Large Crowd Turns Out for Proposed Interim Housing Development at Lawrence and Benton

By Robert Haugh

Hundreds of residents and housing advocates turned out last night to comment on the LifeMoves interim housing development at Lawrence and Benton.

After over seven hours of public comments, the Council closed the public hearing and continued Council discussion and vote to May 2.

Councilmember Raj Chahal was absent.

We’ll have more info tomorrow.


    • county supervisor should be allowed to implement her vision:naysayers are abundant in california:pandhu shudhra

  1. Great Turn Out! Santa Clarans are ENGAGED and that does not bode will for Yed Jerk’s 49er Five in the next election. You can only kick people so much before they rise up and take control of the situation.

    Couldn’t make the meeting, but a prison on that site might be better, To house the criminals known as the 49er Five. 🙂

  2. I’ve attended one of the March community meetings and spoke at last nights meeting. First, this plan changed at the last minute as the development was supposed to be mixed with individuals and a few families. Learned at last nights meeting it was now changed to just families. BUT, the council asked questions that shocked me. Mayor Gilmore asked a very key questions that she had to repeat as county and LiveMoves conveniently ‘forgot’ to answer and that was, who pays for any construction overruns? Also, there is no 30 year funding plan (again, a question from the city council).

    This three-way project between the city, county and LifeMoves is so poorly planned that in the end, the City of Santa Clara will be on the hook and this doesn’t sound like a way to help the homeless get off the street. Too many details are missing; why is the county and LifeMoves think that is ok, I don’t know. I would never sign a contract like that!

    • Mayor Gilmore came up three very important questions regarding cost and funding. I’m glad someone was awake, this would be an automatic deal breaker. Done deal and table it. Our city can not afford this over cost project.

    • Good points. Mayor definitely asked questions that weren’t answered.
      Why? Hopefully, May 2 meeting will have more answers. Definitely
      much opposition to housing. I think family housing is better option
      but need more clarity. Who knows what Park and Hardy will do
      after all meetings they attended promoting housing. Need to ask
      lots of questions to make educated decision. Families definitely
      need housing but needs to be fair for everyone.

  3. Be wonderful to know how many of the “Advocates” actually live in the City of Santa Clara. Far too often we get “Advocates” from other areas foisting their agenda on us.

    • Every member of SCHA who spoke with SCHA, is a direct neighbor within 1 mile or less of the project site.

  4. Finally something positive when it comes to housing for those who desperately need it. I’m curious though what the process is to secure housing. I took the VI-SPDAT yesterday and scored high. I’ve been homeless since age 12 and I’m 44 now as a run away foster kid and became homeless as an adult because of mental health issues and addiction. I’m praying for housing and keeping my fingers crossed 🤞

Leave a Reply