Still, city leaders have said they are relieved the budget isn\u2019t any worse. They point to continued spending that has preserved a range of budget priorities \u2014 including\u00a0immigrant defense services<\/a>,\u00a0access to a popular library archive<\/a>, and\u00a0city programs supporting youth and families \u2014 as significant policy wins.<\/p>\n However, the budget has also received pushback from some who said it has shortchanged several public safety initiatives.<\/p>\n Community policing\u00a0<\/p>\n Some of the loudest grumbling that has followed the budget\u2019s approval relates to public safety.<\/p>\n While the spending plan increases the budget for San Jose\u2019s police and fire departments \u2014 even as the city\u2019s overall budget shrank from last year\u2019s $6.3 billion outlay \u2014 critics are pushing back against cost saving measures they said will undermine crime and fire prevention efforts.<\/p>\n One of those critics, District 7 Councilmember Bien Doan, has introduced several proposals\u00a0intended to boost funding for community policing focused on resolving neighborhood crime\u00a0problems such as drug activity, illegal dumping and public disturbances. The proposals came as a response to a February council decision that ended police foot patrols<\/a> everywhere except downtown, as part of a broader effort to rein in police overtime spending<\/a>.<\/p>\n Doan\u2019s proposals<\/a>, which would have diverted money from other city priorities to fund additional police overtime for patrols, didn\u2019t gain support from his fellow councilmembers.<\/p>\n \u201cI am deeply disappointed that the council refused to support additional police overtime resources for neighborhoods facing serious public safety concerns,\u201d Doan told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight.<\/p>\n San Jose officials have argued that officer foot patrols, while an important crime fighting tool, are less vital than other forms of police work<\/a> that were sustained in the budget, such as emergency response services, criminal investigations and victim services.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t think there is a painless cut in our budget that we\u2019re proposing,\u201d Police Chief Paul Joseph said during the May 11 budget study session.<\/p>\n Fire Station 32\u00a0<\/p>\n Another cost saving measure has also raised the hackles of members of San Jose\u2019s firefighting union.<\/p>\n Fire Station 32 \u2014 funded by a voter approved bond<\/a> and located near the Interstate 680 and Highway 101 interchange \u2014 had been slated to open this spring, with the promise of hastening response times in a high-demand part of town where fire resources have historically been stretched thin.<\/p>\n But the opening has been postponed by two years because the fiscal year 2026-27 budget doesn\u2019t include funding to staff the facility, a decision that will save San Jose $9.5 million.<\/p>\n To fill the funding gap, the city has applied for a federal grant that, if secured, could support the activation of an engine company at the station as soon as June 2027. But San Jose Fire Fighters Local 230 President Jerry May<\/a>\u00a0said this grant money is far from assured, and suggested the delayed opening indicates city leaders have misaligned priorities.<\/p>\n \u201cFire stations are not political talking points \u2014 they are critical infrastructure that reduce response times and save lives,\u201d May told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight.<\/p>\n A representative for the San Jose Fire Department declined to comment.<\/p>\n Patching the social safety net\u00a0<\/p>\n Over the four-month budgeting process, officials have searched for efficiency gains and funding reserves that could be used to save imperiled programs.<\/p>\n Nonprofit leaders in San Jose said these efforts have yielded some significant wins, and described the program trimming that did take place for the most part as \u201chaircuts.\u201d The wins include the decision to invest $1 million in Santa Clara County\u2019s homeless prevention system<\/a> and preserve funding for a range of youth-supporting programs, as well as for grants benefiting older adults.<\/p>\n \u201cEspecially given how the proposed budget looked, what ended up passing preserved a lot of critical social services that our community relies on,\u201d Kyra Kazantzis, CEO of the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits, which represents 170 organizations, told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight.<\/p>\n Still, San Jose\u2019s poorest residents could see significant dislocations despite the city\u2019s best efforts to shore up services. Many of the safety net programs<\/a> they rely on also receive funding from Santa Clara County, which is facing perhaps even more severe financial challenges. The county approved a budget<\/a> Thursday that balanced a nearly $800 million dollar deficit, driven in large part by cuts<\/a> to federal spending on healthcare and food assistance.<\/p>\n \u201cIf public funding is reduced while community need increases, organizations will be forced to make painful choices about service levels, waitlists and program availability,\u201d Don Taylor, who leads Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, a nonprofit service provider that relies on local public funding, told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cThe result is a growing gap between what residents need and what the safety-net system has the capacity to provide.\u201d<\/p>\n A burgeoning affordability agenda\u00a0<\/p>\n One of the largest points of contention early in the budget process centered on an ambitious policy package aimed at addressing San Jose\u2019s affordability crisis<\/a>.<\/p>\n San Jose frequently tops rankings of cities with high costs of living. That includes a study released this year that found San Jose is the least affordable city in the world<\/a> for first-time homebuyers, when comparing typical incomes with home prices.<\/p>\n Championed by members of the council\u2019s minority labor bloc \u2014 including Councilmembers Domingo Candelas, Pamela Campos and Peter Ortiz \u2014 the proposals included plans to take on quality of life challenges that bedevil residents, such as the high cost of childcare<\/a>. But the package fell flat amid pushback from the council\u2019s business-aligned members, who questioned how the city would pay for the plan.<\/p>\n However, officials scrounged up the cash to get several key initiatives approved. That includes a $1.3 million allocation to boost San Jose\u2019s Children and Youth Services Master Plan, which supports things like childcare as well as academic and professional development support for young people.\u00a0 In addition, the city also found funding to sustain a youth jobs initiative, and establish a proactive blight<\/a>\u00a0fighting team for District 5.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the policy push has also planted the flag for future city deliberations centered on affordability. Staff have been tasked with reviewing San Jose\u2019s affordability challenges and drawing up proposed solutions. The study could become the basis of further policy talks this fall.<\/p>\n \u201cThe vote by council on the June budget message has opened the door for the San Jose City Council to have a real conversation about affordability, the cost of living and how the city of San Jose can alleviate the top concern that we hear from residents across the city,\u201d Campos told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cThat is just the beginning of the work ahead of us to truly be able to ensure San Jose is a city where everyone can afford to live, work, play and dream.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"In-line](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/interactive-321838904008.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n