Santa Cruz plans high-rise living as a fix for sky-high housing costs(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Santa Cruz plans high-rise living as a fix for sky-high housing costs
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-07/santa-cruz-plans-downtown-high-rises-to-fix-sky-high-housing-costs
202 comments
As a Santa Cruz homeowner, I wholly support building more and making Santa Cruz more affordable. It's incredible how expensive it is to live here - renting or buying. I'd love to see more young people and young families be able to enjoy this wonderful area - its truly lovely here and I don't see any reason that the great culture of Santa Cruz and responsible, tasteful and affordable housing can't co-exist.
From what I’ve seen happen in Long Beach, these high density housing developments are rarely affordable. Most new developments cater to the higher end of the market. Long Beach became much more unaffordable after the density increased.
What used to be "affordable" in Santa Cruz now exclusively caters to the wealthy. Saying we shouldn't build more because of that is simply nonsensical, because it makes this previously affordable housing even more unaffordable.
Additionally, in Santa Cruz, there are requirements on construction of large multi unit residential buildings that put deed restrictions on rent or purchase price of at least 20% of the units (unless they upped it since I last checked.)
These restrictions fall into a standard system of income bands that are based off of the median income of the area.
This new construction is the only source of affordable housing. Yet we have plenty of people opposing it because "it won't be affordable"
Additionally, in Santa Cruz, there are requirements on construction of large multi unit residential buildings that put deed restrictions on rent or purchase price of at least 20% of the units (unless they upped it since I last checked.)
These restrictions fall into a standard system of income bands that are based off of the median income of the area.
This new construction is the only source of affordable housing. Yet we have plenty of people opposing it because "it won't be affordable"
As a fellow Santa Cruz resident, thank you! There's been a massive change in opinion over the past few years, and we need to speak up to make that clear to the town.
The typical NIMBYs that have a ballot proposition coming up were only able to turn out a sad four people at the Christmas parade this year. We need to defeat that.
The typical NIMBYs that have a ballot proposition coming up were only able to turn out a sad four people at the Christmas parade this year. We need to defeat that.
But where? Therein lies the rub. Would you go up the North Coast? There's plenty of farmland there. Would you go into the forest, requiring felling a lot of trees? Please don't say you want to build out Lighthouse Field.
Everywhere there's currently a building, that's where more housing should go.
The only problem is that it's currently illegal to do that. Building a massive mansion is by-right, building apartments triggers a discretionary process that can be derailed by only a few motivated people.
The only problem is that it's currently illegal to do that. Building a massive mansion is by-right, building apartments triggers a discretionary process that can be derailed by only a few motivated people.
I'm 66, born and raised in Santa Cruz with family there and it's bizarre when your sleepy surf town turns into the hottest real estate market in California, which might make it the hottest market in the world, and none of your children, nieces and nephews can afford to live there. There's a adage in Santa Cruz that we all know well "Once you move from Santa Cruz you'll never be able to afford to move back." Many small towns across America are experiencing depopulation and poverty. Santa Cruz is the opposite, experiencing wealth and luxury. I have no further comment except to say it seems unusual.
Edit: I'm not living there. I'm over the hill in San Jose where rents are more affordable and I can't move back.
Edit2: The locals blame giving UCSC students a vote in local politics on our woes, because they are transients, progressive and don't understand local issues, preferring to preserve greenspace and the environment over growth. I'm happy with the greenspace and acccept the cost of maintaining it - I'm not complaining, merely sharing how strange it is to be priced out of your home town.
Edit: I'm not living there. I'm over the hill in San Jose where rents are more affordable and I can't move back.
Edit2: The locals blame giving UCSC students a vote in local politics on our woes, because they are transients, progressive and don't understand local issues, preferring to preserve greenspace and the environment over growth. I'm happy with the greenspace and acccept the cost of maintaining it - I'm not complaining, merely sharing how strange it is to be priced out of your home town.
This was the explicit plan for Santa Cruz, to stop all housing after the 70s and 80s and see a massive rise in property values.
It's all there in the opinion articles and letters to the editor from the time, this future was predicted. It was the plan that was accepted by leaders at the time.
It's all there in the opinion articles and letters to the editor from the time, this future was predicted. It was the plan that was accepted by leaders at the time.
You could go further and say this was the plan for California writ large. This is the natural conclusion of Prop 13 (1978).
Yes, people flooded in and then firmly shut the door behind them.
I'm not aware of any such plan. The plan was always to preserve open space such as Lighthouse Field and the green belt around Santa Cruz. I'm grateful for both of those. Property values would have risen even if they had built on Lighthouse field and the green belt. It just occured to me that I could think of them as the equivalent of NYC's Central Park or SF's Golden Gate Park.
I love the green belt! But talk to the Greenbelt's original proponents, like Primack, and you will find that the city left out the other part of the green belt proposal that was necessary for environmental protection: allow apartments to be built up.
So instead of building taller, we have decades of people living further out, building into the urban wild land interface outside of the greenbelt. That results in massive ecosystem destruction, more car pollution, and of course tons of traffic everywhere.
The solution is to merely allow apartments and 3-4 story buildings. It only takes three four story buildings to equal that 12 story building, for example.
So instead of building taller, we have decades of people living further out, building into the urban wild land interface outside of the greenbelt. That results in massive ecosystem destruction, more car pollution, and of course tons of traffic everywhere.
The solution is to merely allow apartments and 3-4 story buildings. It only takes three four story buildings to equal that 12 story building, for example.
They're doing that outside the city limits, in Live Oak for example, but inside the city limits, the Beach Flats is the only place I can think of until recently, when they started building downtown Santa Cruz. As unsightly as the downtown buildings are, if they revitalize downtown it won't be so bad. Maybe Logo's used books will come back.
There have been some buildings on Water Street in recent years too.
But that's the "plan" I was talking about: all other areas are banned from having apartments. It's right there in the city general plan. No more housing, except for a few tiny areas.
A few years ago we proposed housing along Soquel in the commercial area, and millionaire homeowners bemoaned that we were destroying their poor "working class" neighborhood by allowing apartments and affordable housing. Meanwhile these same wealthy homeowners would never consider selling their homes to anyone who is not extremely wealthy or with an astronomical income. They cater to the wealthy while blocking more affordable housing.
This is the plan continuing its execution.
Recent state law will change this, slowly, over the coming decades by making such unfair plans illegal. More housing must be allowed in city general plans, and it can't all be stuck in the poor areas, or that will violate the states interpretation of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing provisions, as enforced by state HCD.
The city will delay as long as possible, and block as much as possible, but it will happen eventually. And if the city delays too long in updating the plan to allow for more housing, the Builders Remedy will allow developers to build without city having any discretionary approval.
But that's the "plan" I was talking about: all other areas are banned from having apartments. It's right there in the city general plan. No more housing, except for a few tiny areas.
A few years ago we proposed housing along Soquel in the commercial area, and millionaire homeowners bemoaned that we were destroying their poor "working class" neighborhood by allowing apartments and affordable housing. Meanwhile these same wealthy homeowners would never consider selling their homes to anyone who is not extremely wealthy or with an astronomical income. They cater to the wealthy while blocking more affordable housing.
This is the plan continuing its execution.
Recent state law will change this, slowly, over the coming decades by making such unfair plans illegal. More housing must be allowed in city general plans, and it can't all be stuck in the poor areas, or that will violate the states interpretation of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing provisions, as enforced by state HCD.
The city will delay as long as possible, and block as much as possible, but it will happen eventually. And if the city delays too long in updating the plan to allow for more housing, the Builders Remedy will allow developers to build without city having any discretionary approval.
Good to know. Thanks for the info.
> Maybe Logo's used books will come back.
Probably a typo, but I have to note that it's Greek "Logos", not possessive or plural English.
Probably a typo, but I have to note that it's Greek "Logos", not possessive or plural English.
Santa Cruz is certainly an outlier, but we're definitely seeing it all over the country.
I'm in a small town in southeast AK. Most of the buildable land has already been claimed. Tourism is growing faster than local people can support the industry, so there's all kinds of pressures: housing for summer employees, an increased temptation to do short term rentals to tourists instead of long term rentals to locals, and people buying second and third homes that they don't use most of the year.
Many of us watch our young people leave to go find their place in the world, and then find they can't move back even if they wanted to. The ones who do are paid really well, or have their housing largely subsidized by being given property their family bought a long time ago, or some similar assistance that isn't generally available to everyone.
For the past several years, multiple schools in our town have been unable to fill empty teaching positions because the people who are hired spend all spring and half the summer looking for housing, and simply can't find it. They bail and go somewhere that's willing to hire them and has some kind of housing available.
It's really a mess.
I'm in a small town in southeast AK. Most of the buildable land has already been claimed. Tourism is growing faster than local people can support the industry, so there's all kinds of pressures: housing for summer employees, an increased temptation to do short term rentals to tourists instead of long term rentals to locals, and people buying second and third homes that they don't use most of the year.
Many of us watch our young people leave to go find their place in the world, and then find they can't move back even if they wanted to. The ones who do are paid really well, or have their housing largely subsidized by being given property their family bought a long time ago, or some similar assistance that isn't generally available to everyone.
For the past several years, multiple schools in our town have been unable to fill empty teaching positions because the people who are hired spend all spring and half the summer looking for housing, and simply can't find it. They bail and go somewhere that's willing to hire them and has some kind of housing available.
It's really a mess.
The most obvious answer seem to be around population density. What is the population density of your small town? Why would the developers not build multi-story apartments/condos?
Why is there no supply of multi-family buildings anywhere outside of cities? If everyone wants a single family home with a yard, you are going to run into space limitations.
Why is there no supply of multi-family buildings anywhere outside of cities? If everyone wants a single family home with a yard, you are going to run into space limitations.
