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.