It is a tough time to be a councilmember in a Bay Area suburban city. Many cities are experiencing record growth, traffic and the inability to house employees (including school teachers) or to attract new talent because of exorbitant housing costs. If you are young or new to the area, you do not even think about home ownership. You have to rent. And there is the rub. Rents are impossible and there are few protections for current renters. So employees move far away where housing is more affordable, increase traffic or they just leave.
Meanwhile, existing homeowners do not want the suburb they moved to becoming an urban landscape. They want to keep things small, not crowded and mostly static. But most acknowledge there is a crisis. Children and grandchildren cannot afford to live in the towns where they grew up and if you have kids in school you are horrified that so many wonderful young teachers have left because they can no longer afford to live here. In San Mateo, a studio in modest older housing stock is $1,800; a one-bedroom apartment $2,200. You would need a salary of $65,000 to afford a studio; $80,000 for the one bedroom. A new one-bedroom apartment at Station Park Green is $3,793.
***
That is the background for the current battle going on for seats on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, or MTC, the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Recently, there was a major upset locally when Redwood City Councilwoman Alicia Aguirre, representing the cities of San Mateo County on MTC, was defeated in her bid for re-election. Instead, 12 city mayors voted for Millbrae Councilwoman Gina Papan, while only eight supported Aguirre. It’s unprecedented in our county for a sitting MTC rep to be voted out of office. And Jake McKensie of Rohnert Park in Sonoma County, who is the current president of MTC, is in danger of losing his seat. Why? Because MTC is leading CASA (Committee to House the Bay Area), whose goal, among other things is to build 35,000 housing units a year throughout the region over the next 15 years. Besides setting housing goals, CASA also recommends loosening zoning near transit centers and establishing a regional rent cap.
***
City councils do not like losing local control and many see CASA as leading to legislation at the state level which would do just that. The 12 cities which voted for Papan are Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, San Mateo and Woodside.
***
Recommended for you
CASA’s goal is “to build an actionable political consensus around increasing housing protection at all levels of affordability, preserving existing affordable housing and protecting vulnerable populations from housing instability and displacement.” Who could be against that? It’s the implementation which has some concerned. CASA executives include the CEOs of two major nonprofits, the CEO of a San Francisco development company specializing in urban infill projects, and the MTC executive director. A steering committee includes many MTC commissioners (including the mayors of San Jose and Oakland), housing and transportation nonprofits and reps from BART, Google and Facebook. This is a powerhouse committee whose work will find sympathetic ears in Sacramento at the highest levels.
***
MTC is the major player. It, too, is a powerhouse, and usually gets its way. It includes nine counties, 101 cities and collects tolls from all Bay Area bridges except the Golden Gate. It usually decides what transit/road project is going to get funded. It was created in 1970 by the state Legislature. Many of its commissioners have gone on to higher office, Quentin Kopp (state Senate); Kevin Mullin (state Assembly) Bill Dodd (state Assembly), Mark DeSaulnier (Congress).
Two years ago it took over management of the Association of Bay Area Governments staff. At one time, ABAG wanted to merge with MTC as an equal partner (MTC had the money) but the commission was against it. Now MTC dominates both organizations and has become involved in housing.
***
I served on the commission for 12 years. The staff from top to bottom was first rate, smart and dedicated. The commissioners (at least most of them) were dedicated officials trying to do the best for the region as well as the areas they represented. It’s probably the most competently run government organization around. They have taken on a huge challenge but one that had to be taken. At the same time, the targets are not set in cement and will be modified to gain political support. My preference is immediate attention to the current lack of workforce rental housing.
Sue Lempert is the former mayor of San Mateo. Her column runs every Monday. She can be reached at sue@smdailyjournal.com.
Kudos to the San Mateo County mayors replacing Ms. Aguirre with Ms. Papan and for standing up for local land use control. MTC is dominated by representatives from the regions largest cities who tend to support higher taxes and rent control.
