Lookout Santa Cruz: Fact check: Will buildings in Santa Cruz’s downtown expansion plan be only 7 to 8 stories tall?
A skyline dotted with high-rises is a real fear for many Santa Cruzans, one that has been greatly exacerbated by the Downtown Plan Expansion project in the area south of Laurel Street.
The city’s original plan included the potential for 15- to 17-story skyscrapers, though that was lowered to 12 stories after Fred Keeley was elected Santa Cruz mayor in 2022.
That was still too tall for some community members, prompting Measure M, the citizen-led initiative on Tuesday’s ballot that would require buildings proposed to be taller than height limits set in the city’s general plan be put to a vote of Santa Cruz residents, in addition to increasing affordability requirements in larger housing developments.
FROM OCTOBER 2023
In mid-February, the Santa Cruz Warriors, who are partnering on the Downtown Expansion Plan development with local landowners such as the Santa Cruz Seaside Company, officially revealed their opposition to Measure M.
Warriors president Chris Murphy announced the opposition in an email that reshared a letter written by former Santa Cruz mayor Hilary Bryant and United Way of Santa Cruz County CEO Keisha Browder urging voters to vote no on the measure.
One tidbit in Bryant and Browder’s letter might come as a surprise to those who were expecting 12-story buildings downtown: “Neither the housing to support this new facility, nor the arena itself, will exceed 85 feet — roughly seven to eight stories,” they wrote. The pair added that the buildings would be “less than the height of the Palomar Hotel on Pacific Avenue.”
Is that true? It could be. Keeley told Lookout that the city itself has not changed its plan to cap the height of buildings in the project to 12 stories, but that the Warriors and their partners might have decided to build lower than that — something Keeley said he supports.
“If they can do their project in seven to eight stories, then hallelujah,” he said. “The fewer stories, the better.”
COMMUNITY VOICES OPINION
Lee Butler, director of planning and community development for the City of Santa Cruz, told Lookout that the developers have suggested that the “additional costs associated with going above 85 feet in height are making it infeasible to build taller.” He pointed to a staff report from January 2023, which states that changes in cost of construction materials and regulations could cause some developers to decide not to exceed 85 feet.
Murphy, the Warriors president, told Lookout that the focus on 85 feet or lower is based on “realistic conversations” in construction and development markets today.
“In the conversations we’re having with developers, the reality is that housing economics in California don’t pencil out at 12 stories,” he said. “In every single meeting I’m in, we’re not having conversations about 12 to 17 stories anymore.”
Frank Barron, a leader of Housing for People — the group behind Measure M — said that an 85-foot limit would be “wonderful,” and that buildings of that height would not trigger an election even if Measure M does pass. However, Barron said he remains concerned that 12-story buildings could still find their way into Santa Cruz
“Personally, I think it’s a hopeful sign that they’re scaling back the project, but as far as everyone else is concerned, the rest of the area is still under the 12-story plan,” he said. “If that is the case, nothing changes except the Warriors component.”
Santa Cruz Sentinel: Guest Commentary | Vote No on confusing and misleading Measure M
By Ryan Meckel
Confused about Measure M? You’re not alone.
Let’s dig into some very confusing things about Measure M – and clear things up.
First, the private group that wrote Measure M calls themselves “housing for people.” This is confusing because they wrote the measure without the support of any of our local organizations that have worked for years to bring affordable housing to our community.
All these groups oppose Measure M: Housing Santa Cruz County, Affordable Housing Now, Housing Matters, Santa Cruz YIMBY, and the Student Housing Coalition. These groups understand that M will put up roadblocks to critically needed affordable housing.
Next, the M campaign created a compelling story about tall buildings — largely based on concern about the new apartments on Laurel and Pacific. Confusion sets in when you dig a little and learn that if Measure M had been in place when that building was proposed, it wouldn’t have stopped the building from being built. The same thing applies to the controversial proposal on Mission Street. If M were in place, it wouldn’t have set up a citywide vote on that one either. So, if you’re concerned about larger apartment buildings, Measure M is no magic bullet.
You may also be confused about Measure M’s claims to increase affordable housing in Santa Cruz, since most of their campaigning isn’t focused on creating more housing but rather wild visions of very tall buildings.
They got a bit desperate late in the campaign and created a highly doctored photo of Santa Cruz that shows about 15 super tall buildings arranged across the city as some kind of new skyline for Santa Cruz.
Their doctored photo is intentionally confusing. They want voters to think this is the threat we’re facing. We’re not facing that threat. There isn’t one project proposed in Santa Cruz that’s remotely similar to the doctored image Measure M is scaring people with.
Then there’s the Measure M story about “skyscrapers” near the Warriors arena. It’s confusing when the M proponents keep talking about them as a reality when, in fact, the Warriors have already stated publicly that they have no intention of building skyscrapers. Also, the city hasn’t changed the rules to allow for taller buildings there. We already have many democratic tools, including citywide initiatives, to vote on such proposals. This fact is a significant irony as the Measure M authors utilized those same tools to create their initiative, yet claim this is our only chance to have a say.
Another particularly confusing part of Measure M is why the authors were so careless in their writing of an important potential new law. Why didn’t they work with someone who knew how to write a law that would avoid accidentally including all kinds of costly citywide votes on issues that are not controversial? They could have kept it simple, and we’d all be less confused.
The Measure M campaign has sought to further confuse voters by casting aspersions on organizations and businesses that build or advocate for housing. But doesn’t it make sense that those who know how to build homes for our workforce and their families, as well as our elders, would be the ones to build that housing? Such groups have built hundreds of apartments for people who live and work here, and they certainly aren’t the enemy of the thousands of folks who now live in those homes.
One last confusing thing: why is it the case that progressives, labor groups, housing advocates, affordable housing developers, local businesses, and homeless service providers are all aligned in their opposition to Measure M? It might be that groups like these, and many others like them, understand that Measure M moves our community in the wrong direction and will mean fewer homes and more confusion for Santa Cruz.
Clear up the confusion by voting no on M.
Lookout Santa Cruz: A Lookout View: No on Measure M — we don’t want new barriers to much-needed housing
As Santa Cruz changes, there are lots of worries. Among them is one we might call “high anxiety,” as the sight of five-story buildings going up downtown and discussion of development plans calling for new housing of more than 10 stories prompts the worry of whether funky Santa Cruz, which has long prided itself on its uniqueness, will disappear.
We sympathize and share these concerns. As we’ve written in our Changing Santa Cruz series, the issues before us are pressing, seem to be moving at warp speed and require open debate.
