6 responses to “San Mateo: Dodged a bullet by 43 votes”

1. Joe

   December 4, 2020

   After watching this Measure like a hawk, I was a few hours ahead of the DJ publishing cycle, but here is their take:
   Those who campaigned against a measure to keep height limits as they are in San Mateo have no plans to ask for a recount after the San Mateo County Elections Office certified the election Thursday.
   Ross said they didn’t ask for a recount because it would not change the divide amongst voters even if her organization won.
   “It’s clear San Mateo is divided on how we want to move forward with growth. The only way forward is to work together,” she said.
   The approval of Measure Y adds 10 more years of building height limits at 55 feet in most areas of the city but complicates building housing in San Mateo. Under Measure Y, the San Mateo City Council can propose increases in building heights and densities but can’t pass them without voter approval.
   https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/san-mateos-measure-y-opponents-have-no-plans-to-ask-for-recount/article_474fdef0-35ef-11eb-9043-cf5ad6648199#utm_source=smdailyjournal.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1607094018&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline
   I love that bit about it “complicates building housing”. Oh dear, the electeds can’t just willy nilly approve exceptions on a Zoom call at 11:30 pm. Very “complicated”.

2. Joanne P Bennett

   December 7, 2020

   There would have been more Yes votes had the opposing side not spent $1.6 million on sending out slick mailers every single week. Last count was 8 at my parent’s doorstep. Kudos to the residents who worked so hard and against all odds to even get this on the ballot!

3. Handle Bard

   December 7, 2020

   Agree!! We may never know how much more than the $1.6 million was spread around unreported.

4. Joe

   January 9, 2021

   Uh-Oh. Could we see some censuring, fines or removal from office coming in San Mateo?
   San Mateo is determining if any potential Brown Act violations occurred at a Dec. 9 Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County digital event attended by members of the City Council, with city staff presenting its report at the Jan. 19 council meeting.
   The Dec. 9 event was put on by the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, a nonprofit organization working for more affordable housing in San Mateo County and the Bay Area. The focus was to thank those who worked on the campaign against Measure Y, a controversial building heights limit initiative that narrowly passed in November. All five members of the City Council attended the public event for various amounts of time, according to Evelyn Stivers, the executive director of the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County.
   Some of the hourlong event topics focused on thanking everyone involved with the no on Measure Y campaign, next steps for the housing organization….
   —————–
   Check this quote out!
   Mayor Eric Rodriguez said he was at the virtual event for approximately 30 minutes and listened in to the call, but was not a participant.
   https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/san-mateo-council-looking-into-potential-brown-act-violations/article_c062dfd6-5228-11eb-8de0-0ba3a614c4d3#utm_source=smdailyjournal.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1610204401&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline
   Let’s hope they get an outside investigation since “A member who attends a meeting where action is taken in
   violation of the Brown Act, and where the member intends to
   deprive the public of information which the member knows
   or has reason to know the public is entitled, is guilty of a
   misdemeanor”.

5. Phinancier

   January 9, 2021

   Rodriguez has a real future in politics

6. Joe

   November 10, 2023

   Here is another San Mateo guy with some sense–it’s a LTTE in today’s DJ, The “tone-deaf to reality” hit the mark:
   Editor,
   The San Mateo Draft General Plan 2040 appears untethered to both current and future reality. So why are we fast-tracking its approval? The plan proposes up-zoning to accommodate a 50% population increase when the CA Department of Finance forecasts the state’s population will remain flat for the next 40 years. GP2040’s bright idea is to add 55,000 new residents to San Mateo, equal to the combined populations — and traffic — of both Burlingame and San Carlos.
   Office vacancies are at record highs throughout the Bay Area and San Francisco’s office vacancy rate is over 30%. Yet, in GP2040’s world, San Mateo would add 3.2 million more square feet of office space, the equivalent of 2.2 new Salesforce towers.
   In a “soft” real estate market where landlords routinely give prospective tenants a month’s free rent, GP2040’s notion is to ‘reimagine’ 22,000 new apartments, the equivalent of 220 additional 11-12 story high-rises.
   San Mateo residents have been reliably consistent in their community vision and desire for reasonable, responsible growth. The recent passage of Measure Y was a definitive repudiation of the extreme growth envisioned in GP2040. Nevertheless, GP2040, rife with arrogance and vastly out of tune with the electorate, ignores common sense and forges ahead, tone-deaf to reality and those it is obligated to serve.
   Insatiable in its overreach, GP2040 is out of step in every respect — tell our council to “send it back, it’s out of whack!”
   Keith Weber
   San Mateo