Half Moon Bay is opposed to countywide Article 34 ballot measure 

This would allow the county to bypass project-specific votes required under Article 34 of the state Constitution, which was initially approved by California voters in 1950, and makes it so any public agency looking to develop or acquire low-income housing must gain the approval of a majority of voters. 

Half Moon Bay councilmembers are the first to formally oppose the proposal, which is likely to be voted on by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors during a special meeting Aug. 7, citing issues relinquishing local land use control. 

“For me, it’s about protecting what we have in Half Moon Bay,” Mayor Joaquin Jimenez said. “Any decision to build in Half Moon Bay, it comes to us. Any project the county has offered to be here in our community, we have to have the final say.” 

They aren’t the first city to discuss the ballot measure, however. Millbrae — a city that’s recently become an ardent supporter of Article 34 voting rights as a defense against the controversial La Quinta Inn purchase — proposed adding a dueling, tandem Article 34 ballot measure to its ballot with the same language as the county’s. 

“The city of Millbrae has discussed at its last council meeting about proposing our own Article 34 ballot for residents of Millbrae, so we get to vote on our own, for our city — whether local residents approve or reject Article 34 building of low-income housing,” Millbrae resident Albert Yam said during Half Moon Bay’s public comment period. 

Vice Mayor Harvey Rarback was the only councilmember to express support for the Article 34 ballot measure. 

“I’m not a fan of the fact that this was done quickly. I still support this ballot measure,” he said.  

“I think it’s a desirable goal. By putting a measure on the ballot, we’ll let the voters decide whether or not it makes sense to produce more affordable housing.” 

Councilmember Debbie Ruddock said problems with the ballot measure range from its vague language — it doesn’t specify which projects would be approved, where they would be located or define “public agency” — to concerns that affordable housing developments would be concentrated in lower-income areas of the county. 

“It’s going to be really difficult for Half Moon Bay or other cities to have a measure of oversight and control over those projects. The county has lots of lawyers and land use planners that are going to fight any restrictions,” she said. “I see this as threatening to my community.” 

Half Moon Bay is continuing to produce affordable housing projects with nonprofits and private developers that don’t require Article 34 votes, Ruddock said, and is open to partnering with the county on housing projects with city input. 

Individuals spoke both for and against the Article 34 ballot measure during an extensive public comment period. Some, like resident Rocio Avila, said those with stable housing situations shouldn’t prevent voters from deciding for themselves on the issue. 

“It would be an injustice if the people who have that necessity of housing [make it so] that we can’t be a part of this vote and persons that have this particular necessity will perhaps always be contrary to this,” she said through a translator. 

But many others were concerned that such a ballot measure could fuel a hypothetical scenario in which all affordable housing was concentrated on the coast. 

“We shouldn’t give away our authority to San Mateo County agencies to authorize, develop, construct or acquire low-cost housing on our behalf,” resident Sandy Vela said. “We don’t want to put San Mateo County agencies in a position where they allocate all low-cost housing to the coast because they can and we granted them the provision to do so.”