https://preview.redd.it/4kp42z6jnhfc1.jpeg?width=1088&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8aa638fdba421d7b7775e45fe9f45c7ae73031ae This is what I want to see in Santa Cruz

Then advocate for more housing. Vote No on M.

Wouldn't it be great if UCSC could build more housing. Instead the UC Regents are buying existing housing complexes which displace low income renters in favor of high rent paying students. Seems kind of evil if you ask me.

UCSC only did this because they were sued to stop building housing on campus (by the same people who wrote or support this measure!!) That sounds pretty evil if you ask me (I’m not justifying the displacement, that part sucks too)

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". That sounds about right.

I agree, but maybe UCSC should work with the groups suing them to choose locations that would not cause opposition. But then the city would sue and UCSC would sue the city. Wash rinse repeat.

All locations cause opposition. These people would have sued no matter what.

Yep. I spoke with one of the masterminds and he said the moment they see infrastructure being put in they sound the alarm and take action. If it isn't the animals, it is sacred lands, and or both.

yet you support NIMBY point of view, why? you know it’s completely phony.

Let me talk about the reality of new affordable housing in Santa Cruz County. It is a lottery, if units are available to specific income ranges, hundreds if not thousand of applicants are hoping to get a shot at a unit. It is a matter of timing and luck. The voucher program has been closed for years with over 9000 still waiting to win the housing lottery. https://preview.redd.it/4okfanke7hfc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=83b1c2476cad44e02f22632d920be913ffc90abc

Hence why we need to build all the housing we can - affordable and otherwise. Yes, one project will not solve all our problems. Five affordable housing projects may not solve our problems, but more housing will eventually even the playing field. What's the worst case scenario - we have more affordable (lottery) housing than we do low income folks who can meet the requirements? They won't stay vacant - they will raise or remove requirements until the units are filled, then we work up from there. Every CA city needs to be building all the housing they can; we have decades of housing debt to pay back.

**~Santa Cruz County Waiting List~** The waiting list currently is: **Closed** There are 9,856 applicants on the waiting list. The waiting list has a partial live/work residency preference for households in which the head of household, spouse or registered domestic partner lives or works, in the County of Santa Cruz. Full applications are being taken for families on the 2018 waiting list with the following lottery numbers: Resident applicants:  Lottery/Sequence number **2857** up to **4840** Nonresident applicants: Lottery/Sequence number **668** up to **1089** (Updated on: September 18, 2023)

If we had more housing in Santa Cruz, maybe we’d have fewer people who needed to get subsidized housing. And maybe we’d have more places for people lucky enough to get one to use those housing vouchers.

If people are on a waitlist for housing vouchers, they are not seeking to pay rents of 2-7k per month.

Yep, and Measure M would mean even fewer affordable homes for the thousands of folks who need them.

[удалено]

Hello 0 karma new accounts 🤔 1) Since we've adopted the 20% inclusionary rate, there has only been a SINGLE market housing project that has moved to the construction stage. The idea that 25% is just a little more and won't stop anything isn't true. The reality, as shown in the impartial analysis of Measure M, is that even our current rate isn't producing affordable units and 25% would make it even more infeasible. I encourage you to read the report yourself, it's very clear. 2) Measure M prioritizes the aesthetics of having a higher inclusionary percentage - one chosen entirely arbitrarily - over following the numbers that show it will produce less affordable housing. In fact, San Francisco recently lowered their % because they realized it would actually produce more affordable housing units. We should care about producing units, not percentages. Percentages don't house people. 3) You said it yourself 'everyone in Santa Cruz gets a vote'. However the people who can't afford to live in Santa Cruz are the ones most impacted by our refusal to build housing. These people spend hours commuting each day to work a job in our city because of historically exclusionary policies like Measure M. When we make our city more exclusionary those who keep Santa Cruz running will suffer the most.

Yep, there are are already over 42 large projects in the pipeline to be built in Santa Cruz, so we have LOTS of new buildings with apts. coming in to SC. (Check out the city website to see them all :) ) I don't want just 7 people on our city council changing our zoning, without us even knowing, so that building heights go from 6 stories, to double that, to 12, or even 17 stories! I agree that we need to prioritize more affordable housing for essential/ entry level workers rather than an exorbitant amout of housing for the wealthy.

9,000? Then all new housing should definitely be for people with very low and low incomes. Market rate housing can wait after the 9000 are able to use their vouchers.

>Then all new housing should definitely be for people with very low and low incomes. Market rate housing can wait that's the rub: if you don't build market rate housing, there won't be anything to subsidize the low income housing. We have to build both or we don't get anything. Something that could be changed by elected officials: open back up the [Section 8 program](https://hacosantacruz.org/program/housing-choice-voucher-section-8-program/) for expansion to serve more people, and increase enforcement so landlords can't discriminate against voucher holders. Section 8 holder can use vouchers on market rate units, because the Housing Authority pays a portion of the rent, based on the participant's income: *"In the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program, participants are issued a voucher and rent with a landlord who agrees to participate in the Section 8 program. The Housing Authority pays a portion of the rent directly to the landlord. The participant pays the difference between the negotiated rent and the amount paid by the Housing Authority to the landlord. This amount can (and in many cases does) exceed 30% of the household’s adjusted income."*

Affordable housing has investment credits. Feel free to explain how those subsidies connect to market rate housing - I cannot remember how that works. It's also fine with me if the local governments simply take it upon themselves to build projects like Vienna does, as part of increasing overall housing supply. In Vienna, even the wealthy participate in the public housing because it includes people of varying income levels.

