San Mateo County pauses housing measure

Although Chief Executive Officer Mike Callagy maintained Article 34 “has no place in this county,” he did not ask the Board of Supervisors to consider approving such a measure placement this election cycle. 

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 on the measure maintain it was designed to perpetuate racial homeownership gaps. 

After consultation with cities, which was requested at the last special meeting when the measure was proposed for consideration, Callagy said it would be beneficial to increase education and awareness around Article 34 and what a related measure would entail. 

“In postponing this matter, we the Board of Supervisors and the county, has the chance to go out and listen to constituents wherever they may be, and also not just listen — but just from the comments here today — there are a lot of misunderstandings about this matter,” board President Warren Slocum said. “Those misunderstandings need to be clarified.” 

Maintaining relationships with cities, special districts, school districts and agencies within the county is of the utmost importance, Slocum said. 

Beyond maintaining these dynamics and the county’s reputation as being collaborative, Supervisor Ray Mueller said it was ultimately in the best interest of those who are in need of housing.

“Had we gone forward today, not together, I think those who would have suffered the most would have been those waiting for housing,” Mueller said. “It would have been a polarizing debate throughout the county and, at the end of it, the end game would be such that we would actually be creating a more hostile environment to create affordable housing.”

Half Moon Bay was the first city to formally oppose the proposed countywide measure at a special council meeting July 31. 

“For me, it’s about protecting what we have in Half Moon Bay,” Half Moon Bay Mayor Joaquin Jimenez said previously. “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.” 

Millbrae Councilmember Ann Schneider raised similar concerns about jurisdiction over land use during public comment at the county meeting.  

“When you take away revenue-producing properties, you take away our ability to care for our people,” she said. 

La Quinta

Schneider was speaking in reference to the proposed use of a hotel in Millbrae for housing homeless families and seniors. Callagy, however, has previously stated this measure was not in relation to the ongoing legal battle. 

In September 2023, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted to purchase La Quinta 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 18 because the county has yet to legally specify from where funds will come. 

Misconceptions and polling

In response to concerns about the county usurping city authority, Callagy said this is strictly a misunderstanding. 

“That is absolutely not the case and certainly not the desire for anyone,” Callagy said. “But I can understand with a lack of information those misconceptions can spread.” 

He continued to say the county will seek such a measure on future ballots. Bryan Godbe, president of Godbe Research, who conducted the poll to gauge voter interest, said survey results suggest with increased knowledge and awareness of the measure, it could likely pass.

The question posed considering a rollback of Article 34 in the county fared at 57% in favor with a margin of error under 5%, Godbe said.

“I think with more information and discussion … I think this is something that could be successful,” Godbe said. “There’s a need for information, that is what it comes down to.” 

Millbrae action

The Millbrae City Council had previously weighed a tandem, identical measure to propose to residents following its recent, ardent support of Article 34 as a legal defense against the county’s influx purchase of the city’s La Quinta Inn.

The City Council ultimately decided at an Aug. 6 special meeting to not pursue further conversation if the Board of Supervisors chose not to place the measure on voter’s November ballots. An Aug. 7 special meeting to vote on the issue was canceled after the county’s decision.

The council also decided at its Aug. 6 meeting to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors formally opposing the county’s proposed Article 34 ballot measure, with Vice Mayor Maurice Goodman abstaining and Councilmember Angelina Cahalan absent.

Both Goodman and Catalan appeared to have been successfully recalled in a recent special election, the rationale for which was centered on the two councilmembers not supporting a September 2023 letter expressing concerns about the La Quinta purchase.

Article 34

The county measure was initially proposed as a way to counteract the discriminatory impact of Article 34, which Slocum described as a “relic.” Others agreed. 

“Article 34 really has no business in a sophisticated and forward-thinking county like San Mateo County,” Callagy said. “We are way, way, way beyond that in this county in the way that we operate and the things we have done to provide housing.” 

Moving forward, Callagy said he looks forward to continuing work on this effort, and hopes to establish a subcommittee of city managers to work on crafting language that would be amenable to all entities.   

“I’m confident, going forward, that when the next election cycle rolls around, we will have a comprehensive plan with the cities, with our partners, that we will have this well thought out, that we will have educated the voters as to what this is and what this really isn’t,” Callagy said. 

“Some day, in the not too distant future, in the years ahead of us, we will have an opportunity to celebrate the repeal of Article 34, and that will be a great day for San Mateo County.”

Reporter Holly Rusch contributed to this report.