Most mornings I take my two beagles, Bailey and Parker, to Williams Street Park. They sniff every corner, pull toward the same patch of grass, and treat the place like their second home. One morning last year, I noticed small warning signs posted near a corner of the park. They announced chemical spraying that day, but there were no barriers, no guidance about where it was happening, and nothing about wind drift. Homes sit across the street on two sides. After years of visiting that park, it was the first time I’d ever seen a posted warning.
In recent neighborhood discussions, people have been raising concerns about Roundup and asking why the city is still using it. At a community meeting, our new councilmember said he needed the city auditor to weigh in before the council could act. That answer surprised me. San José likes to present itself as a leader in technology, sustainability, and innovation, yet we’re still using a chemical that the World Health Organization classifies as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Roundup has been under scrutiny for years. Juries have awarded billions to people who developed cancer after repeated exposure. Countries like France, Germany, and Austria have banned it outright. Many U.S. cities — Davis and Santa Monica among them — have moved to pesticide-free maintenance programs. Meanwhile, San José continues to spray Roundup in places where kids play, pets roam, and city crews work every day.
The city has talked about reducing pesticide use for years. Talk isn’t action. Residents deserve an honest explanation: why hasn’t San José taken the step that so many other cities already have?
The health and environmental costs outweigh the convenience
The case against glyphosate isn’t abstract. The City’s own Integrated Pest Management policy acknowledges the health and environmental risks and commits to reducing chemical use. Continuing to rely on glyphosate runs against that commitment.
Beyond the cancer concerns, studies show that glyphosate harms pollinators, degrades soil health, and can enter waterways through runoff. These are not small issues for a city that says it values sustainability.
Alternatives exist, and nearby jurisdictions use them every day: organic herbicides made from essential oils, thermal steam systems, mulching strategies, and basic mechanical removal. The East Bay Regional Park District and the City of Davis have both eliminated glyphosate while still keeping their parks clean and open. Yes, some methods take more labor or upfront investment, but protecting public health and worker safety is worth the cost.
If the city won’t act, residents can
If city management and the council continue to hesitate, residents have the ability to move the issue forward. A voter-approved ordinance is one path. It doesn’t require special expertise or complex drafting.
A measure banning glyphosate on city-owned land would need signatures from roughly 10 percent of registered voters — about 44,000 San José residents — to qualify for a regular municipal ballot. The language could be very simple:
“The City of San José shall not purchase, apply, or authorize the use of any herbicide containing glyphosate on property owned, leased, or managed by the City.”
Several cities have passed similar laws. A vote like this would send a message that residents expect the city to meet the same standards that many homeowners follow in their own yards.
Leadership means more than slogans
San José prides itself on innovation. Continuing to spray a 1970s-era herbicide that has become a global liability doesn’t match that identity. Leadership means taking visible, concrete steps when the science, the legal risks, and community values line up.
A full ban on Roundup in city parks and on city property isn’t extreme. It’s overdue. Cities across the country have already shown that you can maintain clean, safe, and attractive public spaces without relying on chemicals linked to cancer.
If City Hall won’t take the initiative, San José voters can. One way or another, it’s time for Roundup to go.
Why It Matters
San José is one of the largest cities in the country. When a city this size changes how it manages public land, other jurisdictions pay attention — including the State Legislature. Local bans on harmful chemicals have often been the spark that leads to broader policy shifts. If San José adopts a clear, voter-backed prohibition on glyphosate, it could create momentum for statewide standards that phase out the chemical on public property entirely. A city-level decision here doesn’t just protect local parks. It could set the stage for California to move toward safer, modern, non-toxic maintenance practices across the board.