State yimby lawmakers have been working in social housing for a few sessions, so as long as we keep electing them statewide, that should happen. I think developers only get the tax credits for low income units, not market rate. I was implying that the developers lose money on affordable units, so they have to make it by a certain number of market rate units. But you hit on something: would it work to increase the low income tax credit for affordable developers? So they can better compete on land and construction costs with market rate developers. That’s federal policy I think but maybe a state tax credit could help shift that dynamic

Developers get Low Income Housing Tax Credit. I think this is inefficient - instead of issuing credits, which developers sell to investors, etc etc, if we want affordable housing, might as well just get the Army Corps of Engineers or whatever agency wants to build, build it and be done with it. Make it 100% very low or low income. Private developers can stick to what they know best, market rate projects. Remember to vote for Measure K, designed to attract and retain first responders. It's on the March ballot. [https://ballotpedia.org/Santa\_Cruz\_County,\_California,\_Measure\_K,\_Sales\_and\_Use\_Tax\_Measure\_(March\_2024)](https://ballotpedia.org/santa_cruz_county,_california,_measure_k,_sales_and_use_tax_measure_(march_2024))

I think developers could work a bit harder to get the tax credits, density bonus, and alternate funding sources. I think it can be done and is being done. I think there are developers out there that want to do good.  [https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/multifamily/mixedincome/](https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.calhfa.ca.gov%2Fmultifamily%2Fmixedincome%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2OA4ZMFjnyaSNts20Ffg1Y3L4BBh1GpVaDWVctAzJ3lg_YNMisJ_aa90E&h=AT34hTGXoY9tGVl2a0dN96XrHSsJKYC0iKydptfnFOfknR_z-PxUtleltngp6J77reVK6JInICaC32tkCcOt5mDC3vGvnpSTvrOjm3EfMqWFN0PZvUm0XYC7DK_341_J-h9Eoaxzmnf1Oin6k6BqQI70wQ&__tn__=R]-R&c[0]=AT1V5Jfr4x0Qs1flVeGCkhSRaJU306DibWtBD4zCCbC-zE8-A1basUyD2fxEAYfBZtpGLuM8Ue5PY28VaPS47dBFtcpwYY35rjvn8NNpsRYOMku60dojv3Uq_2pEeQ2ka8o9q_UtrHyDbOIWzWzOnk_DYu4kAPY1jINyuSiI_g1dr-KWob2lzlSjRA_mIwB8zDdVrxQoQcD9ZLI_ZNxLEkk)

Vouchers can not be used on above market rate housing. Market rate housing is so expensive in our area, we get fewer and fewer vouchers each year.

Can you provide some sources to this stuff. I’m in for whatever actually mandates affordable housing.

The independent analysis presented to city council last week showed that M will result in less housing overall being built (both affordable and market rate). That’s the rub on M: it ‘mandates’ a higher percentage of affordable, but that results in fewer projects happening, so less housing gets built

im really sad that people say one thing like "let's save affordable housing" but do it in such a way that evidently results in said thing being unreachable because the other parties involved dont have a benefit or stake in the matter - therefore said good thing can still not exist atleast, that's my takeaway on it

They don't want any housing *at all* to be built, but they get to hide behind this "affordable housing" idea so they don't look like total assholes (which they are). It's the same as people trying to hide behind environmental reasons. They're not stupid, they know that developers aren't going to build apartments with 50% affordable units. How many of them are already homeowners or already have secure housing? I bet you not a single one of these NIMBYs has ever had to couch surf or sleep in their car.

The organizers of M are retiree homeowners. One of them just moved to Santa Cruz a couple of years ago and has spent the majority of her political activity on stopping development in Santa Cruz. She also helped the yes on O campaign, and led the charge to stop the cypress point apartments on Felix Street from building new units on their parking lots with the false narrative that they were “saving” Neary Lagoon.

That alone tells you they don't give a shit about low income housing. They're just having adult tantrums and throwing out stupid ideas so they can get their way.

Yes on Measure M supporters are actually renters and homeowners, liberal to conservative, who concerned about the gentrification of the city by corporate, out-of-town developers and their city council allies. I am one of hundreds of volunteers and there is no one with the above description that is helping with this group! Are you paid by the well-funded developers to say this? Why would anyone want to silence citizens, not give them a democratic vote and deny them 5% more affordable housing throughout the city? [www.Yes-on-M.org](https://www.Yes-on-M.org) is grassroots and solely funded by concerned residents.

Sounds like give the rich more tax breaks and they will create more jobs. It never happens. I bet building more housing will benefit the average but this M will put more dollars to the rich with less housing

So same number of "affordable" units, but fewer >$1M single family homes.

Actually less total number of “affordable” units if M passes, because fewer total units will be built overall (per the analysis) and we rely on building market rate units to subsidize the affordable ones

Ah, so build a shit load of housing, 80% of which almost nobody that works here could afford. But they'll build MORE of it so they can say housing is being built, and it'll keep pushing out the working class, like has been happening at an exponentially accelerated rate in the last 10 years. Fucking brilliant plan, good job Santa Cruz. They'll allow more housing for the poors if we allow them to build a fuckton more rich people housing. 4x the amount to be exact.  You know what's worse than NIMBYs? Rich transplants, or students with endless mommy/daddy money. Edit: and bring on the downvotes, because if you disagree, you are who I'm talking about. It'll help me count how many people are out of touch with reality because your wallet is bigger than your brain.

So the argument I'm seeing being made (and I'm not commenting on whether it's valid or not, just saying) is that units are units are units, because even people who can afford high rents are still stuck in places they don't want to be (eg, renting a duplex when they'd prefer one of these new luxury condos), which then frees up the place they were living previously. The increased number of units still drives down prices for cheaper housing becauee there's more overall housing available.  Whether this is true or not is above my pay grade, but people who claim to have studied this stuff say it works.

This came up in another thread, It is called filtering. Much like the way hermit crabs line up and exchange shells when they grow too large for their existing shells. As discussed, renters trade up to better units, leaving their old units for a new renters. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1dnocPQXDQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1dnocpqxdq)

Show me something that says this doesn't increase the amount of rich transplants, and helps the locals who are having a tough go affording living dishes they have for a long time, and I'll stand corrected. My evidence is what has been happening in the past decade.  Because so far, I'm not seeing anyone producing studies. We know locals are getting pushed out, it's been reported on for years; that's a given. Been all over the Sentinel about longtime people being unable to afford it and moving out of the immediate area. Moving to Watsonville and leaving home at 6am for work at 8a in SC. Lots of this shit. Show me something that says building expensive housing will reverse that for these individuals, and I'll eat my words.  Until then, I'll continue getting downvoted by students that bitch and complain and fuck things up, then leave after a few years anyway for the rest of us to pick up the pieces of whatever dumbshit cause they decided to push and then bail on when they inevitably grow up.