Measure M, to be voted on by city of Santa Cruz voters on March 5, aims to address some of these concerns. We believe the activists who quickly gathered more than 5,000 signatures for the initiative are well-intentioned and we applaud their efforts to bring more transparency to the often-confusing process of approving affordable units. The initiative clearly hit a nerve in our community and has become the most contentious initiative on the ballot.
Still, we believe it would do more harm than good. We oppose it.
Any group advocating for an initiative should have a high bar to surmount. Does it clearly lay out the impact of the measure, and does it have data to support it?
Measure M fails on both accounts.
The measure seeks to increase the percentage of affordable housing units from 20% to 25%. This is a great idea and something we would all like to see. But it’s unproven that such a requirement will actually create more affordable units. In fact, quite the opposite.
Government can’t force developers to build housing, and there are sufficient concerns – now shared in other jurisdictions such as the city of San Francisco – that higher mandates actually lead to fewer, rather than more, such units constructed. We appreciate the enthusiasm of M supporters, but we feel compelled to trust the data.
We all want to see more affordable units built, and we believe some of the ideas surfaced in this debate, including closer examination of county- and/or city-owned land on which significant numbers of affordable units could be built, should be pursued.
On the height question itself, we agree Measure M proponents have a point. The idea, first surfaced and reported by Lookout of a 17-story and three 14-story towers breaking the skyline south of Laurel Street downtown, near Kaiser Permanente Arena, shocked many. They were soon ratcheted down as Mayor Fred Keeley entered office in 2023 and cut those buildings down to 12 stories.
Measure M calls for a vote on building heights that exceed the current zoning rules. That vote could be held at a regular election or scheduled for a special election at a possible six-figure cost. It might – emphasize might – call for a vote if the city wanted to change regulations on more minor questions, too.
That is a lot of unknowns for such a major change to city processes.
Both sides of the measure say they support more housing. Consider that, at present, without M, it often takes three to seven years to build housing after it is approved. As the city (and all jurisdictions) keep in mind both the state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers and the need to house more people as soon as possible, any additional burdens on building must meet a very high bar.
As with Measure O on the 2022 ballot, the disagreements about M tells us something that must be acknowledged: A gulf of distrust exists between too many residents and the professional planners and city councilmembers. The council should take heed and review current policies on engagement and transparency. Without slowing this essential work, better and simpler public presentation of plans, and the hearings on them, is one key step.
We believe better representative democracy – keeping policymaking in the hands of those we elect – is better than efforts at direct democracy that too often can block effective decision-making. We also worry about patterns seen in other cities of frequent, low-stakes, low-turnout elections dominated by small interest groups.
We have heard from many that it’s not just height that matters, but look. We agree.
New construction of any height can add vitality to a city that has, in truth, always been changing. Yet, there doesn’t appear to be enough consideration of aesthetically pleasing design in the public process. Let’s challenge ourselves now to newly look, within the law and timelines required, at what’s possible.
Press Release: Downtown Association of Santa Cruz Takes Stand Against Measure M
DTA Executive Director: ‘A vote against Measure M is a vote for much needed affordable housing.’
SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — The Downtown Association of Santa Cruz today announced its board of directors voted to oppose Measure M, the misguided ballot measure that will hinder creation of new homes in Santa Cruz, especially affordable housing that is desperately needed by hardworking essential workers and their families. The Downtown Association joins the ever-louder chorus of opposition to Measure M, led by the leading affordable housing organizations that serve Santa Cruz, as well as the Democratic Party, local business organizations, labor and elected officials.
“Downtown businesses want more affordable housing for downtown employees, who deserve to live in our community,” said Jorian Wilkins, Downtown Association of Santa Cruz Executive Director. “The Downtown Association of Santa Cruz opposes Measure M because we support the organizations that are building affordable housing in our community, and they have been clear: a vote against Measure M is a vote for much needed affordable housing in Santa Cruz.”
Organizations Opposed to Measure M: Affordable Housing Now, Housing Matters, Housing Santa Cruz County, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership, New Way Homes, UCSC Student Housing Coalition, Democratic Women’s Club of Santa Cruz County, Downtown Association of Santa Cruz, Monterey/Santa Cruz Building and Construction Trades Council, Santa Cruz County Business Council, Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce, Santa Cruz City Council, Santa Cruz County Democratic Party, Santa Cruz Sentinel, Santa Cruz Strong Towns, Santa Cruz YIMBY and UCSC College Democrats.
Elected Officials Opposed to Measure M: Fred Keeley, Santa Cruz Mayor; Renee Golder, Santa Cruz City Vice Mayor; Sonja Brunner, Santa Cruz City Councilmember; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, Santa Cruz City Councilmember; Scott Newsome, Santa Cruz City Councilmember; Martine Watkins, Santa Cruz City Councilmember; Kyle Kelley, Santa Cruz City Schools Trustee; and Reed Geisreiter, Santa Cruz Port Commissioner
Learn more about the NO on Measure M Campaign:
Affordable Housing Advocates Santa Cruz – NO on Measure M, FPPC #1464137.
###
City on a Hill Press: Submission: Rethinking Housing and Transit – The Urgent Case Against Measure M in Santa Cruz
By Lola Quiroga and Bodie Shargel
As students, we’ve all had personal struggles with housing in Santa Cruz, like nearly every student to come through UCSC in recent years.
An overall shortage of housing units has resulted in a crisis where 9% of UCSC students have reported experiencing homelessness. We fear that Measure M will delay or prevent progress in building adequate housing for the student and community in Santa Cruz.
If Measure M were to pass, the pace of building new housing would be even slower than it is now, as hard as that is to believe. Measure M would require a citywide vote on any development that would increase building height limits over what is allowed under the city’s current zoning requirements. According to the Measure M Impact Report presented before City Council on January 23, Measure M would restrict housing supply in Santa Cruz. The impact report states that the requirement of a citywide vote results in “additional time, additional costs, and increased uncertainty for developers.”
Given UCSC’s new housing system, which replaces priority housing for disadvantaged students with a lottery system, the need for affordable, mixed-use, dense development near transit is crucial now more than ever.
Like myself, many students are car-free, which poses a challenge when looking for off-campus housing. The biggest factor in choosing where to live is proximity within walking, biking, or bus distance from campus and other essential needs. Building housing near where students are already drawn to live, such as along transit corridors, incentivizes both development and better METRO service.
METRO adjusts routes and frequency based on neighborhood population density. Higher student concentrations prompt faster service to campus, with UCSC students constituting roughly 35% of METRO ridership. By building dense housing near existing METRO lines that go to campus, we can maximize the amount of students we house while ensuring that students can have a quick route to campus. Measure M would block the ability to build dense housing, or at least significantly delay it.
