Build more, build higher, the argument goes, and all our housing troubles will be solved. San Mateans have benefited from Measure P for years, but now we’re told it’s bad for affordable housing because of its height limit guidelines. Repeated often, but that doesn’t make it true.
What has Measure P, and its predecessor, Measure H actually done for affordable housing? According to the city of San Mateo, between 1991 and 2017 there were 5,298 total housing units built in San Mateo or in the development pipeline. Of those, 864 units were affordable, and more than half were the direct result of measures H and P. San Mateo would have far less affordable housing without Measure P. We continue with efforts to share information with organized housing groups so they understand the goal of our measure extension is not in conflict with their desire for more affordable housing.
The big question now is whether raising height limits to accommodate more market rate housing shrinks or expands the affordability gap? Housing prices are set at what the market will bear, not what people can afford. Measure P mandates that at least 10 percent of housing units be below market rate in every new residential development. One affordable for every nine market rate units built. If developers take advantage of the maximum housing bonus allowed by state law, the percent of affordable units drops to 7.4; one affordable unit to 12.5 market rate units.
Increasing allowable building heights and densities, without corresponding increases in affordability requirements, does little more than widen the affordability gap. And without managing the number of jobs being created there is no way for housing to catch up, no matter how high we build. It seems elected officials keep ignoring the jobs side of this problem.
Recommended for you
Can anyone truthfully explain the benefits of all this additional growth? We have seen its downside: displacement of renters and small businesses, skyrocketing housing prices and traffic gridlock. It appears that any increased tax revenue goes toward paying the costs of solving the problems this new growth creates, not improving the quality of life for the residents of the region.
But affordable housing is not the only benefit of Measure P. At its core, Measure P is a grassroots effort to give power back to the residents. It provides a seat at the development table where those who benefit financially from more building already sit.
No one can deny that Measure P has allowed measured, but substantial, growth over the years — in scale with our valued suburban character. Measure P’s maximum height limits of 55 feet (generally five stories), with a few places up to 75 feet, are quite high within the context of our predominantly one- to two-story city. These maximum heights are focused near transit. Many new developments recently built in San Francisco and other more urban areas are also within these height limits. San Mateo does its fair share.
Yes, we need better transit; yes, we need more affordable housing; and yes, we need to address the traffic gridlock and insufficient infrastructure that negatively affects all residents in the region. But these are complex issues that will require a holistic approach to solve — with more cooperation and less divisiveness. San Mateo’s upcoming General Plan update is where residents can resolve these issues, via input to their City Council, and determine what kind of city they desire in the future. We envision a diverse San Mateo built around the needs of many generations, not any single demographic favored by the current swing of the economic pendulum.
Maxine Terner wrote this on behalf of San Mateans for Responsive Government. Maxine is a founding member of SMRG, community activist and former San Mateo planning commissioner. Go to smartergrowthsm.com for more information.
There needs to be some infrastructure-related improvements tied to any density increases. You can't just build high-rises and expect everything to just work itself out. Also, there absolutely needs to be design reviews for this. Building some cheap, generic high rise in downtown San Mateo would absolutely destroy its character. All you need to do is look at Indigo Apartments in downtown Redwood City as an example. Do we want some bland apartment building as the centerpiece of our city? That is going to blight their downtown for a century. Let's do better for San Mateo and leave a legacy that future residents will be proud of.
Who exactly are these “future residents” going to be? Kids who grow up here can’t afford to stay here after college because it’s so expensive. Teachers who teach in San Mateo classrooms can’t afford to live here. What is the point of pretty buildings if no one can afford them?
The good news on the infrastructure front is Caltrain is investing a ton of money into electrification and grade separation, and SamTrans just ordered a new bus fleet. We should take advantage of those investments and reduce traffic by maximizing the number of new riders on those systems.
