HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 09 2026 - Items 7.1 & 8.1 - Ann Marie McCauleyCAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
From:Ann Marie McCauley
To:Public Comments; Mayor Greg Bozzo; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council
Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Kelly Ramirez; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Terence
Fugazzi
Cc:Jan Bernstein Chargin; Vanessa Ashford; Maria Aguilar
Subject:EXTERNAL - public comment item 7 Abatement of Camp Hope and item 8 Wayland Parking Lot
Date:Sunday, February 8, 2026 3:23:33 PM
Dear Council members,
Firstly, the extension and conversation is greatly appreciated and a big difference from
previous leadership.
You have all been on this merry-go-round for a while now. Abating this site is as much a
violation of the Gilroy Municipal Code as it is keeping it. They will move to other "illegal" areas
because there is no place to put anyone. Every abatement is a code violation. The only real
way to enforce the code is moving people permanently off the street or to approved
designated areas.
On page 164 of the packet, it lists the benefits and risk/ considerations. When we abate any
camp, all of the risks are applied to wherever people end up with none of the benefits.
There are NEVER any benefits to abatement. It's still costs money, it moves the liability to
another location that isn't in compliance with our codes,(because we don't have anything that
complies), and there's even less chance that our people get placement because we can't find
them.
The concern of setting a "precedent for the future encampments" should actually be in the
benefit column. You have an opportunity to be very clear about what is acceptable and what
isn't. Camp Hope is not claiming to be perfect; it wants to be better.
Those of you who have taken the time to get to know the people and visit are aware of the
humility of the people staying there. I would specifically like to thank Tom Cline, Kelly Ramirez
and Greg Bozzo for doing this.
I would like to address the concern about "selective versus uniform enforcement".
Enforcement needs to be selective. Instead of magnifying the 25 people that are making an
effort to comply with some rules, why not focus on the 280 plus people not in the camp?
Starting fires under bridges? Selling drugs? This is an opportunity to divide the unhoused
population into groups that require different "solutions" like law enforcement. People in camp
Hope are protecting each other from the bad actors. No one denies that they exist. If there's a
who are the most dangerous and protect the most vulnerable.
I would ask for the extension and to hold the camp to higher standards rather than cast them
back out to more violations. This will give service providers an opportunity to show some
progress and continue to reach out for support. An extension is not a code violation; it's just
space between enforcement. Everyone is very aware that this is temporary. I would look at an
extension as an opportunity to understand the reality of our unhoused population and what
we can do to solve this problem permanently instead of retreating from enforcement.
A note about item 8, the request to re-open the Wayland Parking Lot. Why is this closed?
Because the city is unable to prevent people from camping or participating in undesirable
behavior on this lot. We are not punishing the homeless when we abate; we punish our
community by gating and closing off public property to prevent encampments. This is what
happens when we shuffle our problems around instead of deal with them. If the community
was confident that we had this under control, they would be more open to re-opening this
area.
Thank you,
Ann Marie McCauley