It’s bad news for local government when special interests which have so much influence at the state and national levels interfere in our city council elections.
So it disturbing as we near election day that the race for San Mateo City Council, which hosts a field of excellent candidates, is tainted by special interest money.
As the Daily Journal pointed out in its Oct. 23 edition, this is the end product of the failed attempt at rent control last year. The real estate and apartment owners associations paid thousands of dollars to defeat Measure Q and are now spending thousands on one candidate, making him by far the big leader in fundraising. More than $102,085.78, an unprecedented amount for a city council election, has been spent or raised to elect Eric Rodriguez, San Mateo planning commissioner. Of this, $61,332, was from real estate and lobbying groups including $34,900 by the National Association of Realtors and $18,000 by the California Apartment Association in independent expenditures (not authorized by the candidate).
***
The irony is that Rodriguez didn’t need their support. From the get-go, he received endorsements from state, county and local officials. But most important, the endorsements of neighborhood associations and neighbors, and the endorsement of the Daily Journal. He raised enough money on his own to ensure a competitive campaign. The other non-incumbent candidates raised pennies in comparison and his campaign raised more than the two incumbents in the race. Rodriguez is well respected and works hard. He has walked most neighborhoods, attended as many community meetings as possible and, as a planning commissioner, is well versed in the city’s major issues. It’s sad that these special interests are staining the reputation of this young man for their own benefit, not his.
The real estate and apartment associations need Rodriguez more than he needs them. That’s because of the 10 largest Bay Area cities, excluding San Francisco, San Mateo has become the most expensive city for residential rentals (Currently the average one-bedroom is $2,661 a month; a two-bedroom, $3,483). At these extraordinary rates, teachers and other low- to middle-income workers can no longer afford to live here unless they are lucky enough to own their own homes. There are for-hire signs all over the city. Restaurants are moving to self-serve counters or take-outs because they can’t hire kitchen staff to meet the demand. It’s become so bad that, for many young people, San Mateo is no longer considered a great place to live and raise a family. Who can afford it? Can your children or grandchildren? Most newcomers, unless they have significant incomes, start out as renters. That’s why momentum is growing for another rent control measure and that is why the special interests are worried.
***
Rodriguez came out against last year’s rent control Measure Q in a brochure paid for by the industry. He is a known vote against rent control. So are the two members of the council not on the ballot. That’s three decisive votes. But the other candidates who have filed finance statements, Chelsea Bonini, Rick Bonilla, Charlie Drechsler and possibly Joe Goethals might be more amenable to some measure. Goethals (who has also received contributions from the real estate and apartment lobbies), tried to forge a temporary measure to help renters when he was mayor but was unable to do so. For the special interests, it is imperative that Rodriguez wins. They need him. But he certainly does not need them. My hope is that when Rodriguez is elected, he will be the leader in carving out a measure that will help to alleviate our immediate housing crisis. It doesn’t have to be permanent rent control, but something which addresses the plight of existing and would-be renters before more affordable housing gets built. That will show the special interests that they don’t dominate city politics.
***
San Mateo city’s campaign contribution limits are $500 per individual and $1,000 per business/corporation. Contributions from real estate/apartment owners are certainly appropriate in that range. But independent expenditures do not belong in a city election.
Sue Lempert is the former mayor of San Mateo. Her
column runs every Monday. She can be reached at sue@smdailyjournal.com.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(17) comments
I think Ms. Lempert needs to get out into her community a little more. If she did she would have seen the tremendous public participation last year when the city council tried to get an emergency order passed limiting rent increases. Many in our community were at the meeting and stood up strong against a socialistic move to control private assets. Sue can't seem to remember that rent control lost big in the election by citizen voters. We get that housing advocates will never stop attempting to get government control over other peoples real estate, but don't think for a second that outside money has anything to do with opposition. It is a grass roots rejection as a community over government interference into private real estate and a private contract that doesn't involve you. Rent Control will never happen in San Mateo, I guarantee it, no matter how much money is spent on either side.
Actually, it has everything to do with how much money the real estate industry has spent in San Mateo. Look at numerous other cities around us where the real estate industry hasn't spent as much money putting out false advertising mischaracterizing the content of renters' protections or saying that those protections would foster criminals, drug dealers, or (horror!) brown people. In those cities where the real estate industry has not spent as much to defeat renters' protections, renters' protections have succeeded. Money certainly does matter in local politics where most people take in far less information about what's going on.