In the context of Reimagine METRO Phase 2 and METRO’s forthcoming Wave Service, building more housing near existing transit centers and transit lines is key to maximizing usage of public transit and disincentivizing car use. Disincentivizing car use is key to achieving Santa Cruz’s climate goals, with 69% of Santa Cruz County’s emissions coming from transportation.
Moreover, fostering residential areas and local businesses around transit centers not only caters to pedestrian-friendly environments but also stimulates local economies. These areas become hubs of activity that encourage exploration and naturally draw both residents and transit users to support local businesses, often beyond their initial plans.
Addressing the housing shortage and cost of living crisis requires a multifaceted approach that does not focus solely on building dense housing. We know that fighting for rent control, reforming exclusionary zoning, and establishing community land trusts are ways that can work in tandem with dense housing development to solve this crisis. Efforts like Measure M, which delay development, contribute to the exclusion of key community members, including students and low-income individuals.
Let’s be clear: we don’t want to drastically change the character of Santa Cruz that drew us here, and we value the neighborhoods of our city and their cohesiveness. However, we feel alternate thoughtful and collaborative approaches can address the need for transportation reforms without compromising Santa Cruz’s character. Forcing city-wide referendums with a binary yes/no question for every development, as Measure M calls for, fails to effectively address the housing crisis. Please join the many pro-housing organizations, including the UCSC Student Housing Coalition, and vote No on Measure M. Voting continues through March 5.
Santa Cruz Sentinel: Guest Commentary | Don’t be fooled – find the facts, and vote No on Santa Cruz Measure M
By Tim Willoughby, Elaine Johnson and Diana Alfaro
Measure M, if it passes, could taint the city of Santa Cruz with years of negative consequences.
Affordable Housing NOW, Housing Santa Cruz County and Santa Cruz YIMBY, the primary advocates for affordable housing in the county, urge you to vote “No” on the measure because it would reduce future affordable housing instead of increasing it.
The city commissioned Keyser Marston to do an impartial analysis. The report is detailed, and it explored the many complexities that should have been examined before writing the initiative. While the intention was to make zoning and general plan changes subject to a community vote, it is highly likely that the opposite could result.
The report documents a variety of examples, what is important to understand is that the mandated votes could, without realizing it, undo parts of the eight-year cycle Housing Element that the city recently certified and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved. Such votes could lead to the Housing Element being decertified. As a consequence, the HCD penalty is the institution of the Builders Remedy that takes away most local control over projects, the opposite of what the initiative writers intended.
The city went to great lengths to achieve ProHousing designation, which opens up state funding for 100% affordable housing developments.
Santa Cruz desperately needs funding to subsidize affordable housing projects if there are to be any. Measure M reduces that chance, because some zoning changes needed for a 100% affordable housing project might require a citywide vote and affordable housing builders would likely not want to go through that expensive and risky process, preferring to do projects in other cities instead.
The measure puts the burden of the cost of elections for citywide votes on the city, costs estimated to be around $100,000 a year, money better spent on building affordable housing, not on trying to stop it.
The measure’s second part, raising the inclusionary rate from 20% to 25%, is more likely to kill projects than it would be to increase the number of affordable units. It may not seem like much of a change, but at the existing 20% rate the only projects that are financially feasible are ones using the density bonus system with smaller units. The crafters of the measure want to limit the height of projects but adding 5% to the inclusionary rate in a density project will automatically allow more units in a project (the bonus) adding additional floors.
Read the Keyser Marston report before you vote! It’s quite clear that this measure has too many unintended consequences.
Don’t be fooled by the measure’s proponents — it would reduce the production of affordable housing units instead of increasing them and it would likely take away, rather than add, local control over projects.
Tim Willoughby is with Affordable Housing NOW, Elaine Johnson with Housing Santa Cruz County, and Diana Alfaro with Santa Cruz YIMBY. The Keyser Marston report can be viewed at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24369215-housing-for-people-impact-report-santa-cruz-city-council-january-2024#document/p12.
Santa Cruz Sentinel: Guest Commentary | No on Measure M: The facts about ‘direct democracy’ claim in Yes on M op ed
By Don Lane
It’s true, the Measure M campaign cruised along for a few months without any obstacles, while few voters were ready to really consider details of the measure. Now, however, Measure M’s proponents are crashing into the facts at every turn. Susan Monheit’s Feb. 12 Sentinel Guest Commentary (“Measure M is about direct democracy in Santa Cruz”) demonstrates this. Let’s look at some of the facts she’s crashed into.
Monheit says Measure M is about democracy. It’s ironic that, given her own signature-gathering campaign, she seems to have forgotten that the community already has the very democratic right to gather signatures to overturn any ordinance the City Council approves about height or anything else. We also already have the right to recall city councilmembers if they turn against the will of the community – a right that was exercised just a few years ago. Measure M isn’t needed to hold councilmembers accountable.
A related fact: true democracy is about more than just voting — it’s about a wide range of ways that voters can engage with our government. It’s not about a small group writing an amateur ballot measure in private and then running it up the flagpole for thumbs up or down.
Monheit crashes into another fact when she says, “Measure M gives you the ability to restore some portion of affordable units that are supposed to get built in this town but don’t.” The only problem is that virtually all of the serious research and data in the world of housing finance shows that laws with the same provisions as Measure M actually reduce the amount of affordable housing built.
This data and research comes from academics, affordable housing builders and housing finance professionals. The Measure M advocates who have many big ideas about housing have never delivered a housing project and don’t have any actual data to demonstrate that their wishful thinking is realistic. The two people Monheit cited in her op-ed have expertise in quantifying the affordable housing problems of our community, but not in the areas of financing and building housing.
It’s one thing to have a debate about housing policies, but Monheit’s rewriting of history is where her Measure M cruise truly crashes into reality. Monheit writes, “On Oct. 24, 2023, with a simple majority vote, the City Council unilaterally rezoned the entire downtown to increase building height limits without revealing to the public what they were doing.” Here’s the big problem with that wild statement: Monheit was at that City Council meeting along with several other members of the public, despite her claim that the council kept its decision-making away from the public.
Monheit knew about the downtown plan proposal that was before the council. How? Because, not only had all the materials about the proposal been published online, they had also been reviewed in a public meeting of the Planning Commission weeks before that.
And then there’s Monheit’s reference to a “simple majority,” when in fact it was a 6-0 vote. So, when she writes, “It happened covertly, without transparency, input or discussion,” voters should know that Monheit knows not only there was transparency, she was actually there to give input to the public process.
Monheit’s Measure M clown car really goes into the ditch with her closing comment, “The No on Measure M campaign would like to silence public opinion.” The truth is, I and the many nonprofit housing organizations that oppose Measure M don’t want to silence anything. We want to lift up the voices of people who have been crying out for more housing and for effective policies that will get us more housing.
