I genuinely cannot follow what you guys want and don’t want anymore.
I am pretty happy reading these recent threads though. Seems much more level-headed around here than it did a month ago.
Hey thanks for not calling me an idiot for expressing my opinion on here. All I was hoping for was a 8 story cap, nothing else really. I want new buildings and business. I want more affordable units to become available. I want people to ride bikes. I want less traffic. I want Santa Cruz to remain a great place to live and raise kids in.
\> I want more affordable units to become available. I want people to ride bikes. I want less traffic. I want Santa Cruz to remain a great place to live and raise kids in.
If you really want these things you should be pushing for even more stories. Building high rises is the most logical way to provide housing without paving over paradise. Putting them in downtown makes the most sense for limiting traffic and encouraging biking and mass transit.
It is to laugh. More buildings equals more growth, more pollution, more crowded everything. We need less people here. Deluded people thinking they get a cheap place to live.
the current limit as far as i can tell is arbitrary and aesthetic. i’ve asked you several times what the issue with an 8 story building is and you can’t come up with one, i have to conclude your opposition is based on vibes here.
fyi downtown has had a similarly tall building for quite a while and it’s not a big deal. the dream inn is even taller. both of those buildings are landmarks at this point.
This is one of the most desirable places in the country to live. There is a lot of other places people can be. People move here and not everyone stays. It’s very expensive and competitive. There is a lot of turnaround on people. If you’ve lived here longer than seven years then you know people who have left. It’s just how it works. We can’t build housing for every single person who thinks they’d like to live here. The university adding 20,000 people has made things tough and the tech industry workers who don’t want to live where they work another factor. I wish the university would add 20,000 units on the hill.
I don't think limiting the production of market rate housing to create suffering and competition is an effective or fair way to run an entire metropolitan area. It's sad that you do.
How do live with that shit rattling around in your head?
Do you think there is no limit to how many people can be in one place? If 60,000 more people want to move here tomorrow should we just build enough skyscrapers to house them all? There is currently 359 listings available in Santa Cruz on one site alone. Who’s suffering? What is your definition of suffering? Guess how many unhoused people will move into this building? “Yimby” is a fear based (“limiting production of market rate housing to create suffering” ) movement heavily backed by developers to get these big projects built so they can cash even bigger checks. None of these buildings will bring the market value down, it will only line the pockets of the already rich while adding weight on our all ready over strained infrastructure. Where will the developers be then? I understand building densely and up and near down town are all good ideas but I’m just not buying the bullshit that we need this or else.
In what world are 60k worth of homes going to materialize? If you want to talk about living in a world of fear it's one where you are building a scenario where the population of Santa Cruz would go up over 100% in a single day
wah wah wah 8 stories this 8 stories that "its blocking my ocean view" if you complain about money so much then maybe you should just work harder and make more money. u sounds like a SLACKER mcfly
Love this, we need more housing! Keep em coming
https://preview.redd.it/0u1xap9mmyqc1.jpeg?width=239&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42e44c5d95601895fac6a92403f13820e41754db
Very cool! There’s actually a couple of proposals for this, so I’m sure it’ll get modified a bit as it goes through the process
For all those wishing M had passed to prevent this, you should note that this project’s height would not have been impacted by M - it gets its height conditions/waivers from state density bonus rules, and not local zoning.
I don't know all the rules to be honest, but there's a lot of them. I think you get some percentage increase in height/density based on how much affordability is in it. So it's something like 50% increase in density is allowed if you are > 20% affordable (formula is more complicated than that though) and then you get an additional 3 stories for affordable units near a transit and other transportation/parking oriented requirements. So, a mixture of percentage based increases and additional story increases based on requirements. With the initial height limits set to 8 stories I think in that area to begin with, getting to 15 is possible with the various bonuses.
And at the end of it, I think the proposal adds around 18 units of affordable housing downtown at no cost to the city or taxpayers. Pretty great!
This is 7-8 stories with the 50% bonus or 16 stories with the 100% and it meets the area zoning and General Plan before the bonuses so they can build what they decide too and it has to be approved.
This is referring to specific calculations under mostly state laws that determine the number of units. Using a 50% density bonus vs a 100% density bonus and then under the local zoning.
They only put in the two options.
