Editor,

More height does not equal more housing. Ask any of the endorsers or councilmembers to cite the affordable housing requirement in Measure T. I did and the councilmember was not able to substantiate the claim. Their assumption is that developers will provide more affordable housing with more height allowance. It’s a flawed assumption to make proponents appear favorable towards housing. In a neighborhood association presentation, the city confirmed it’s more costly to build taller buildings. This does not translate to more affordable housing. In Bohannon’s Reimagine Hillsdale presentation, the preferred plan is to build commercial offices all along El Camino Real, not housing.

Recommended for you

(4) comments

Doug North Central

2 NO votes on Measure T can be expected here.

State funding to ensure creation of affordable housing would be the Carrot that is needed, to accompany the State's Stick mandating any type of mass housing.

Until that occurs, San Mateo residents need to maintain the continued affordable housing requirements included in our existing Measure Y.

Measure T would eliminate Measure Y.

Seema

Hello! I am one of the endorsers and signatories on Measure T and I am happy to explain San Mateo's existing affordable housing requirements (again).

San Mateo already has an affordable mandate, in place since the mid-90s and defined in the Below Market Rate Program. It requires at least 15% the units in projects with more than 10 units to be affordable.

https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3896/Developer-Resources

https://law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/27.16.050

More height = more units built = more affordable units built, since the city requires that 15% of units be affordable. Make sense?

I'm curious if the LTE author attended any of the Reimagine Hillsdale workshops? Every option presented included housing. This presentation linked on Reimagine Hilldale's website demonstrates how the current options all propose ~1,200,000 sqft of residential (900-1,200 homes). Start watching at 14:40

https://vimeo.com/806539434/5bbfc4a1a9

Not So Common

Seema, too bad you failed to closely read Doug North's LTE... Mr. North said "In a neighborhood association presentation, the city confirmed it’s more costly to build taller buildings." If it costs 10-20% more to build taller buildings, then that would add 10-20% cost to the buyer. Consequently there is NO additional affordable housing no matter how things are spun. Any high-rise building will have huge HOA dues and maintenance costs. Best to vote NO NO NO on Measure T

Terence Y

Thanks, Ms. Tam, for the insight into your actions for clarification of Measure T. Count me in as voting NO on T.

Welcome to the discussion.

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.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

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!

Want to join the discussion?

Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.

Already a subscriber? Login Here