are unaware of this proposal and have formed a grassroots organization called Families and Homes San Jose (www.FamiliesHomesSJ. org). We strongly support the current general plan with its smartgrowth strategy to add significant housing to accommodate population growth from 1.1 million to 1.4 million by 2040. This plan simultaneously preserves single-family house neighborhoods. Smart growth has proven to be the best for home affordability, environmental stewardship and multimodal transportation.

We support backyard accessory dwelling units that allow for additional housing without changing the street-view aesthetic of the neighborhood. We support completing Urban Village plans to expedite mixed-use development of underutilized/vacant shopping centers. We support construction of housing in wealthy underhoused cities that have historically resisted pulling their fair share of the weight exacerbating our region’s housing needs.

We also believe in transparency and demand this proposal be placed on the City Council agenda as a stand-alone item, not bundled together with other initiatives. We stand firm in our belief that the City Council should reject such a proposal to avoid costly Minneapolis-style litigation, the irreversible destruction of neighborhood integrity, and a clear deviation from our city’s General Plan. If the decision is made to move forward with this proposal despite the numerous pitfalls, then we feel strongly that it should be placed on the ballot. Let the outcome be determined by a majority of voting residents.

Alternatively, we might consider a hyperlocal zoning option where residents could vote for specific zoning for their individual block. This would be similar to a block requesting permit parking or establishing a business improvement district. City blocks have clear boundaries and do not impact the larger neighborhood. This is the most democratic option for residents who want greater density on their specific block. If they can convince a majority of their neighbors on the merits of this approach, then they would be permitted to go forward.

We sincerely hope this will serve as a clarion call to action for residents previously unaware of this pending change. The time to act is now, before we reach the point of no return and our neighborhoods are irreversibly altered.