What Measure P protects

Editor,

Ken Abreu’s letter (“Outdated Measure P” published in the March 21 edition of the Daily Journal), and Karyl Eldridge’s (“Affordable requirement not reliant on Measure P” published in the March 16 edition of the Daily Journal) miss the whole point. Does anyone really believe that if Measure P expires, the words the voters put into the General Plan would somehow evaporate off the page? I strongly question the idea that height, density and affordable housing program requirements are “baked into the General Plan.” I’d say they are more like gelatin that can easily be upset. If we allow Measure P to expire, nothing prevents what many see as established community values from being whittled away, proposal by proposal, three votes of the city council at a time. Eldridge’s letter says that the inclusionary housing requirements stand on their own and are now accepted practice. Great, if it continues to be true. One example may make the role of Measure P clearer to the readers. As the city has stated many times, in 2008 when the Palmer decision kept cities from requiring new affordable rental housing, San Mateo maintained its mandate for Below Market Rate housing. How? By relying on the voter adopted language in P, which required those rental units be affordable. For example, 2014 saw 46 newly constructed affordable rental units. The city relied on Measure P to stand up for our requirements and commitments when the developments were approved. If you don’t think P is important, or has any role in city decisions, just ask the people living in those units today.