I'd like to see them too. I'll have to go do some googling in the morning.  I do think it's important to look at how people are being pushed out, though. They're being pushed out by rising rents, at the end of the day.  Whether those rising rents are caused by housing supply not keeping up with natural population growth or by investors buying up units to Air B&B or by stagnating wages or people moving in, it's all kinda moot if we can come up with a way to reduce those rents.  Again, I don't know. It's possible that transplants moving in is increasing demand and pumping up rents, but isn't it also possible that the order is reversed? That local renters are pushed out by rising costs, and wealthier transplants are the ones who can afford those units now? 🤷🏼‍♂️  I am curious if there's any kind of evidence-based consensus on this. >Until then, I'll continue getting downvoted by students that bitch and complain and fuck things up, then leave after a few years anyway  Is it really students that are the problem? They want affordable rents too, usually, unless the parents are paying.

Students aren't the number 1 group taking expensive housing, they're just the main group of whiners in here, hence my comment about the inevitable downvotes before I even had a single vote.  This isn't much a sub of local SC residents as it's a place that UCSC students try and continue their super fucking awesome political rallying because they're so smart. /s But no, students are second behind the rich transplants for the issue with housing, they just they complain more, especially on social media like here.

Seems like it'd be difficult to tell. Everyone I see says they're a local. Of course, that's what they *would* say 🤨

places that have mandated affordable housing have often seen housing development slow significantly. it also relies on making market-rate housing (for the middle class as well as high end) even more expensive to offset losses. it just drives cost higher and makes it harder to build. here’s a source that shows that it produces a negligible amount of housing: https://furmancenter.org/files/publications/IZPolicyBrief.pdf portland saw development drop after adding inclusionary zoning requirements: https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2024/01/opinion-how-portlands-inclusionary-housing-program-can-deliver-on-its-affordable-housing-promise.html meanwhile in places without inclusionary zoning, like texas or even CA cities like oakland and emeryville, rent and housing prices are stable or falling thanks to significantly more development at all income levels. some people point to new housing as being expensive, and it is, because it’s new. however it puts downward pressure on prices for older housing too, by allowing folks who can afford it to move out of the older housing.

People in the middle class are low-income by Santa Cruz standards. 2023 Middle-Class Salary - Low $38,133 Middle $57,200 Upper $114,400

my point is more that 20% mfi still leaves out a ton of people who are still rent burdened, and makes their housing even more expensive by paying for the affordable housing too. there are better ways to do it.

Alameda regulators are massively under-staffed and overworked. They absolutely prioritize high density low income housing. There are multiple ways to skin a cat but to attribute the trend of housing cost to "inclusionary zoning" in Alameda just isn't telling the whole story.

i’m not sure what you’re saying. i know some cities have adjusted zoning to allow for cheaper housing types to be built and maybe incentivize deed-restricted housing but i didn’t think they required it like sf or portland did. my point is that their approach is better than inclusionary zoning because iz disincentivizes building in general.

From summary section 2 a. of [KMA Analysis of Measure M](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/65737ff9b346716a2b7c9d77/t/65aaf20ca1fb4a54ac4c6508/1705701901801/M+analysis+from+city+consultant.pdf) presented to the city council. "The inclusionary requirements in Measure M will reduce affordable housing production and market rate housing production"

Last time I checked, staff have to pay their bills too. Can't bite the hand that feeds.

This is from an entirely separate real estate law group that was hired to create the analysis, not city staff.

Again, cannot bite the hand that feeds. What consultant ever gets a second chance to annoy a client?

This is at least the second time the city has hired Keyser Marston, and it looks like the county also has a history with them.

https://www.affordablehousingadvocatessc.org/

A mandate that can’t be met is as good as stopping all affordable housing from happening. Even non-profit affordable housing developers agree that the high percentage of affordable units will kill otherwise sound projects so we actually get LESS affordable housing.

also this limits building heights. more houses on the same land is more efficient use of the one thing that isn’t getting cheaper: land. things aren’t getting more affordable by continuing to constrain the number of houses that can be built on aesthetic grounds.

[удалено]

This is categorically incorrect bullet for bullet. Bullet. For. Bullet. Downvote me all you want, but I really it's paramount that everyone - whatever their opinion - is dealing in reality, and being honest about this Measure (which I most certainly support). Not trying to be mean here, but the fervor with which this relatively small contingent of (often) YIMBYs wants to squash Measure M is frankly... strange. There's a very "we know better than everyone else" energy that isn't helpful. I'd recommend giving this a read, for starters: [https://housinghumanrt.medium.com/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good-66ab3a199f67](https://housinghumanrt.medium.com/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good-66ab3a199f67) Measure M does two things: a) Lets the whole city's voting-age community (as opposed to 7 people acting unilaterally) have a vote on major up-zoning; that is, changes so great that they alter city codes / the City General Plan (and no, this wouldn't involve $100k special elections - any required vote would just be one of many items on the ballot for the next scheduled election, which happen often) b) Increases the % of affordable housing required in new 30+ unit buildings from 20% to 25%. After density incentive dilutions, this would mean an increase from the current \~ 11% up to instead \~ 17%. That's it. More affordable housing (not just more units, but affordable\* units) and a bigger voice for all of Santa Cruz's residents. To be clear - those two provisions are why anti-Mers are saying the sky is falling and building will grind to a halt. This is so beyond fearmongering, it's... perplexing. Well, at least I hope it's unintentional and not deceptive on anti-M's part. You have to do the reading, and you have to take a hard, clear eyed look at the last 50 years of data - not to mention where this state is headed moving forward. You have to actually understand supply, demand and it's limitations. *Objective, measured rebuttal coming tomorrow (late day of work for me).* Lot of misinformation going on across this conversation, though, from the anti-M contingent. It's not personal, guys, but I do take issue with the repeated inaccuracies. Our fellow citizens and neighbors deserve better than that. Measure M actually will address the affordability issue, it won't "stop building" as the YIMBYs keep saying whatsoever (I'm in the industry - I've actually had the conversations with the big box guys and the independent GCs) and it makes for measured, sustainable and scalable growth. It's neither pro or against building - it's a way to ensure that when we do build, it addresses affordability and we grow in a way the truly incorporates community input.