I live in Sitka, AK. I don't know my town's land area, but we're roughly a 14-mile strip of land right between the base of steep mountains and the ocean. Most of town is about a half-mile from coast to mountains, with some stretches much narrower than that. We have about 9,000 people.
> Why would the developers not build multi-story apartments/condos?
Most of the same reasons as many places, with the added issue of not much undeveloped land to build on. Who wants to build a multi-story building when you can build an expensive house and deal with a single buyer? Zoning laws are controlled by people who already have homes, and don't prioritize accessible housing. People don't want to see the value of their home drop. People don't want their views blocked by tall buildings.
> Why would the developers not build multi-story apartments/condos?
Most of the same reasons as many places, with the added issue of not much undeveloped land to build on. Who wants to build a multi-story building when you can build an expensive house and deal with a single buyer? Zoning laws are controlled by people who already have homes, and don't prioritize accessible housing. People don't want to see the value of their home drop. People don't want their views blocked by tall buildings.
I feel a certain kind of sadness about it. There's not a word for the loss of your home town in English that I'm aware of, but there's a song that comes close to it.
Pretenders - My City Was Gone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thu8DWsirJo
Pretenders - My City Was Gone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thu8DWsirJo
"Gentrification-induced displacement" doesn't roll off the tongue very well, unfortunately.
If there are 5 houses in an area, populated by 1 family each for a total of 5 families, and those families have 1 child each (50% below population replacement rate), then with no new houses, there is no way for any of those children to have a house of their own until their parents die. But when their parents die, they get to have a home of their own.
At 2 children, the population replacement rate, only one child can have a house of their own after their parents die, if no new houses are constructed.
At 2 children, the population replacement rate, only one child can have a house of their own after their parents die, if no new houses are constructed.
That assumes that the children stay single as they grow up. If they all get a partner it is no longer one house - one person. You literally only need half as many houses.
That's assuming that none of the children marry children from other families and consolidate back into one household.
That's what happens when the low-income job market is dominated by the service industry. When wealth gets geographically concentrated, low-income workers have to follow it, and can't.
The worst part is that the wealth isn't getting concentrated into the hands of people: it's getting concentrated into the hands of landowners.
* If you are poor and pay rent, you're fucked
* If you are poor, but own your home, you are just OK; but would be better off if services were cheaper and more available (as a result of poor renters not being fucked)
* If you are rich, but pay rent, you are just OK, but would be better off if rent was lower (and poor renters wouldn't be fucked. Win-win!)
*If you are rich and own your home, then you are lucky enough to be the problem. Even so, you would be better off if rent was lower, because services would become more available, and your community would be safer and happier.
The worst part is that the wealth isn't getting concentrated into the hands of people: it's getting concentrated into the hands of landowners.
* If you are poor and pay rent, you're fucked
* If you are poor, but own your home, you are just OK; but would be better off if services were cheaper and more available (as a result of poor renters not being fucked)
* If you are rich, but pay rent, you are just OK, but would be better off if rent was lower (and poor renters wouldn't be fucked. Win-win!)
*If you are rich and own your home, then you are lucky enough to be the problem. Even so, you would be better off if rent was lower, because services would become more available, and your community would be safer and happier.
There's a fifth category; rich, own your home, and a couple more. If you're a landlord, high rents mean more money in your pocket and who doesn't want more money? The broader community effects of high rents are secondary to being able to afford a new car and a foreign vacation every few years.
The other version of that is a landowner who doesn't live in the area. If you are an exec at a property management corporation, then you get to buy your own ignorance.
Who do you blame if the big industry in town that has been growing for decades is projected to keep growing but the locals decide to not take advantage of it?
The best universities, community colleges, amazing tool libraries to learn the trades, yet.. all these people who move half way around the world to settle with no credit and hardly any savings to start end up buying a home, yet the locals can’t figure it out. Decade after decade.
The best universities, community colleges, amazing tool libraries to learn the trades, yet.. all these people who move half way around the world to settle with no credit and hardly any savings to start end up buying a home, yet the locals can’t figure it out. Decade after decade.
> all these people who move half way around the world to settle with no credit and hardly any savings to start end up buying a home, yet the locals can’t figure it out.
That's because it's brain drain on the rest of the world. You're importing some of the world's most educated people in and of course they outcompete the locals.
That's because it's brain drain on the rest of the world. You're importing some of the world's most educated people in and of course they outcompete the locals.
Based on what's going on in Seattle and San Francisco, you blame the big industry.
Are you saying the unis in Santa Cruz are sufficient to raise yourself to millionaire, and the local high schools sufficient to get into those unis? I’m not from the US, genuinely asking. But I have often seen unis have a far-distance preference, just for the social mix, while letting down the locals.
I guess it really depends on how you count your monies, but if you apply yourself at UCSC you can definitely do quite well. At least, that was true for my generation- I graduated from there in '95, missed out on the first tech recession by hiding in grad school, and then eventually moved to industry when I felt educated enough. Since my industry is tech, I've generally been paid well, with an especially profitable stint at Google. Nearly all that money got reinvested (not in housing) and continues to grow quite well.
Realistically, though, everything about CS changed and so now, I don't know that somebody could get a degree from UCSC and even afford to be a grad student or junior programmer here unless they're willing to give up a lot of niceties.
Realistically, though, everything about CS changed and so now, I don't know that somebody could get a degree from UCSC and even afford to be a grad student or junior programmer here unless they're willing to give up a lot of niceties.
Lots of entrepreneurs got their education at UCSC, but typically they put their companies outside of town (not many employees want to move to town. There are some exceptions...)
Santa Cruz students have no more difficulty getting into UCSC than other parts of the state. But the UC has gotten extremely selective due to the same reason housing is short in Santa Cruz: it's not been properly sized to allow for standard population growth in the US.
Santa Cruz students have no more difficulty getting into UCSC than other parts of the state. But the UC has gotten extremely selective due to the same reason housing is short in Santa Cruz: it's not been properly sized to allow for standard population growth in the US.
I went to UCSC, the Santa Cruz uni, as a California resident that went to high school 30-40 mins north of Santa Cruz, got a BS in computer engineering, and managed to do a couple of years at Google, so I've some money, though they didn't make me a millionaire. They would have if I'd stayed longer though.
I mean, if you're saying the locals (a population of what? a million?) should be able to compete with the best and brightest from the entire planet (9 billion?) or move, then I have to disagree.
Most of them are not the best and brightest. The best and brightest get scooped up locally. The people who move are usually just good enough, but they're hungry and willing to work their asses off. That is their edge.
Sources needed. For example, the hottest tech co. paying $1m comp packages, OpenAI. Is leadership from the Bay Area? No, it was the brightest people, from St. Louis, North Dakota, Albania / Canada, Russia / Israel. You can take a look at all the top tech co's and top brass in the Bay Area, it will be like 80% transplants. The brightest didn't start the next best tech co in Missouri or Albania.
Sources needed as to whether they were the brightest people in their home towns / countries when they left or if they became brighter through hard work and learning after arriving to the Bay Area.
Even if they were the brightest, are the thousands of people working at Bay Area companies the brightest from back home? Having worked with quite a few of them, I assure you that there are plenty of brighter people where they come from.
Even if they were the brightest, are the thousands of people working at Bay Area companies the brightest from back home? Having worked with quite a few of them, I assure you that there are plenty of brighter people where they come from.
Places change and grow. It's interesting that my kids have found places that speak to them (not the SF Bay Area) and they are growing with their towns as well. One wonders if your nieces and nephews will have the same situation.
There are clearly young families moving in around me, and the real estate market is brisk with houses changing hands quickly, but we've also added about 1500 higher density homes in the area which have afforded even more opportunities for where to live for these folks moving here. Certainly some of them prefer not doing maintenance etc which comes with home ownership.
Looking back at the city's decision to increase high density housing it has been a solid improvement.
There are clearly young families moving in around me, and the real estate market is brisk with houses changing hands quickly, but we've also added about 1500 higher density homes in the area which have afforded even more opportunities for where to live for these folks moving here. Certainly some of them prefer not doing maintenance etc which comes with home ownership.
Looking back at the city's decision to increase high density housing it has been a solid improvement.
Back in the early 1970s, Boulder, Colorado, had a referendum on restricting housing starts. It was pitched as an environmental thing, and it probably got help from the students at the University of Colorado. The referendum passed with absolutely massive turnout--precincts ran out of ballots.
This is pretty common across a number of smaller cities in California, especially beach cities. I moved into current home in Southern California 10 years back and probably not in a position to move in to any home in the city now, even with total family income increasing over this time.
Its practically everywhere in the world. Every city i mean. Maybe in SC on a extreme level, but even where I live in Amsterdam its 1.000.000 for an apartment. Which results in 4000 euros per month. Impossible for starters.
This has happened where I grew up. All the coastal California towns have priced out the majority of people who grew up there.
> I'm 66, born and raised in Santa Cruz... and none of your children, nieces and nephews can afford to live there
i mean, you're still living there too... where did you expect them to be? two objects can't occupy the same space at the same time
since we can't 'make land' (unless we dredge), the only logical place to put living habitats is up in the sky (we don't like living in holes in the ground)
i mean, you're still living there too... where did you expect them to be? two objects can't occupy the same space at the same time
since we can't 'make land' (unless we dredge), the only logical place to put living habitats is up in the sky (we don't like living in holes in the ground)
There’s a ton of land that can be developed around Santa Cruz, it just can’t be developed due to public policy and local opposition.
Huge empty tracts all over and especially around Ben Lomond etc.
The flip side of all this is that a lot of long term residents love that their 100-200k houses are now worth a million+ with their property taxes capped at essentially nothing. They don’t want to give that up to allow their nieces and nephews to afford to grow their families in Santa Cruz.
