The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors will consider presenting a November ballot measure allowing the development of low-income housing units without voter approval, in pursuant of Article 34 of the state Constitution.
The measure would provide authorization for the county and any public agency within the county to construct or acquire affordable rental housing for low-income residents — up to 1% of total existing housing units — without voter consideration.
Obtaining voter approval would facilitate efforts by the county to address regional housing needs, County Executive Mike Callagy said.
Article 34 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 to do so. Statewide measures to remove or weaken Article 34 have failed three separate times, last on the ballot in 1993. Critics of the measure, established in 1950, maintain it was designed to perpetuate racial homeownership gaps.
“Article 34 has been worked to prohibit affordable housing,” Callagy said. “What we’ve heard in the past is to take it to the voters and leave it to the voters. That’s what we’re proposing to do. It will be the voters and what they have to say.”
The Board of Supervisors is set to vote on the county measure Monday. The amount of annual development authorized by the county’s ballot measure is limited. As of January 2024, San Mateo County has about 289,782 housing units and would allow development of 2,898 affordable housing units in the first year of operation.
This number would serve as a “bank” of possible units to be bought or created. Other counties, such as Sacramento and Humboldt, have used this percentage approach as well. Such banks that do not describe particular projects are compliant with Article 34, as confirmed by the California Supreme Court, according to a staff report.
In September 2023, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted to purchase a hotel in Millbrae as housing for homeless families and seniors for $33 million — a decision that was decried by residents and opposed by a majority of Millbrae councilmembers, who cited public safety concerns and significant loss of revenue.
The city of Millbrae initially filed litigation against the purchase in November 2023, alleging purchasing of the property is for low-income housing and should be voted on by residents under Article 34.
The lawsuit was delayed by a judge’s ruling June 17 because the county has yet to legally specify from where funds will come.
The proposed measure addressing Article 34 is “specific to affordable housing projects,” Callagy said.
“I think the economic vitality of the county is extremely important and in order to maintain that, I affirmatively believe we need affordable housing,” Callagy said. “I think this is a way that we will achieve that goal.”
Millbrae City Manager Tom Williams declined to comment due to ongoing litigation. However, the City Council will discuss placing its own measure on the ballot at its meeting July 23, to ask if the county should be authorized to develop, construct or acquire housing units for low-income people in the city of Millbrae. That meeting is 6 p.m. Tuesday, July 23, at City Hall, 621 Magnolia Ave. or via Zoom https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81399368182, Meeting ID: 813 9936 8182.
The Board of Supervisors will vote on this resolution at a special meeting 1 p.m. Monday, July 22, in Board Chambers at 400 County Center, Redwood City. Access via Zoom at https://smcgov.zoom.us/j/85653116587. The webinar ID is: 856 5311 6587.
(65) 344-5200 ext. 106
Daily Journal staff
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
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
“Powerful, moving, and exhilarating” Read moreSongs For A New World
Sherri Roberts Quartet with Sherri Roberts vocals, Dave Udolf piano, Chris Amberger bass, an… Read more"I'm Hip" A Tribute to the Hep-Cat Singers-Songwriters of Jazz
Exclusive film screening in San Mateo Read moreA LITTLE FELLOW: THE LEGACY OF A.P.GIANNINI
Dirk van Ulden said:
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
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.
(3) comments
Another example of government saying we are the smartest people in the room and the voters are too dumb. If this is on the ballot, I am going to vote NO.
BTW there is another ballot measure on the November 5, 2024 ballot, sponsored by a regional government agency, to encumber property owners and renters $20,000,000,000 ($20 billion). After 53 years the total cost will be just shy of $50,000,000,000 ($50 billion). This is Regional Measure 4. I am voting NO.
Measure 4 includes a poison pill that, if passed, gives this regional agency to do the same in nine (9) counties and 101 cities and towns in the Bay Area. This agency is a Council of Governments; Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA), and the Bay Area Transit Authority (BATA).
What do I know? I am just a dumb voter.
Well written, tarzantom. Why would voters vote to take away their voting rights? Regardless, if this measure passes, expect the measure to be challenged in court. At least for now, the county can lay claim to wanting to do something, but in actuality, not really wanting to do anything - kicking the can down the road, at least until some of them leave office. Vote NO on just about everything that wants to take away your money and your vote.
Critical issues. Lots to vote NO on this next election. Thanks for comments Tarzantom and for being on top of all this to educate and remind us.
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.