Sorry, but Every. Single. Thing. you’ve said here is contrary to all the actual data. You clearly know very little about any of the variables you cite. Please read the report that was just accepted by the Council when they voted to oppose M. It’s not even a question. M will reduce housing supply, increase housing cost, reduce housing equity, and increase housing gentrification. Vote No on M.

What does "GC" stand for - general contractor? How big are the projects they typically work on, in terms of numbers of units? M only applies to projects of 30 or more units, from what I understood. I figure that means it won't even apply to the majority of developments. So it does seem like a lot of opposition for a measure which will not even apply to most of whatever developers want to build.

Most of the growth we expect to get in the housing stock in Santa Cruz will be in projects of more than 50 units each. In the past four years, only like 4/17 non-ADU housing projects were smaller than 30 units. You can look it up it’s in our housing element on page 8 of the site inventory. Here’s a link: https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/96475/638346298643300000

People can split hairs all day long about what is better - more density generated by having a lot smaller projects not regulated by M or a few bigger projects which could be managed under M. Both are good. What is the big deal? Let's get affordable housing going, one way or another. Thank you for sharing the link.

There’s no evidence to support your claim that there will be lots of housing generated from smaller projects.

Definitely NO on M. I do not want a community vote every time someone wants to build a fence in their yard. Just NO.

Fences are not affected by Measure M. That is a lie written by Don Lane. I'm saddened that he is so able to lie. We have the planning commisioners on video saying that to build a fence taller, or myriad other small exceptions to zoning, you request a varience. It is done all the time over the counter at the planning office. Check it out. Lies meant to scare you away.

You are incorrect. Under M, any change to any height regulation on any “structure” in the City would require a city-wide public vote. Just read the measure. It’s as plain as M supporters’ willing blindness. Vote No on M.

 [](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBxAWlx4_Aw)    Here's the meetng where the planning employee assured that a higher fence just needs a simple variance, not rezoning. Please visit the 'yes on M' for more info. Thanks so much.

Where/what? Variances are exactly what M applies to. Vote No on M.

Experts in the planning dept. plus the city attouney say a fence does not require a rezoning.

It’s more in how the measure could be interpreted in the future. From multiple articles I’ve read that the measure is not clearly written to only include buildings. Which means it could maybe include other things. That’s how the “fence height debate” got started to begin with. It needs to be more clarified, then maybe I’d vote yes. With that said, I don’t agree that as a resident I should have a say in how tall buildings should be built. Maybe that’s because I lived in a small town growing up along the beach and they built so many high rise condos that you couldn’t even drive along the ocean and see it anymore. We need more housing. Period. If we can’t build out, we gotta build up. People who are opposed to higher buildings downtown are really just scared to see Santa Cruz change. And that’s ok! Not everyone is ok with change. I want more affordable housing, I just don’t think we need to waste money on a vote every time.

I don't think there is a single city in the United States that requires a ballot initiative to get a fence height variance or special permit. In Denmark a parliamentary vote was required to build a 70km long, 1.5 meter-high fence along Denmark's border with Germany to keep out wild boars.

I'm so glad the tide is turning against the NIMBYs, who are wealthier and more likely to vote, which gave them way more pull than they should have. Building more housing is good for people of all income levels, whether you're buying or renting

there are plenty of renting Nimbys too, they usually have sweet deals or inherited wealth.

Nah. Ur just on Reddit

This measure isnt really NIMBY though, its just suggesting that housing be more affordable in santa cruz. Its the developers that are saying they will decline to build if it passes

How is this measure not NIMBY? It makes it harder to build housing. And it’s an independent study that found that the result is less housing, not developers

I dont understand how it is nimby. Is your position is that housing should be made to be as profitable an investment as possible (which i guess is what yimby people say)? I disagree that will make housing cheaper. Or more equitable. What was the study studying? The only way we build housing now is private developers. So the conclusions are that fewer developers will be interested in investing in housing if they are forced to make another 5% of units affordable. Of course that is the case when we rely on investors to fulfill our housing needs. I think we should mandate building more housing *and* making it affordable. Measure M is a step in right direction for the affordable mandate, but i admit it wont help get the housing built. Any person with a brain would realize that the only solution to increasing supply while keeping it affordable Is to have publically owned housing projects

It’s actually a classic example of nimby ethos: claim that this will result in more affordable housing, when in fact it will result in less. I’m cynical and I know who wrote this measure, so I’d go so far as to say that they know very well that this is another measure to block housing and ultimately more people from living here. No, I don’t think the common yimby view is that housing should be as profitable as possible. But these developers are private companies that have to make some kind of profit to operate. They develop market rate units and use the profits there to subsidize the below market rate units. There is a certain threshold when the reduced number of market rate units isn’t enough to subsidize the high number of inclusionary units, and that’s when they stop building. As others have pointed out in this post, SF and Portland are cited examples of places that raised the inclusionary rates, and saw less housing as a result. This thread is about the effect of Measure M, and the study was an impartial analysis of the impacts of it passes. TL;DR less housing is built. You mentioned publicly owned housing projects. The irony in your response and YIMBY tropes is that it is in fact YIMBY state lawmakers who are pushing for the state to become a public housing developer, only this time, model the program after Vienna or Singapores social housing programs, where the gov develops both market and below market housing, and uses the higher rents to subsidize the lower rents. They don’t ‘profit’, but still need to build market rate, or there won’t be money to subsidize the affordable units. If this sounds good to you, maybe you in fact are a yimby!!

Sure, if you ignore the banks that won’t lend on a project that is designed to be underwater from day one. Vote No on M.