Do you believe the government should take property rights away from owners and put themselves in the middle of a legal contract between two private parties? Many in our community think not. No amount of money would change our minds on this issue as it is un- American and way too socialistic. If you are a low information voter, sorry but I have no sympathy for you. There is a saying an Arab friend of mine told me, "Do not let the camel get its nose inside your tent, once there you will never get him out".
Boy oh boy does your reasoning just wildly bounce all over the place, Mr. Conway. The money isn't being spent to persuade you, who, as you admit, are already under the spell of big real estate's propaganda. It's being spent to spread dangerous ideas like the ones you exhibit, namely that not all Americans are deserving of the same rights. Renters are humans too. Renters, like everyone else, have an inalienable right to be free from being unjustifiably expelled from their homes. To say they don't is to say the powerful have the unchecked right to do whatever they want to other people. That's might makes right. That's pure barbarism. That's not what America at its best stands for.
One more thing, do not vote for anyone for the city council who even gives a whiff of support for rent control.
Thank you Mr. Conway. Well said....
Another way , an 'ole-fashioned way that many of us used when income was "low," was to share rentals.....sometimes 10 people to a house......sometimes with just sheets hanging from the ceilings dividing rooms to give privacy. We saved money, invested it, and eventually bought our own property (some even buying income property). This is how America was built. It never dawned on us to whine to the government for "affordable housing." We kept our self-esteem and pride of personal accomplishment. True leaders will teach people to be self-sufficient, "to fish, rather than be FED fish."
Thank you, Ms. Lempert. It is telling that Eric Rodriguez has not publicly disavowed the money being spent by the National, California and San Mateo County Associations of Realtors nor the California Apartment Association. If he had, we could perhaps believe that he is not in their pockets. Unfortunately, for most renters and many homeowners, he is already tainted. In addition, he is under investigation by the FPPC for campaign finance issues. That issue will not be resolved prior to tomorrow's election. Money buys elections - the aforementioned groups did not spend thousands against Measure Q - they spent over a million dollars to defeat Q and Burlingame's Measure R. They are currently spending huge amounts to defeat rent stabilization in Pacifica. We will find out tomorrow if the voters are wising up to these special interests or not.
Not sure why people who own property are singled out as a "special interest" while renters and rent control advocates are not. Given what's at stake property owners are justified in protecting their interests. This is especially true if rent control advocates are successful in repealing Costa-Hawkins which also protects single family homeowners. All across this State property owners under under attack from many sources so it only makes sense for them to push back and endorse candidates and policies that will protect their interests.
You're deliberately misconstruing the issue. Most reasonable people would agree that the two major outside organizations backing Mr. Rodriguez's campaign, the National Association of Realtors and the California Apartment Association, are special interests. I encourage you to stop playing around with semantics and start engaging with the issues.
The housing crisis on the Peninsula is the result of too much demand and not enough supply. Rent control would do nothing to increase supply. In fact, it might discourage the construction of much needed housing. There is plenty of room to build housing in San Mateo, especially near Caltrain stations. How about that huge parking lot at the shopping center on Concar Drive between South Delaware and South Grant? What a waste of valuable real estate. A whole community could be built there, and it is within walking distance from the Caltrain station. Infill housing does't increase traffic. It reduces it by allowing people to live close to where they work and close to public transportation.
Ms. Cornell, ​the negative smear campaign that you and your friends at One San Mateo (including JA who has also commented here), have been levying against Eric has been debunked by San Mateo's own City Attorney. Please see:​
http://padailypost.com/2017/11/03/city-attorney-clears-candidate-after-complaint-about-donations/
​You haven't seen this reported in the Daily Journal is because they have integrity and do not jump to report on "anonymous complaints" only to see them proved false a couple days later.​ Really, the behavior I have seen from One San Mateo during this election is despicable and sickening. Single-sided mud slinging of the worst kind. Eric's integrity speaks for itself by not participating in this ugliness. I am ashamed for you and for One San Mateo. How do these tactics make our city a better place? And how the heck will we ever convince good, decent people to run when they know they'll be run over by the likes of JA and the rest? I can not convey how saddened I am by the underhanded measures taken to sully a great candidate.