Huge empty tracts all over and especially around Ben Lomond etc.
The flip side of all this is that a lot of long term residents love that their 100-200k houses are now worth a million+ with their property taxes capped at essentially nothing. They don’t want to give that up to allow their nieces and nephews to afford to grow their families in Santa Cruz.
> There’s a ton of land that can be developed around Santa Cruz, it just can’t be developed due to public policy and local opposition
This is how we get urban sprawl and habitat destruction.
This is how we get urban sprawl and habitat destruction.
Yes, up is better than out. I'm happy the Santa Cruz planning commission has sanely decided to start by building downtown up.
There's tons of land inside of Santa Cruz that should be developed first. Keep the green belt and let people experience nature. Let all the people living in the hills and causing lots of environmental destruction through roads and other impacts stop making those impacts by giving them the equivalent rent inside the city.
In short, lots of houses would be great. (I'm a Santa Cruz resident, for the record)
In short, lots of houses would be great. (I'm a Santa Cruz resident, for the record)
You forgot to mention that UCSC sits on a huge tract of land that they refuse to build student housing on for reasons I can't fathom.
NIMBYs in the city sue the university to stop all housing, infrastructure, or other things that may allow for more students or reduce their problems.
Fortunately there have been modifications to CEQA last year to prevent these abuses of the law that result in worse environmental outcomes (students driving long distances rather than living on campus)
Fortunately there have been modifications to CEQA last year to prevent these abuses of the law that result in worse environmental outcomes (students driving long distances rather than living on campus)
The original plan was to build out UCSC a lot more. I think the regents lost their motivation after building colleges 9 and 10 and also I think if they built more student housing, they'd have to build more parking lots (so many students have cars) and the traffic in the city would increase tremendously.
> if they built more student housing, they'd have to build more parking lots
There is another solution to this!
There is another solution to this!
If you think you can solve CA's addiction to cars, I'm all ears.
> think you can solve CA's addiction to cars
No need. We're solving a narrow problem: students' need to park on campus. Out-of-town commuter and part-time students will need a car. But everyone else is solvable.
No need. We're solving a narrow problem: students' need to park on campus. Out-of-town commuter and part-time students will need a car. But everyone else is solvable.
Specifically, Merrill and Oakes college have that parking lot, and there's a parking structure by the Earth/sciences building, and another one up above college 11, and several more. Once you get on campus though, there's a reasonably good shuttle to take you around campus, so you just need to park somewhere on campus and then give yourself enough time to take the shuttle to your destination. If you're living on campus, you only need to get off campus to go to the local downtown bar scene, or for other extracurriculars, but there's a bus that takes you downtown so as a student you can get away with not having a car.
that's not how car problems are solved in California.
> not how car problems are solved in California
Stop trying to solve the problem for California. Focus on the narrow problem. Universities everywhere operate as a parallel population.
Stop trying to solve the problem for California. Focus on the narrow problem. Universities everywhere operate as a parallel population.
Well, it's also not how car problems are solved at UCSC, either.
UCSC is an enclave on a hill with limited transport routes to downtown or the rest of the world. And the UCSC leadership has its hands tied by many different things; they can't just say "OK no cars on campus except if you are a commuter".
UCSC is an enclave on a hill with limited transport routes to downtown or the rest of the world. And the UCSC leadership has its hands tied by many different things; they can't just say "OK no cars on campus except if you are a commuter".
> UCSC is an enclave on a hill with limited transport routes to downtown or the rest of the world
Right, this is how you solve it. (Most students don’t need a car parked on campus to get to the rest of the world from Santa Cruz.)
Right, this is how you solve it. (Most students don’t need a car parked on campus to get to the rest of the world from Santa Cruz.)
[deleted]
Good article, great photos.
I sympathize with folks worried about changing their neighborhood. At the same time there's really no magic solution to high housing costs outside increasing supply.
I sympathize with folks worried about changing their neighborhood. At the same time there's really no magic solution to high housing costs outside increasing supply.
There aren't any magic solutions, but I think there are a lot of ideas that could incentivize affordable housing for people who actually live here.
A number of my neighbors are Prop 13 'princelings'. Their parents snapped up a bunch of housing, have next to 0 annual cost, and extract fantastic wealth renting them out, all while receiving a huge tax subsidy. This position passes to the next generation, who essentially become absentee landlords and are heavily incentivized to prevent more housing.
A number of places in Santa Cruz and the rest of the county are completely underutilized because these families prefer to do absolutely nothing and collect insane rents on dilapidated properties to the detriment of everybody else who lives here.
A number of my neighbors are Prop 13 'princelings'. Their parents snapped up a bunch of housing, have next to 0 annual cost, and extract fantastic wealth renting them out, all while receiving a huge tax subsidy. This position passes to the next generation, who essentially become absentee landlords and are heavily incentivized to prevent more housing.
A number of places in Santa Cruz and the rest of the county are completely underutilized because these families prefer to do absolutely nothing and collect insane rents on dilapidated properties to the detriment of everybody else who lives here.
You could limit over-consumption of the existing supply by differentially property-taxing nonresident homeowners. That would lower property values + rents real quick.
According to this site [1] the percentage of renters in SC in 2017 was 60%.
[1]: https://noplacelikehome.ucsc.edu/makings-of-a-crisis/
According to this site [1] the percentage of renters in SC in 2017 was 60%.
[1]: https://noplacelikehome.ucsc.edu/makings-of-a-crisis/
Not sure if this is being facetious, but California has prop 13 which means your property taxes cannot go up more than 2% per year. It would be great if a new prop was passed which reversed it, but polling on reversing it is always very unpopular since homeowners are very consistent voters.
Yea, I used to live in CA and am all-to-aware of the distortions of Prop 13. I'm more giving a theoretical solution to the problem I observe in many US metro areas, rather than something that would specifically work for California tomorrow.
FWIW, as more and more California homeowners become non-residents of California (moving to other states such as Florida, Nevada in retirement is fairly common), I think Prop 13 will gradually become less popular among the actual voting-eligible population of CA. But this will take decades, I imagine.
It just benefits far too few at the expense of too many to stay law forever.
FWIW, as more and more California homeowners become non-residents of California (moving to other states such as Florida, Nevada in retirement is fairly common), I think Prop 13 will gradually become less popular among the actual voting-eligible population of CA. But this will take decades, I imagine.
It just benefits far too few at the expense of too many to stay law forever.
I hope you are right but am skeptical. Only because older and wealthier people are very consistent voters - and "don't raise taxes on ordinary homeowners" seems to be very popular as a populist message as well, even among people who are likely to never own a home.
You're very right to be skeptical. Increasingly, "homeowner" is becoming strongly associated with class, especially in urban and suburban California.
Eventually the older/wealthier people pass away and the younger people wonder why they can't afford a home, even though they work the same job that their landlord's grandma did.
The demographics of prop 13 support are pretty interesting. The slope for prop 13 support is overall trending negative as time goes on, but the "intercept" is still quite high. Hence my statement that I think we're still a few decades away from it becoming a common rally cry for voters – whereas today it's a third rail.
FWIW this tax would also explicitly not affect "ordinary" homeowners. I think the main issue is that people are not imaginative enough to dream of a progressive property tax, since it's not progressive today.
Eventually the older/wealthier people pass away and the younger people wonder why they can't afford a home, even though they work the same job that their landlord's grandma did.
The demographics of prop 13 support are pretty interesting. The slope for prop 13 support is overall trending negative as time goes on, but the "intercept" is still quite high. Hence my statement that I think we're still a few decades away from it becoming a common rally cry for voters – whereas today it's a third rail.
FWIW this tax would also explicitly not affect "ordinary" homeowners. I think the main issue is that people are not imaginative enough to dream of a progressive property tax, since it's not progressive today.
Are you trying to kill rentals, or are you trying to kill empty houses.
Killing rentals is bad for anyone who find owning is not the best option for them. To own a house/condo you need a large down payment, then you need to pay maintenance fees (some of this can be personal labor if you are able), and worse if you move soon you need to sell. Buying a place can be a great idea for some, but for others it is wrong. Most of us will go through different phases in life and odds are until you are 25 or 30 years old renting is clearly the best decision, but after that many of us settle down in a location where we are likely to live for the rest of our life and buying starts to make sense for many.
There are a few houses in the world when some rich foreigner has bought the house and leaves it vacant. However so far all data I've seen suggests the number of people doing this is tiny (it is generally a stupid investment)
Killing rentals is bad for anyone who find owning is not the best option for them. To own a house/condo you need a large down payment, then you need to pay maintenance fees (some of this can be personal labor if you are able), and worse if you move soon you need to sell. Buying a place can be a great idea for some, but for others it is wrong. Most of us will go through different phases in life and odds are until you are 25 or 30 years old renting is clearly the best decision, but after that many of us settle down in a location where we are likely to live for the rest of our life and buying starts to make sense for many.
There are a few houses in the world when some rich foreigner has bought the house and leaves it vacant. However so far all data I've seen suggests the number of people doing this is tiny (it is generally a stupid investment)
It depends on where you live I suppose, in So Cal houses are such a good investment that just holding gets you gains near the SP500, and I've seen a few surpass their engineering salaries by renting out 2-3.
Not trying to kill rentals, I'd have the tax only applied to single-family and multi-family homes, not apartment buildings. I agree that a supply of quality rental housing is an essential part of a healthy housing system.
I think anybody who intends to be a long-term resident (5+ years) shouldn't be financially excluded from residential homeownership because nonresidents (who maybe used to be residents) bought up all the local property, when it was more affordable 20-40 years ago.
I'm trying to tax the intersection of nonresidency and single/multi-family homeownership, which includes empty houses and the many rentals.
