CITY OF SAN MATEO
Legislative Committee
August 5, 2024
5:30 PM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash
Deputy Mayor Rob Newsom, Jr.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
NEW BUSINESS
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the Council's consideration of this item.
1. Proposed County of San Mateo Article 34 Ballot Measure – Position Letter Provide staff direction on a position letter relating to the County of San Mateo's proposed Ballot Measure on Article 34 to be presented to the Board of Supervisors during a Special Board Meeting on August 7, 2024.
ADJOURNMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or mmctaggart
@cityofsanmateo.org
.
Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
1 of 9
2 of 9
3 of 9
4 of 9
5 of 9
6 of 9
From: Doug D"Anna
To: [email protected]
Cc: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: COMMENt: Leave housing matters in the hands of city officials.
Date: Monday, August 5, 2024 12:32:38 PM
To whom it may concern:
I'm deeply concerned about the San Mateo County Supervisors' proposal to take control over city decisions, especially when it comes to low-income or homeless housing projects.
Here's why I believe this shift in power should be opposed:
1. **Loss of Local Representation**:
I value the fact that my city's elected officials are directly accountable to us, the residents.
They understand our unique needs and concerns. If the county takes control, it undermines
our local representation and moves decision-making further away from those who are most affected.
2. **Lack of Specificity and Oversight**:
The proposed measure seems to give blanket approval for projects without providing any specific details. This concerns me because it means we wouldn't have the chance to review or challenge particular projects before they're approved. Transparency and oversight are crucial, and this proposal lacks both.
3. **Giving Up Local Rights**:
By allowing the county to take control, we would lose our ability to voice concerns and address grievances at the local level. I don't want to see the country preemptively approve projects that could negatively impact our community without the opportunity to evaluate them properly.
4. **Inconvenience and Accessibility**:
If the county takes over, we'd have to attend county meetings to express our opinions, which could be less accessible and less frequent than our city council meetings. This change could discourage public participation and make it harder for us to engage in meaningful dialogue about important issues.
5. **Preserving Local Governance**:
Most important: I believe that cities and towns were established to provide local control and
7 of 9
governance, ensuring that decisions reflect the specific needs and values of our community.
Counties were never meant to have this level of influence over city-specific matters.
Preserving local control is essential to maintaining the integrity of our community's decision- making process.
This is why I’m writing to voice my opposition to this
proposed measure to 1. protect our
rights and 2. keep control in the hands of our local communities.
Sincerely,
Doug D’Anna
8 of 9
From: Dan Stegink
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2024 1:28 PM
To: Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>
Subject: STEGINK: Article 34: Facts, Original Article 34 (1950) and Newspaper clippings Dear Councilmembers,
There is no legal precedent for overriding the state-protected constitutional voting right in perpetuity and I strongly urge you to write a letter rejecting the County's attempt to override Article 34.
There is a reason Council allows women to participate and vote: State consitutionally- protected voting right Proposition 4 (1911).
Likewise, State consitutionally-protected voting right Proposition 8 (1911) protects the right to recall vote of the governor, state senators and assemblymen, and other elected officials, and state consitutionally-protected voting right Proposition 11 (1972) protects the right to privacy.
The 1950 Proposition 10 was authored by Democrats, not Republicans, and contemporary newspaper accounts failed to mention race as a factor (see attached).
I included a sampling of three newspapers related-articles (full newspapers available on request) from primarily Democratic sources.
Thanks, Dan Stegink
9 of 9