Editor,
It was disappointing to see the South San Francisco City Council give in to hysteria about a very modest bill to legalize duplexes, Senate Bill 9. Mayor Mark Addiego revealed something significant when he said: “These types of amendments, this is something that allows the city to continue to exercise some control over the development.”
For decades on the Peninsula, we have seen city councils prioritize their “local control” above building adequate housing for a growing economy, and their constituents who were not lucky enough to buy a home many years ago are suffering. As a city staffer noted, a family would need an income of $260,000 to purchase a median-priced home in one of South San Francisco’s now exclusive single-family home neighborhoods. Even if such areas were once affordable to middle-class families a generation ago, that is no longer true today.
Housing in California is a collective action problem. Every individual city sees itself as doing its part to address the crisis, but all together, cities’ actions come nowhere close to meeting the demand for housing. The result is high rents, outrageous home prices, and lower- and middle-income families displaced from their homes.
As cities prove when they fight tooth and nail against any changes in their wealthiest neighborhoods, Peninsula renters need the state Legislature to step in and address this crisis. I hope the county’s assemblymembers Phil Ting, Kevin Mullin and Marc Berman recognize these dynamics and make a vote for equity by supporting SB 9.
Mike Dunham
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
Mr. Dunham – maybe we should overcome resistance to a 350-unit residential development in Redwood City and a 60-acre lot to be used for new homes near Crystal Springs. Not only that, we hear of potentially 1000 homes at Tanforan. Obviously there is enough room to build “for sure” housing units instead of “hoping” to add housing units through SB9 by ruining existing neighborhoods with higher density housing. After all, there will be intended and unintended costs for a homeowner to renovate a home in the hopes of adding rental income (from renters they hope will actually pay the rent).
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.