THE DAILYJOURNAL Friday • Feb. 20, 2026 9 Affordable housing?
By David Crabbe
Recently, a 128 unit downtown San Mateo apartment proposal was approved by
the Planning Commission. The project description says it will include 20
"affordable" below market-rate units, half for very low income brackets and
the other half for moderate-income households. As is usual In these
developer descriptions, the inclusion of BMR units is touted as a
significant contribution toward the citys meeting their State mandated
Regional Housing Needs Assessment for affordable units, but the number of
units is minimal in relation to the overall need, and the actual-amount of
rent for each level of affordability is not spelled out.
This particular project is not unique. There are many similar multifamily
apartment projects under construction or in the pipeline for almost every
city on the peninsula where BMR units are defined by a State and County
formula that in my opinion is deceptive. Let me explain.
"Affordable" housing on the peninsula today is generally defined by cities
and developers as a percent of Area Median Income, not in terms of real
dollars and cents. So here are the latest "official" "affordability"
numbers translated into real dollars.
According to San Mateo County, to qualify for "affordable" housing, the
annual income for an "extremely low income" family of four must not exceed
$58,000. For "very-low income," $97,900, for "low income" $154,700, and for
"moderate" income $223,900 annually.
In what rational world, is $154,700 considered "low income"? In the real
world, these numbers make no sense. These numbers are based on an AMI in
the county of
$185,700 annually for a family of four. This may have made sense once upon
a time, but the demographics of Bay Area cities has changed dramatically
over the past twenty years. Today, the typical household is more likely to
be a single person, a couple with no children, a couple with one child, or
a single person with one or two children. A family of four isAlso, since
the basic income figure is based on a median, it means that 50% of home
seekers today make well below _AMI annually, and it is this 50% below
median that needs "affordable" housing - the most.
For example, if a family (whether one person or four) makes $80,000 per
year, the rule ofthumb is that they should not spend more than 33% oftheir
income on housing including mortgage and insurance. So, 33% of $80,000 is
$26,400 per year divided by 12 months = $2,200 maximum per month mortgage
payment or rent to be "affordable." Where can one find rent for $2,200 per
month on the Peninsula today? Similarly, the true "affordable" rent for a
family making $58,000 $1,595.
Clearly, there is a disconnect between the level of affordability that
cities use to subsidize "affordable" housing today and the 33% rule of
thumb. The
Guest perspective
affordability formulas today are similar to what environmentalists call
"green washing" when a company claims to be green while continuing to
despoil the environment. To claim that $154,700 is "affordable" to
low-income home seekers is just a way to minimize the reality that
lower-income families face everyday whether to pay the rent or pay the
utility bill, to pay the rent or cutback on food or clothing, to pay the
rent or forgo health insurance. In sho our current afforda*bility C*riteria
is "affordability washing" (to coin a term) with little relationship with
real world economics.
If the state and cities are really "serious about reducing the cost of
housing, especially for lower-income families, they need to come up with
more creative solutions to the problem than what they are doing now. Id
especially like to see the large high-tech/AI compames allocate some
resources to this issue. They have added much to the affluence of the Bay
Area, but have also benefited from the support and infrastructure of the
communities where they are located.