San Mateo residents should decide their city’s future. You ask, “What can I do?” Start by signing a petition to get the Measure P extension on the ballot at several Open Houses this weekend! (6,000 signature needed) Here is the schedule info for March 17th & 18th (Future dates will be listed on the website at www.smartergrowthsm.com. The site also provides great info & ways to donate/volunteer!): Saturday Three Locations - 11 - 3 p.m. at 200 W. Third Avenue in San Mateo, 11 - 2 p.m. at 218 Arbor Lane in San Mateo, 11 - 1 p.m. at 40 Seville Way in San Mateo Sunday Two Locations - 11 - 1 p.m. at 218 Arbor Lane in San Mateo, 11 - 1 p.m. at 40 Seville Way in San Mateo
I totally agree with Maxine on why the measure of height limits are balanced benefits. It helps local neighborhoods to satisfy reasonable growth and not let big developers from taking too much advantage of their projects. It protects the quality of life, it makes sure that they don't abuse their power, especially with multiple housing and office projects are being built way too much in the county.
After reading both of these points of view, Kevin's arguments are more persuasive and more accurately reflect reality. San Mateo would do better to do away with Measure P and pass legislation to enable the construction of more housing. Thanks Kevin!
A growing city is causing displacement and home price increases. But a paragraph later, more housing could let San Mateo "catch up" to job growth. Do increases in the housing supply lower rents, or not? You can't have it both ways.
> the benefits of all this additional growth? We have seen its downside: displacement of renters and small businesses, skyrocketing housing prices and traffic gridlock
Since 1991, San Mateo has grown three times as slowly as California as a whole (13% vs 34%). Why, then, is San Mateo the eighth most expensive city in the country for renters? If explosive growth leads to higher rents, we'd expect to see other California cities on that list, not San Mateo.
In 2016, San Francisco built 5000 units - in a single year, matching the San Mateo's 27 year output. By your hypothesis, this explosive growth should have caused displacement. We saw the opposite. When San Francisco built a lot of new housing, rents and evictions both declined.
San Mateo County has largely *not* built new housing; only 4,000 units in the whole county since 2010. Rents have doubled in that time frame.
> without managing the number of jobs being created there is no way for housing to catch up, no matter how high we build. It seems elected officials keep ignoring the jobs side of this problem.
You are correct on this front. That said, it's curious you are willing to override elected officials desire to build taller, but not their desire to build more office space. Measure P could have included restrictions on jobs/housing imbalance but did not, to the financial benefit of San Mateo homeowners.
You are trying to have it both ways: explosive growth causes displacement, but then here you say housing can "catch up", which implies building more housing would lower prices.
> 864 units were affordable, and more than half were the direct result of measures H and P.
This is not accurate. You can only get to 430+ units if you count projects that received San Mateo County HOME loan assistance and assistance from redevelopment agencies; see https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/47357#page=23. If San Mateo projects did not receive these loans, they would have gone to other projects in San Mateo County, or even the same buildings. It's unfair to say that these units are "attributable to Measure P," as they didn't increase the total stock of affordable units. The correct measure is the number of BMR units, which is 242 units from 1991 to 2015.
Private property owners generally don't have problems building housing and keeping rents low in places where the government doesn't interfere with their ability to do so, like Texas and Japan.
In places like San Mateo where there are onerous application processes, height limits, high minimum parking requirements, and property tax distortions, it's tougher to build new housing and rents are higher.
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!
(8) comments
There needs to be some infrastructure-related improvements tied to any density increases. You can't just build high-rises and expect everything to just work itself out. Also, there absolutely needs to be design reviews for this. Building some cheap, generic high rise in downtown San Mateo would absolutely destroy its character. All you need to do is look at Indigo Apartments in downtown Redwood City as an example. Do we want some bland apartment building as the centerpiece of our city? That is going to blight their downtown for a century. Let's do better for San Mateo and leave a legacy that future residents will be proud of.