We need to stop creating impediments to housing in Santa Cruz. Let’s vote No on M.
Don Lane volunteers on the governing boards of Housing Santa Cruz County and Housing Matters and teaches part-time at UC Santa Cruz. His two daughters moved away from Santa Cruz after high school.
Lookout Santa Cruz: Measure M is a big mistake: It would set back the city on affordable housing
I happened to read Frank Barron’s latest piece supporting Measure M right before heading to my most recent meeting as chair of the City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission. We had a good year at the commission, and I was looking back over our accomplishments. By contrast to the good work we’ve done, Measure M is a big mistake.
First off, we are building plenty of affordable housing. It is a testament to the human power to ignore facts that people still think this is an issue.
For example, in the past year, our commission approved 759 units of housing. Of these, 218 of these were deed-restricted affordable and 541 were market rate, for a total of 29% affordable.
See my previous opinion piece for more on the results of our most recent state housing cycle, where we ended up as one of the 6% of California jurisdictions to achieve its housing goals and be designated a pro-housing jurisdiction.
This is phenomenal success for our little town by the sea, and has me scratching my head when I ponder why, every election cycle, we see a tricky measure on the ballot trying to stop this progress.
Being on the losing end of a democratic majority, over and over again, is a lot different than the system not working.
In fact, the voters invalidating deceitful initiatives like Measure M repeatedly, while exhausting, tells me our system is working just fine. Applying Occam’s razor, I wonder if the voters are just correctly identifying how bad these initiatives are?
By contrast to the initiative process, where measures are penned in secret, behind closed doors, and most times by “the usual suspects,” our public process is open, democratic and welcomes all voices and stakeholders. Our commissioners are qualified experts, appointed by the city council, who are in turn directly elected by the people.
As our city finishes transitioning to district elections, our councilmembers will be even more aligned with their neighborhoods’ needs. Our commission conducted 18 public meetings just last year, and that’s not even touching all the stakeholder groups, project presentations, outreach meetings, calls to staff, emails and other work that goes into planning.
Ethics, skilled professionals and public input guide our volunteer work on the commission. I am proud of what we do and how we do it, and won’t stand for Mr. Barron’s implication that this process isn’t democratic enough.
I should also note that the planning commission Mr. Barron refers to in his piece was a brief detour in the past 20 years of housing progress in this city. The councilmembers who appointed those commissioners were recalled by the voters.
Now that’s what I call democracy in action.
Santa Cruz is moving forward, growing and getting better. Building all types of housing within the city limits is key to this, and allows us to preserve our greenbelt and natural areas.
Building housing slowly chips away at the systemic racism and inequality built into our zoning, and provides opportunity for all people. This is why I volunteer to participate in our rich democracy – so that my kids can live in a better Santa Cruz than where I grew up.
Voting against Measure M can help us continue our success.
Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce Opposes Measure M
Early last month the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce reviewed and discussed the merits and challenges associated with Measure M — the Housing For People ballot measure in the City of Santa Cruz that will appear on the March 5, 2024 ballot. Measure M, as written, is a messy attempt to set new ground rules to the City’s Municipal Code and would prohibit the City Council from amending the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance in a way that increases allowable height limits or floor area ratios (FARs) for development projects in any zoning district without a prior vote of the people. The measure would also increase the City’s inclusionary housing requirements to at least 25% for developments with 30 or more units. The City staff report was written based on a Keyser Marston Associates analysis. KMA’s full analysis contains detailed explanations and evaluations leading to the staff recommendation. The City Council agreed.
The Chamber has a very deliberate review process in which our Community Affairs Committee (CAC) considers a proposal, a project or in this case, a ballot measure. The CAC heard presentations from both the Yes on Measure M and the No on Measure M representatives, and made a recommendation to the Chamber Board of Directors to oppose it. The Board of Directors accepted the recommendation.
Measure M would impede the City's progress toward its housing objectives by introducing barriers. It is expected to heighten risks and costs for developers, impose additional financial burdens on taxpayers for election expenses, and mandate an increase in the inclusionary housing percentage. Consequently, this elevation in inclusionary housing requirements may lead to a reduction in both affordable and market-rate housing construction within the City.
There is no evidence that the increase from 20% to 25% inclusionary housing would actually generate more affordable units.
Measure M primary focus is on specific changes to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance being proposed in City-led planning processes or by developers of homes. However, numerous State law changes would also trigger the need for a vote of the people under the measure. The State has allowed for increased height or FAR beyond the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance many times in the past couple of years. While the City must follow State law from the date the law goes into effect, fully complying with these laws and providing transparency with respect to applicable development allowances would still require a formal amendment (typically to the Zoning Ordinance), thus triggering a vote of the people under the measure. Each vote would cost taxpayers to fund the election, and the outcome of the vote would not affect what a developer could do, only whether City codes could be updated to reflect State mandates, because the City would have to comply with State law regardless, or face legal jeopardy.
There are a litany of reasons why the ballot measure is wrong for Santa Cruz. The potential long-term negative fiscal impacts on the City stand out as a significant concern. Based on historical and recent trends, and considering state law compliance, it’s expected on average, the measure would require at least one election or vote of the people per year. This estimate doesn’t even factor in any extra proactive initiatives the City might undertake, like those outlined in the Housing Element, that could trigger more votes of the people. The current cost of an election is estimated to be in the range of $115,000 to $185,000 based on figures from the Santa Cruz County Elections Department.
In view of these issues, the Chamber urges the voters of the City of Santa Cruz to vote NO on this ballot measure.
Santa Cruz Sentinel: No on Measure M: Housing Needed for People
The Santa Cruz city ballot Measure M was in the works for many months under the signature gathering nomenclature, “Housing for People.”
Not surprisingly, in a town where housing is an expensive commodity and where citizens have long loathed outside development and any changes in the local ethos that encouraged a Silicon Valley vibe, adherents had no trouble gathering the 7,000 qualified signatures to place the measure on the March 5 ballot.
While many residents may not understand the wonky details of Measure M, the basic parameters would seem hard to argue with: Limit the ability of the city to permit super-tall buildings, especially in a downtown already in the throes of change, without a vote of the people. The measure also would raise the city’s affordable housing inclusionary rate from 20% to 25% for developments with 30 or more units.
Critics say the measure plays into the city’s well traversed ground of NIMBYism, but backers say, no, it won’t mean badly needed new and affordable housing won’t be built, only that voters would get to decide on whether new buildings in bigger projects would be allowed to be built higher than permitted.
(The arguments of proponents are summarized in an accompanying Guest Commentary on this page advocating a Yes on M vote.)
