Mark Simon

San Mateo County is 741 square miles, 448 of which is land and 293 of which is water. By the best estimates that can be derived from searches by me and by much smarter people, about 65% of the land is unbuilt — parklands, open space, forest, wetlands, grasslands and so forth.

A significant percentage of that land is in preserves or restricted public ownership (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission) and will never be developed.

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

(5) comments

Eaadams

What is the backstory for all these targeted ab1228 Dianne Papan ads and mailers? Getting 1228 advertised in this story also.

John Baker

The reason I personally call for more, taller buildings with homes in already built areas is that I do NOT want to take that extra 10% (which WOULD be missed) of open space and I believe fills like Foster City and Redwood Shores were huge mistakes. Same with on the side of San Bruno Mountain, like Terra Bay in SSF. That developer Simon mentions in this piece is the kind we all should dislike.

Dirk van Ulden

Until we have city planners who must link new commercial developments with corresponding housing needs, we will always have a housing crisis. Developers must include housing provisions in their plans or would not be given permits to keep on blanketing our better spaces with these horrific, impersonal structures. Clearly, our city leaderships are complicit and only look out for short term gains and political grandstanding. I take it that inclusiveness and equity do not extend to demanding responsible housing policies.

Terence Y

Thanks for your letter, Mr. Simon. It sounds like you’d prefer the County saying Not In My Back Yard but are you also saying it’s not okay for County residents to say NIMBY? Let’s put an open space development measure to the voters and see if voters feel the same way about not using this 10%, especially once it’s advertised that folks can avoiding destroying their neighborhoods by allowing development on this 10%. Another option, Emily Hoeven penned an article (https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/california-nimby-state-housing-17915441.php) about available land for housing. Based on the article, I’d say more power to NIMBY folks who don’t want to destroy the look and feel of their neighborhoods when there is plenty of land available. As for going up, will there be financial compensation for folks with installed roof solar panels whose sun will be blocked due to high rise developments? Let’s skip the discussion of whether many “affordable” housing units can be built after accounting for developer fees and mandatory reach codes are factored in.

edkahl

Building on free land would reduce the overall cost of close in housing but the cost would still be out of sight with the cost of construction, legal fees, planning approvals and additional infrastructure costs. Even if built it would hardly make a dent in the housing problem and as pointed out make the area less attractive due to less open space. The same amount of money would produce far more housing in outlying areas. It is less expensive to invest in faster transit via highways and trains to those areas.

Welcome to the discussion.

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.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

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!

Want to join the discussion?

Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.

Already a subscriber? Login Here