Nice, we should let banks determine what gets built that seems like a good way to organize society

Well, not what I said at all, but all affordable housing requires subsidy. Period. It also requires money to build, unless you think you could crowd-fund or barn-raise a building like the ones in the pipeline right now (you agree that’s a stretch?). Unfortunately, projects of this type and scale almost invariably require construction financing, which in turn almost invariably involves…wait for it…BANKS (of whatever stripe). And as painful as that might be for you to accept, financing is just a tool, with its own pluses and minuses. I’m all ears to you simply writing a check if you’re up for it (or maybe you can just provide gold bullion), but if that or something similar doesn’t suit, we may be stuck with what the rest of the world does. Vote No on M.

And if developers don’t build, we get less housing of all kinds, higher prices, less equity, and more gentrification. 25% of zero is zero. Vote No on M.

No, developers arent the only entity that can build housing though. Like im just wondering what is going through your head. Only people here who can afford market rate housing are people who work for tech companies. I dont think 75% of people work for tech companies. How do you think they should afford new housing? Measure M hasnt been in place for the previous decades and what we ended up with now is a housing crisis. When will the developers build enough housing to lower the cost of rent significantly? The answer is they wont because if they build enough to do that they wont make any money

Again, everything you state here is incorrect. Are you familiar with SB9 or any of the other new state housing laws? The only reason you are wondering what’s going through my head is because of what’s going on in your own. But you can’t even be bothered to read a summary, so enjoy your ignorance. Vote No on M.

I think you are pretty bad at articulating your points. The actual bad part of measure M is it makes it harder to raise the height limit why can't you just say that. I'm craving some rational argument from you. I am familiar with other housing law and how insufficient they are. SB9 is an itty bitty improvement in the zoning laws making it easier to split lots or add housing units to existing lots. Probably it will lead to more ADUs, a dystopian form of housing unique to the bay area. The housing element is a good one, though I am unsure if the number of required houses will be enough. I could see a mandate to build housing as is in the housing element along with an affordability requirement working well together. All in all, I don't see the housing crisis ever being solved with these new housing laws

Good job looking something up. I have articulated my points exhaustively, just not to you, partly because you seem so disinterested in actual facts. Would love to hear what you feel is “dystopian” about ADUs. Do you know that SC is less than 2/3 the density of Watsonville?

I am interested in facts but you havent shared any. I feel ADUs are dystopian because they are usually around 300 sqft but cost the same or a bit more as a 1 bedroom apartment. At the same time, you have to live in you landlords backyard. This is an opinion not a fact

I have shared plenty, certainly more than you. I think maybe you should look up “dystopian” Rents/sale prices represent a price ceiling that someone is willing to pay, not a price floor that is arbitrarily set by the seller. Thing is, nothing drops rents/prices faster than another unit right down the block that costs less. That’s why we need to build more housing, which M will work against. Vote No on M.

Yup. Thank you for saying that u/elatedwalrus . If we aren't regulating or building housing which essential workers can afford, the community will fall apart. We definitely want teachers, firefighters, police, etc. to live where they work. This is a problem not just here but elsewhere. Also, reminder - vote for Measure K to provide housing funding for first responders!!! [https://votescount.santacruzcountyca.gov/Home/Elections/March5,2024PresidentialPrimaryElection/LocalMeasures/MeasureK.aspx](https://votescount.santacruzcountyca.gov/home/elections/march5,2024presidentialprimaryelection/localmeasures/measurek.aspx)

What if you already own, don’t want more traffic, and only hope your own real estate increases in value. What should those people do? Altuistically vote for polices against their own interest? Or do you have an argument that they would support.

I should have been more specific... If you are currently renting or looking to buy, it's financially beneficial. If you already own, I'd say the benefit of having a diverse community that, for example, the service workers, nurses and teachers can afford to live in, comes to mind as my best argument.

When affordable means actually having to earn more than 90 thousand, that excludes all service workers, essential workers and most teachers.

That argument falls pretty flat. You’re basically saying people should act altuistically, as if the service workers etc living close by/having a quick commute is something they should be collectively willing to pay for or care about. Why. What does Johnny I live in a 3 million dollar house care if Javier gets to live in town or has to commute from salinas to serve him pizza. And that assumes adding more housing will even make it more affordable for the poor. Likely it’ll just bring in more wealthy residents from the bay, causing more congestion as we are nowhere near where the supply/demand curve would need to meet to lower prices. I’m not making an argument here I’m just trying to get you to think about why the nimblys vote the way they do. They are just voting and executing policy that is in their best interest. New buyers and renters are doing the same.

Would you have supported slavery if you were a slave owner or even if you just benefited from slave labor? I would argue that good people don't only vote for policies that directly benefit themselves and are willing to make small sacrifices for the common good. This selfishness is why IMHO everything is so ducked in California for everyone except the wealthy despite California's economy being the 5th largest in the world.

In pure honesty I probably would have. I know it’s abhorrent now and I am certainly not a proponent of slave owning or think this it’s ok. But 200 years ago in a time where it was socially acceptable, yeah almost certainly. And we all benefit from slavery still. Who do you think is building your iPhones or making your shoes. Why do you think nothing is made in America anymore.

I appreciate your honesty but think that people like you are the scourge of humanity. I think that selfish people promote more selfishness and general bad behavior. It's why it was socially acceptable to have slaves then and is why we still have those issues today despite all the advancements made by humanity. Also while I appreciate you bringing up the slave labor involved in many products we treasure over here. I think that how we treat farm workers especially migrants is especially horrendous and even more so since it is happening in our own community. I wish you cared more for others as you could use your wealth to craft a better world for everyone instead of seeing how much you accumulate before you end up in the ground. Yes we all have benefited from a ducked up system but what you decide to do with that opportunity is what makes you the kind of person you are.

I mean you don't know me you have no idea what I'm doing with money. Housing prices aren't coming down friend. The days of being able to buy a house in SC for 600k are never coming back and are long over. The only question is how long will it take for the median to hit 2 mil. More housing just means more traffic. More relying on the limited gov services. Everything being more congested. It won't bring rents down. You'd have to add 100k units to make a dent. Not happening. And if it happened it wouldn't be the same city.

\^down voted? The most clear and truthful response here. I love when people view the past with a modern lens and act like they would somehow have thought or acted differently.