I think anybody who intends to be a long-term resident (5+ years) shouldn't be financially excluded from residential homeownership because nonresidents (who maybe used to be residents) bought up all the local property, when it was more affordable 20-40 years ago.
I'm trying to tax the intersection of nonresidency and single/multi-family homeownership, which includes empty houses and the many rentals.
>Are you trying to kill rentals
Yes. I've paid more than 100% of the presumed costs of owning the rental unit I'm in, and have recently received a rude awakening as to my rights to the property whose equity I have fully funded for five years. It's a scam.
Yes. I've paid more than 100% of the presumed costs of owning the rental unit I'm in, and have recently received a rude awakening as to my rights to the property whose equity I have fully funded for five years. It's a scam.
Another way of looking at it is that single family houses "over-consume" land. There are vacancies in the vertical space above most homes that far exceeds the vacancies created by absentee owners.
That's backwards because it would torpedo the economy of building and operating rental apartments. You really want the opposite: a special tax for owner-occupiers.
"Existing supply" has nothing to do with building the apartment rentals, though the apartment operations economy would get hit and they might have to actually do some work somewhere. I believe the parent comment is about how many houses are stagnant because the owners have long since moved out, don't want to do any upgrades, and just cash checks from the next generation that has nowhere to buy since all the houses are rented out.
I'm a bit bitter because there's so much of this around where I live, and it's just sad they're systemically incentivized to keep the next generations renting forever.
I'm a bit bitter because there's so much of this around where I live, and it's just sad they're systemically incentivized to keep the next generations renting forever.
Existing supply has a lot to do with building new. It is a very important input in the consideration if you will build. Too many vacant units and you are at risk of values going down and not making your investment work. Too few vacant units and you know there is demand so you should build.
Fine, you could limit the tax to buildings identified as single and multi-family homes? Most of those 60% are not living in rental apartments.
What it would do is reduce the property value of existing real estate supply (by making expected cash flow from renting far less profitable), effectively forcing nonresident owners to sell their buildings to would-be renters, who would now be able to afford a mortgage on their homes.
My thesis, fwiw, is that there's actually a sufficient supply of housing, it's just cornered with artificially inflated prices by people who treat housing as an investment vehicle rather than, well, housing.
What it would do is reduce the property value of existing real estate supply (by making expected cash flow from renting far less profitable), effectively forcing nonresident owners to sell their buildings to would-be renters, who would now be able to afford a mortgage on their homes.
My thesis, fwiw, is that there's actually a sufficient supply of housing, it's just cornered with artificially inflated prices by people who treat housing as an investment vehicle rather than, well, housing.
This is already a thing. Santa Cruz (and I think a bunch of places in CA?) have an a rule that lowers the assessed value of your property for tax purposes if it is your primary residence.
However:
- the size of the benefit is small
- my understanding is there is very little effort to confirm these for small owners
https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/Departments/AssessorsOffic...
However:
- the size of the benefit is small
- my understanding is there is very little effort to confirm these for small owners
https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/Departments/AssessorsOffic...
It is $65/year. Compare this to Somerville, MA where it is 35% a year
Yep! I'd rather explicitly + differentially tax vs offer a tax credit for homeownership. Providing a revenue vs a debit against revenue.
And to your point about the benefit being small, I'd suggest the tax should be fairly punitive. Not enough to make profiting off a rental impossible, but to make it barely beat, idk, inflation.
I've even thought about the idea of making it lever-up depending on the cumulative number of months you lease the property for. 12 months = X, 24 months = 2X, 36 months = cap of 3X, where 3X is that magically-painful amount that makes it almost impossible to make a >5% Internal Rate of Return.
And to your point about the benefit being small, I'd suggest the tax should be fairly punitive. Not enough to make profiting off a rental impossible, but to make it barely beat, idk, inflation.
I've even thought about the idea of making it lever-up depending on the cumulative number of months you lease the property for. 12 months = X, 24 months = 2X, 36 months = cap of 3X, where 3X is that magically-painful amount that makes it almost impossible to make a >5% Internal Rate of Return.
> by differentially property-taxing nonresident homeowners. That would lower property values + rents real quick.
Need to find the case study, but the precedent for this is rents go up. There are more barriers to housing than the price. Better strategy is taxing unoccupied housing.
Need to find the case study, but the precedent for this is rents go up. There are more barriers to housing than the price. Better strategy is taxing unoccupied housing.
I think this strategy would also tax unoccupied housing. Because if it's unoccupied, you're a de facto nonresident.
The broader idea is to tax absentee landlords and pied a terres, in favor of the people who actually live in the city. Moral justification of the tax is that if you want to profit off a community's residents while not living amongst them, you have to pay differentially higher taxes for the right (which would presumably benefit the civic life of those residents).
The broader idea is to tax absentee landlords and pied a terres, in favor of the people who actually live in the city. Moral justification of the tax is that if you want to profit off a community's residents while not living amongst them, you have to pay differentially higher taxes for the right (which would presumably benefit the civic life of those residents).
> idea is to tax absentee landlords and pied a terres, in favor of the people who actually live in the city
The point is taxing "absentee landlords" means taxing the people who rent from them. These sorts of policies sound clever, but they don't change the supply nor demand, and so just wind up raising housing prices more.
There isn't a loophole around supply and demand other than rationing, i.e. a community board deciding who can and cannot move in. (The answer is always white people.)
The point is taxing "absentee landlords" means taxing the people who rent from them. These sorts of policies sound clever, but they don't change the supply nor demand, and so just wind up raising housing prices more.
There isn't a loophole around supply and demand other than rationing, i.e. a community board deciding who can and cannot move in. (The answer is always white people.)
I think that's a good criticism. It assumes that rent demand would be perfectly elastic in response to the step-up in property tax, but I'm not sure if that holds provided you pick a high enough differential tax.
If a family is paying $3k/month to rent out a $800k single-family home, and we tax the landlord 15% the value on the home, could he find a family to pay $13k/month in rent (covering the tax)?
I think this would just cause the value of the home to crater, to come closer to a reality that tolerates $3k/month-ish rent. To the point where the property value is low enough that the resident family can just buy a property.
If a family is paying $3k/month to rent out a $800k single-family home, and we tax the landlord 15% the value on the home, could he find a family to pay $13k/month in rent (covering the tax)?
I think this would just cause the value of the home to crater, to come closer to a reality that tolerates $3k/month-ish rent. To the point where the property value is low enough that the resident family can just buy a property.
> and we tax the landlord 15% the value on the home, could he find a family to pay $13k/month in rent (covering the tax)?
At that rate they'd sell. That would lower purchase home prices. But there is plenty of primary residential demand, so not by much. Unless that family has $100k+ for a down payment (and good credit, and a long-term outlook towards staying in the area, and all their paperwork in order), they're not in the running to buy it.
After that one-time transfer of housing stock from landlords to residents, you'd be back in the same situation: more demand than supply. Moreover, this would be something one could anticipate. So if Santa Cruz passed this law, I would help my parents pull together the cash to move there. Because once the supply surge is absorbed, you're likely to make money on the return to business as usual.
At that rate they'd sell. That would lower purchase home prices. But there is plenty of primary residential demand, so not by much. Unless that family has $100k+ for a down payment (and good credit, and a long-term outlook towards staying in the area, and all their paperwork in order), they're not in the running to buy it.
After that one-time transfer of housing stock from landlords to residents, you'd be back in the same situation: more demand than supply. Moreover, this would be something one could anticipate. So if Santa Cruz passed this law, I would help my parents pull together the cash to move there. Because once the supply surge is absorbed, you're likely to make money on the return to business as usual.
I guess I'm not very inclined to believe that there is more primary residential demand than there is real estate.
I think the renter population is the most straightforward proxy for primary residential demand. Those are people who are actually paying to live there. Because they go to UCSC, work, have kids, whatever. We know the rental population is 60% of the actual SC housed population. Of that, maybe 80% have primary residential demand (students, etc. might make up the balancing 20%).
So that's ~50% primary residential demand. I'm sure that some proportion of the housing stock that belongs to non-renting people belongs to people who are residents, but I'm relatively bearish on that. Even if only 25% are vacation homes, second homes, etc. that leaves us with a marginal 30% primary residential demand and a cumulative primary residential demand of 80%. So for every 100 homes there's demand for 80.
On surging. I'd say if you want to move your family to Santa Cruz as resident owners, we would love to have you. If you can afford to pay more than the people who already live here and are paying rent, I agree that's a shit situation.
I guess you could ban nonresident buyers for the first N years or something? That might be one degree of complexity too far, but I agree that's a shortcoming that one should have a plan for.
I think it's really difficult to enact these kinds of programs at the municipal level – it really has to be done at the state level. You'd still end up with weird border scenarios, where you have a 80% resident homeowner utopia on one side of the border with nevada, where all the labor for that town reside in 80% renter dystopia on the other side.
I think the renter population is the most straightforward proxy for primary residential demand. Those are people who are actually paying to live there. Because they go to UCSC, work, have kids, whatever. We know the rental population is 60% of the actual SC housed population. Of that, maybe 80% have primary residential demand (students, etc. might make up the balancing 20%).
So that's ~50% primary residential demand. I'm sure that some proportion of the housing stock that belongs to non-renting people belongs to people who are residents, but I'm relatively bearish on that. Even if only 25% are vacation homes, second homes, etc. that leaves us with a marginal 30% primary residential demand and a cumulative primary residential demand of 80%. So for every 100 homes there's demand for 80.
On surging. I'd say if you want to move your family to Santa Cruz as resident owners, we would love to have you. If you can afford to pay more than the people who already live here and are paying rent, I agree that's a shit situation.
