The ACLU of Northern California announced this week that it is opposing the Menlo Park Anti-Housing Initiative and is urging voters to reject the measure when it appears on the November ballot.
According to the ACLU of Northern California, the proposed initiative is framed as a measure concerning parking but would instead create new barriers to affordable housing development by requiring citywide voter approval before certain projects could move forward.
“The ACLU of Northern California announces its opposition to the Menlo Park Anti-Housing Initiative and urges a NO vote in November,” the organization stated.
The organization argued that the initiative comes at a time when California continues to face a severe housing affordability crisis.
“This measure is presented as a parking question, but its effect is to create obstacles to affordable housing development by requiring a citywide vote on these projects,” the ACLU stated. “At a time of a housing affordability crisis, we need solutions, not obstacles to housing development.”
The ACLU compared the proposal to California’s historical use of voter approval requirements for affordable housing, citing the adoption of Proposition 10 in 1950, which created Article 34 of the California Constitution.
According to the organization, that constitutional provision required local voter approval before cities could build low-income housing projects, significantly slowing affordable housing construction throughout the state.
“California has tried this type of exclusionary policy before,” the ACLU stated. “In 1950, voters passed Proposition 10, which created Article 34 of the state constitution, requiring local approval at the ballot box before a city could build any ‘low rent housing project.’”
The organization said the requirement meant “many affordable housing projects” became possible “only when a majority of existing residents first agreed to let their new neighbors in.”
The ACLU added that the Legislature has since enacted laws narrowing the scope of Article 34, but contended that the Menlo Park proposal would create even broader procedural obstacles to housing development.
“On its face, the Menlo Park measure is about parking availability—but its impact is even broader than prior exclusionary policies,” the organization stated. “It erects serious procedural barriers to the much-needed development of any affordable housing on parking lots.”
The organization argued that decisions regarding housing development should not depend on citywide elections.
“Housing development should not be contingent on a city vote,” the ACLU stated. “We are proud to stand with the coalition to defeat this measure, and we ask the voters of Menlo Park to reject it before it sets this community on a new trajectory of exclusion.”
The organization also expressed concern that similar initiatives could spread elsewhere if the measure is approved.
“We also urge a No vote to keep this exclusionary approach from spreading to other cities in our region and state,” the ACLU stated.
A campaign opposing the initiative, operating under the name Homes for Menlo Park, also argues that the proposal would block the city’s plans to build affordable housing and modernize downtown infrastructure.
According to the campaign, Menlo Park is among the nation’s most expensive communities, making it increasingly difficult for teachers, caregivers, firefighters, city employees and emergency responders to afford housing near where they work.
The campaign states that the city’s current plan would replace existing surface parking lots with structured parking garages while improving bicycle and pedestrian access and constructing affordable housing above the garages.
According to the campaign, the initiative would block those plans by requiring citywide voter approval before the city could sell, lease, authorize housing development on or make improvements to city-owned downtown parking lots.
The campaign further argues that the measure would interfere with the city’s decision-making authority over its downtown parking properties and could expose taxpayers to litigation costs if conflicts with state law arise.
According to the campaign’s materials, passage of the initiative could also eliminate what it describes as the only city-owned site identified for affordable housing within walking distance of transit, parks, shopping and schools that is available for development during the next five years.
The campaign also contends that requiring citywide elections for future improvements to downtown parking facilities would delay or block needed infrastructure upgrades.
The Menlo Park Anti-Housing Initiative is scheduled to appear before voters in November.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Menlo Park Anti-Housing Initiative is not the actual name of the initiative. The Yes campaign is calling is Save Downtown Menlo. The official title is “A Citizen Initiative Prohibiting the City of Menlo Park from Selling, Leasing, Donating, Disposing, or Conveying City-Owned Downtown Parking Lots Without Voter Approval.” It doesn’t help in these articles to start out with a derisive name chosen by a biased group.