Who exactly are these “future residents” going to be? Kids who grow up here can’t afford to stay here after college because it’s so expensive. Teachers who teach in San Mateo classrooms can’t afford to live here. What is the point of pretty buildings if no one can afford them?
The good news on the infrastructure front is Caltrain is investing a ton of money into electrification and grade separation, and SamTrans just ordered a new bus fleet. We should take advantage of those investments and reduce traffic by maximizing the number of new riders on those systems.
San Mateo residents should decide their city’s future. You ask, “What can I do?” Start by signing a petition to get the Measure P extension on the ballot at several Open Houses this weekend! (6,000 signature needed)
Here is the schedule info for March 17th & 18th (Future dates will be listed on the website at www.smartergrowthsm.com. The site also provides great info & ways to donate/volunteer!):
Saturday Three Locations -
11 - 3 p.m. at 200 W. Third Avenue in San Mateo,
11 - 2 p.m. at 218 Arbor Lane in San Mateo,
11 - 1 p.m. at 40 Seville Way in San Mateo
Sunday Two Locations -
11 - 1 p.m. at 218 Arbor Lane in San Mateo,
11 - 1 p.m. at 40 Seville Way in San Mateo
I totally agree with Maxine on why the measure of height limits are balanced benefits. It helps local neighborhoods to satisfy reasonable growth and not let big developers from taking too much advantage of their projects. It protects the quality of life, it makes sure that they don't abuse their power, especially with multiple housing and office projects are being built way too much in the county.
After reading both of these points of view, Kevin's arguments are more persuasive and more accurately reflect reality. San Mateo would do better to do away with Measure P and pass legislation to enable the construction of more housing. Thanks Kevin!
A growing city is causing displacement and home price increases. But a paragraph later, more housing could let San Mateo "catch up" to job growth. Do increases in the housing supply lower rents, or not? You can't have it both ways.
> the benefits of all this additional growth? We have seen its downside: displacement of renters and small businesses, skyrocketing housing prices and traffic gridlock
Since 1991, San Mateo has grown three times as slowly as California as a whole (13% vs 34%). Why, then, is San Mateo the eighth most expensive city in the country for renters? If explosive growth leads to higher rents, we'd expect to see other California cities on that list, not San Mateo.
In 2016, San Francisco built 5000 units - in a single year, matching the San Mateo's 27 year output. By your hypothesis, this explosive growth should have caused displacement. We saw the opposite. When San Francisco built a lot of new housing, rents and evictions both declined.
San Mateo County has largely *not* built new housing; only 4,000 units in the whole county since 2010. Rents have doubled in that time frame.
> without managing the number of jobs being created there is no way for housing to catch up, no matter how high we build. It seems elected officials keep ignoring the jobs side of this problem.
You are correct on this front. That said, it's curious you are willing to override elected officials desire to build taller, but not their desire to build more office space. Measure P could have included restrictions on jobs/housing imbalance but did not, to the financial benefit of San Mateo homeowners.
You are trying to have it both ways: explosive growth causes displacement, but then here you say housing can "catch up", which implies building more housing would lower prices.
> 864 units were affordable, and more than half were the direct result of measures H and P.
This is not accurate. You can only get to 430+ units if you count projects that received San Mateo County HOME loan assistance and assistance from redevelopment agencies; see https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/47357#page=23. If San Mateo projects did not receive these loans, they would have gone to other projects in San Mateo County, or even the same buildings. It's unfair to say that these units are "attributable to Measure P," as they didn't increase the total stock of affordable units. The correct measure is the number of BMR units, which is 242 units from 1991 to 2015.
So whose responsibility is it to build more housing? Government?
Private property owners generally don't have problems building housing and keeping rents low in places where the government doesn't interfere with their ability to do so, like Texas and Japan.
In places like San Mateo where there are onerous application processes, height limits, high minimum parking requirements, and property tax distortions, it's tougher to build new housing and rents are higher.
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.