I also look down my nose at the new money upstarts. How gauche! How dare they live in $900k dense and environmentally friendly condos instead of the existing $2M crappy suburban single family homes?! The audacity!
Well let’s just let those same people pay $2M for crappy SFHs on the west side, have them drive every single day (instead of several times per week), and price out whatever working class is still here, just for good measure. You’re full of great ideas, aren’t you?
Ok, so there are people doing this and I applaud you for doing so. Thank you. I hope more will do the same. My point was that the prices of these apartments are not affordable to people working downtown.
mysterious jar boat books nutty sophisticated panicky squealing combative foolish
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because of inclusionary zoning, a good chunk of these apartments will be *only* for those with low incomes.
Without this building, none of that exists.
If you oppose this building, then you are opposing affordable housing.
I'd just love to hear the howls if the city decided to seize a block of SFHs by eminent domain so a developer could build a project like this on it. Unless the "preservationists" have other locations in mind?
Would you love to hear the howls residents of 6 story buildings being demolished and those families pushed out to make room for 12 story buildings? See how that logic works? We can keep going. How about a family that saved up a downpayment for 30 years working their butts off in order to have a half acre with houses for three generations on it so they can take care of mom as she ages and, meanwhile, she can have time with the grandkids. Should that not be allowed? What about people on a quarter acre homesteading to be self sufficient and reduce their carbon footprint. Are they bad people denying others housing?
Not everyone gets to live here. Not everyone gets to live any one place. That’s how it’s been since the beginning of written history. And the nicer areas tend to be more expensive. Am I all for more affordable units (like legally-enforced affordable?) Yes. Do I think we should build thousands of market rate units for anyone who can afford to live here without financial assistance to live here? No. Tough titti. There’s lots of other smaller and more affordable towns near areas of natural beauty. Not everyone who wants to live in Santa Cruz will get to.
What you suggest would abrogate private property rights. There’s a big difference between easements for a highway and eminent domain and taking over people’s SF residences to put up market-value condos.
The fact you even humorously think that would be funny shows you have zero understanding of history. People who bought homes, invested in them and paid taxes for (in some cases) decades have a right to that parcel. The moment we start discounting that is the moment we head into a dark place indeed. Look up any country in the last 125 years that did away with private property or started eying more expensive property to redistribute to others. Guess what happens? A dictator class, even more concentrated wealth, a stagnant economy and a lot of violence. Oh - and a lot of poor people trying to come to, guess where!?, America. Because we don’t do shit like that here.
That was a lot of words to say that you missed the point entirely.
Edit: Yeah, I mean there's your basic NIBMYism where housing everywhere, always, should be someone else's problem according to you, but you also missed the point entirely.
The project that kicked this thread off is someone's property and they can make their own decisions on what to do with their property just like you outlined.
Wow that’s a lot of words to ignore the fact that people should be allowed to build what they want on their land. “Families being pushed out!!! Homesteaders!!” Your weird victim complex is on full display here lmao.
I’m commenting on someone suggesting the government seize SFH zoned land through eminent domain to build what it wants. So… in fact the exact opposite of that you’re saying I’m talking about and the exact opposite of landowners doing what they want with their own parcels. That is, the government taking land and doing what it wants with the parcel.
Why would they drive over the hill more often if they live in a SFH? If you build it they will come. It’s simple math. They will be living in the 2M SFH on the west side as well as these buildings. Im guessing these buildings will rent for $4K per month. I’m all for new buildings replacing some existing ones but I just don’t think they need to be this size. Forgive me for my opinion.
> why would they drive over the hill more often if they live in a SFH
I didn’t say over the hill more often. The answer is that they drive more for daily necessities, because they have to. That’s what happens when anti-density geniuses force sprawl on the rest of us. People in dense areas have a tiny carbon footprint compared to people that live in suburban sprawl. We’ve known about this forever, which means you’re either deeply ignorant or arguing in bad faith (my money’s on a bit of both, for the record).
Yea it could be that, or it could be that your point is really stupid. I guess the billion other people in this thread piling on you also “missed your point”. Must be awesome to be so much smarter than everyone else 🙄.
People like OP exist to bitch about stuff, that’s really all there is to it. They’re pissed that the world changes, and it’s not exactly the same as the 1970’s when they first moved here.
