City of San Jose sues owners of blighted downtown properties
The Brief
The commercial parcel has been unoccupied since 2004.
The owners owe about $90k in fines and more than $977,000k on a defaulted loan.
The City of San Jose has attempted to collect fines and owed funds since 2017.
SAN JOSE, Calif. - The City of San Jose is suing property owners it says have racked up thousands of dollars in fines and failed to keep their property in good condition right in the heart of downtown. The lawsuit was filed this week and San Jose's mayor says he hopes the lawsuit will bring some resolution to decades of blight.
The properties in this lawsuit are right next to each other and owned by the same group of people. The mayor says it's been a challenge to hold them responsible, so the city decided to take them to court.
"We've seen a couple of fights happen. Having no storefront there, there is no sense of policing happening on that corner," said Maria Charron, Mini Boss Asst. Gen. Manager.
The Mini Boss arcade is at the corner of East Santa Clara and Second Streets. It's located across the street from a three-story building, whose owners are now being sued by the city of San Jose for unpaid fines, defaulting on a loan and creating blight.
"Having more vagrant spots around here is less of a draw for people to come down to us. So, it'd be nice to get somebody in there so that there's more foot traffic and more people are incentivized to come to this block," said Charron.
What we know
Located at 35 & 49 East Santa Clara Street and 9 Second Street, the commercial parcel has been unoccupied for the last two decades. In 2004 and 2005, Isis Properties purchased them and then received a loan of $1,350,000 from San Jose's Redevelopment Agency. The city's lawsuit said Isis Properties was just a shell company for James Eu and Grace Eu, with no real capital or assets.
"Enough is enough. It's time to tell people you've got to be a good neighbor, or we're going to hold you accountable for helping us maintain a city that's safe and clean," said Matt Mahan, San Jose Mayor.
The backstory
Formerly used as a hotel, San Jose says the parcel is also a health hazard because of toxins left over from dry-cleaning operations. The lawsuit also claims the properties are a public nuisance, and the owners now owe more than $90,000 in fines and about $977,000 on the defaulted loan. As San Jose prepares to welcome thousands of visitors downtown for the Super Bowl and other major events next year, Mahan says cleaning up downtown San Jose has always been a priority.
"It's not new, but I do think it's table stakes for making downtown Silicon Valley's downtown, being a destination for people all over the region, all over the country," said Mahan.
The lawsuit said that since 2017, the city has made multiple attempts to collect the money owed on these properties. Mahan also said he hopes the lawsuit will lead to either new ownership or new management ordered by the court.
KTVU reached out James Eu and Grace Eu but didn't hear back from them in time for this report.
The Source
City of San Jose, Matt Mahan, Mini Boss
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Is ESPN's hypothetical Trey Hendrickson trade feasible for the Lions?
Is ESPN's hypothetical Trey Hendrickson trade feasible for the Lions? Cincinnati Bengals defensive end Trey Hendrickson continues to be in a contract dispute with the team. Until the issue is resolved, Hendrickson will continue to be the subject of trade speculation. With that speculation, and with the need for extra help on the edge, the Detroit Lions will be linked to any potential trade discussion for Hendrickson. But is a trade actually feasible for the team? Before getting into that, let's discuss the hypothetical trade idea for Hendrickson to the Lions that was proposed by ESPN's Ben Solak this week. Solak proposed Hendrickson and a 2026 fifth-round pick to the Lions for a 2026 second-round pick and a conditional 2027 fourth-round pick that can become a third. Solak wrote: "Lions general manager Brad Holmes has acknowledged the fan base wants a secondary edge rusher far more than he does, but I imagine a player of Hendrickson's caliber would change Holmes' calculus slightly. Hendrickson isn't the sort of run defender the Lions might prioritize, yet a pass-rush duo of Aidan Hutchinson and Hendrickson might be the scariest in the NFL. "The Lions are still legitimate Super Bowl contenders and should behave as such with aggressive veteran trades. They have plenty of cap space to extend Hendrickson, which he would demand of an acquiring team." The Lions currently have $40 million in salary cap space for 2025, but are currently projected to be about $14 million over the cap for 2026, according to Spotrac. That can easily be addressed by restructuring contracts, including that of quarterback Jared Goff, for example. Goff is currently scheduled to make $55 million in base salary. The Lions do have other players set for new contracts coming up and the money will start getting pretty high. Not the least of which is Detroit's leading edge-rusher Aidan Hutchinson. In addition, safety Brian Branch is also due for an extension after this season. Tight end Sam LaPorta will also be coming up. All three have two years left on their rookie contracts -- Hutchinson had his fifth-year option picked up, Branch and LaPorta were not eligible for fifth-year options.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Analysts Debate Buying Or Selling Chiefs Super Bowl Stock
