Editorial: No on Millbrae recall

The official reason for the recall campaign?

Ignoring the concerns and wishes of the community, failure to protect Millbrae’s fiscal sustainability, neglecting fiduciary duties as elected officials, working with the county’s chief executive without transparency and against the best interests of constituents and undermining the fundamental trust of the community as demonstrated by actions with the La Quinta Inn project.

Ah, there it is. The La Quinta Inn project. First of all, the project is part of a long-standing effort to provide transitional housing for the previously homeless here in this county that has been largely successful in ensuring people who were living on the streets have a roof over their head. It is a good program. It works.

Millbrae is the first city to have an issue with the program and the council majority is in favor of fighting it on multiple fronts — primarily through legal means using Article 34 of the California Constitution that officials believe requires a vote of the people to allow the conversion from a hotel to transitional housing.

Article 34 was created through the passage of Proposition 10 in 1950, which gives local cities veto power over “low rent” housing. It was passed in response to the federal Housing Act of 1949, which sought to stem the flow from urban areas to suburban areas by creating federal investment in new housing and loans. It was part of President Harry Truman’s “Fair Deal.”

The backlash was because some didn’t want low-rent public housing. Yet, there is a movement to repeal Article 34 because of allegations it was discriminatory in origin.

The 3-1-1 council decision to send a letter to the county expressing concerns about the purchase of the hotel was the origin of the recall effort. Vice Mayor Maurice Goodman voted no, and Councilmember Angelina Cahalan abstained. They were on the losing side of the vote and the letter was sent.

Still, the decision to not completely support the letter or be against the proposal sparked the effort to remove the pair from office.

The recall does not make sense because the letter was still sent, and the city is still in this fight with or without the two councilmembers’ support. While the proponents of the recall suggest this reflects a lack of representation, the system within we operate allows for deviation from certain constituent wishes. We elect people based on their platform and ideas and ask them to make decisions for us based on their experience, understanding and philosophy. Our elected officials make decisions with which we disagree constantly. If we were to pursue recall in every instance of this, our system of representative democracy would fail.

The recall process is not new. It has been part of our state Constitution, love it or hate it, since 1911. At the state level, it has been attempted 179 times, with 11 making it to the ballot and six being successful. Recalls are mostly used by people with an ax to grind. Pat Brown, Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gavin Newsom were all subject of recall signature-gathering efforts. Davis was famously recalled in 2003 and the Newsom recall made it to the ballot, failing in 2021.

Recalls should be reserved for ethical lapses, criminal activity or dereliction of duty. Neither is the case for Cahalan nor Goodman. Recalls for personal disputes or for a disagreement over policy sets a dangerous precedent, and should be avoided.

Vote no on the Millbrae recall.