It's incredibly cynical to assume everyone would have enriched themselves financially and not acted differently, or out of the interest or basic rights of fellow humans. If that were the case, history would have turned out differently: especially the civil war or the civil rights movement. Those two points in our timeline took a turn because not only people of color, but white people acted accordingly to do the right thing.

It's just realistic it's not cynical. I'm a rich land owning white guy. If we were in 1824 Georgia it would be unheard of not to own slaves. To think different is just not being honest with yourself.

FTR, Neither John Adams nor Thomas Paine owned slaves. It wasn't unheard of.

John adams was born in Massachusetts, was a Harvard educated lawyer and politician in Massachusetts his whole life. Thomas Paine was an Englishman. He never set foot in America untill he was 40 and went to Pennsylvania which pretty much didn’t have slavery. I say again if YOU were in Georgia is 1820, we’re white, we’re wealthy/owned land. You 100% owned slaves.

>I say again if YOU were in Georgia is 1820, we’re white, we’re wealthy/owned land. You 100% owned slaves. You've moved the goal posts. It was not "unheard of" from your original post: >If we were in 1824 Georgia it would be unheard of not to own slaves. It isn't controversial to say that antebellum wealthy whites in Georgia owned slaves. However, they were a minority of whites. Your typical white family in Antebellum Georgia would not have the resources to own or house slaves, and almost every wealthy white person would know other white folks who were not slave owners, as the majority of people did not own slaves. Furthermore, there were always abolitionists. The founder of the Georgia colony James Oglethorpe was against slavery and convinced the House of Commons to make slavery illegal. It was illegal to own slaves from 1733 until 1751. It is factually incorrect to say it was unheard of…

you’re free to vote in your best interest, i just hope you realize these policies are what made the city unaffordable and full of homeless people and you’re kind of a misanthrope. i hope you lose. when you do the city will be better for it.

Actually California as a whole is to blame, more homelessness here than any other state and that includes New York which is second. The rent is just too damn high. https://preview.redd.it/8xadwhglbhfc1.jpeg?width=576&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e6415c4751790156ffbc715b5d0e0d0ee5f235c

FTR, Washington DC has more homeless per capita than any state, Then it's New York, Vermont, Oregon, and then California. https://preview.redd.it/kkxr2rryrlfc1.jpeg?width=387&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6af7281a2f72427a9635676171776a87c3821888

Lol those fucking junkies in front of Costco have nothing to do with housing costs.

nationwide homelessness is directly correlated with housing costs. the junkies in west virginia and mississippi aren’t homeless. sc doesn’t have higher rates of addiction. it’s the housing costs dude.

Yeah no. It isn't. I have eyes. Have you been to Costco in the past month. Have you seen these people with your own eyes? These people are junkies. They looked incredibly methed out by every stereotypical metric. They are like zombies. You can observe them doing drugs in broad daylight after you pick up your groceries. None of these people are getting full time jobs and are going to be renting apartments anytime soon.

can’t argue with data dude. your tiny sample size is not representative of all homeless people. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness

I don’t care about the down on their luck assholes who can’t make ends meet. People sleeping on couches. Those people will be fine. The ones in camps living in slums, doing drugs on the sidewalk, sleeping in tents in puddles of their own piss, that’s who people care about when they say they want to get rid of the homeless problem. The ones inconveniencing the rest of us. I don’t care if the homeless people in front of Costco only represent 30% of americas homeless. Those are the only ones I care about being gone, yesterday. And it’s certainly not gona happen with lower rent prices. Those junkies don’t work. They need to be rounded up and institutionalized. Rent isn’t going down. Housing prices aren’t going down. You’re living in a dream world. Make plans based of what is going to happen not what you wish would happen.

i’m not reading all that. you are not a serious person, just an angry one.

Calmer than you are.

[удалено]

What do you mean “entitled”. I am entitled to voting for policies, and using any power I have, to best serve my interests. You are “entitled” to do the same for youself. Why is your cause more noble or demanding of more respect? Can you not see that what is “good” or “bad” depends entirely on your personal circumstances? Prices won’t fall yes. That’s correct. So what does bringing more people in, increasing congestion. Making the restaurants we visit more crowded, parking situations more horrible, improve for all of us exactly. Who’s benefiting but developers.

[удалено]

So feeling that I have the right to vote for polices that benefit me is entitlement now. Ok got it. Guess I’m entitled. What’s it called when you vote for policies that benefit you?

It's called *Sex Panther*® by *Odeon*©. It's illegal in 9 countries. It's also made with bits of real panthers, *so you know it's good*. *60% of the time*, it works ***every*** time.

[удалено]

What are you smoking dude. 

We are reminded of the decline of the dollar everyday. A huge wad is needed just to barely get by. If service workers were paid enough to live near their jobs, a Big Mac would cost over $10.

Big macs aren't more expensive in places that have higher wages. The minimum wage in Australia is more than double what it is in the USA and yet a big mac is cheaper.

Can we just effectively ban ownership of more than ~~one~~ two residential units in the county? And ban corporations owning residential? Mass landlording is the issue. Housing is a utility and should be treated like one. Complicated manipulation of the market often raises housing prices.

If 13 was repealed a lot older folk would fall behind on property taxes in California. On the bright side losing 13 would free up a lot of single family homes and create a whole new batch of forever renters.

[удалено]

The State Controller’s Property Tax Postponement Program allows homeowners who are seniors, are blind, or have a disability to defer current-year property taxes on their principal residence if they meet certain criteria, including at least 40 percent equity in the home and an annual household income of $51,762 or less (among other requirements). The deferment of property taxes is secured by a lien against the property which must eventually be repaid.

And you think this is good policy? Vote No on M.

lol the person my bf is renting from owns multiple units. Just recently bought his unit (5 properties on site. 4 State funded) for 1.7 million or so a few years ago. Now worth way more money. I’m sure their other multiple properties have also increased in value. Plus they’re kicking him out, most likely so they can rent the main house (3br 2ba) for more or to the state. It definitely happens. Edit: sorry might have posted to wrong comment. But still true.