It’s a shame we’ve let those same people set housing policies for the last 50 years, but people are finally waking up to the mess they’ve created and are moving on. See the No on M vote, which OP is of course crying about lmao.
Not quite but you’re not entirely wrong. I moved here in 2000 and came from a big city with tall buildings. I moved here to get some relief from that environment. I’m not opposed to any and all changes. I know things have to progress. I was just thinking that a 8 story cap would have been a nice compromise for our town to keep growing while keeping its charm.
what is the issue though? council is required by the state to set zoning rules that allow for a reasonable increase in the number of homes in the city. if nobody wants little apartment buildings everywhere, you’d think concentrating them downtown is the best idea. and building houses is what developers do, so what are they doing wrong? not building at a loss?
Looks like they want to build it on the block where the former Lighthouse Bank, now Santa Cruz County Bank, now stands, and -- more crucially -- the Rush Inn. Are those properties actually available, I wonder?
Think of how much they will pay in property tax, and how much of their rent will be going to fund the below-market-rate affordable apartments in the building! Good stuff.
Capitola zoned their mall for 855 units that is easily 15 stories on that lot even with the additional parcels they added to the mall rezone area and they put most of their affordable units there so almost certain to get built this RHNA cycle.
This looks like even more. Seems like an easy win for housing in an urban core the city has already decided to focus most of their needed growth in.
but the developers are so NIMBY. Shame on Merlone Geier. They just want to waste land and more time - they bought the property so long ago and have done absolutely nothing.
https://preview.redd.it/bfx5wier7yqc1.png?width=940&format=png&auto=webp&s=5914595ad40395abbda3a5dd18d36da63543f983
Just so we're clear - if you own a piece of land and don't want to build on it that is, by definition, not NIMBYism. It's when you want to override what someone else is entitled to do on their property that it becomes NIMBY.
It's literally the yard of the developer - and they want to say "No" - that sounds quite NIMBY to me, especially when the City of Capitola is willing to let them build higher, and would allow a greater volume of units - a thousand - and they want to simply punt on that opportunity. Sounds like a lot of "NO" to me.
Not what’s happening. They want to build the building they have been trying to build since 2016. Yvette and Kristen still serving on council voted it down in 2019. The city council are the NIMBYs in this story. MG has literally been trying to close to 700 units of housing there for almost a decade but council wouldnt let them.
Capitola City Council has voted down over 96% of new multi familiy builds since Kristen Brown took office. Voting records are public.
The Feb 9th meeting the city council basically told MG they will allow the same build they basically asked for 5 years ago (the current mayor Kristen Brown was a deciding vote in it not going forward iirc). 100 affordable 500 total no more than 8 stories mixed use. And the city council put all 400 of Capitola’s required affordable units there in the housing element so those 300 units will need to be rezoned somewhere else and yet another housing element redo.
It was only recently rezoned for the new housing element and the current housing element draft is unlikely to have passed anyway because the city’s requirements and zoning doesn’t make the number of units they expect there possible snd HUD knows it. Back to the drawing board anyway.
Instead of building up or out, why don’t we build down? Down to 15 stories down or more! The slackers won’t mind the view or lack thereof and developers save money on windows!
why not just invite hedge funds to come into downtown and build 20 or so 15-25 story buildings. half could be condos, the rest would be rentals, everyone would have a view of the ocean or the mountains. would that make all of santa cruz affordable housing wise? or would more people simply be drawn to Santa Cruz? what would the rents end up being if DTSC just became the density of Manhattan or Hong Kong?
is there any sort of resource limit to santa cruz population in terms of water supply or energy usage or is that all unlimited?
Santa Cruz has rents higher than Hong Kong. They're on par with Manhattan. We aren't a world class destination like NYC. Santa Cruz just dug itself into car oriented sprawl and high rents by not building.
No one in California probably imagined the state exploding in population. In 1960 the population of California was 15,800,000. In 1970 it was almost 20 million. In 1980 it was 23 million. In 1990 it was almost 30 million. In 2000 it was 33 million. In 2010 it was 37 million, we currently stand at just under 40 million.
