Editor,
In the story, “Measure T would expand height, density caps in San Mateo,” the San Mateo Daily Journal quotes a longtime housing opponent saying “We don’t particularly have a huge housing need overall here ... We have an affordable housing need.”
In reality, opposition to housing of all types has made housing unaffordable. San Mateo’s housing element indicates home prices increased 115.6% from 2010 to 2020; they are even higher today. Over the same time period, the housing element indicates median rents rose from $1,400 to almost $2,400. According to Zillow, median rents are now $3,500.
In San Mateo, Measure Y and its prior iterations have been a huge barrier to meeting the housing needs of all residents. Measure T proposes incremental but meaningful improvements to San Mateo’s height and density limits, giving the city’s duly elected officials greater authority to decide what policies best meet the needs of their constituents.
By changing the restrictions on housing in some areas, Measure T would make many more housing developments possible, both affordable and market-rate. Kiku Crossing, an eight-story 100% affordable housing development, would not have been legal to build without state laws creating special exemptions. Local rules should enable housing to meet community needs without state intervention.
Limitations on housing in San Mateo, both affordable and market-rate, have harmed all residents, forcing children to live far away from their parents, shrinking the supply of workers for small businesses, pushing teachers and other essential workers out of the community. Support Measure T to strengthen the community.
Jeremy Levine
San Mateo
The letter writer is the policy manager for the Housing Leadership Council
of San Mateo County.
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.
(7) comments
Mr. Levine, it seems to me that this issue was previously settled with the passage of Measure Y – what local constituents wanted. I’d recommend voters not re-elect officials who supported putting Measure T on the ballot because I’ll guarantee that these same officials will likely try to do so again and again and again against their constituents’ decision made via passage of Measure Y.
As for housing being unaffordable, I don’t think there’s opposition to housing but it’s likely the cost of building housing due to additional fees/assessments/mandated housing requirements, etc. by local and state governments. Until tacked on costs change, affordable housing will never be affordable unless you allow much more market-rate housing to subsidize affordable housing.
Lisa and Terence - Great, informative comments. We're with you! Vote No on T. Start paying attention to constituents' desires, needs and decisions.
Let's not forget the "How do we remove Measure Y now that the voters approved it" meeting that the HLC hosted within weeks of the announcement that Y had won! We get it - your board is filled with special interests who don't care what the voters wish - then or now. For those of you who missed that HLC meeting, watch the anti-Y antics by the likes of maximum growth proponent, Senator Scott Weiner, developer David Bohannon, politicians Jerry Hill and Kevin Mullin, and three of our councilmembers, Amourence Lee (still on the council), Rick Bonilla and Joe Goethals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myfw6AnY6lI.
Here are some revealing quotes pulled directly from that meeting:
Councilmember Bonilla: "I want to applaud (HLC organizers) for inviting us to be here...to celebrate, really, what we have accomplished - which was a lot of really good work. That doesn't mean we don't have more to do." "We need now to turn our attention to ORGANIZING FOR THE GENERAL PLAN....So, we need to turn out activists and commenters - people need to speak at meetings and write letters..."
Councilmember Goethals: "I'm glad to be a part of the (HLC/No on Y) coalition...We're winning. The tide is turning in our favor." "Progress, success, victory - all of those things feel like where we're headed."
Councilmember Lee: "We will measure ourselves by the moments of joy and connection to our coalition...that is what is going to take us forward." "I'm in this with you - the fight is not over."
Developer Bohannon: "We must continue the great work that brought us to the cusp of victory defeating Measure Y."
Senator Wiener: "We are making progress...We honestly need more action at the state level. These kinds of things (local controls like Measure Y) shouldn't exist." "We did have some good results at the City Council level (in SM)...some really strong pro-housing voices elected."
Councilmember Bonilla: (Directed to Sen. Hill and Assemblyman Mullin) "Jerry, Kevin, thanks for helping Amo get elected...That is going to help a LOT."
T stands for it is TERRIBLE for San Mateo. No surprise the HLC supports this TERRIBLE measure devised by some legacy removed or soon to be gone politicos who favor developers. HLC has never cared about San Mateo Residents needs and wants. HLC is supported and funded by developers. Shame on the HLC for pretending to be defenders of affordable housing when it knows full well that T has no requirement for affordable housing. Measure T stands for more TRAFFIC congestion and TONS more pollution and higher TAXES and more TENSION on our already stressed infrastructure and it is TOTALLY TERRIBLE for San Mateo.
Measure T does not have affordable written into it because the City of San Mateo has a 15% affordable requirement effective February 2020 so it is duplicative.
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3896/Developer-Resources
For anyone too lazy to click through (it's okay I get it):
""
The goal of the City of San Mateo is to create and retain a variety of housing opportunities in the community. The Below Market Rate (BMR) Inclusionary program requires developers of new housing to provide a certain percentage of the units within the project to be affordable to very low, low or moderate income residents.
Effective February 3, 2020 for developments consisting of 11 or more units:
- 15% of ownership units will be affordable to moderate income families
- 15% of rental units will be affordable to low income families.
Developers may meet the 15% requirement with any income mix in order to utilize State Density bonus or other program as long as minimum affordability requirements are met.
""
It was actually Measure Y which attempted to decrease the amount of mandated affordable housing at 10% affordable. Thankfully, the Feb 2020 ordinance above supersedes it so 15% minimum is retained in San Mateo.
For what it's worth, I've asked the original authors of Measure Y many times why they tried to decrease the affordable housing requirement from 15% to 10% and have never received an answer.
Measure T is TERRIBLE as it would give God-like power to just only 3 councilmembers (out of 5) to vote in helping developers recklessly overbuild lots-and-lots of high-density HIGH RISES forever damaging the balance and beauty of San Mateo.
You can only imagine why those who had an active hand in architecting and devising this absurd Measure T "purposely" excluded any language guarantees for affordable housing -- thus leaving it open for debate at a later date and be argued as to why the purposeful omission so that 3 of 5 councilmembers could vote thus invoking their God-like interpretation without consulting residents.
Applying "Trust But Verify", I will use my VOTE NO on T to ensure the "VERIFY" outcome.
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.