I guess you could ban nonresident buyers for the first N years or something? That might be one degree of complexity too far, but I agree that's a shortcoming that one should have a plan for.
I think it's really difficult to enact these kinds of programs at the municipal level – it really has to be done at the state level. You'd still end up with weird border scenarios, where you have a 80% resident homeowner utopia on one side of the border with nevada, where all the labor for that town reside in 80% renter dystopia on the other side.
> the renter population is the most straightforward proxy for primary residential demand
This would be correct if rents were stable amidst rising home prices. that happens from time to time. But it tends to correct itself, and it is not the situation in Santa Cruz. Even at prevailing prices, there are more people who want to live there than there are spots; that’s why prices and rents keep rising.
This would be correct if rents were stable amidst rising home prices. that happens from time to time. But it tends to correct itself, and it is not the situation in Santa Cruz. Even at prevailing prices, there are more people who want to live there than there are spots; that’s why prices and rents keep rising.
I think it's a more complicated supply/demand story than that. The median price of units currently on the rental market is different from the median rental price.
The supply side for "current rental market prices" is different than the supply for all rentals. Rental turnover rate for places that have been rented out for 10+ years is quite low. A disproportionate number of newly-marketed rentals in the last decade are comparatively recent conversions from resident-ownership to rental (hence, rising proportion of renting population), and the cost basis of ownership for those landlords is an OOM higher than landlords from a couple decades ago.
We don't really know if the median paid rent "could afford" to rise to median market rent, I can't imagine that it would. That market rent prices are rising does not directly entail that more people want to live there than there are spots, the story is a bit more complicated.
The supply side for "current rental market prices" is different than the supply for all rentals. Rental turnover rate for places that have been rented out for 10+ years is quite low. A disproportionate number of newly-marketed rentals in the last decade are comparatively recent conversions from resident-ownership to rental (hence, rising proportion of renting population), and the cost basis of ownership for those landlords is an OOM higher than landlords from a couple decades ago.
We don't really know if the median paid rent "could afford" to rise to median market rent, I can't imagine that it would. That market rent prices are rising does not directly entail that more people want to live there than there are spots, the story is a bit more complicated.
If we're talking about rent-seeking corporations also being subject to the tax, then it would also prevent them from seeing the same returns and perhaps
There's also a bill out there that would simply preclude hedge funds ownership of single-family homes: https://www.housingwire.com/articles/democrats-introduce-bil...
The combination of taxing rented property + reducing corporate ownership would do wonders for affordability. It would also stall or crater any retirement/dynastic wealth plan based on renting SFH properties.
There's also a bill out there that would simply preclude hedge funds ownership of single-family homes: https://www.housingwire.com/articles/democrats-introduce-bil...
The combination of taxing rented property + reducing corporate ownership would do wonders for affordability. It would also stall or crater any retirement/dynastic wealth plan based on renting SFH properties.
Corporate entities are an obvious scapegoat, that we should definitely preclude from SFH (and MFH) ownership, and I'm sure that bill would be really popular among the electorate.
In most locales, from what I've seen, it's the retirement/dynastic wealth folks who are squeezing supply – they've been in this game for 30+ years and have a big head start on the PE firms.
Crafting a bill with popular support that targets those folks is going to be a bit more challenging, because these people are not all terribly extractive, and a lot of up and coming people still actively aspire to become those people. In my observation, the younger and less gainfully employed / marketably skilled these people are, the more extractive they are. As such, I think it's a matter of time before we hit a breaking point.
There's precedent for this in American history, where we've had dramatic step-changes to property law in response to varying-degrees-of-obvious injustice. I don't know if my generation will develop the political will to enact it, but it does feel inevitable that it'll happen in the next 80 years. It's either that, or we've become an effectively-feudal and urban society – which feels less likely, to me.
In most locales, from what I've seen, it's the retirement/dynastic wealth folks who are squeezing supply – they've been in this game for 30+ years and have a big head start on the PE firms.
Crafting a bill with popular support that targets those folks is going to be a bit more challenging, because these people are not all terribly extractive, and a lot of up and coming people still actively aspire to become those people. In my observation, the younger and less gainfully employed / marketably skilled these people are, the more extractive they are. As such, I think it's a matter of time before we hit a breaking point.
There's precedent for this in American history, where we've had dramatic step-changes to property law in response to varying-degrees-of-obvious injustice. I don't know if my generation will develop the political will to enact it, but it does feel inevitable that it'll happen in the next 80 years. It's either that, or we've become an effectively-feudal and urban society – which feels less likely, to me.
I stand by my point - removing the massive upward pricing pressure from corporate entities will cause the market to balance itself much more readily even with the dynastic wealth grifters.
Over the past 5 years, I have gotten no shortage of "cash buyer offers" for our property, and I have no doubt the counterparty in almost all of those cases were corporations.
Remove that, and the lack of upward pricing pressure will force a reversion to the mean, which makes it more costly/risky to seek rents.
Over the past 5 years, I have gotten no shortage of "cash buyer offers" for our property, and I have no doubt the counterparty in almost all of those cases were corporations.
Remove that, and the lack of upward pricing pressure will force a reversion to the mean, which makes it more costly/risky to seek rents.
> The point is taxing "absentee landlords" means taxing the people who rent from them
This is the same logic that says any tax simply increases the price. That's not how the price/availability curve works, there are many places that simply mint money because of collusion amongst landlords.
This is the same logic that says any tax simply increases the price. That's not how the price/availability curve works, there are many places that simply mint money because of collusion amongst landlords.
> but the precedent for this is rents go up
If rents CAN go up why wouldn’t they just go up absent the tax hike ?
If rents CAN go up why wouldn’t they just go up absent the tax hike ?
> why wouldn’t they just go up absent the tax hike ?
Competition. The hike is symmetrical to a collusion agreement as it’s uniformly applied.
Competition. The hike is symmetrical to a collusion agreement as it’s uniformly applied.
Is lowering property values a favorable outcome?
> Is lowering property values a favorable outcome?
It's probably untenable alongside local democracy. Instead, zero real appreciation seems like a reasonable target.
It's probably untenable alongside local democracy. Instead, zero real appreciation seems like a reasonable target.
For individuals no. For society long term to a point. Lower property values allow young people to get an affordable place to live and leaves them money leftover for other things they want to do. However it is negative for those who already own. There is probably some minimum value as well that you don't want to go below - but I don't know how you would figure that out.
I think my hangup is that there's a conflation between a property's value (which, right now, is some appraisal of a parcel given nearby comparable parcels by some metric) and a home's acquisition price. In the SFH case, they might be inexorably linked, but for justifying more dense options, it's the ever increasing value of land that makes the case to densify. It's mostly a matter of how densely you can continue rebuilding in order to hit a price target at that point. This is roughly the Japanese model.
Only partially. Building a 100 story high rise is only reasonable if property values are very high - there is presumably high demand for that area and thus density, and the high values mean you have to spread the cost across a lot of people to make it affordable for anyone.
Even in very low demand small towns though there is demand for some density - a 3 story apartment will often exist in those towns and have no problem renting to people who want/need to live in the small town but don't want a single family for whatever reason. These smaller low rise buildings are the cheapest housing possible - they are small enough that they don't need expensive elevators and the like, though of course they don't make sense in high property value areas.
Which is to say that even on the low end of property value density can be justified to some extent.
Even in very low demand small towns though there is demand for some density - a 3 story apartment will often exist in those towns and have no problem renting to people who want/need to live in the small town but don't want a single family for whatever reason. These smaller low rise buildings are the cheapest housing possible - they are small enough that they don't need expensive elevators and the like, though of course they don't make sense in high property value areas.
Which is to say that even on the low end of property value density can be justified to some extent.
From present values? I think the answer for "society" is definitively yes, because present values exclude all but top, idk, 5% earners from homeownership in urban and suburban areas. It's extra pronounced in CA because of prop 13, but we face this problem all around the country.
It would be a not-minor hiccup for the segment of retirees and near-retirees who depend on rental cash flow for their retirement. They could sell their 2nd and 3rd properties for reduced values, buy an annuity, and live an appropriately downscaled lifestyle.
IDK, my main goal is to restore our communities with 70+% residential homeownership. I think the emergent socioeconomic & cultural effects of communities where the majority of people are long-term committed to their locale are more valuable to society than the effects of rent-seeking.
It would be a not-minor hiccup for the segment of retirees and near-retirees who depend on rental cash flow for their retirement. They could sell their 2nd and 3rd properties for reduced values, buy an annuity, and live an appropriately downscaled lifestyle.
IDK, my main goal is to restore our communities with 70+% residential homeownership. I think the emergent socioeconomic & cultural effects of communities where the majority of people are long-term committed to their locale are more valuable to society than the effects of rent-seeking.
It's mostly that I find property values as a proxy for acquisition prices somewhat disingenuous because it perpetuates thinking of single-family houses as the housing model given that's what presently exists to be valued.
If you're concerned about what it will cost someone to acquire someplace to live, come out and say that. Don't couch it in language that opens the conversation for devaluing what we already have.
If you're concerned about what it will cost someone to acquire someplace to live, come out and say that. Don't couch it in language that opens the conversation for devaluing what we already have.
Can you elaborate more on the distinction between property values and acquisition price, and how that relates to housing prices?
I wish I knew enough to consent to or refute your statement, alas here I am!
I'm interested in having urban and suburban communities of homeowners. I do think most people prefer the autonomy that comes with single-family and (occasionally cooperatively-owned) multi-family homes when it comes to long-term residential-use ownership, fwiw.
I wish I knew enough to consent to or refute your statement, alas here I am!
I'm interested in having urban and suburban communities of homeowners. I do think most people prefer the autonomy that comes with single-family and (occasionally cooperatively-owned) multi-family homes when it comes to long-term residential-use ownership, fwiw.