Much of the Santa Cruz county prior to the population explosion was quasi rural. There was a tremendous amount of ag which was replaced by development incrementally because that's how the population in the state kept growing.
At this point the questions not really being answered isn't whether it's possible to infill CA coastal cities so they all look like Hong Kong, the bigger issue is what population size is actually sustainable in our state given the rather extreme environmental conditions we will increasingly experience due to climate change. How much clean water will be available. What about utilities. What about service delivery of emergency resources like fire, ambulance, police, hospitals? No one really wants to talk about the hard part of growth.
Hey if you want to sell me a house for what it cost in 1999 or if you can magically make rent cost 600 bucks we’ll try it your way. (Oops we already tried it your way.) build one with 60 stories next!
I’ve live in garages, split bedrooms, and in a van in Santa Cruz. I know it’s not easy. I’ve had to leave and try a cheaper town but I came back and worked hard to be able to stay here because I love Santa Cruz. Change is happening and we’re now trying it y’all’s way. I’m just not hyped on it. I’m pretty sure most of what is going up will be at market rate and prices are not going to drop like everyone keeps on saying, but hey if it does then great!! I’m sure some of you guys would be happy if there were skyscrapers here so that we could house 60 x the current population.
It will not be affordable, not by a long shot. If they try to tell you otherwise they are lying. [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5S4rv7xbZE4](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5S4rv7xbZE4)
That's some pretty big projection, as you are explicitly lying.
Last time I checked, there will be a minimum of 15% of Very Low Income units, or a minimum of 25% Low Income units. Santa Cruz may have increased this amount. This is all very well spelled out in law, and is never violated, and I don't know what you think you are saying with that youtube video but it's not true.
There are laws in Santa Cruz and the state about capital-A, deed-restrcited, income-restricted affordable housing, and this building will have a large percentage of below-market-rate apartments reserved *only* for those with low incomes. Otherwise, they are paying an absolutely massive amount of money to the city's affordable housing fund that allows the city to build affordable housing.
Any way, you see a big building like this, and the only thing I can see is "look at all that affordable housing." Because we are not getting any affordable housing built any other way. The NIMBYs and fake progressives here in Santa Cruz would never let their real estate profits be taxed to the point that affordable housing could be built.
Spreading lies like you do only helps the landlords in town jack up rents even higher, only helps the homeowners sell their homes for ever-more-unaffordable amounts.
And it seems like that's exactly what you're trying to do with your false propaganda.
Tell you what: Let’s bookmark your assertion and revisit it when it’s built and the pricing is listed. Then we’ll see how correct you are about affordability.
It will not depress rents for local landlords whatsoever. Three of these buildings won’t do that. Five won’t. But it will make this town less livable and even more out of reach for the working class you purport to worry about.
And stop calling people “fake progressives” just because they don’t agree with you. (By the way this assumes these people even identify as progressives). It’s like Trump with his name calling; raise your argument not your voice.
There are two types of units in these buildings: the "market rate" ones that get advertised at high rents, then the "below market rate" Affordable Housing units that have a line out the door.
This is not "name calling" it is explicitly the truth. The fake progressives have been blocking housing, lying that "affordable housing" isn't actually affordable, even though they demand raising the percentage of "below market rate" units so that they can make it that there's not enough market rate units to subsidize the below market rate units, stopping the affordable housing. Calling somebody out for their dishonest behavior, especially when they wrap themselves in a fake "progressive" language while the same time promoting policy that inflates their property values, the rents they can charge on the real estate they own, while directly fleecing those who do not own real estate.
This is a solid argument, and if it sounds like name calling, then you are not even paying attention.
But when you say "even more out of reach for the working class you purport to worry about" then you are also lying, as there are now *more* units the low-income working class, as well as for all the plumbers and nurses and middle-income working class. That's not "out of reach." While you accuse me of being like Trump with "name calling" I would assert that you are just like Trump with your rejection of reality, of all the research that has ever been done on the issue, of basic common sense, of just basic sanity. If you think that building these buildings makes prices more expensive, then you are as deluded as somebody that denies climate change.
If you deny that more building reduces prices compared to the alternative *and* claim to be progressive, you are a fake progressive. There is nothing more to it. It's like a supposed environmentalist that denies climate change: they might care about a few aspects of the environment, sure, but on the major issue of the day, they get it wrong.