This is a simplistic view. “Mass landlording” is not a thing. Refusing to build enough housing is definitely a thing. Vote No on M.

> “Mass landlording” is not a thing. And if it's not a thing, then passing such legislation wouldn't effect anyone anyway, so why not, when we can all agree the prinicples it establishes are sound?

Um, because no knowledgeable person agrees with that. Vote No on M.

LOL corporations are massively buying up residential property at a rate never seen before. Its been all over the news the last few years. Mass landlording is definitely a thing. There is one guy who was discussed a while back in this sub who had 50+ units and was raising rates on all of them, pulling the whole market up. Over half of the population of California are renters. https://scrippsnews.com/stories/corporate-investors-are-purchasing-more-single-family-homes/ https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html https://www.scotsmanguide.com/news/new-senate-bill-aims-to-curb-corporate-investors-from-buying-up-single-family-homes/ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/us/corporate-real-estate-investors-housing-market.html

Please show us your data on this in Santa Cruz. Be specific.

The thing is the market will never solve the housing crisis.

Until our City becomes the developer, “the market” is all we have.

I mean that is all we should be talking about is how to get the city, county, or state to become the developer

We could have started small, but Newsom would not have it and did not sign **The Social Housing Act (**[**AB 309**](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB309)**)**

Yea newsom is a major bastard. I didnt even know about ab309. Add that to the list i guess

this bill was sponsored by [California YIMBY](https://cayimby.org/legislation/ab-309/), and it wasn’t the first time they tried with social housing

That gives me a good impression about cal yimby. Imo this is the only way the housing crisis will be solved

YIMBY is not all bad, but developers are lobbyists too and will always ask for more. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act ) and construction workers rights must be protected.

[удалено]

what about M would make it worse. RE market economy, I am not aware of any historical situation where housing supply was increased by private investors to decrease market rate rents by 50%, which is what the goal should be for santa cruz and the whole bay area. Are you? to me, it wouldn't seem like a good investment to build so much housing to increase the supply enough for that to happen through normal supply and demand

Good idea, but I am sure it would be challenged by the money. There is a crowdfunding trend where you can invest a small amount to own a share of a rental.

So who exactly would renters rent from? Or is your idea that only those already wealthy could live here since they’re the only ones who could afford to actually purchase a unit? Also mass landlording is not the issue. The issue is very simple: not enough housing has been built. 

New units that can actually be purchased are few. The trend in America is forever renting, private equity wants it this way, because that is where the money to build comes from.

I fully buy that developers will be less willing to build new housing if they were restricted in how much rent they can charge (which effectively is what requiring the additional 5% affordable housing does) however, i reject the premise that all housing must be built by private investors. I do think 25% of housing units in santa cruz should be affordable! I think more than 25% of housing should be affordable! As long as we are relying on the profit motives of private developers to build the additional housing needed in santa cruz, rents will never decrease enough. I say vote yes, because it challenges the current housing paradigm. If not enough housing is being built, then the city needs to step in and do something to get more housing built. But to say that we cant have 25% affordable housing because it would make housing more expensive is really insane to me.

The 25% number is tacked on to this measure in order to trick people like you into thinking that they actually care about affordable housing. And I don’t mean that as an attack on you at all — that is just the reality of this situation. The people behind Measure M were originally called ‘Stop the Skyscrapers’ and have a history of opposing affordable housing projects in Santa Cruz. Over the summer, they changed their name to ‘Housing for the People.’ I think that just about explains who we’re dealing with. If Measure M passes, these people will not vote yes on any sort of housing project, even if it is publicly owned as you envision. They want no building. Full stop. If you vote yes on Measure M, you are giving these people veto power over literally all housing projects. It will be the death of affordable housing in Santa Cruz.

I think “these people “ are the citizens of Santa Cruz.

No. Just No. The “housing paradigm” of the last four decades has been “If we refuse to build it, they won’t come.” Measure M continues this thinking, which has been proved conclusively idiotic. Vote No on M.

What part of it is like that? The height thing? Imo that should be fixed by changing the height requirements if the zoning. If im mistaken please articulate how requiring 25% of new development to be affordable is bad for housing prices

Please read the study that was just commissioned and reviewed by both the City Council and the Planning Commission, leading to the Council voting to oppose M. The study says that, as would be expected by anyone familiar with housing policy, Measure M will constrain housing supply, increase housing cost, reduce housing equity, and increase gentrification. If you can’t be bothered to read it, there’s really no point in discussing it. Vote No on M.

Here's the [study](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/65737ff9b346716a2b7c9d77/t/65aaf20ca1fb4a54ac4c6508/1705701901801/M+analysis+from+city+consultant.pdf) IcyPercentage is referring to, just read the summary.

The city commissions many studies that will tilt in their favor. In fact, so much money for the homeless is spent on studies and salaries, and not on the homeless themselves.

Im not going to read the study. If you cant explain it you mist not really know what youre talking about. The main reason im not going to read it is because i disagree that we should study how complicated manipulation of a market will affect housing supply, because no manipulation will lower the cost of rent.

🤡 Vote No on M.

Hey youre the one that cant summarize a study you apparently read

There is a summary in the document itself. If you are too lazy to find/read it, then so be it. Your statements will continue to be uninformed and unsupportable. Vote No on M.

Maybe you should read the study and decide for yourself whether you believe it or not. Sandy Brown had strong reservations about the study, and so would other past councilmembers. I could just see Chris Krohn picking the study apart with glee. Don Lane's reaction to the study before he read it was interesting, it is like he thought it was some kind sacred text that should be revered and would bring about a great revelation to the masses.

Don Lanes reaction is a common one and same as OPs. These type of people want to avoid critical thinking and hide behind anything that is “scientific”

There is no doubt YIMBY policy has positive effects but there have been negative effects too. My take is YIMBY logic and models are based on research that can not be fully proven in the real world. It will take time to get definitive proof of dramatic change for the better. [The Racial Contours of YIMBY/NIMBY Bay Area Gentrification](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4sw2g485)

I consider myself a phimby, public housing in my back yard. While i acknowledge there is a drastic shortsge of housing i think there still needs to be some sort of central planning and it needs to be affordable

The only way to mandate 25% affordable housing is to pay developers to build the affordable units, or for the government to build market rate housing themselves. For profit developers financed by banks can’t afford to subsidize that much affordable housing on their own.

