On June 12, 2025 Mules sent San Jose Mayor Mahan the following letter. (We also sent the email to San Mateo Mayor Fung but did not receive a response back. Mayor Mahan’s office sent back a response to that letter. We welcome you to read it. The Mules certainly did. This letter seems to be to us the mules a long drawn out attempt to justify this law passed by San Jose to deal with the consequences of so-called homeless encampments. But nowhere in their letter responding to our letter was there any mention or acknowledgment that the Mules or anybody else traveling under their own power in own speed how they choose when they choose. Stopping for no more than a period of 24 hours on public land to spend the night would not be subject to the requirements and consequences of this law.
To Mayor Mahan and Mayor Fung:
I recently read a news article that your cities recently passed an ordinance to arrest people if they refuse offers of shelter or stop to sleep or rest outside in public spaces. In the past, I’ve stopped at San Jose City Hall and Millbrae City Hall to hand deliver my letter requesting you to stop the use of California Penal Code 647(e) and any municipal code of similar nature that criminalizes the nomadic lifestyle, which has been practiced for all of human history and is deeply rooted in American tradition, practiced by many up to this day.
We, the Mules, live a lifestyle of motion, never staying on public land for more than a night, always less than 24 hours. We walk, never using an automobile, leading my pack mule, carrying all my simple belongings: a one-person tent, a sleeping bag, a one-burner camp stove, a cooking pot, food, clothes, and very little else. The Mules and myself have been wandering around the Western United States for over 40 years and up and down the state of California for 12 years, going from city to city, town to town never once committing any of the offenses PC 647(e) or your municipal code was written then passed to address (i.e., the blight caused by long-term tent encampments).
The 3 Mule Journey does not willingly engage in the living inside lifestyle, whether it be in a house, jail, barracks, etc. Instead, the Mules practice a nomadic lifestyle living outside with respect and in harmony with all that surrounds us.
We are supported by the spiritual energy that we gather from everybody and everything that surrounds us as we walk from town to town, city to city. The energy we gather then harbors and awaits to materialize into whatever we need as we pursue our journey. This is the way of this place for those who travel and live (non-motorized traveling) in service to it. The 3 Mules Journey spreads the message of living harmoniously with the earth. This way of life is a commitment to protecting the environment and living in tune with the Natural World, one step at a time.
We are deeply concerned that using your city ordinance that criminalizes a lone traveler such as the 3 Mules or anyone else traveling in a similar way and are not committing any of the abuses that your ordinance was passed to prevent is a criminal act in and of itself. Intended or unintended, it will also reduce access and use of the public space to all citizens. To travel under their own power and their own speed, how they choose, when they choose, whether living outside as the 3 Mules do, or inside houses and tents as most people do.
When my mule and I walk through the Bay Area again as we head north in the summer and pass through again in the fall as we head south for the winter, will we be forcibly stopped by police forcing us to shelter when we obviously have no need of it? Then be arrested on a trespassing charge for refusing three times to accept that help? If your city does arrest the Mules, your city will surely face a lawsuit infused with the energy of all the people who follow the Three Mule Journey over the 12 years we have traveled up and down north and south throughout the state of California.
I urge you to reconsider the enforcement of codes that will criminalize a lone traveler, whether traveling by horse, bicycle, foot, or any other means under their own power and speed. I look forward to your response to bring any codes having a similar effect to a more accurate and clear condition on the issues it was meant to address.
Sincerely,
The Mules
The Mayor’s Office Response to our letter
On June 16, 2025, the Mules received the following response back from the City of San Jose Mayor’s Office. This letter seems to be to us the Mules a long drawn out attempt to justify this law passed by San Jose to deal with the consequences of so-called homeless encampments. But nowhere in their letter responding to our letter was there any mention or acknowledgment that the Mules or anybody else traveling under their own power in own speed how they choose when they choose. Stopping for no more than a period of 24 hours on public land to spend the night would not be subject to the requirements and consequences of this law.
Hi John,
Thank you for contacting Mayor Matt’s office. We appreciate your engagement and want to take this opportunity to clarify several important points about the Mayor’s Responsibility to Shelter proposal, especially in light of recent conversations and the spread of misinformation.
This proposal has sparked strong reactions because it’s bold, because it breaks with the status quo, and because it reintroduces something long missing from our homelessness strategy: accountability. That accountability runs both ways—government has a responsibility to offer shelter and care, and individuals have a responsibility to use it when it’s available.
The Mayor’s Responsibility to Shelter proposal stands in stark contrast to more punitive measures being adopted elsewhere. Just this week, Governor Gavin Newsom called on cities across California to ban homeless encampments on public property by introducing a model ordinance aimed at clearing such encampments. And in Fremont, leaders have already enacted one of the state’s most aggressive anti-camping bans—prohibiting tents and sleeping in most public areas, without first requiring offers of shelter.
San José is charting a more humane and effective path. Our approach emphasizes compassionate intervention and repeated offers of shelter, paired with reasonable expectations that those offers be accepted.