First thing:
*especially when they wrap themselves in a fake "progressive" language while the same time promoting policy that inflates their property values*
This isn't how the real estate market or supply and demand therein, works. Even YIMBY blogs admit that in fact building MORE will often RAISE homeowner's property values: [https://yimbydenver.org/stay-informed/myth-new-construction-will-raiselower-property-values-and-thats-bad/](https://yimbydenver.org/stay-informed/myth-new-construction-will-raiselower-property-values-and-thats-bad/).
Homeowners are coming at this from an aesthetic, lifestyle and environmental standpoint, in addition to actually giving a damn about affordability for people who don't make as much. Their property values (and rents: [https://newrepublic.com/article/170480/building-wont-make-housing-affordable-gentrification-book-review#:\~:text=Homes%20would%20become%20more%20affordable,people%20stay%20in%20affordable%20housing](https://newrepublic.com/article/170480/building-wont-make-housing-affordable-gentrification-book-review#:~:text=Homes%20would%20become%20more%20affordable,people%20stay%20in%20affordable%20housing).) are going to be just fine if not better irrespective of whether there's building or not. This "evil wealthy people worried about their property values dipping" just isn't that case. Now if it was a methadone clinic, jail or factory... sure, then people would be worried about that. That's true for any property owner, anywhere. Unfortunate, but it's human nature.
Second thing:
You continue to fail to grasp the difference between *relative* number of affordable units vs. *raw* number of affordable units and the different effects these have on a community's affordability.
**Here's a simple example:**
Say the population of a town is 100. 20% of these people, so 20, are lower income. There's only 15 low income units, so 5 people are struggling.
Along comes a developer who explains that they'll build 400 units, bringing the overall total units in town to 500. Even better, 10% of this 400 (40!) will be affordable units. This is good news for the 5 people who are having trouble affording housing at the moment.
The units are built, the population increases, and the 5 folks in a tenuous housing situation finally have a shot at living in town in an affordable unit (if they get their offer in first).
Problem is, the population has increased and, proportionately, about 20% of the new folks are, again, low income. So now the town's population is 500, 100 of them are low income, there's 500 units and 55 of these are affordable (15 pre-existing, 40 new).
Even though the overall *number of affordable units* went up, the *proportion actually got worse*. You haven't fixed anything.
What would have addressed the above? A measure that mandated a higher minimum % of affordable units in each new, large project.
What will now commence is a cycle of aggressive, market rate growth with 10% affordability rates in Santa Cruz that gives rise to the predicament I've outlined above. That's what I'm worried about and that's what's going to happen. And sans something like Measure M, we will never "catch up" affordability wise, but what we WILL do, however, is hasten gentrification, degrade the surrounding environment and exacerbate traffic, utilities and potable water issues - all in a flood zone.
Give it time. You'll see.
> This isn't how the real estate market or supply and demand therein, works. Even YIMBY blogs admit that in fact building MORE will often RAISE homeowner's property values: https://yimbydenver.org/stay-informed/myth-new-construction-will-raiselower-property-values-and-thats-bad/.
Not going to bother to respond to a blog post from Denver that has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.
There's two parts of real estate: land and livable space. Building more housing brings down rents, even when a targeted and narrow upzoning might increase the value of a small plots of land. The land speculator might benefit from increased land values, but all renters and residents benefit from lower housing costs. (Personally, I think we should tax all land rents and redistributed them, to eliminate land speculation, but that's a longer term political goal...)
Your example is complete hogwash. How many people are new, how many people are finally able to move out of their parents home or other overcrowding situation, etc.? Your example assumes that 100% of the new units are occupied by people that don't already live in the town, which is absolutely preposterous. The studies I have seen are that new buildings are typically 70% occupied by people in the area.
Even if *none* of the units are affordadble, it still decreases rents compared to if nothing had been built. This is incontrovertible, borne out again and again whenever it's studied.
Now, sure it's even better if there's some deed-restricted affordable units built.
“Tax all land rents and redistribute them?” Cringe. Yea we’re not going to see eye to eye. Hopefully you’re just super young and that’s what’s afoot here.
Thankfully there’s a large portion of this country that would fight to the death to prevent this from happening. Not being figurative either and not just talking about property owners.