The ultimate impacts, however, of this measure will inevitably make it more difficult to create denser development, especially in downtown Santa Cruz, where the city wants to concentrate on building the housing the state is requiring, which is one reason we recommend a No vote on Measure M.
Should that happen, the city would have little choice but to look to more residential neighborhoods for the kind of building density needed to meet the requirements.
Downtown, specifically the south of Laurel Street area, is actually the preferable location for this kind of development, and for an expanded basketball facility for the Santa Cruz Warriors. Holding the threat of expensive elections over projects, however, would potentially raise costs and even cause some developers to back away from proposed projects.
Which, while Measure M proponents aren’t saying it, is kind of the point. With an estimated 3,000 housing units already in the planning process, 1,200 of these in the 29-acre area south of Laurel, and some 46 larger-scale projects in active application, that’s a lot of new development.
Terms such as “density bonus” and “builder’s remedy” are part of the back-and-forth discussion on this measure. The “density bonus” refers to the state law that allows an increase in the allowed number of dwelling units or building height in exchange for the provision of affordable housing. Many local governments favor the density bonus as a helpful tool to cut through their land-use requirements and local political realities such as NIMBYism. But the bonus could allow mostly “affordable” projects to go even higher than current plans, perhaps as high as 16 stories.
The “builder’s remedy” refers to how a city of county must approve a housing development proposal, regardless of local zoning, if that jurisdiction does not meet the state’s housing element requirements. Should, say, Santa Cruz not be found in compliance with meeting the state and regionally required housing element of 3,736 units at specific affordability levels, then the latter ostensibly could be invoked, thus leading, say M opponents, to even more density and higher buildings.
A lot of this may fly past voters not in compliance with planning regulations and state laws. But what should be paramount is that there remains major issues with homelessness in the city, along with soaring rental costs and a lack of workforce housing.
“Growth” and “development” have long been dirty words in Santa Cruz. No one wants to see 18-story buildings towering over lower downtown. But the dirtier reality is that the city has become an unaffordable enclave for too many of its working residents and those without the means to buy multi-million-dollar homes or pay rents far beyond what they take home in their paychecks.
There’s a reason why almost every housing advocate in the city and county opposes this measure and why a recent city-commissioned analysis of the measure’s impacts pointed out its many, perhaps unintended, consequences.
Vote No on Measure M and allow more housing for more people.
Lookout Santa Cruz: Measure M will make housing affordability in Santa Cruz worse
By Richard McGahey
Proponents of the upcoming ballot Measure M misunderstand both basic housing economics and how ballot measures increase housing inequality.
Measure M seeks to override city council decisions that allow greater housing density.
Approving it will mean less affordable housing and continuing high housing costs in Santa Cruz.
I am a progressive economist who studies inequities in cities. I’ve held state and national roles in urban and regional economic development. I live part-time in Santa Cruz and have family ties to our community. I care what happens here and can say that recent pro-Measure M pieces in Lookout are anti-housing density.
They come from people who say they care about affordable housing. Yet, all recent research on housing affordability shows that increasing supply lowers overall housing costs. I follow this research closely, and almost every month brings another study showing that more supply is a key to more housing affordability.
People interested in housing justice should oppose Measure M, however well-intentioned its proponents may be. The nonpartisan Urban Institute writes that “increasing the supply of housing — and particularly affordable housing — is vital to advancing housing justice,” especially for “households with low incomes and households of color.”
But isn’t Measure M just, as advocate Frank Barron writes, giving “the public a direct voice” that can override city council decisions? Isn’t that sort of democracy a good thing?
No. Research shows that voters who show up for ballot measures, especially votes that aren’t part of the regular election ballot, and for exhaustive community meetings and input, are whiter — and wealthier — than their communities as a whole. And they tend to oppose housing development, perhaps in part to protect their existing house values.
Measure M proponents point to another provision that will require developers to meet a 25% affordability target. But as former Santa Cruz mayor Don Lane already has explained, we can’t blindly mandate excessively high targets —“if you require too high a percentage of affordable units, the people who build homes simply don’t build.”
Voters don’t have the information or attention span to assess the complex finances of each project as it is developed. Of course, Santa Cruz’s planners and elected council should push every development project as hard as they can to include affordable housing, and they have a strong track record. Legislating an artificially high and arbitrary affordability rate means in fact that less housing — affordable or market — will get built.
The Terner Center at UC Berkeley’s recent report on housing development costs discussed this barrier of excessive affordability percentages. There are many cost pressures on building affordable housing, including increasing materials costs. But the Berkeley researchers note that local requirements, such as arbitrarily setting too high an affordability percentage, make housing harder — and sometimes impossible – to build. And they say policymakers (or voters, I would add) often “are not aware of the tradeoffs” to the negative impact on housing from factors such as “the amount or depth of affordability requirements.” The researchers add that local policies “can make or break the financial feasibility of new housing development.”
And a higher building, which Measure M opposes, helps create more affordable units. Since affordable units are built as a percentage of total units in a building, each additional floor means more total units, and therefore more affordable units. Conversely, shrinking overall building heights means fewer affordable housing units.
Lane, a former Santa Cruz mayor, already has argued how poorly drafted Measure M is, claiming that homeowners seeking simple steps like raising a fence height or modifying an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) could be forced to get approval in a citywide vote. But the problem with Measure M isn’t just poor drafting. It’s the opposition to building more housing. Why are proponents skeptical that increasing housing supply will help affordability?
I’ve written in my blog for Forbes about how so-called “supply skepticism” has been documented by scholars. When asked if more housing supply will bring down housing prices, a recent study found “only about 30%-40%” of survey respondents “believe that additional supply would reduce prices and rents.” In other words, they think (wrongly) that increased housing supply will result in increased housing prices or have no effect on prices, contrary to research.
The survey found respondents understand how supply and demand works for other commodities, such as food or used cars – food shortages mean higher food prices, and more used cars means lower used car prices. The erroneous view that more supply won’t lower prices seems particular to housing. (The same study also noted that homeowners often are a barrier to more housing – “homeowners, who are organized, repeat players in local politics, mobilize against proposed projects nearby.”)
I don’t doubt the sincerity of Measure M proponents. But they are wrong about how housing markets work.
If Measure M is approved, it will mean less — not more — affordable housing in Santa Cruz. It will give homeowners, many of whom already have benefitted from excessive tax breaks under Proposition 13, even more power to block necessary new housing. The city’s existing restrictions on new housing have artificially increased home values. Owners have already done very well – they surely don’t need any more advantages that further drive up home prices.
The result? Santa Cruz is one of the nation’s most unaffordable housing markets. Measure M would make that even worse. So if you really care about housing affordability in Santa Cruz, you should vote against Measure M.