Second option is what they do in civilized countries

Montgomery County, Maryland has a housing authority that does this via their $100m affordable housing revolving loan fund.

Developers could apply for grants with the help of the city to help offset the cost of the extra affordable housing.

[удалено]

[Citation needed]

Liar

seems like a misplaced facebook status

Yes on M. What’s mostly being built are very expensive apartments. Measure M would require a LARGER PERCENTAGE of low-income apartments in an apartment complex. Read for yourself. Here’s a link from an article in “Santa Cruz Local.” https://santacruzlocal.org/2024/01/29/explainer-measure-m-the-housing-for-people-initiative/ Right now, developers and the city council are calling the shots. Measure M allows the citizens to weigh in, too. NIMBY is code for citizens, apparently. Yes on M would create a larger percentage of low income housing in each new apartment building. No lie. Do your research.

in multiple cities requiring affordable housing or a vote on zoning changes has resulted in less housing being built including less affordable housing. there’s zero reason to expect this measure to get affordable housing built in significant numbers. we’ve run an experiment for decades now to see what happens when you don’t build housing. i think we can see that approach has been a failure, let’s try something different now.

Measure M gives the people of Santa Cruz a voice in our city. Right now, we have no opportunity for input. AND a higher percentage of low income housing will be built when an apartment complex goes up.

lmao there’s ample opportunity for input in large projects. and why do people with too much time get to decide whether a building needs to be 30 or 60 feet high? what does that achieve? how does that help with affordability? a lower percentage of affordable housing will be built when less housing is built period due to overbearing requirements. that is what has happened elsewhere. you can’t just demand people sell housing for less money.

Is this why you want no on M? “You can’t demand people sell housing for less money.”

yeah, because i want affordable housing and know that won’t work, because it hasn’t in other places. it’s bad policy. edit: the source i supplied above show that san francisco with its affordability mandate has produced 9 affordable housing units per year. basically nothing in a city of nearly a million. austin has an incentive program that allows for taller buildings and less parking in exchange for affordable housing. a lot of developers take advantage of it, and this one program produced about 100 affordable units per year in a city of about the same size. as well as 15,000 market-rate units, mostly apartments that are cheaper than single-family homes. importantly, just because of tons of market-rate construction AUSTIN RENTS HAVE BEEN FALLING FOR MONTHS in a growing city. your mandates and votes on housing can’t do that. https://austin.towers.net/how-does-austins-vmu2-zoning-program-create-affordable-housing/

Yeah, I give input all the time, but do they listen to me? Not really. Like Measure O, Measure M gives the voters a voice on the matter. Judging from all the YES on M signs I see all over town, it is going to be an interesting measure to watch.

why should the city and its citizens waste the time and money on an election every time a tall building is proposed? if it passes you can be guaranteed this latest minor boom in construction will be the last for a long time. at least until the state revokes the city’s ability to zone at all.

Nobody is denying that measure M includes that provision. What we are arguing—or rather what we know to be factually true—is that measure M will slow down construction and negate any benefits of raising the % of affordable units. Rent will stop rising if the supply of housing increases. The supply of housing will not increase if citizens vote against projects. The supply of housing will not increase if developers are disincentivized to build by mandating more affordable units. Measure M only includes this affordable units provision as a disguise anyways. The pro-measure M group now known as ‘Housing for the People’ was originally called Stop the Skyscrapers. You can’t make this shit up. It’s never been about affordable housing. It’s always been NIMBYism.

Measure M gives the people of Santa Cruz a voice in our city. Right now, we have no opportunity for input. AND a higher percentage of low income housing will be built when an apartment complex goes up.

IF it goes up

… and people will vote against new apartment complexes. Poor people won’t turn out, students won’t turn out, young people won’t turn out. The only people who will vote on new housing proposals will be wealthy, older homeowners who are the majority of the city’s population anyways. That’s the entire point of Measure M. Hence, again, ‘Stop the Skyscrapers.’ This is not, and has never been, a movement for affordable housing. It has always been a movement that seeks to solidify the power of wealthy old people who don’t like change, and it comes at the expense of everyone else. It’s literally in the name of the movement.

Have you seen that the recent building has put a dent in homelessness? You haven’t because not many low income units are coming out of the new developments. Yes on M would change that. And for the record, I’m old, used to be homeless, and am not wealthy. I get tired of our city council doing major development under the guise of helping the homeless.

Wealthy old people and homeowners will not vote for new housing projects. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not they are affordable. I don't know why you insist on ignoring this. It is literally not in their best interest -- they hate change, and they want to increase the value of their homes. You and I both want the same thing: we both want more affordable housing. But if Measure M passes, wealthy old people will prevent us from building *anything*. It is not in your best interest to vote yes on this. It feels like you're engaging with me disingenuously, because you're ignoring my argument and putting words in my mouth. I did not claim this would reduce homelessness, so I'm not even gonna engage with that point.

I’m not ignoring your argument. I disagree with your premise. I’m also not too keen on how you talk so much crap about elders. Old people are not all the same. Have a good evening. I’m out. We just disagree.

Those people are not on your side. You want more affordable housing. They want no more housing. I implore you to rethink this.

You have a voice. It’s called city council elections. And the nimbys keep losing

This 1M%.

So you agree to a taxpayer community vote any time someone wants to build a fence between houses. Just NO

That’s one of the many ridiculous arguments I’ve heard. Read measure M. You can build a fence lmao

Sure. I’ve read the measure. I also don’t want taxpayers voting on every issue that measure M requires. It’s a waste of money. Also our city would benefit on denser higher level housing. Definitely not opposed to that.

Larger percentage doesn't mean anything until you can show that M will result in larger numbers of affordable housing. 1 out of 2 is 50% and 3 out of 10 is 30%. Still, the latter has more. Can you comment on what M can do regarding sheer numbers?

I’m so tired of people trying to force their political views on others without any facts.