Analysts Debate Buying Or Selling Chiefs Super Bowl Stock originally appeared on Athlon Sports. The Kansas City Chiefs have lost significant support following their Super Bowl loss to the Philadelphia Eagles, with some believing the era of dominance is over. Advertisement But some forget that Kansas City still won 15 regular-season games and claimed the AFC. That is nothing to sneeze at. Still, many are selling their Chiefs stock in 2025 in favor of the Buffalo Bills or Baltimore Ravens, two teams Patrick Mahomes and Co. have regularly beaten in the playoffs. But one person who isn't selling is NFL Network's Kyle Brandt, who thinks the Chiefs will come roaring back this season. "We look at the Chiefs now as all of a sudden their stock is dropped or something because they got slapped around in the Super Bowl," Brandt said. "That was an all-time Eagles team, and I don't take anything away from the Chiefs." Advertisement "I look at the Chiefs last year, I think it was the weakest team of the Mahomes era and the most vulnerable team, and they won 15 games and had a bye. That we've seen it was like that was the year to get them, that was the year to take them out. Next year, I think they'll be better than they were this year." Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes (15).Mark J. Rebilas-Imagn Images With what is hoped to be a better offensive line, a healthy Rashee Rice, having Marquise Brown for a full season, not to mention the continued improvement from Xavier Worthy and Travis Kelce, who is coming off a down season, the Chiefs have ample room for improvement. Yes, the shine has come off their aura somewhat, but let's not forget that just one game of football ago, this team was seen as potentially one of the greatest of all time. Advertisement The analysts' debate aside ... That doesn't go away after one loss, does it? Kansas City will have to do something it hasn't had to do too often under Mahomes, and that's prove people wrong. For so long the NFL's dominant force, one poor loss has seemingly taken away all of the credits Kansas City had built up over the past three seasons. Let the redemption story begin. Related: It's Chiefs vs. Bills In Top-Ranked Rivalry Game In 2025 Related: Trent McDuffie Labeled Top 3 Corner in NFL This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 3, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
NFL, NFLPA continue to hide ruling from collusion grievance
The NFL benefits from an endless stream of bright, shiny objects. Even in the offseason, there's always something to distract fans and media from taking a closer look at something the powers-that-be are trying to hide. As it relates to a significant collusion grievance that resulted in a 61-page written ruling from an arbitrator, both the NFL and the NFL Players Association continue to conceal the document. Advertisement The grievance focused on the refusal to give fully-guaranteed contracts to specific veteran quarterbacks — with primary focus on Lamar Jackson, Russell Wilson, and Kyler Murray. The arbitrator found, we're told, that the NFL encouraged teams not to give those players fully-guaranteed contracts. However, the evidence presented regarding the impact of this approach on the three quarterbacks at the heart of the case wasn't strong enough to trigger damages. So it was a mixed result. The NFLPA won, to the extent that evidence of collusion was found. The NFL won, to the extent that no money was awarded to any of the players. But neither side felt sufficiently good about the outcome to disclose it. The NFL danced around it in January. The NFLPA has said nothing about it, either. If this dispute had played out in court, the ruling would be a matter of public record. The NFL and NFLPA have created a private system for resolving disputes. And while the arbitrators who handle such matters typically insist on confidentiality while the cases are pending, there's nothing that prevents either the league or the union from publishing the ruling. Advertisement From the Super Bowl to the Scouting Combine to free agency to the draft to OTAs, it's been easy to forget about the 61-page collusion grievance ruling. A ruling that apparently contains something they don't want us to see. So what can it be? It could be (and we're not saying it is) that the evidence in the case includes some frank and candid internal communications that one side doesn't want to see the light of day — and that the other side has gone along with that. It also could be that the two sides were at one point actively negotiating redactions to the 61-page order to ensure that such frank and candid internal communications would not be communicated externally. Whatever the explanation, there's an important document that the NFL and the NFLPA are hiding from everyone. Despite the private nature of the arbitration agreement, pro football is an inherently public entity. It has millions of customers. It finagles billions in taxpayer money. It has a federal antitrust exemption that results in significantly more valuable TV rights. The NFL should be expected to release this document. The union should be, too. But with no one pressuring them to do it, they can jointly continue to hide behind the various bright, shiny objects that will continue to keep us properly distracted.
