Rebecca Oyama

Rebecca Oyama

Open this newspaper on any day and the human toll of our housing crisis practically jumps from the pages. I recently attended U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier’s May 25 town hall focusing on affordable housing development (mentioned by Jon Mays in his May 17 column). In opening the discussion, Rep. Speier, D-San Mateo, remarked that the housing crisis has become a moral issue for all of us. Most of the panelists, which included state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo; Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco; and county supervisors Don Horsley and Dave Pine, seemed to acknowledge this and spoke from a place of hope that we still can solve this crisis collectively.

The conversation focused on the preciousness of public land and land owned by religious denominations as some of the only remaining viable space for affordable housing locally. Naturally, much time was spent discussing the 6.8 acres of public land on and near the site of the old Peninsula Hospital in Burlingame. Astonishingly, the Peninsula Health Care District’s current proposed plan for this land is to build luxury senior housing (with a scant 10% affordable) and office space in a transit-rich area desperately short on affordable housing.

Speier valiantly pressed the district board member on the panel, Dennis Zell, on this narrow plan (and the other, even more perplexing proposed use of the site — biotech research). In response to wide questioning on how a public body could arrive at the conclusion that valuable land should be used primarily for office space and exorbitantly-priced assisted living, Mr. Zell stuck fervently to this misguided vision. He contended that the concept was very “data-driven” and based on national studies that found a “silver tsunami” would be arriving as baby boomers hit their later years.

The district is right to want to base their decisions about what the community needs on good data; unfortunately its reliance on outdated, national figures ignores numerous regional studies that conclude that housing is the foundation of a healthy community, and that the increasing rates of unstable housing and displacement (such as homelessness) have devastating effects on health, and especially, for children and seniors.

According to the San Mateo County Department of Health, in the last five years, housing costs in the county have increased nearly 70%. The adverse impacts on health are evident. For example, a University of California, Berkeley, study found families in San Mateo County that cannot comfortably afford their housing are making “unhealthy tradeoffs,” spending one-fifth as much on health care and a third less on food than their more well-off neighbors.

They were also less likely to go to medical appointments and take needed medication. Many families in the county are moving into or staying in overcrowded or substandard housing conditions, which is associated with a range of adverse and long-term health impacts. Lastly, data shows that housing displacement disproportionately affects people of color, especially those with low incomes, who already suffer the worst health outcomes in our society.

In his ardent defense of the plan, Mr. Zell repeatedly stated that the district is “not an affordable housing developer”; yet, it has rightly acknowledged that its mandate allows it to provide workforce and senior housing. Toward the end of the town hall, when asked why the district was refusing to scrap its original plan and instead, use the land to build 100% affordable workforce or senior housing, Mr. Zell responded that the board owed a duty of “good faith” to the private developers, PMB LCC and Generations LLC, with whom the PHCD has chosen to work exclusively since July 2018.

Mr. Zell’s comments left the unsettled audience with a few necessary takeaways. First, he seems to have a stronger commitment of good faith to these private developers than to the district’s taxpayers that paid for that land, many of whom now clearly need their support. Second, if the rest of the board is in agreement with him, they will be choosing as their moral legacy to be among the few that did not jump in to help solve this urgent, inhumane crisis when they had the chance.

Promisingly, there are signs that the board’s position is in flux. The district board chair, Lawrence Cappel, has recently suggested to this paper it is evaluating an increase in the amount of affordable housing allotted in the plan. A recent district email newsletter states the same, although neither includes any detail as to the percentage of units or levels of affordability. It is my sincere hope that the district is taking a hard look at the extraordinary opportunity this land holds and comes back with a plan that meaningfully responds to the district’s acute need for substantial, truly affordable housing.

Rebecca Oyama serves on the San Mateo County Commission on the Status of Women. She is a member of Housing for All Burlingame. Views are her own.

Recommended for you

(7) comments

SouthCity

The housing problem is caused by the competition to purchase. Eliminate the competition from foreign nationals to purchase residential properties in the Bay Area. The purchase of HOMES by foreign profiters is the cause. These nationalists are financed by their governments and pay cash. The admission is part of the problem. Its Residential property should not be sold to outside profiters. They buy and never live in the property or live in the United States. Most foreign nationalists won’t even rent in accordance with our laws. Most foreign profiters will not rent their property to California minorities. Stop allowing the selling of homes to foreign profiters who will never make it home just profit.

Eaadams

Do you have data to support this?

vincent wei

Elephant in the room….. San Mateo County .........COUNTY SIZE:.... 286,982 acres......COUNTY LANDS Deemed UNUSABLE AND OWNED BY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS: lands that were down-zoned, especially in the 70’s and 80’s,..... now approx.. total 117,267 acres (Peninsula)............almost half of the Peninsula… “The conversation focused on the preciousness of public land”…..but the article is talking about only “6.8 acres of public space”……. So maybe the Coastal Conservancy.... the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District...... and the Peninsula Open Space Trust....could DONATE a few acres for affordable housing........5...10...50 acres?..... This down-zoning over the entire Bay Area is actually one of the main reasons the cost of housing is so high here on the Peninsula.....fact.

Hikertom

Vincent: The land you are referencing is steep forested land in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It is accessible only by steep winding roads that often wash out during winter storms. We need more housing in the existing urban area.

vincent wei

Tom....sorry to say it, but you are absolutely wrong.... I never referenced any land in the Santa Cruz Mountains.... that's just another straw man argument. I said the Bay Area Tom....

Eaadams

Do you think this politically feasible? Is there any elected proposing this?

Christopher Conway

Seems to me the property in question is a public asset. Why doesn’t it go to a public vote?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for reading the Daily Journal.

Please purchase an Enhanced Subscription to continue reading.Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase an Enhanced Subscription to continue reading.