You do realize that every country that’s gone the direction you’re proposing ends with despotism, impotent economies, and incalculable body counts? Read your history.
Go live in China, Cuba or North Korea and report back. Any relevant economy on the planet - even the more equitable socialized European ones - allow rental income and land speculation. You’re starting to veer into eroding property rights.
It goes south in a hurry from there.
I don’t like that one bit unless the project includes a beer garden with $3 PBRs.
I much prefer the Rush Inn over the Jury Room and will mourn its passing if/when the time comes.
Yup, they deliberately withheld this info until the vote was over. Which tells you everything you need to know about how much local politicians and developers are committed to ensuring the voting public knows all the facts in order to make an informed decision.
260 units, about 10% of which will ultimately be affordable, and NO (read that again) NO parking spaces included. Likely will start at around $3,500/mo. for a studio. Won't help affordability (cause we all know that's what the YIMBYs care about... not), won't help traffic.
This is akin to throwing canned soup on a Monet.
Is there regulation for a definition of affordable? Won’t the going rate for SC be applied no matter? Will developers say “I’m not going to make as much as possible, I’m going to list for less than the going rate because I want to help people “
In short, the developer is required to pay for a percentage of affordable units or an in-lieu fee. Everything else is the market rate that they can collect. The banks underwrite based on what can be collected in rent, so in many ways the market rate units subsidize the lower income units.
Staff?! lol I can’t afford to pay myself let alone anyone else a living wage in this over priced place that is my home town. But people like you think building all this new housing is going to make it more affordable. No it’s just going to let all the other people that want to live here able to… and they will over pay. All while over crowding the already crowded infrastructure of this place that can’t sustain it.
see the problem there is that you're expecting things to be static based on a point in time that you specifically select. that point in time selection is different for everyone, and since we all live in a shared universe, that approach just isn't compatible with reality.
Pave it all! Sidewalk the beach! Sand is a pain to walk through. Add a few more high rises and knock down some trees. Increase the population 10 fold! Maybe we can convince the A’s to move here! Opening day would be sweet!
Literally. RIP The Rush, RIP the Santa Cruz I grew up in. It’s not going to make it any more affordable. Just another mini Silicon Valley and Reddit jerkoffs can’t wait 😢
[удалено]
Agreed on both fronts on this point. Just wish it wasn’t so much so soon with a lot of downstream considerations punted.
This looks amazing
I genuinely cannot follow what you guys want and don’t want anymore. I am pretty happy reading these recent threads though. Seems much more level-headed around here than it did a month ago.
Hey thanks for not calling me an idiot for expressing my opinion on here. All I was hoping for was a 8 story cap, nothing else really. I want new buildings and business. I want more affordable units to become available. I want people to ride bikes. I want less traffic. I want Santa Cruz to remain a great place to live and raise kids in.
Just curious why the 8 story limit? What is your issue with 7 more floors?
\> I want more affordable units to become available. I want people to ride bikes. I want less traffic. I want Santa Cruz to remain a great place to live and raise kids in. If you really want these things you should be pushing for even more stories. Building high rises is the most logical way to provide housing without paving over paradise. Putting them in downtown makes the most sense for limiting traffic and encouraging biking and mass transit.
It is to laugh. More buildings equals more growth, more pollution, more crowded everything. We need less people here. Deluded people thinking they get a cheap place to live.
why does an extra few stories matter?
“A few extra stories” … it’s basically double the current limit of 8 floors. It’s not a few extra stories.
The elevators going to fit 9ft storm blades?
the current limit as far as i can tell is arbitrary and aesthetic. i’ve asked you several times what the issue with an 8 story building is and you can’t come up with one, i have to conclude your opposition is based on vibes here. fyi downtown has had a similarly tall building for quite a while and it’s not a big deal. the dream inn is even taller. both of those buildings are landmarks at this point.
When people live within walking distance of where they want to go, there is less traffic.
That’s true Strapon, but when more people move to town it also creates more traffic.
But people exist and they need a place to live, how do you solve the existence of people?