Press Release: Opposition to Measure M Grows with Key Affordable Housing Organizations and Santa Cruz County Democratic Party
Measure M claims it will create “Housing for People,” yet it is opposed by leading community nonprofits dedicated to creating affordable housing in Santa Cruz
SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — The NO on Measure M campaign, organized to save affordable housing by defeating the misleadingly-named “Housing for People” measure, today announced the Santa Cruz County Democratic Party has voted to oppose the measure, joining four leading nonprofit organizations that advocate for more affordable housing in Santa Cruz, including Affordable Housing Now, Housing Santa Cruz County, Santa Cruz YIMBY and the UCSC Student Housing Coalition.
“Our community needs to move forward to build homes for the workers, students, seniors and young families of Santa Cruz. Measure M will slow our progress in creating more affordable housing,” said Elaine Johnson, Executive Director of Housing Santa Cruz County. “We should reject any new impediments to meeting our housing needs. Measure M is an impediment. Let’s keep moving forward. Vote No on Measure M.”
Measure M, written in private by community members who already own their homes and do not live in Downtown Santa Cruz, would hinder efforts to create affordable homes in Downtown Santa Cruz in two ways:
Measure M pushes the required percentage of affordable housing in project beyond the widely accepted threshold of 20%, which will result in builders choosing not to build, robbing our community of desperately needed housing for essential workers and their families.
Measure M will push homebuilding away from Downtown Santa Cruz, where the most jobs and the best sustainable transportation options are, leading to more traffic and vehicle emissions, and pressure to build in other neighborhoods in Santa Cruz.
Community Leaders Stand Against Measure M
The official ballot argument against Measure M is signed by: Sonja Brunner, Santa Cruz City Councilmember; Diana Alfaro, Board Member, Affordable Housing Now; Casey Coonerty Protti, Owner, Bookshop Santa Cruz; Elizabeth Madrigal, Lead, Santa Cruz YIMBY; and Nicolas Robles, Communications Executive, UCSC Student Housing Coalition.
The official rebuttal to the ballot argument in favor of Measure M is signed by: Pete Kennedy, Chair, Santa Cruz Planning Commission; Julie Conway, Vice Chair, Santa Cruz Planning Commission; and Michael Polhamus, Member, Santa Cruz Planning Commission.
The ballot argument against Measure M and the rebuttal to the argument in favor are available at www.affordablehousingadvocatessc.org/background.
Learn more about the NO on Measure M Campaign
Website: www.affordablehousingadvocatessc.org
Facebook: www.facebook.com/NO.on.M.Santa.Cruz
Instagram: www.instagram.com/no_on_m_santacruz/
Affordable Housing Advocates Santa Cruz, FPPC #1464137.
###
Lookout Santa Cruz: Propaganda or propaganda? Yet another response to Santa Cruz’s dangerous and senseless ballot Measure M
By Don Lane
Rule No. 1 in a clever campaign argument: call your adversary’s statements “propaganda” while pretending that you don’t use propaganda on your side. This is how Frank Barron plays it in his most recent commentary — apparently exasperated that someone dares to challenge his “facts.”
I’m the guy who has dared to challenge him.
Before I go further, a little warning. I need to go into the weeds here. I’m trying to be precise on this, even if others are less concerned with precision. It seems to me, when writing a new city law like Santa Cruz’s Measure M, precision is important.
Here’s what I wrote last time that got Barron so worked up: “Under city law, fences needing a permit or second-story backyard granny units needing a permit are ‘development projects.’ Thus, changing the zoning ordinance to allow for extra height on these will require a citywide vote.”
To attempt a refutation of this correct statement, he went to a city planning commission meeting and tried to get a city staff member to correct my statement. Unfortunately, he asked the wrong question. He got staff to acknowledge that there is a process for legitimate exceptions to zoning rules that don’t require a zoning ordinance change.
However, he was unable to get staff to refute the larger point: Changing the zoning ordinance to allow for extra height on any development project would require a vote — if Measure M is approved.
Measure M does not differentiate between zoning rules on fence heights and zoning rules on apartment building heights.
Another thing that must be frustrating for Barron is my refusal to concede to his wishful thinking on building affordable apartments. He continues to repeat the percentages of affordable units his Measure M will produce. Unfortunately, he also continues to fail to address his fundamental math error.
He seems to forget that 25% of zero is zero.
If you require too high a percentage of affordable units, the people who build homes simply don’t build and we get fewer of the affordable homes we need. How do we know? Simply look at the history of affordable housing in our area.
We have not come close to meeting the need because our “inclusionary” affordability requirement has been high and makes projects too expensive to build. No matter how many times Barron repeats the percentages, he cannot overcome economic realities and results.
Measure M will lead to less affordable housing.
Next, I want to concede an error I made earlier. I correctly stated that each time the city council adds an item to the county election ballot, it typically costs the city (us!) $170,000. My error was in attributing all that cost to the county elections department. Most of that cost is due to the county’s charges, but a chunk is extra costs for our city clerk’s office. The $170,000 number is a correct approximation … my explanation was not.
Still, no matter how you slice it, these elections aren’t free.
And, because many zoning ordinance changes will be needed for the whole community, it’s not correct to assume that a builder will be paying for every election. In these situations, the community will pay.
Speaking of errors, Barron misunderstood which homelessness housing proposal I was writing about in my most recent commentary. He erroneously assumed I was talking about a project that has already been approved. Thus, his refutation is irrelevant to this debate. Perhaps he is not aware that the city is looking at a different project on an adjacent site that it recently purchased — and this is a proposal that could fall victim to Measure M’s overreach.
Here’s something else I said that irked Barron: “They scared a lot of folks by suggesting 22-story buildings could be going up in Santa Cruz. In fact, there is not a single proposal for a 22-story building in Santa Cruz, or even ones for 17 or 13 stories.”
In trying to prove me wrong about scare tactics, he properly recounts the history of various downtown planning discussions where different building height rules were floated. He concludes his correct recounting by noting that the end of that discussion led to the city council using 12 stories as the maximum.
So, by the time the Measure M campaign started collecting signatures, there was nothing on the horizon (please excuse the bad pun) at the heights they kept shouting about.
If you run around crying “fire” through the neighborhood after the fire department has already put out the fire, you are probably unnecessarily scaring people. One might even call that a “scare tactic.”
Finally (although this debate does seem endless), let’s look at this statement from Barron: “Lane also said that Measure M would force developers to build multistory projects in or near outlying residential neighborhoods. In fact, Measure M will protect such neighborhoods from any upzonings that would increase heights above the currently allowed two or three stories, by subjecting them to a vote of the people.”
