San Mateo County scoping housing ballot measure

But county supervisors are considering asking voters for a workaround — essentially, getting residents to pre-approve the development of affordable housing that’s up to 1% of the total existing housing units in the county each year. 

If the potential measure passes by a simple majority, the county and other public agencies would no longer be required to turn to the voters each time they want to build a low-income housing project with their own dollars, as long as the number of units they’re building doesn’t exceed the cap of the housing unit bank. 

Currently, counties and cities in the area — with the exception of South San Francisco, which passed a similar Article 34 exemption and created an affordable housing bank in the city last election — work around voter approval requirements through the development of privately-funded affordable housing. 

But with the cost-of-living crisis as an ever-present weight on many residents, expanding the county’s capacity to develop and preserve affordable units could be a benefit, Noelia Corzo, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors president, said during a meeting May 19. 

“This is a way to add more tools to our toolbox,” she said. 

It’s not the first time an Article 34 ballot measure has been discussed at the county level. Supervisors discussed the possibility in 2024, around the time that Millbrae, a city in the county’s jurisdiction, used the provision to argue in court that residents had a right to vote on whether they wanted a county-developed, state-funded housing development for formerly-homeless families and seniors to be put in at the La Quinta Inn. 

Millbrae went so far as to propose a dueling Article 34 ballot measure for its city residents, but ultimately both ballot measures, as well as the lawsuit that used Article 34 as a justification to bring the La Quinta project to voters and the La Quinta project itself, were dropped. 

Collaboration

In the present context, much of the supervisors’ discussion revolved around ways to collaborate with local cities, rather than steamroll them with affordable housing developments over which they have no control. 

“We’ve got to not be a bully in this process, and we’re getting a reputation of being a bully,” Supervisor Jackie Speier said. “It’s got to be something we do in concert with a city.” 

Adding language to the measure that confirmed development would occur only in areas cities had previously slated for affordable housing, or broadening that condition to require city approval, were floated as possible solutions.  

It’s important that cities are publicly supportive of the potential ballot measure, Ray Mueller, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors vice president, said. Currently, councilmembers have largely expressed private support for the effort but still have questions around local control, Armando Sanchez, Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County executive director, said. 

“I can’t see myself doing this without a formal acknowledgement of some sort by the cities that they are supportive of this,” Mueller said. “If we’re doing it, they’re doing it with us.” 

One local city official was vocally supportive of an Article 34 ballot measure, during the meeting, however. Redwood City Councilmember Chris Sturken said he would be bringing a resolution of support for the proposition to his fellow councilmembers. 

“I do recognize that some of my colleagues have expressed concern about potential for lost property tax revenue. What I realize is Redwood City continues to be very much visibly segregated,” he said. “In the interest of aligning with our principle of equity, it’s time for us to address this loophole and meet our [Regional Housing Needs Allocation] goals.” 

Controversial past

The segregationist origins of Article 34, which was put into place in part due to white residents’ concern around non-white people moving into their neighborhoods, are impossible to separate from present-day conversations around housing development, San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy said. In his conversations with city leadership, officials offered support for creating a loophole around the provision provided they had adequate say, he said. 

“Clearly this is a racist, segregationist provision of the Constitution that I think we’re all embarrassed by and definitely needs to be changed in the 21st century,” Callagy said. “They can certainly get behind this if in fact they didn’t lose that autonomy, if it was done in cooperation with them.” 

Polling of county residents also shows interest for a potential ballot measure, with 67.1% of polled individuals expressing probable or definitive support.  

Ease of acquisition

As an organization dedicated to bringing affordable housing to San Mateo County, HEART has been focused on keeping existing housing stock viable for low- and moderate-income families, Sanchez said. If the Article 34 housing bank was put into place by voters, they would use it to do just that, he said. 

“It is not a construction and development issue,” he said. “It is an acquisition and preservation issue.” 

Aside from acquisition of existing property, having a bank of affordable housing units the county could develop ground-up with the cooperation of local cities could give officials more freedom to address the housing crisis, Corzo said. 

“If the county were to purchase land in partnership with a local city, we could develop 100% affordable housing,” she said. “If we had this exemption, it would be allowable, and that’s not something we’re able to do now.” 

With the summer deadline to add measures to the November ballot quickly approaching, the county will need to move quickly if it wants voters to weigh in this year. County staff were given direction to add additional language around city cooperation and permission to the measure and county officials will continue to discuss the issue with local leadership. 

holly@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105