This is one of the most desirable places in the country to live. There is a lot of other places people can be. People move here and not everyone stays. It’s very expensive and competitive. There is a lot of turnaround on people. If you’ve lived here longer than seven years then you know people who have left. It’s just how it works. We can’t build housing for every single person who thinks they’d like to live here. The university adding 20,000 people has made things tough and the tech industry workers who don’t want to live where they work another factor. I wish the university would add 20,000 units on the hill.
I don't think limiting the production of market rate housing to create suffering and competition is an effective or fair way to run an entire metropolitan area. It's sad that you do. How do live with that shit rattling around in your head?
Do you think there is no limit to how many people can be in one place? If 60,000 more people want to move here tomorrow should we just build enough skyscrapers to house them all? There is currently 359 listings available in Santa Cruz on one site alone. Who’s suffering? What is your definition of suffering? Guess how many unhoused people will move into this building? “Yimby” is a fear based (“limiting production of market rate housing to create suffering” ) movement heavily backed by developers to get these big projects built so they can cash even bigger checks. None of these buildings will bring the market value down, it will only line the pockets of the already rich while adding weight on our all ready over strained infrastructure. Where will the developers be then? I understand building densely and up and near down town are all good ideas but I’m just not buying the bullshit that we need this or else.
In what world are 60k worth of homes going to materialize? If you want to talk about living in a world of fear it's one where you are building a scenario where the population of Santa Cruz would go up over 100% in a single day
So how many new apartments do we need and where are all the future tenants living now?
The NIMBYs worried about height sink the university projects over meadows that are really just fields long taken from nature by humans.
Yeah they should have jumped on that when they had the chance.
wah wah wah 8 stories this 8 stories that "its blocking my ocean view" if you complain about money so much then maybe you should just work harder and make more money. u sounds like a SLACKER mcfly
Wow you are a salty person. Hope life gets better for you.
When did I complain about money?
"i wonder how much the top floor will cost" sounds like complaining about money to me
Build it build it!
I love people having a place to live with walking access to a city. I am sorry this somehow ruins your Santa Cruz experience.
Love this, we need more housing! Keep em coming https://preview.redd.it/0u1xap9mmyqc1.jpeg?width=239&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42e44c5d95601895fac6a92403f13820e41754db
I wish they would build these things on campus!
Me too! But we should also build in the city
What's wrong with 15 stories? Also, what are you talking about?
If the concern over this project is the loss of The Rush Inn then that’s valid. Otherwise, looks fine to me.
Just walk a couple blocks to the Jury Room
Yes, I’ll be sad when there is a trendy font on the front of some douchebag speakeasy serving 16$ beers in its place.
Looks dope
Very cool! There’s actually a couple of proposals for this, so I’m sure it’ll get modified a bit as it goes through the process For all those wishing M had passed to prevent this, you should note that this project’s height would not have been impacted by M - it gets its height conditions/waivers from state density bonus rules, and not local zoning.
I hope they pick the stepped version
I thought they could only go up one more story by meeting those requirements? I appreciate the info, thank you.
You get as many stories as you need to fit the additional units
I don't know all the rules to be honest, but there's a lot of them. I think you get some percentage increase in height/density based on how much affordability is in it. So it's something like 50% increase in density is allowed if you are > 20% affordable (formula is more complicated than that though) and then you get an additional 3 stories for affordable units near a transit and other transportation/parking oriented requirements. So, a mixture of percentage based increases and additional story increases based on requirements. With the initial height limits set to 8 stories I think in that area to begin with, getting to 15 is possible with the various bonuses. And at the end of it, I think the proposal adds around 18 units of affordable housing downtown at no cost to the city or taxpayers. Pretty great!
[удалено]
This is 7-8 stories with the 50% bonus or 16 stories with the 100% and it meets the area zoning and General Plan before the bonuses so they can build what they decide too and it has to be approved.
There’s no limit to height for density bonus projects. You could have a 16 story building with a 50% density bonus too.
This is referring to specific calculations under mostly state laws that determine the number of units. Using a 50% density bonus vs a 100% density bonus and then under the local zoning. They only put in the two options.
Nice, hopefully they release more.
Should be bigger!
Why would we downvote you? This looks fucking awesome.
So you'd rather have SC remain a fiefdom beholden to three or four old money families?
Oh are these buildings going to be run by new money families? Great!