There is a common misconception that building more housing increases traffic. Most of the traffic congestion is caused by commuters driving long distances because there isn't enough housing close to public transportation and close to where they work. The worst traffic congestion in San Mateo is caused by commuters crossing the Hwy 92 bridge westbound in the morning and eastbound in the afternoon. People who work on the Peninsula should be able to live on the Peninsula.
Right on. People sometimes only see the cars in front of them and don't realize that having fewer cars from Stockton, Tracy, Windsor, etc., is a good thing for the County, Bay Area, and the planet.
So I’m going to be spending my tax dollars in Colma, South City, Belmont, San Carlos, Portola Valley, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City – cities that realize there’s actually a problem here and aren’t just interested in protecting their fiefdoms.
So I’m going to be spending my sales taxable dollars in Colma, South City, Belmont, San Carlos, Portola Valley, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City – cities that realize there’s actually a problem here and aren’t just interested in protecting their fiefdoms.
Always hilarious to me when a bunch of folks who have locked in a $3k monthly payment for 30 years on homes worth $1.5 million try to block others from getting the same certainty about how much they are going to pay every month for housing.
The power of the Papan's is no joke. I wouldn't bet money on this outcome being 100% related to CASA. Surprised article didn't discuss San Mateo's Papan also. Sue did a helpful article on Papan's who are a political force in the county: https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/columnists/the-new-mayor-of-san-mateo-diane-papan/article_4c6cf99c-f6ac-11e8-b362-9797f00a5371.html
And why haven't we mentioned Scott Wiener's second round pet project SB 50? Just follow the money. None of this is about fixing the so called housing crisis which is fabricated anyway. It will be a huge windfall for the big corps and developers while completely ruining the smaller local cities. Everyone is blaming the local municipalities and their residents for this when it is all the high tech corps that refuse to do anything about work force housing. Oh, and all of this being proposed without any mention of it being mandated without any financial support from the state or addressing the very real issue of our extremely limited natural and public resources. How are you going to support 3 million new units/houses especially with most of those being in the bay area. That is why there is local control planning! Fight this till the end!
local control = local rich NIMBY owners continue to block housing production = they make MUCH more $$$ = renters get crushed into leaving CA or into homelessness. We must stop the local control madness which is destroying lives, enriching NIMBYs, and harming our environment. Support SB 50, and support struggling renter's rights over rich NIMBY homeowners to get filthy richer!
I wouldn't even call them NIMBY homeowners. They are landlord business owners who own multi-million dollar businesses. I'd call them Rich NIMBY multi-millionares.
Your comment here is completely misguided and ill informed. SB 50 is a complete giveaway to rich developers. It will not fix what you call a "housing crisis" in anyway shape or form. Instead of trying to remove local control you need to mandate that all large high tech companies start building workforce housing on their campuses immediately. They are the problem!
Hmmm. Eaadams- You statement is not accurate. Cities can create any type of housing ordinance they want and yes some cities either through pressure or law have initiated workforce housing with companies. Most are scared to loose revenue because the money is not in housing. Instead of Wiener's misguided SB 50 forcing regional housing decisions onto cities, force it onto the high tech companies that are the one's responsible for this mess!
Again, the putative solution is one which focuses on supply and not on what is creating the demand. Stop the egregious expansion of commercial development and we wouldn't have this problem. Our elected officials are willing to saddle us with taxes and rent control but are unwilling to take on the forces causing this problem.
I've been to dozens of council meetings and planing commission meetings. The ONLY time people mobilize is over housing. Never for commercial development. Sorry but the idea that the demand side is the thing to attack is simply a false flag. The landlord's who make huge money on rents are happy to constrain housing supply but unwilling to address demand because by controlling supply they encourage higher housing costs and increase their property values. When I see SMRG or FCRRD mobilize in Redwood City over the millions of square feet of new office we can talk but it is simply not what they do.
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.
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!
(18) comments
MTC is the problem, get rid of it.
Kudos to the San Mateo County mayors replacing Ms. Aguirre with Ms. Papan and for standing up for local land use control. MTC is dominated by representatives from the regions largest cities who tend to support higher taxes and rent control.