Sure. The long and short of it comes down to how appraisals work, especially in the context of supply-constrained housing markets.
Buyers with means in supply-constrained markets don't really care about a seller's asking price (read: their acquisition price as a buyer) beyond having a lower bound, and a pattern of buyers just throwing money at sellers has the knock-on effect of increasing property values.
Acquisition prices drive values.
Buyers with means in supply-constrained markets don't really care about a seller's asking price (read: their acquisition price as a buyer) beyond having a lower bound, and a pattern of buyers just throwing money at sellers has the knock-on effect of increasing property values.
Acquisition prices drive values.
If you see my other comments in this thread, does that help contextualize my position?
Basically, my thesis is we probably don't need to increase physical supply, we can probably get away with increasing market supply, and that the physical supply is actually probably sufficient to satisfy the physical residential demand.
If that isn't the case, obviously you have to build. But I don't see high prices as evidence that the problem is the lack homes for residents. It could very much be that the problem is that physical supply is over-consumed.
I think we tend to reach for high-density supply as a solution, without thinking about whether that's actually the best solution. It's definitely the simplest, but we don't even explore the other issues that cause distortion in the market. Like prop 13, the retiring generation treating their homes as retirement vehicles, etc.
It doesn't seem implausible to me that if we solve those distortions in favor of resident homeowners, that the "affordable housing crisis" goes away without requiring high-density housing in downtown Santa Cruz.
Basically, my thesis is we probably don't need to increase physical supply, we can probably get away with increasing market supply, and that the physical supply is actually probably sufficient to satisfy the physical residential demand.
If that isn't the case, obviously you have to build. But I don't see high prices as evidence that the problem is the lack homes for residents. It could very much be that the problem is that physical supply is over-consumed.
I think we tend to reach for high-density supply as a solution, without thinking about whether that's actually the best solution. It's definitely the simplest, but we don't even explore the other issues that cause distortion in the market. Like prop 13, the retiring generation treating their homes as retirement vehicles, etc.
It doesn't seem implausible to me that if we solve those distortions in favor of resident homeowners, that the "affordable housing crisis" goes away without requiring high-density housing in downtown Santa Cruz.
I don't necessarily disagree, but the proposed mechanisms for controlling that market supply seem hard to enforce with the current millage regime. Any hushed talk of expropriation also risks eliciting thoughts of eminent domain. It's a really hard sell.
Additionally, the biggest piece of evidence for physical supply being the constraint is overcrowding: how many unrelated people are living in a single housing unit? Especially in college towns like Santa Cruz (and especially as we've not stood up new schools elsewhere), this seems particularly acute.
Additionally, the biggest piece of evidence for physical supply being the constraint is overcrowding: how many unrelated people are living in a single housing unit? Especially in college towns like Santa Cruz (and especially as we've not stood up new schools elsewhere), this seems particularly acute.
Yes, it is completely necessary for growth.
Is it? I can see lower acquisition prices being necessary for growth, but property values as we know them presently are tied to land, the increased value of which is the push to densify.
You also want the natural increase (well, Prop 13 permitting) in tax revenue for city amenities.
You also want the natural increase (well, Prop 13 permitting) in tax revenue for city amenities.
I have less sympathy for people afraid of neighborhood change after having been pushed out of a neighborhood that changed (gentrified) anyway.
In any case, I tend to think that outlawing for-profit ownership of multiple SFHs or multifamily units would actually go a long way toward increasing supply and dropping costs without building. Reduced centralized ownership means lowered capacity to play pricing and vacancy games.
The real enemy of affordable housing is that so many people benefit from housing being unaffordable. Tell them to kick rocks and find another source of income at the federal/constitutional level, please.
In any case, I tend to think that outlawing for-profit ownership of multiple SFHs or multifamily units would actually go a long way toward increasing supply and dropping costs without building. Reduced centralized ownership means lowered capacity to play pricing and vacancy games.
The real enemy of affordable housing is that so many people benefit from housing being unaffordable. Tell them to kick rocks and find another source of income at the federal/constitutional level, please.
Yeah, doesn't mean it needs to be in Santa Cruz, could be outside it.
"Not in my city, in that other city," says every city, everywhere. Hence NIMBY: they aren't saying "no", just Not In My BackYard.
The problem is everyone is saying this. So you have nowhere to build. Santa Cruz should not get special treatment - it will be offered the same deal as everyone else: build what is required to house people in the way you want, or build what is required to house people in the ways other people want.
The problem is everyone is saying this. So you have nowhere to build. Santa Cruz should not get special treatment - it will be offered the same deal as everyone else: build what is required to house people in the way you want, or build what is required to house people in the ways other people want.
that's a very long way to just say N I M B Y
As a resident of Santa Cruz, we need a looooot more housing in Santa Cruz. And elsewhere too. But my concern is for the future of Santa Cruz and having some place for my children to live in the future, in an environmentally sustainable way.
This entire country once decided they could just build stuff outside of the city and it led to endless bland sprawl, nightmare commutes and environmental devastation. Transitionally, Santa Cruzians don't like any of those things.
why is housing cost a problem that needs to be solved? there are plenty of inexpensive houses, they just don't happen to be in this beach town.
This is a very short sighted take, but also housing costs are rising dramatically in places other than Santa Cruz.
Building more is a temporary fix. Within a few years the prices will be just as bad as now, if not worse, but now your city is full of ugly buildings and a ton of new people have occupied your roads, schools, beaches and forests. And then will come the calls to build even more housing.
It’s expensive because it’s desirable - how do you fix that ?
One of the premier nature locations in the country, close to SV, great weather year round
Make it cheap!
One of the premier nature locations in the country, close to SV, great weather year round
Make it cheap!
[deleted]
> It’s expensive because it’s desirable - how do you fix that ?
Killing desirability is easy, actually.
Killing desirability is easy, actually.
I guess I'm a bit of a NIMBY like most Santa Cruzians (well ex-) but idk Santa Cruz is just an idyllic beach town. That's part of the charm and the identity. I don't think everywhere needs to metropolize and I'm not convinced doing so will even have an effect on housing costs. I also realize this is an incredibly unpopular opinion.
I do think the city needs housing, for sure, but high rises? Baby steps maybe?
I do think the city needs housing, for sure, but high rises? Baby steps maybe?
>I don't think everywhere needs to metropolize
the problem is that the NIMBYs exist everywhere, and housing has to get built somewhere. if a municipality wants to create a district covering some portion of their area that maintains the idyllic beach town vibe, that doesn't cause a problem so long as they're also willing to create a district where building houses actually is allowed. but as long as every single neighbourhood says it's charm and identity is based on having no new housing built, where are people supposed to live?
the problem is that the NIMBYs exist everywhere, and housing has to get built somewhere. if a municipality wants to create a district covering some portion of their area that maintains the idyllic beach town vibe, that doesn't cause a problem so long as they're also willing to create a district where building houses actually is allowed. but as long as every single neighbourhood says it's charm and identity is based on having no new housing built, where are people supposed to live?
Every random city in the US is like this. Fucking Spokane has NIMBYs. There was a NYT article a couple of years ago about how a lot of people had moved in from California and Seattle thanks to the ability to work remotely. Some dude was like "Yeah people need somewhere to live, but why do they need to add apartment buildings to my town??"
It's a good point but let's remember that we're talking about a town of 60,000 people.
You have to remember that Santa Cruz is very near the Bay Area and in California. A lot more than 60,000 people want to live there many have been forced out by costs.
What you’re saying really amounts to saying you want to stop immigration into your town. While I can understand the sentiment, the problem is that people feel this way in so many places that it is creating a crisis of housing affordability.
What you’re saying really amounts to saying you want to stop immigration into your town. While I can understand the sentiment, the problem is that people feel this way in so many places that it is creating a crisis of housing affordability.
Santa Cruz may be very "near" the Bay Area geographically but it's not practically. Even if you worked in San Jose you're talking 1.5 hours of commute in good weather (I did that for years). The other closest city is Monterey which is further and is of course not what anyone might call an economic hub.
Most of the people living in Santa Cruz owning homes are not commuting to the Bay to work. They made their money in tech and have retired to the beach.
Most of the people living in Santa Cruz owning homes are not commuting to the Bay to work. They made their money in tech and have retired to the beach.
That's because Santa Cruz has repeatedly voted to limit transit access, specifically to keep it small.
I know many many people who have moved to SC from the Bay Area. I mention the proximity because it’s relevant with regards to people becoming familiar and then desiring to move there (whether retired as you mentioned or working remotely), and not because it’s a commuter town.
[deleted]
> idk Santa Cruz is just an idyllic beach town
When did you last go? I remember when it was an idyllic beach town. I went a few months ago--it's a lot of Tenderloin south. Preserving a low-density community is exorbitantly expensive. Try it without cash and you overshoot into slum.
When did you last go? I remember when it was an idyllic beach town. I went a few months ago--it's a lot of Tenderloin south. Preserving a low-density community is exorbitantly expensive. Try it without cash and you overshoot into slum.
Santa Cruz is an ultra left town, no matter the policies it will be run over by cultural enrichers stealing from stores, pooping on street and carjacking.
The most violent cities in America tend to vote red [1]. There isn't a simple partisan lens to the problem. (Though extremism is a common thread.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
I'm looking at that list and I don't see the same thing. The top ten cities by violent crime rate are: St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, KCMO, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Stockton, ABQ, and Indianapolis.
> I don't think everywhere needs to metropolize
Under the current state of California's pretty massive housing shortage, one city refusing to build housing just increases the financial burden on everyone else, and on top of that almost every city has, for decades, actively refused to densify in a reasonable manner. That's why the state has started with city-by-city explicit housing goals (with San Francisco looking like it will be the first city to hit the point of 'or else' penalties pretty soon).