Are you saddened by the indefensible campaign that was waged against renters in the last election? Are you saddened by a campaign that equated renters with criminals, drug dealers, thugs, "people from East Palo Alto"? Are you saddened by a campaign that said the affordability crisis is the fault of Latinos having too many children? Are you saddened by a campaign that committed every single underhanded trick it could? Are you saddened by the real estate industry spending fortunes to drown out the voices of common people who have nothing to spend in their defense? Are you saddened by politicians who have catapulted their political careers by destroying the lives of untold numbers of our neighbors? Are you saddened by the prospect of our beloved city becoming an oligopoly wholly controlled by the real estate industry? Are you saddened by the constant and vicious attacks on the residents of San Mateo who simply want a city of, by, and for all its people? No? Then spare us all your disingenuous crocodile tears.
"It’s bad news for local government when special interests...interfere in our city council elections." You mean like the construction unions??
"The real estate and apartment owners associations paid thousands of dollars to defeat Measure Q." Thank goodness they did! I participated twice in demonstrations this past year with renters, but Measure Q's details were an abomination. I voted against it. If we want to seriously help renters, we need to work together. One-sided measures aren't the answers.
Glad that Ms. Lempert is no longer on the City Council. She offers very little of serious insight into this housing issue.
Sue Lempert, you should be ashamed of yourself, as should the Daily Journal for printing this type of stuff. Regardless of what candidate(s) you support, Lempert's behavior during this election has been disappointing, to put it mildly. From totally ignoring a viable candidate to this piece, clearly intended not to support a particular candidate but rather to denigrate another, this is the definition of dirty San Mateo politics.
And, as long as you're talking about "special interests", exactly what special interests were at work back in March of 1998, when the San Mateo City Council, led by Mayor Sue Lempert, voted to insert the language that allowed SPI to close the ice rink. The language providing the loophole calling for a recreational amenity, not specifically an ice rink. Exactly why was that language inserted? Who was behind that? A special interest, perhaps?
Glass houses, Sue Lempert....glass houses.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion about the current election, but if you are going to bring up something that occurred in 1998, try to get your facts correct, as it reflects poorly on your initial statement.
Sand Hill Properties, not SPI, were the developer involved in the demolition of Fashion Island Mall and its rebirth as Bridgepointe. In 1998, the Ice Chalet Corporation, the operator of the rink advised Sand Hill Properties that they might not have the money to rebuild the rink. In fact, they had already sold off a couple of ice rinks due to declining revenue. A small group of people got together (nothing even close in comparable size to the current rink saving group) and attended the Planning Commission meeting regarding the rink. The deck appeared to be stacked against the save the rink group, but the few presentations made shot huge holes in the lack of a potential new operator and that the reasons given for closing the rink were specious at best. The Planning Commission agreed and rejected the closure. Initially the operator, Ice Chalet, advised they were not in a financial condition to continue and a search for a new operator took place. Two operators were identified and just before the decision was made to turn over operation to one of them, Ice Chalet was bought out and the new owner, already having 10 years left on the prior lease, chose to take over and rebuild the new Bridgepointe Ice Chalet.
The owner of the mall was concerned that if the rink failed, they might get stuck running an ice rink they knew nothing about, so asked for a variance to the plan. And that is how the term, ice rink or similar recreation facility came to pass. When you consider that the Oakland Ice Center, the Ice Center of San Jose, and the Ice Oasis in Redwood City, all went bankrupt and were taken over during that stretch, the city was wise to keep their options open.
Ultimately, the Ice Chalet Corp also went bankrupt and many of their national rinks were closed and others were bought. Both Vallco and Bridgepointe had only one bidder (the same) and so that is how the Ice Centers of San Mateo and Cupertino came to pass. Every future owner of the Bridgepointe mall upon purchasing, looked into getting rid of the rink, but only one actually tried. Sorry to shatter your house.
You threw mud at a thick glass house. The language was put in at the request of Sand Hill Properties, the developer of Bridgepointe, as they did not want to be stuck with an ice rink if the ice rink operator at that time, was unable to operate the rink. That eventually did occur and another operator stepped into take over the rink and another rink in Cupertino. Even though the rink was a viable and profitable business up to the day it was closed by SPI, SPI chose not to renew the lease, looking to make a big score via the loophole. Ultimately they failed and if I remember correctly, Sue Lempert ultimately supported retaining the rink. Get your Windex out...........
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.