The real threat to San Mateo

May 20, 2026
May 20, 2026
11

Editor,

Letter writers Gary Isoardi and Peggy Brady call San Mateo’s new apartments a parking debacle. They’ve got it backwards.

(11) comments

Terence Y May 20, 2026 8:39am

Mr. Mautner, developers will build whatever and wherever they will make a profit, regardless of parking. If the planning commission gives them the okay and they’ll make money, they’ll build housing that looks like a partridge in a pear tree or a Lego block. The problem is not developers, it is the planning commission.

As for your property value assertion, the fact our region becomes unaffordable and has less housing stock tends to increase property values. Kids don’t pay taxes and employers will hire employees, regardless of where they live. Not their problem. Similar to how developers feel about parking. Not their problem – it is the planning commission and neighborhood’s problem. And ultimately voters who elect the people who appoint the planning commissioner.

joebob91 May 20, 2026 9:26am

Yes! Thank you, Max, for pushing back here. It is strange that so many people are obsessed with how many parking spots are on someone else's property. I don't understand why anyone would want more people moving here with 2+ cars instead of 0-1 cars and get around via transit or foot/bik.

Terence Y May 21, 2026 8:30am

Because, joebob91, getting around via public transit or foot/bike is not convenient or efficient. I don’t understand why bike advocates don’t understand that you’ll always have the issue of the “final mile.” BTW, how easy it is to lug home 10 bags of groceries or a case of bottled water while on transit/foot/bike? Not easy and for obvious reasons, I don’t know anyone who bothers to try. BTW, most hoofing/biking it are doing it for recreation, where convenience and efficiency are not required.

Thomas Morgan May 20, 2026 4:54pm

While in theory not requiring the parking saves money, rents remain high. Developers switch to denser building which use steel and concrete instead of wood. Then there are many amenities added that largely go unused (club rooms and fitness centers). In the end there is no real savings and you can't force developers to build entry level housing so they are going to build what pays them the most. Top 1%wins again because the housing they want is overproduced.

easygerd May 20, 2026 6:51pm

It's also always very refreshing to see how much trouble Americans have understanding Capitalism.

Both sides are missing the most important message here - the biggest government programs in America are "free ways" and "free car storage".

If someone wants a washer/dryer, a fridge, a TV, or a large sofa, they also need to provide that space on their property. There would be a huge uproar if people put all kinds of "collectibles" next to the curb. But somehow, when all those "collectibles" go into the garage, and the car is stored next to the curb, the nonsense has become normalised.

This is exactly the argument YIMBYs have used to get this law passed. That, and some good old "sponsoring", of course. YIMBYs said, "Why do single-zone households get free parking, but we have to spend $50,000 to build it? We want to be part of that subsidy."

The solution, of course, is capitalism. Put a price tag on these "free storage spots", and people will start cleaning out their garages, widen their driveways and only the people who really want 5 cars can pay for it and make money for the city.

Currently, I'm paying for someone else's car collection. What is this? Communism?

For over 60 years, Menlo Park has a overnight parking ban and permit system. This solves so many different issues.

Dirk van Ulden May 20, 2026 8:47pm

Easygerd - I invite you to survey the streets of the Netherlands which were mostly designed in the 1930s. They are absolutely clogged with cars as there was not a thought of ever seeing car purchase proliferation. On my street in Leiden, the Netherlands, one could count cars on one hand and they were owned by doctors and plant managers. Since the 1960s all new town-house and high rise dwellings have cars stuffed everywhere. This is not capitalism but a desire to have the freedom to go wherever one wants to go and when. You continue missing the point that cars are the equivalent of freedom even though many owners have bicycles in their garages or storage spaces. You are truly beating a dead horse.

easygerd May 21, 2026 11:11am

Yes, Dirk. Owning a car is about capitalism. The question is why is "storing" a private car one of the largest governmental programs in America.

You are allowed to own a car, you are also allowed to own a fridge, a shelf, a table, chairs, and other stuff.

Heck, you can be Jay Leno and own 100 cars or fridges or chairs. I don't care. It all increases GDP.

But why would the regular taxpayer have to pay for the storage of your collection of cars? I don't want to see your 10 wine fridges out at the curb and I don't want to see your classic clunker collection their either.

It always baffles me that the American Communist Party doesn't seem to mind us paying for clean air, clean water, clean power, sewage, housing, health care, education and all other basic human needs, but when it comes to FREE public car storage, they have put down their proverbial foot and said "enough is enough".

Dirk van Ulden May 21, 2026 2:09pm

easygerd - communists are envious capitalists, that is why they don't put their feet down. While I agree with you about the shocking abundance of planned obsolete products, they do provide for employment. On balance, having grown up in postwar The Netherlands, which was grim, devoid of any luxury, stark and dreadful, I prefer living among current material excesses.

easygerd May 21, 2026 3:25pm

And you shall have all the luxuries you want ... but why is "free parking" higher on that luxury priority list than clean air, clean water, shelter, food? That is my question here.

Every single discussion about new housing ALWAYS starts with cars. NIMBYs don't seem to mind the more people, but they are really scared about the congestion and the parking. That's it.

And YIMBYs mysteriously always forget the high-density transportation, when they praise the advantages of high-density housing.

And what are the only two ways to increase housing and reducing congestion? And the three answers are always:

- bike lanes

- bus lanes

- congestion pricing

... because when you put a price on problems, capitalism can fix it.

Dirk van Ulden May 21, 2026 9:04pm

easygerd - you seem to believe that property is owned by the state. Sorry, it is ours and what we do with it is our choice at our discretion until folks like you step in and decide that the State should dictate everything. North Korea and The CCP would fit your thinking so, you may want to move there. Until then leave us alone.

Terence Y May 22, 2026 8:31am

eGerd – TBot here. Your foundation is a failed narrative. Your so-called freeways and free car storage are not free - they’re paid by gas taxes. BTW, an overnight parking ban and a permit system doesn’t get rid of any cars. They just move them around and can be seen as discriminatory. So much for equity and equality.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!