> I'm not convinced doing so will even have an effect on housing costs
It's extremely straightforward supply and demand. It will take a while to catch up, though, because the country as a whole is still millions of housing units in the hole from decades of under-building.
Under the current state of California's pretty massive housing shortage, one city refusing to build housing just increases the financial burden on everyone else, and on top of that almost every city has, for decades, actively refused to densify in a reasonable manner. That's why the state has started with city-by-city explicit housing goals (with San Francisco looking like it will be the first city to hit the point of 'or else' penalties pretty soon).
> I'm not convinced doing so will even have an effect on housing costs
It's extremely straightforward supply and demand. It will take a while to catch up, though, because the country as a whole is still millions of housing units in the hole from decades of under-building.
> Santa Cruz is just an idyllic beach town
It's really not. It houses a massive university, it's commutable to Silicon Valley and has been influenced by those booms and busts, it's steeped in counterculture and radicalism, and it has long faced serious issues with drugs and homelessness that are much more akin to a big city than a beach town.
I absolutely love Santa Cruz and I especially love the beach town aspects, but that's just one facet of the city and the surrounding area.
It's really not. It houses a massive university, it's commutable to Silicon Valley and has been influenced by those booms and busts, it's steeped in counterculture and radicalism, and it has long faced serious issues with drugs and homelessness that are much more akin to a big city than a beach town.
I absolutely love Santa Cruz and I especially love the beach town aspects, but that's just one facet of the city and the surrounding area.
Genuinely curious: where do you propose they build more housing if not downtown? There isn't much usable land in Santa Cruz that's not already taken. The only reasonable place I can think of to build "high rises", without demolishing some sort of nature, is the West side where all the offices are.
How about Central Valley
too many people want to live there so the options are
1) only the rich and lucky get to live there 2) build more housing 3) make the area less desirable
2 seems like the best option. Option 1 and 2 both could have the side-effect of causing 3.
1) only the rich and lucky get to live there 2) build more housing 3) make the area less desirable
2 seems like the best option. Option 1 and 2 both could have the side-effect of causing 3.
Building high rises is the easiest path forward. Just need to control a block to put up a high rise and that does a lot. Alternatively it would be bull-dozing and developing existing natural scenery farther away with more infrastructure needs and traffic. If you wanted to instead make changes across a massive amount of existing housing to make them all a couple stories taller that would take a long time to work with all the land owners- would have been a good thing to start 10 years ago.
I don't think "idyllic beach town" is compatible with "major university" and "proximity to Silicon Valley".
There's plenty of other idyllic beach towns, but, unfortunately, this one can't stay this way.
There's plenty of other idyllic beach towns, but, unfortunately, this one can't stay this way.
I invite you to go live in Santa Cruz for a year and let me know how close to Silicon Valley it is. We're not talking about Palo Alto or Saratoga here... you aren't in commuting distance to any jobs. You're going to wait in traffic for minimum 1.5 hours on mountain roads each way to get to/from work. If it rains or if there's a single car accident then your commute easily doubles. And that's if you work in San Jose... forget it if you're any further up the bay.
The commute is what it is because the people of the town have repeatedly voted to keep it that way.
Edit: Actually, forget all that. You're inviting me to live in Santa Cruz for a year? Do you have a place? I might take you up on that, what a lovely offer.
Edit: Actually, forget all that. You're inviting me to live in Santa Cruz for a year? Do you have a place? I might take you up on that, what a lovely offer.
Hwy 17 gives real meaning to "single point of failure".
Speaking of single point of failure in Santa Cruz, there was a time when the entire area lost nearly all phone and internet because a cable was cut over in San Jose (https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/04/09/san-jose-police-sabot...). Sabotage!
Speaking of single point of failure in Santa Cruz, there was a time when the entire area lost nearly all phone and internet because a cable was cut over in San Jose (https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/04/09/san-jose-police-sabot...). Sabotage!
Santa Cruz Metro operates the Hwy 17 Express 20 times a day, and there are commuter shuttles for Google, Facebook, and more.
Sure, that (hwy 17 express) great if you want to go to Diridon in about 50 minutes if there's no traffic.
The folks who took Santa Cruz commuter shuttles at Google seemed widely miserable.
The folks who took Santa Cruz commuter shuttles at Google seemed widely miserable.
I'm not recommending it, only pointing out that the OP is wildly wrong about travel patterns from Santa Cruz. Something like 15% of all employed people in Santa Cruz commute to work in Santa Clara County.
https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santacr...
https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santacr...
I don't think we really have a choice. If we don't build more housing, we'll just have more homeless. The scale at which we need to in order to clean up the river is much larger than I think most people realize
[deleted]
>Santa Cruz and other cities have been motivated, at least in part, by a heavy “stick”: In cases when cities fail to produce adequate housing plans, the state’s so-called “builder’s remedy” essentially allows developers to propose building whatever they want, provided some of the housing is set aside for low- or middle-income families.
alternate title: Santa Cruz plans high-rise living because they've run out of ways to prevent new housing from being built
alternate title: Santa Cruz plans high-rise living because they've run out of ways to prevent new housing from being built
Of course, if they hadn't dragged it out so long, they could have already had a bunch of nice-looking six-story condo buildings that would have met the state requirements for quite a while.
[deleted]
[deleted]
choeger(12)
I think if people do this, it is only out of desperation, and won't result in long term residence. Nothing about Santa Cruz says "high rise living."
At one point in time, nothing about New York City or Hong Kong said "high rise living." Then they became popular and demand changes the nature of the city.
NYC and HK are perfect examples where adding supply did not solve the problem of high cost of living. That's the risk in Santa Cruz - that we lose the unique the character and it remains expensive.
NYC has much lower costs of living than Santa Cruz. Not cheap, but still cheaper. They also have better ability to get out a little and get a lot cheaper places to live.
Hong Kong is politically constrained.
That said, high rise is enough more expensive that I wouldn't expect cheap units to be in those buildings in general (unless the penthouse is valuable enough to subside lower levels). The mid rise (~5 floors) is a much better deal for most people.
Hong Kong is politically constrained.
That said, high rise is enough more expensive that I wouldn't expect cheap units to be in those buildings in general (unless the penthouse is valuable enough to subside lower levels). The mid rise (~5 floors) is a much better deal for most people.
crooked-v(1)
Funny how Huntington Beach is usually the poster child for NIMBY housing politics in California, but HB actually has quite a few high density apartment buildings. Surprised to hear Santa Cruz has none.
As a Santa Cruz homeowner who has lived in other dense and sparse places, I love this. I can't wait for this to happen and wish I could do more to make it happen more quickly.
With the introduction of the rail trail, Santa Cruz has the potential to become one of the most livable places in the United States
I think San Francisco is an easy lesson in the politics of building - You get to choose density or destitution, and you don't get to opt out.
I lived in SF for 10 years and Boston for 5. SF is a worse place for the time, and Boston has only gotten better. I'm a firm believer that development is the reason.
With the introduction of the rail trail, Santa Cruz has the potential to become one of the most livable places in the United States
I think San Francisco is an easy lesson in the politics of building - You get to choose density or destitution, and you don't get to opt out.
I lived in SF for 10 years and Boston for 5. SF is a worse place for the time, and Boston has only gotten better. I'm a firm believer that development is the reason.
crooked-v(3)
A video I found interesting related to this:
https://youtu.be/iRdwXQb7CfM?si=j6g6TAm2uEw5aRb2
Outdated building codes require 2 stairs, making smaller multi-story housing infeasible. So only larger (whole block) projects pencil out, but people don’t like them because they don’t fit in well.
I wonder if smaller (the size of 1-2 normal lots) 4-6 floor buildings spread out more would face less resistance.
https://youtu.be/iRdwXQb7CfM?si=j6g6TAm2uEw5aRb2
Outdated building codes require 2 stairs, making smaller multi-story housing infeasible. So only larger (whole block) projects pencil out, but people don’t like them because they don’t fit in well.
I wonder if smaller (the size of 1-2 normal lots) 4-6 floor buildings spread out more would face less resistance.
Architects keep saying that, but buildings with two stairs have better records in fires.
I have yet to see any data supporting that.
The data I have seen: Other countries without two stair requirements have better fire safety records than the US.
The data I have seen: Other countries without two stair requirements have better fire safety records than the US.
Right, but that is not comparing the same thing. They are comparing all builds in both countries, not buildings of otherwise similar construction. There are many confounding variables that nobody has tried to control for. Some of those are rather obvious, while others I'm not aware of. Maybe we should allow other one stairway in the US only if the building is built in a specific way, but so far nobody has advocated for that or even tried to identify factors other than stairway count. (I'm not aware of anyone trying this anyway - I expect someone has but I'm not aware of it)
Countries with better fire records tend to have far more multi family housing than the US.
Most of our code does not exist because of any sort of scientific vetting of ideas. It's mostly just winging it and trying to ban any housing except single family detached housing.
Why are two stairs so much more important than being close to a staircase? Why is having a loooong hallway with dozens of families using the same staircase better than having immediate access to a stairway and only a handful of families using the staircase?
Nobody ever showed that two means of egress are safer, they just went by gut.
Most of our code does not exist because of any sort of scientific vetting of ideas. It's mostly just winging it and trying to ban any housing except single family detached housing.
Why are two stairs so much more important than being close to a staircase? Why is having a loooong hallway with dozens of families using the same staircase better than having immediate access to a stairway and only a handful of families using the staircase?
Nobody ever showed that two means of egress are safer, they just went by gut.
The people who invented fire codes did it on the expressed grounds that it was a superficially acceptable way to ban apartments. See Lawrence Veiller's 1914 'A Model Housing Law' and research Veiller's prior utterances.
