The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors has decided to not move forward with placing a measure on the November ballot to ask voters whether they want to grant public agencies within the County a more direct role in building affordable housing.
The Board agreed to consider establishing a new subcommittee that would focus on collaborating with cities and educating residents for an affordable housing measure for a future election cycle.
During a special meeting, the Board heard dozens of comments from the public who had mixed reactions to the proposal. They were also informed of the results from recent polling conducted to gauge public opinion.
The measure was introduced to the Board in mid-July in an effort to make it easier to get much-needed affordable housing built. Voters would get to authorize whether the county could bypass Article 34 of the state constitution, which requires affordable housing projects to be approved by a majority of voters within that jurisdiction. California is the only state that requires voter approval for affordable housing.
The measure would have allowed public agencies in the county such as cities, schools and other institutions to work together to develop, construct, or acquire housing units in the amount of 1% of the of the county’s total housing stock each year, which is about 2,900 units.
‘Hurry up’ or wait?
The haste in which the Board sought to get it on the ballot resulted in a lack of communication and education on the measure. It left cities with little time to form comprehensive opinions and left some residents misinformed on the nature of the measure, reasons which led to Wednesday’s decision.
Although he is against Article 34, County Executive Officer Mike Callagy said that the limited time given to educate and communicate with cities and voters about the measure would only stifle collaboration and create tension between them and the county.
“We don’t operate in this ‘hurry up’ offense. This was an extraordinary situation where we know that the dire need for housing is every single day,” he said at the meeting. “The question became, do we wait for another election cycle, or do we try to do it on this one? Ultimately, I think the prudent thing is, in fact, to wait for another election cycle.”
Polling revealed that a majority — 57% — of San Mateo County voters support the measure when it is described as “1% of the total housing units.” When using a different version that instead said “2,900 units,” 54% of voters were in favor.
While the poll showed potential for the measure to be passed in the upcoming election, some residents did not support it as it was presented. They interpreted it as cities losing authority over having a say in affordable housing developments.
“We do not want to lose our local control to decision making for our own cities,” said San Mateo County resident Ken Smith during public comment. “This has never been addressed publicly in any of the information that we’ve seen before. Please, I urge you to vote ‘no’ on any future Article 34 ballot measures.”
The measure would not allow the county to usurp the authority of cities and take control of local zoning. However, Callagy and several supervisors understood how a lack of education about the measure could lead to misconceptions.
“Cities would still have absolute control over local zoning and entitlement processes,” said Cathy Barrett during public comment, a San Carlos resident. “The county and other agencies wouldn’t be able to build any new housing without approval of the city councils, who are elected by residents to make those decisions.”
‘Disappointed’ but committed
Supporters of the measure said it would allow cities to play a more active role in developing affordable housing since they usually need to go through private developers.
“I am excited about what it means for local control over housing,” said Barrett. “This ballot measure would empower cities to invest in low-income housing options directly. Currently, cities need to make housing investments through local nonprofits or other indirect methods. By authorizing local agencies to invest in affordable homes, the ballot measure would allow cities to control every aspect of affordable housing preservation or development.”
Some members of the public and several supervisors also want to see Article 34 repealed because they believe it is an inherently racist tool added to the state constitution in 1950 to foster segregation.
“Article 34 was passed explicitly to prevent racial minorities from moving into white neighborhoods,” said Supervisor Noelia Corzo.
Mayor of South San Francisco James Coleman echoed some of the arguments supporting the measure. In 2022, voters passed a similar measure authorizing the city to develop, construct, or acquire affordable housing projects in an amount of up to 1% of the city’s total existing housing units for an eight-year period.
“I’m disappointed,” he said in a phone interview. “We look at why we are in the affordable housing crisis that we’re in, it’s because our cities and our public jurisdictions don’t have a direct role in the production of affordable housing. We’re oftentimes only relying on the private market for our affordable housing needs and that has largely failed for the past few decades.”
Callagy said that postponing adding the measure to the ballot would give the county more time to conduct community outreach and hold informational sessions.
“I am confident going forward, that when the next election cycle rolls around, we will have a comprehensive plan with the cities, with our partners, that we will have this well thought out, that we will have educated the voters as to what this is and what this really isn’t,” Callagy said.