But with strong ideas come strong reactions — and unfortunately, a fair amount of misconception. So let’s separate myth from fact:
MYTH: This proposal criminalizes poverty and homelessness.
FACT: It’s the exact opposite – this proposal holds people accountable for getting out of homelessness. It’s focused on engaging and intervening when people repeatedly show that they are unwilling or unable to accept a hand up and out of homelessness.
MYTH: This proposal will put homeless people in jail.
FACT: In Santa Clara County, people do not serve jail sentences for trespassing or most other low-level misdemeanors, which our Sheriff recently confirmed. But we can use repeat, non-violent misdemeanor charges to work with the Mental Health and Drug Courts to help compel people to engage in treatment.
MYTH: Our shelters are dangerous, chaotic places that have lots of arbitrary rules and are places where no one wants to be.
FACT: We’ve specifically designed our interim housing sites to be low-barrier. They are safe and dignified, with mostly private rooms with doors that lock and en-suite bathrooms. We allow people to bring their partner, pets, and possessions. We don’t have a curfew and we don’t kick people out after a predetermined number of days or months. We have separate sites for families with children. There’s a reason our sites run at nearly 95% occupancy and are effective at graduating people into more permanent housing solutions. People are much safer when they choose to come indoors than when they decide to stay on the streets.
This initiative is not about jail or punishment. It’s about intervention — reaching the most vulnerable people with repeated offers of shelter, care, and ultimately, treatment if they cannot accept help on their own.
The City’s current four-part implementation plan includes:
- Step one is updating our Code of Conduct to reflect that when shelter is offered, we expect people to accept it. We know there is a portion of our homeless population that is service-resistant. The percentage fluctuates by encampment, but we often find one-fifth to one-third of people who reject offers of shelter. And to these folks, we’re making it clear: if there is a place available, we expect it to be used. This is about compassion paired with accountability — recognizing that a path off the streets is both a right and a responsibility.
- Step two is about bringing our outreach teams in house. By centralizing these services within our Housing Department, we can improve efficiency, lower costs, and ensure that each person has a detailed case file. This means better data monitoring, more effective follow-up, and a stronger ability to track individual progress. Outreach will be smarter, more connected, and more accountable.
- Step three is the creation of a Neighborhood Quality of Life Unit within the San José Police Department, which was a proposal in the March Budget Message. This dedicated team will work hand-in-hand with our Housing Department to prioritize enforcement of the muni code based on real-time data. Their role will be to maintain public safety and enforce the updated Code of Conduct and quality of life crimes, whether committed by housed or unhoused residents.
- Step four is working with the County to find places where our officers can bring people directly to access support services after three refusals of shelter – like the Mission St Recovery Center. We know that many of our homeless neighbors are struggling with addiction or mental health challenges that make it harder for them to make a rational decision about their own well-being. This partnership would allow us to connect them with treatment faster and more effectively.
This isn’t about giving up on people. It’s about refusing to let them suffer. When someone repeatedly refuses shelter because they’re struggling with an addiction or untreated mental illness that is keeping them from making a rational decision about their own well-being, the City has reached its limit in the help it can provide. The County, as the provider of health and human services, must step in to provide the appropriate services, resources, and treatment. In this scenario, an arrest would get someone into the care of the County where they could receive help through a diversion program.
The alternative – letting someone languish on our streets – doesn’t help anyone. Over 200 people died on our streets last year. Our children don’t feel safe walking to school, our small businesses are being harmed, and our parks and creeks are polluted with trash and biowaste. We spend tens of millions of tax-payer dollars every year just managing the impacts of encampments.
Unlike Governor Newsom’s proposal and Fremont’s encampment ban which emphasize enforcement first, San José is charting a middle path — one grounded in dignity, compassion, and shared responsibility. The Mayor’s proposed Responsibility to Shelter initiative is designed to be both compassionate and effective, focusing on providing shelter and services before considering enforcement. This approach ensures that we address the needs of our unhoused neighbors while maintaining public health and safety.
Thank you again for connecting with our office.
Best,
Leilani
Neighborhood Outreach team
The Mule’s Conclusion
A citizen in America a free country has the absolute right to freely travel move from one place to another how they choose when they choose and responsibility to do just that. This law as it has been crafted without a doubt will step out in the way and say to those who choose a life that nurtures and benefits the soul rather than the pocketbook . No go no further we’ve offered you help three times you’ve refused get off your horse get off your bike take off your backpack you’re going to jail. So the above being understood the city council and mayor of San Jose must remove the ambiguity in this law and bring clarity to it. And clearly state the stark and absolute difference between a person traveling and a person living within an encampment.
So those who are charged to enforce this homeless enchantment law will not be confused as to the stark difference between an homeless encampment and American citizens traveling freely how they choose when they choose a practice that has been revered throughout American history and still is to this day.
The Mules believe a law written with ambiguity is no accident. Ambiguity allows opinion to step up and push away facts. In my opinion you’re homeless I’ve offered you help three times you’ve refused. Get off your horse your bike put down your backpack you’re going to jail.
DEFINITION AMBIGUITY: the quality of being open to more than one interpretation, inexactness