Editor,
Regarding your article, “San Mateo loses ruling on housing” in the Sept. 14 edition of the Daily Journal, it’s a sad sign of the times when people can come from outside your city to dictate what you do.
Editor,
Regarding your article, “San Mateo loses ruling on housing” in the Sept. 14 edition of the Daily Journal, it’s a sad sign of the times when people can come from outside your city to dictate what you do.
Neighborhood residents welcomed an improvement of the dated property situated at El Camino Real and Santa Inez Boulevard, but had some real concerns. San Mateo reviewed its design process and supported the resident complaints based on a height issue that the architect (a former San Mateo mayor) failed to comply with.
In steps a YIMBY from Oakland (CaRLA), who proudly professed her work was funded by a “benefactor.” At City Hall, she threatened to sue San Mateo although this project provided only 10 housing units and zero affordable housing. Why the big fight? It truly illustrates that California YIMBY is all about the developer and not about the people.
Right now, housing bills Senate bills 9 and 10 are sitting on Gov. Newsom’s desk, and with the recall reaching its end, he’ll likely be signing them ASAP to allow for more of this kind of use of force upon every city in California.
I’m proud San Mateo stuck to its guns, even under threat and action of a lawsuit. I’d personally spend my tax dollars any day to fend off bullies who intervene in local control and resident input. Unfortunately, this win is just a glimpse of the losses for every city in our state once SB 9 and SB 10 are passed.
Lisa Taner
San Mateo
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.
(2) comments
SB9 will never be used by anyone you would regard as a "developer". It cannot be applied by the same applicant to adjacent lots, and it has a residence requirement -- the applicant to convert the lot has to live in one of the new units for at least three years. Even for a house flipper, they want to buy the property, clean up the surfaces in six months or less, and get back on the market -- they do not want to do anything that would require dealing with building or planning departments, because that would introduce the risk of unpredictable delays, tying up their capital for months or even years. (This is why, if you actually go house shopping in the Bay Area, you will see many properties that have pretty granite countertops, yet still have dangerous century-old electrical wiring, or HVAC systems that pose massive carbon monoxide risks.) SB9 will mostly be used by retired empty nesters who want a bit of rental income in their retirement, or parents who want to create a starter home for a kid, or (quite likely in my own case) kids who want to create a place for their aging parents.
And of course SB10 grants more power to City Councils to re-zone without interference from frivolous CEQA suits (which is to say, the vast majority of CEQA suits: https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs-america ). SB 10 _increases_ local control. Some people are just afraid that they are losing a tool they have used to impose their minority preference on the rest of us.
Dear autosharman - please define "the rest of us". An immediate family member mentioned that developers, he works for them, had a champagne party when Newsom signed these bills. You are clearly not aware of the true purpose of these bills which are designed to destroy the American dream to further equity so that our offspring will live in boring row houses and high rise apartment buildings. Do you really believe that youngsters are looking forward to just a roof and a front door?
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.