A lot to straighten out in this one.
I said that Measure M will “put pressure on” – not force – us to have more height and density in areas other than downtown. He can only refute my statement by rewriting my words. But my original statement is correct. Less density downtown means more pressure to put it in other locations.
Next, note his use of the phrase “currently allowed two or three stories.” Misleading would be a gentle way of describing that one. Current rules, in conjunction with state law, allow more than two or three stories in many areas outside of downtown. So Measure M simply does not do what Barron is claiming on this.
Both sides in a political campaign produce biased arguments to make their case. This could be called propaganda. Some propaganda is based in fact. Some is not.
I’m glad to be on the factual side as I strenuously argue against Measure M and its mistaken policy.
Lookout Santa Cruz: Who’s telling an accurate story on Santa Cruz’s Measure M?
By Don Lane
Measure M advocate Frank Barron and I seem to disagree on several things related to his height limit ballot measure, but we clearly agree on this: “The people of the city of Santa Cruz should not be fooled.” This is one of the opening lines in his recent Lookout commentary attempting to refute some things I and my affordable housing colleagues wrote in a recent op-ed.
The difference between Mr. Barron’s commentary and ours is that ours is based on verifiable facts and his is based on declarations not grounded in facts. Without verifiable facts, Mr. Barron tries to make those of us who are opposed to Measure M look bad by using terms like “hit piece” and “scare tactics.”
However, stating verifiable facts about the so-called “housing for people” measure is neither a scare tactic nor a hit piece. It is correctly informing voters about this sloppily written ballot measure that will do nothing to alleviate our housing crisis.
For instance, Mr. Barron tries to refute our point that his measure would lead to citywide votes on things like fence heights and backyard “granny units.” In his Lookout op-ed, he tries a clever substitution of a forward slash (/) to replace the word “or” in order to avoid exposing his error. Here’s the exact language of Measure M: “The Santa Cruz City Council shall not adopt amendments to the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance that increase the allowable height limits or Floor Area Ratios (F.A.R.) for development projects” without city voter approval.
His aggressive attempt to refute our points omits this key fact: Under city law, fences needing a permit or second-story backyard granny units needing a permit are “development projects.” Thus, changing the zoning ordinance to allow for extra height on these will require a citywide vote.
But don’t take my word for it. Ask the city planning director and he’ll tell you the same. Who do you think is a better authority on zoning and development issues, the city’s top publicly accountable planning professional or the retired planner who helped write Measure M behind closed doors?
Compounding his error, Mr. Barron conflates the cost of his group’s campaign effort with the actual cost to our community for adding a measure to the election ballot for voters. When the city places a measure on the ballot, the County Elections Department charges the City of Santa Cruz (and its taxpayers) on average $170,000 to cover the cost of the election. So, despite what Mr. Barron claims, the cost for each election is substantial and will be repeated each time a zoning ordinance amendment is needed to change height or density rules on any development project, not just the larger ones.
Next, Mr. Barron goes into the weeds in trying to explain why his proposed increase in affordable housing requirements will work.
He is correct about the state law impacting the final amount of “inclusionary” (affordable) housing required. Yet he completely sidesteps the correct statement we made in our op-ed: High inclusionary rates have stifled housing development, and several cities with higher requirements have either lowered their requirement or are studying the problems with requirements that are too high.
The proof is out there: Cities with inclusionary rates that are too high are not building nearly enough housing.
Again, the evidence exists. Our commentary last month provided the San Francisco example. You can also look at Marin County to see the same thing happening. Setting a high rate for inclusionary housing is just a form of wishful thinking and led to the perhaps unintentionally deceptive “housing for people” label of this ballot measure.
Wishful thinking is great for people who already own their own homes, such as the authors of Measure M. But, it doesn’t help for low- and middle-income wage-earners looking for rental housing.
By the way, I heard from more than a few people who found Mr. Barron’s claim that my team was using scare tactics ironic. When his team was running around town to secure the required number of signatures to get their initiative on the ballot, they scared a lot of folks by suggesting 22-story buildings could be going up in Santa Cruz. In fact, there is not a single proposal for a 22-story building in Santa Cruz, or even ones for 17 or 13 stories.
The city has a website that shows every development proposal in the pipeline. There’s nothing listed that comes even close to the “scary” heights Mr. Barron’s group indicated.
It was quite notable that Mr. Barron didn’t even try to refute our statement about the absence of genuine affordable housing advocates (people with real track records and professionally based background on this issue) within his campaign. It seems he has nothing to offer here.
Equally notable: No effort was made by Mr. Barron to refute what is probably the biggest mistake in Measure M – that the measure will make it harder to build taller buildings downtown (clearly one of their main intentions). This, in turn, will put pressure on homebuilders to build with greater height and density in other neighborhoods in Santa Cruz in order to meet state requirements to build more housing.
I think just about everyone agrees that downtown is the better location in terms of neighborhood aesthetics, transportation and sustainability.
Measure M would be a major mistake for Santa Cruz if approved by voters. It will move the focus of housing development away from downtown and closer to neighborhoods. It will require costly elections. It will do nothing to increase the amount of housing we so badly need – and that the state is requiring us to build.
Worse, it will actually discourage building new homes for people who live and/or work here and need decent homes.
This measure is a battle between those who care more about building heights and those who care more about the housing needs of the people who make Santa Cruz a great community. I’m glad to count myself among those who care more about people than about the size of buildings.
Santa Cruz Sentinel: Guest Commentary | Deceptive ‘Housing For People’ measure fails to deliver on promises
By Diana Alfaro
Here we go again.
Coming in March is another Santa Cruz ballot measure written in private by a handful of people and claiming to be something it is not. A group cynically calling itself “Housing for People” has qualified a measure for the March 2024 ballot that will do exactly the opposite of what it purports to do. This measure would not create more housing for people. Instead, it will get in the way of building homes for local essential workers and families.
Disregarding the very real housing crisis our community is facing, the (Less) Housing for People measure attempts to dramatically limit the number of homes that can be built in downtown Santa Cruz, while at the same time creating a new obstacle to granny units (ADUs) throughout the city. If you’re thinking of building an ADU that might exceed the height limit by even a few inches, you might have to put a zoning change to a vote in a citywide election. That election, by the way, will cost approximately $170,000 to conduct.
The bad news isn’t just about downtown. It’s also bad news for residents living in neighborhoods all over town. Because the measure aims to cut the number of homes that can be built downtown, home builders and the city will be forced to place more multi-story projects in or near neighborhoods all over Santa Cruz. Why? Because the state of California is requiring communities statewide, including the city of Santa Cruz, to build thousands of units of housing for the people who live and work in each community. If we can’t build enough apartments downtown, they will have to be built elsewhere in the city.
