Editor,
Last week, the Daily Journal published two opinion pieces about Measure P. Both of them echoed a popular misconception about the relationship between Measure P and San Mateo’s inclusionary zoning ordinance. By way of reminder, inclusionary zoning requires that new market-rate developments contain a percentage of units affordable to lower income community members.
Contrary to the perception shared by many in the community, San Mateo’s inclusionary zoning ordinance does not rely on Measure P. Simply put, if Measure P were to expire, the inclusionary zoning requirement would not go away.
Yes, it is true that Measure H, the predecessor to Measure P, played a role in bringing inclusionary zoning to San Mateo. But once in place, it has stood on its own, separate from measures H/P.
When Measure H came into law in 1992, there were only two other cities in San Mateo County with an inclusionary zoning ordinance, Menlo Park and San Carlos. But by 2006, 17 of 21 jurisdictions in San Mateo County had such a policy. Inclusionary zoning has become accepted practice on the Peninsula, and the city of San Mateo has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to it. In 2010, the city expanded its ordinance beyond the original requirement of 10 percent. Likewise, in the face of the Palmer court decision challenging cities’ ability to mandate affordable units in new rental developments, the city of San Mateo continued to implement its inclusionary zoning ordinance, at the risk of being sued.
In light of the above, community members should dismiss any suggestion to the effect that inclusionary zoning would disappear if Measure P were to expire. On the important issue of Measure P, let our decisions be based on the facts.  Â
Karyl Eldridge
Burlingame
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!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(1) comment
Nothing is a FACT if it depends on only three votes of a political body. Affordable housing not relying on Measure P may be your OPINION but, with the amount of money and pressure being placed upon local officials, I would rather know that some affordable housing is protected by the voters, not 3 elected officials.
Yes, our current Council has demonstrated support for inclusionary affordable housing, but I'm sure even they would admit that having Measure P's requirements to back them up has strengthened their ability and willingness to require affordable housing. According to staff, Measure P was the backbone of why San Mateo continued to require affordable housing in the face of the Palmer decision. And Karyl knows why it took 6 years to increase the percent of required affordable units even after Measure P allowed them to do so in 2004. Let's see how successful housing advocates can be in increasing this percentage during the General Plan update.
So NO, Karyl, community members should NOT dismiss any suggestion that inclusionary zoning would disappear if Measure P were to expire. As noted before, nothing is a FACT if it counts on only three votes of a political body.
Editor's note: This post has been edited to change the formatting.
(Edited by staff.)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.