Exactly, thanks for bringing this up. I should have mentioned because I just came across this Reddit comment with a damning quote:
https://old.reddit.com/r/yimby/comments/18g5dh6/why_north_am...
https://old.reddit.com/r/yimby/comments/18g5dh6/why_north_am...
> Nobody ever showed that two means of egress are safer, they just went by gut.
That also implies the inverse: nobody has shown that one means is safer, they just went by gut. Is being close to a stair really better worse than have two choices for exits it the open question and so far everyone seems to be asserting one or the other withing actually showing anything.
I can show that new US apartments with two stairways, and a lot of other modern safety features are safer than older ones with one stairway and also missing many other safety features. This is not compelling evidence that two stairways is better than one since I'm not aware of anyone controlling on other safety features, but it is enough to demand some real studies before getting rid of that one feature.
That also implies the inverse: nobody has shown that one means is safer, they just went by gut. Is being close to a stair really better worse than have two choices for exits it the open question and so far everyone seems to be asserting one or the other withing actually showing anything.
I can show that new US apartments with two stairways, and a lot of other modern safety features are safer than older ones with one stairway and also missing many other safety features. This is not compelling evidence that two stairways is better than one since I'm not aware of anyone controlling on other safety features, but it is enough to demand some real studies before getting rid of that one feature.
> That also implies the inverse: nobody has shown that one means is safer, they just went by gut.
But this directly contradicts the entire point of requiring two staircases: that it would be safer.
The modern data we have shows that in countries with single stair exits and lots of people living in these units, they are safe, safer than the general outcome.
The question is about one particular rule, not repealing all the safety advancements, and that one bad rule is two staircases.
The data we have shows it's safe. I don't think there's any study that could be proposed that would satisfy critics, because ultimately this is not about safety, that's just a smokescreen. The point is to block convenient apartments, and whenever one safety study has been done exactly to the critics request, it will immediately be found lacking and an entirely different study will be demanded, or a new reason fabricated to shroud the true motivation: block convenient small apartments from being built.
But this directly contradicts the entire point of requiring two staircases: that it would be safer.
The modern data we have shows that in countries with single stair exits and lots of people living in these units, they are safe, safer than the general outcome.
The question is about one particular rule, not repealing all the safety advancements, and that one bad rule is two staircases.
The data we have shows it's safe. I don't think there's any study that could be proposed that would satisfy critics, because ultimately this is not about safety, that's just a smokescreen. The point is to block convenient apartments, and whenever one safety study has been done exactly to the critics request, it will immediately be found lacking and an entirely different study will be demanded, or a new reason fabricated to shroud the true motivation: block convenient small apartments from being built.
They do mention one city that allows single stair buildings
It does seem like a lot has changed:
- more fire resistant building materials
- automatic sprinklers
- you are not allowed to smoke
- more fire resistant building materials
- automatic sprinklers
- you are not allowed to smoke
They’ve been talking about this stuff for decades now. I recall the trailer park suing the hotel over their view being obstructed. And then there’s the CCC, who I imagine will get engaged when a 12 story luxury high rise gets planted at the south end of pacific avenue. It’s the perfect solution if you want to ensure nothing actually happens.
Protesting against apartment buildings seems like a crazy reaction to me.
Monterey - particularly Seaside, Sand City and Marina - seem like an ideal location for future growth with more open area and connections to Salinas while still maintaining the beach/seaside access.
Some of us actually want the density here. I think its better (and more environmentally friendly) to go up in santa cruz than out along the bay
These extremely high housing costs in coastal California areas are really a two part problem - they are not an infrastructure or building houses problem but a human nature problem and a regulation problem.
The first issue(human nature) is the weather and lifestyle of these places is extremely desirable to people given most of the US is either very humid a majority of the year, very cold during the winter with snow, or extremely hot(100F for 20+ days of the year). So you have this extremely mild climate that is very family friendly and is by the beach and is also next to a funnel of money from the entire planet - silicon valley, where millions are getting extremely rich. It doesn't take alot to realize that the market is going to make these places very expensive due to housing supply and demand.
As for the second point(regulation) due to excessive building code regulations which make the cost of housing artificially high to ensure new buildings are up to code, even if you build hundreds or thousands of new units they are going to be very pricey(per unit) and unless the govt. heavily subsidies these units they will never be affordable to anyone making less than 200k a year(its just building materials, cost of labor and requiring the need for the building to be up to code). And then you have the first point being that you build the new units and people from all over the country and of course the bay area will jump on them and you are back to square one(high housing costs).
I don't see how this problem resolves itself as there is alot of money coming into the US the past few years during the tech boom and this is a absolute side effect of this unprecedented flow of money into CA and a few other places on earth. But trying to fight human nature and the market is a exercise in futility given how well thats gone in California the past 7-8 years.
As a side note I grew up in the south sf bay area and spent alot of time in santa cruz with my friends and know the area very, very well. Kind of surprised to say the least how expensive its gotten compared to the sf bay area proper.
The first issue(human nature) is the weather and lifestyle of these places is extremely desirable to people given most of the US is either very humid a majority of the year, very cold during the winter with snow, or extremely hot(100F for 20+ days of the year). So you have this extremely mild climate that is very family friendly and is by the beach and is also next to a funnel of money from the entire planet - silicon valley, where millions are getting extremely rich. It doesn't take alot to realize that the market is going to make these places very expensive due to housing supply and demand.
As for the second point(regulation) due to excessive building code regulations which make the cost of housing artificially high to ensure new buildings are up to code, even if you build hundreds or thousands of new units they are going to be very pricey(per unit) and unless the govt. heavily subsidies these units they will never be affordable to anyone making less than 200k a year(its just building materials, cost of labor and requiring the need for the building to be up to code). And then you have the first point being that you build the new units and people from all over the country and of course the bay area will jump on them and you are back to square one(high housing costs).
I don't see how this problem resolves itself as there is alot of money coming into the US the past few years during the tech boom and this is a absolute side effect of this unprecedented flow of money into CA and a few other places on earth. But trying to fight human nature and the market is a exercise in futility given how well thats gone in California the past 7-8 years.
As a side note I grew up in the south sf bay area and spent alot of time in santa cruz with my friends and know the area very, very well. Kind of surprised to say the least how expensive its gotten compared to the sf bay area proper.
> extremely desirable
Can it be both desirable and cheap ?
Take a look at some lakefront properties in Indiana: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/605-Roosevelt-Dr-Whiting-...
Why would anyone pay 2m vs 200k ?
Can it be both desirable and cheap ?
Take a look at some lakefront properties in Indiana: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/605-Roosevelt-Dr-Whiting-...
Why would anyone pay 2m vs 200k ?
Why not just build south of SJ and east?
Idk why all these people always pick the worst places to build and act surprised nobody wants more building there. Why not pick a reasonable place to begin with like somewhere that IS NOT developed.
It’s like people who want to turn Hawaii into a freakin resort mall.
Just don’t. Let SC be a cute beach town. Go Airbnb there.
People need to be reasonable and build somewhere that’s undeveloped. This is about as insane as proposing to build a high rise in sunset district. Why? Just go live elsewhere.
And I say this as someone who doesn’t own property. Save money and if you really want to own a house buy something in a up and coming area.
People literally did this throughout history. They moved to new places and developed those. Way easier today you’re not gonna travel in a caravan and suffer illnesses or get raided.
Let’s try to protect the environment and not ruin the few nice idyllic places we have left. Or better yet repeal prop 13.
Idk why all these people always pick the worst places to build and act surprised nobody wants more building there. Why not pick a reasonable place to begin with like somewhere that IS NOT developed.
It’s like people who want to turn Hawaii into a freakin resort mall.
Just don’t. Let SC be a cute beach town. Go Airbnb there.
People need to be reasonable and build somewhere that’s undeveloped. This is about as insane as proposing to build a high rise in sunset district. Why? Just go live elsewhere.
And I say this as someone who doesn’t own property. Save money and if you really want to own a house buy something in a up and coming area.
People literally did this throughout history. They moved to new places and developed those. Way easier today you’re not gonna travel in a caravan and suffer illnesses or get raided.
Let’s try to protect the environment and not ruin the few nice idyllic places we have left. Or better yet repeal prop 13.
As a Santa Cruz resident, we need more housing to keep our town running. It's absolutely essential.
SJ needs to build a ton more too. But Santa Cruz especially needs the housing.
SJ needs to build a ton more too. But Santa Cruz especially needs the housing.
There's another piece that isn't discussed in this article and desperately needs technological solutions -
Our permitting and building processes are completely broken. People who lost their homes in the CZU complex fires are giving up and donating their land because of the difficulty of rebuilding. Even applying for something as simple as rooftop solar is extremely onerous and time consuming.
Every piece of the permitting process would benefit from new tech to enable the county and developers to get moving. Plans are rejected for tiny reasons "No fire testing data sheets were attached for the aluminum rails that every neighbor has already used on their roof."
A recent real estate listing described years of frustration trying to build an appropriate multifamily on their correctly zoned land, and eventually giving up to sell the house.
Our permitting and building processes are completely broken. People who lost their homes in the CZU complex fires are giving up and donating their land because of the difficulty of rebuilding. Even applying for something as simple as rooftop solar is extremely onerous and time consuming.
Every piece of the permitting process would benefit from new tech to enable the county and developers to get moving. Plans are rejected for tiny reasons "No fire testing data sheets were attached for the aluminum rails that every neighbor has already used on their roof."
A recent real estate listing described years of frustration trying to build an appropriate multifamily on their correctly zoned land, and eventually giving up to sell the house.
It’s expensive because it’s desirable- how do you fix that ?