There is a common misconception that building more housing increases traffic. Most of the traffic congestion is caused by commuters driving long distances because there isn't enough housing close to public transportation and close to where they work. The worst traffic congestion in San Mateo is caused by commuters crossing the Hwy 92 bridge westbound in the morning and eastbound in the afternoon. People who work on the Peninsula should be able to live on the Peninsula.
Right on. People sometimes only see the cars in front of them and don't realize that having fewer cars from Stockton, Tracy, Windsor, etc., is a good thing for the County, Bay Area, and the planet.
So I’m going to be spending my tax dollars in Colma, South City, Belmont, San Carlos, Portola Valley, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City – cities that realize there’s actually a problem here and aren’t just interested in protecting their fiefdoms.
Good, looks like we will not be running into eachother. Just stay out of San Mateo, we don't need or want you spending.
So I’m going to be spending my sales taxable dollars in Colma, South City, Belmont, San Carlos, Portola Valley, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City – cities that realize there’s actually a problem here and aren’t just interested in protecting their fiefdoms.
Always hilarious to me when a bunch of folks who have locked in a $3k monthly payment for 30 years on homes worth $1.5 million try to block others from getting the same certainty about how much they are going to pay every month for housing.
The power of the Papan's is no joke. I wouldn't bet money on this outcome being 100% related to CASA. Surprised article didn't discuss San Mateo's Papan also. Sue did a helpful article on Papan's who are a political force in the county: https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/columnists/the-new-mayor-of-san-mateo-diane-papan/article_4c6cf99c-f6ac-11e8-b362-9797f00a5371.html
$2,200 needs $80,000? That would be 33%. That is considered rent burdened. "afford" is wrong word.
And why haven't we mentioned Scott Wiener's second round pet project SB 50? Just follow the money. None of this is about fixing the so called housing crisis which is fabricated anyway. It will be a huge windfall for the big corps and developers while completely ruining the smaller local cities. Everyone is blaming the local municipalities and their residents for this when it is all the high tech corps that refuse to do anything about work force housing. Oh, and all of this being proposed without any mention of it being mandated without any financial support from the state or addressing the very real issue of our extremely limited natural and public resources. How are you going to support 3 million new units/houses especially with most of those being in the bay area. That is why there is local control planning! Fight this till the end!
local control = local rich NIMBY owners continue to block housing production = they make MUCH more $$$ = renters get crushed into leaving CA or into homelessness. We must stop the local control madness which is destroying lives, enriching NIMBYs, and harming our environment. Support SB 50, and support struggling renter's rights over rich NIMBY homeowners to get filthy richer!
I wouldn't even call them NIMBY homeowners. They are landlord business owners who own multi-million dollar businesses. I'd call them Rich NIMBY multi-millionares.
Your comment here is completely misguided and ill informed. SB 50 is a complete giveaway to rich developers. It will not fix what you call a "housing crisis" in anyway shape or form. Instead of trying to remove local control you need to mandate that all large high tech companies start building workforce housing on their campuses immediately. They are the problem!
You can no more dictate that a tech corp build housing on their property than one can dictate you have to turn your garage into an ADU.
Hmmm. Eaadams- You statement is not accurate. Cities can create any type of housing ordinance they want and yes some cities either through pressure or law have initiated workforce housing with companies. Most are scared to loose revenue because the money is not in housing. Instead of Wiener's misguided SB 50 forcing regional housing decisions onto cities, force it onto the high tech companies that are the one's responsible for this mess!
Again, the putative solution is one which focuses on supply and not on what is creating the demand. Stop the egregious expansion of commercial development and we wouldn't have this problem. Our elected officials are willing to saddle us with taxes and rent control but are unwilling to take on the forces causing this problem.
I've been to dozens of council meetings and planing commission meetings. The ONLY time people mobilize is over housing. Never for commercial development. Sorry but the idea that the demand side is the thing to attack is simply a false flag. The landlord's who make huge money on rents are happy to constrain housing supply but unwilling to address demand because by controlling supply they encourage higher housing costs and increase their property values. When I see SMRG or FCRRD mobilize in Redwood City over the millions of square feet of new office we can talk but it is simply not what they do.
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.