|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors decided Wednesday not to move forward with the affordable housing ballot measure during the November elections after cities pointed out there would not be enough time to correctly analyze its consequences.
“I am confident that when the next election cycle rolls around, we will have a comprehensive plan with the cities, with our partners,” said Mike Callagy, County executive. “We will have this well thought out, and we will have educated the voters more.”
City officials from various municipalities raised issues regarding the measure’s fairness in housing distribution and its legal complexities. According to the board, the decision to postpone allows for more time to address these concerns, ensure a more detailed plan and engage in public education efforts before any future vote.
In their response, several cities, such as Half Moon Bay, Redwood City, and San Mateo, pointed out the lack of sufficient time to fully examine and understand the measure’s implications in their respective jurisdictions.
The time constraint worsened when several city councils did not have a meeting scheduled to discuss the matter more closely before the Board meeting on Aug. 7.
Redwood City Manager Melissa Stevenson Diaz pointed out that the measure does not propose equitable distributions of units across the county. Since a city cannot control another agency developing or converting housing within its borders, some jurisdictions might have much more affordable housing than others.
“While Redwood City is a leader in championing affordable housing, it is not clear to me that there is anything in the measure to prevent all of the housing developed under this proposal from being located in Redwood City (an extreme case, no doubt, but one which would have negative consequences for our property tax base),” Diaz wrote in her email to the County.
City governments also pointed out that the measure fails to address the potential involvement of nonprofit developers and systems for allocating housing units.
Some organizations, however, like the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County and Menlo Together, supported the measure, emphasizing the need for more affordable housing and backing the repeal of Article 34.
At a special meeting on July 22, the County Board of Supervisors discussed putting a measure on the ballot that would require voter approval for low-income housing projects, as per Article 34 of California’s constitution. Article 34, which dates back to 1950, was initially designed to keep affordable housing and communities of color out of certain areas.
If approved by the voters, the measure would allow San Mateo County to develop, construct, or acquire housing units annually for low-income individuals, including families, veterans, seniors, and people with disabilities. Each year, the total number of new units can be up to 1% of the county’s existing housing units.
This measure was requested by HEART of San Mateo County, which aims to buy existing affordable apartments to prevent them from becoming market-rate and displacing low-income residents. Buying existing buildings is cheaper than building new ones.
Current Article 34 laws make it difficult for HEART to pursue these projects because they face legal challenges that scare off investors. The new measure seeks to remove these barriers by getting voter approval ahead of time. Although there are some state exemptions to Article 34, they are limited and still face legal risks.
For community participation, the county reached out to all the cities on July 25, asking for their input optimally by Aug. 1.
Given the various uncertainties highlighted by city governments, Callagy decided to continue the discussion of the idea instead of voting at Wednesday’s meeting.
More than 30 people commented for and against the ballot measure at the special meeting.
“Repealing Article 34 would put control back in the hands of the cities by allowing them to spend more than 50% of the cost of an affordable housing project, which they cannot do right now,” said Seema Patel, chair of the Planning Commission in San Mateo, in support of the ballot measure.
But others resisted the measure, highlighting the lack of details provided to voters.
“Please do a better job of communicating to the public,” said James Cutler, a resident of the city of San Mateo.
Callagy reassured the importance of finding an agreement on the distribution of housing units and working collaboratively with cities to achieve this, while showing confidence in having a more substantial measure ready before the next election cycle that would address the existing concerns and focus on increased voter awareness.
