Newsom’s Project Homekey dodges bullet
A judge declined Wednesday to block San Mateo County from purchasing a hotel in Millbrae and converting it to low-priced rental housing, granting at least a short-term reprieve to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s statewide plan to fund housing for the homeless.
But San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Nancy Fineman said she would still consider Millbrae’s argument that the state Constitution requires approval from the city’s voters for the purchase of the La Quinta Inn. That claim, if upheld, could undermine a state law that is crucial to Newsom’s Project Homekey.
Homekey provides money to cities and counties to purchase hotels, motels and other buildings and turn them into permanent low-cost housing. Newsom’s administration says it has awarded funding for 245 projects that will create 15,000 housing units. The potential legal obstacle is Article 34 of the state Constitution, passed by voters in 1950, that requires approval of local voters for any new “low-rent housing projects” that are “developed, constructed, or acquired” by a government agency.
Opponents have described Article 34 as racist, citing its use against projects to house substantial numbers of racial minorities, but the state’s voters declined to repeal it in 1974, 1980 and 1993. It is on the ballot again in November.
The state law authorizing Project Homekey says statefunded housing projects are exempt from Article 34’s local-vote requirement. San Mateo County officials say the La Quinta Inn would be converted to residences for senior citizens as well as the homeless. Millbrae, in its lawsuit, argues that the property is clearly covered by the constitutional provision and must be approved first by local voters.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Fineman said past rulings by the state Supreme Court would prohibit her from issuing an injunction that would prevent Contra Costa County from completing its contract with the La Quinta owners and claiming title to the property. But she said Millbrae could renew its challenge after the purchase had been completed.
“Whether there were racists who voted for that constitutional amendment is not before me” but is instead an issue for the voters in November, the judge said. “That amendment is not being challenged here,” and bringing it up would only “raise the temperature in the room,” Fineman said.
She scheduled a hearing for Feb. 13 on the county’s motion to dismiss Millbrae’s lawsuit, but also appeared to indicate that she would let the suit proceed, scheduling a tentative trial date of March 13.
Jennifer Lynch of the Millbrae City Attorney’s Office had argued for an immediate order against the purchase. Otherwise, she told Fineman, “the citizens of Millbrae will be irreparably harmed. They (the county) intend to start construction.”
But Fineman said the state Supreme Court has prohibited such injunctions, most recently in a unanimous ruling last year, and that Millbrae could prevent the harm it claims to its residents if it wins its case at trial.
“When the Supreme Court talks, I listen,” the judge said.