The measure also puts another obstacle in the way of building a key project that will create homes for people who have been unhoused in our community. The city owns a site adjacent to the existing homeless center that could be a permanent home for folks with significant disabilities who have been living outside on the streets. Do we really need a costly vote to approve one building that will be funded by grants and local donations?
This measure gets even worse. By moving future housing and residents away from downtown, the measure encourages sprawl and more commuters driving on congested Highway 1 and local streets. Though proponents of this unwise measure are touting environmental values, they focus on shadows cast by buildings as an environmental problem, when the real problem is too many local workers driving long distances and burning fossil fuels. We can build intelligently — housing local working families, building in the most walkable and transit-friendly part of the city, and reducing our community’s carbon footprint.
Finally, please consider the “affordable housing” deception contained in this measure. The measure would require home builders to include a significantly higher number of affordable units in their projects. This is a feel-good gesture that actually does real harm. Requiring the amount of affordable units to be too high makes it unfeasible for a home builder to build their project. This means new homes won’t get built and fewer local people get housed. Some folks may believe no more new homes would be a good thing. However, this means local essential workers and their families are shut out — and it means the state government will take away even more of our local control over development. This is not hyperbole; this is the new reality of the housing crisis in California. By law, if we won’t build housing in our community, the state will do it for us.
I have spent my career working to build housing for people who simply seek an affordable place to live in their community. All of the local professionals I’ve worked with who have expertise in affordable housing, smart housing development and transportation agree this measure is a very bad idea for Santa Cruz. Please join me in opposing this measure.
Diana Alfaro is an affordable housing professional, a former vice chair of Housing Santa Cruz County and lives in downtown Santa Cruz.
Lookout Santa Cruz: Here’s what they don’t tell you about the Housing for People ballot initiative
By Diana Alfaro, Don Lane and Elizabeth Madrigal
Over the past few months, volunteers blanketed the city of Santa Cruz inviting voters to sign a petition for an initiative they call Housing for People. To those of us who have worked seriously on affordable housing for people in the Santa Cruz community for years, this almost seemed like a joke – except that it is definitely not funny. Far from it.
Beyond the group’s name, the signature-gathering team told thousands of people their initiative would be a tool in the battle against taller buildings downtown. There was truth in this claim, but they neglected (consciously or out of ignorance) to mention the much wider (and foolish) impacts of their ballot measure.
Let’s start with the most foolish aspect of their proposal. It would set up a system where citywide votes would be required in a ridiculous number of situations, large and small. Because their measure is written to apply to all “development projects,” it would apply to the following situations, many of which might affect you:
If you wanted to build a 7-foot-tall fence at your house because there was a particularly noisy and bothersome business or neighbor next door, you would be required to have a vote of the entire city before you could get a permit to build the fence. Why? Because the height limit for solid side-yard fences is currently 6 feet, and any development project (yes, a fence is a development project under city law) in need of additional height would require a citywide vote to change the rules.
Even if the next-door neighbor didn’t object to the extra foot? Yes, even then.
You have an unusually tall, single-story garage in your backyard. You want to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU or “granny flat”) above the garage. But, to make it feasible to add the second story, it will need to exceed the current height limit by 18 inches. In order for you to get the permit, you’d need a vote of the entire city of Santa Cruz to change the height rules.
The city owns the property next door to the homelessness facilities near Costco. The city, the county and Housing Matters (which operates the existing facilities) have sketched out plans for a new facility that would likely include supportive housing for people who are exiting homelessness. It could easily be five stories tall. The current zoning would not allow for a five-story building. For this kind of well-located and much-needed project, a vote of the entire city would be required to modify the height allowed on that site. Organizing and taking this vote would further delay desperately needed action to address homelessness in our community.
If you think the above scenarios are ridiculously cumbersome and unreasonable, it’s worse than that. Each election would cost at least $170,000.
Imagine that: a $170,000 citywide election just so a person can get a fence permit with added height.
Aside from that absurdity, there’s another huge problem.
Housing for People’s proposal to require a higher percentage of affordable housing in each market-rate housing development sounds like such a lovely idea. But here’s the problem: If we make the required percentage too high, it isn’t financially feasible to build housing projects.
It’s important to remember that requiring affordable units in a market-rate housing project costs the home builder a lot of money. History has shown that when this rate (known as the “inclusionary” rate) is too high, housing doesn’t get built. In case you think we’re just saying this without evidence, consider the City of San Francisco, which just this year lowered its inclusionary rate because it found the higher rate had caused housing development to slow down right when the city needed it to increase.
Not a single leading affordable housing group in our area has indicated support for this initiative. To put it bluntly, the Housing for People name is just a political deception – especially egregious at a time when we need genuine affordable housing efforts.
- Diana Alfaro, Don Lane and Elizabeth Madrigal
This last point is why so many builders, including nonprofit affordable housing developers, think a 25% inclusionary rate is too high and will reduce production of much-needed apartments for the essential workers and young families we have in our community. This is exactly the opposite result of what Housing for People claims is their aim.
We’ve been working in the field of affordable housing for decades and we have not seen any of the visible leaders of the so-called Housing for People organization do any significant work building or advocating for affordable housing.
Not a single leading affordable housing group in our area has indicated support for this initiative. To put it bluntly, the Housing for People name is just a political deception – especially egregious at a time when we need genuine affordable housing efforts.
Perhaps the ultimate folly in this misguided effort is the veneer of environmental sustainability the promoters of this measure offer. They seem to think that taller buildings, which cast shadows on downtown streets and offend some small-town sensibilities, are somehow an environmental problem. However, the real environmental problems in community development occur when we don’t go up. When we don’t go up, we spread our housing out – putting development pressure on places that are genuinely more in need of protection. If we don’t go up, we have less housing near jobs — and more people driving longer distances to get to work.
There are people who need real housing in Santa Cruz. Our kids. Our parents. Your health care workers. The teacher of your grandchildren. Locating taller buildings in our downtown core is a big part of their solution — their pathway to a viable place to live.
Let’s stop creating more obstacles to creating a balanced, equitable community and get back to work on meeting people’s real needs. Let’s stop inventing convoluted, misguided and deeply flawed ballot measures.
How about real housing for real people instead of an empty promise?
Diana Alfaro is a veteran affordable housing professional and longtime affordable housing advocate. She’s a renter in downtown Santa Cruz.
Elizabeth Madrigal is a Seabright resident and nonprofit affordable housing developer. She is also a lead with Santa Cruz YIMBY.
Don Lane is a former mayor of Santa Cruz. He serves on the governing boards of Housing Santa Cruz County and Housing Matters and has been a homeowner for 40 years.