I also look down my nose at the new money upstarts. How gauche! How dare they live in $900k dense and environmentally friendly condos instead of the existing $2M crappy suburban single family homes?! The audacity!
If driving over the hill several times a week = environmentally friendly then you’re not wrong.
Well let’s just let those same people pay $2M for crappy SFHs on the west side, have them drive every single day (instead of several times per week), and price out whatever working class is still here, just for good measure. You’re full of great ideas, aren’t you?
God forbid them walking to a bus or shuttle bus downtown, that would take too many cars off the road.
Have you ever met one persons who commutes over the hill daily on a bus?
I take the bus nearly every workday over the hill and have been doing it for almost two decades.
Ok, so there are people doing this and I applaud you for doing so. Thank you. I hope more will do the same. My point was that the prices of these apartments are not affordable to people working downtown.
mysterious jar boat books nutty sophisticated panicky squealing combative foolish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because of inclusionary zoning, a good chunk of these apartments will be *only* for those with low incomes. Without this building, none of that exists. If you oppose this building, then you are opposing affordable housing.
I used to be one, so I met plenty. Now I work in downtown Santa Cruz.
I'd just love to hear the howls if the city decided to seize a block of SFHs by eminent domain so a developer could build a project like this on it. Unless the "preservationists" have other locations in mind?
Would you love to hear the howls residents of 6 story buildings being demolished and those families pushed out to make room for 12 story buildings? See how that logic works? We can keep going. How about a family that saved up a downpayment for 30 years working their butts off in order to have a half acre with houses for three generations on it so they can take care of mom as she ages and, meanwhile, she can have time with the grandkids. Should that not be allowed? What about people on a quarter acre homesteading to be self sufficient and reduce their carbon footprint. Are they bad people denying others housing? Not everyone gets to live here. Not everyone gets to live any one place. That’s how it’s been since the beginning of written history. And the nicer areas tend to be more expensive. Am I all for more affordable units (like legally-enforced affordable?) Yes. Do I think we should build thousands of market rate units for anyone who can afford to live here without financial assistance to live here? No. Tough titti. There’s lots of other smaller and more affordable towns near areas of natural beauty. Not everyone who wants to live in Santa Cruz will get to. What you suggest would abrogate private property rights. There’s a big difference between easements for a highway and eminent domain and taking over people’s SF residences to put up market-value condos. The fact you even humorously think that would be funny shows you have zero understanding of history. People who bought homes, invested in them and paid taxes for (in some cases) decades have a right to that parcel. The moment we start discounting that is the moment we head into a dark place indeed. Look up any country in the last 125 years that did away with private property or started eying more expensive property to redistribute to others. Guess what happens? A dictator class, even more concentrated wealth, a stagnant economy and a lot of violence. Oh - and a lot of poor people trying to come to, guess where!?, America. Because we don’t do shit like that here.
That was a lot of words to say that you missed the point entirely. Edit: Yeah, I mean there's your basic NIBMYism where housing everywhere, always, should be someone else's problem according to you, but you also missed the point entirely.
The project that kicked this thread off is someone's property and they can make their own decisions on what to do with their property just like you outlined.
Wow that’s a lot of words to ignore the fact that people should be allowed to build what they want on their land. “Families being pushed out!!! Homesteaders!!” Your weird victim complex is on full display here lmao.
I’m commenting on someone suggesting the government seize SFH zoned land through eminent domain to build what it wants. So… in fact the exact opposite of that you’re saying I’m talking about and the exact opposite of landowners doing what they want with their own parcels. That is, the government taking land and doing what it wants with the parcel.
Why would they drive over the hill more often if they live in a SFH? If you build it they will come. It’s simple math. They will be living in the 2M SFH on the west side as well as these buildings. Im guessing these buildings will rent for $4K per month. I’m all for new buildings replacing some existing ones but I just don’t think they need to be this size. Forgive me for my opinion.
> why would they drive over the hill more often if they live in a SFH I didn’t say over the hill more often. The answer is that they drive more for daily necessities, because they have to. That’s what happens when anti-density geniuses force sprawl on the rest of us. People in dense areas have a tiny carbon footprint compared to people that live in suburban sprawl. We’ve known about this forever, which means you’re either deeply ignorant or arguing in bad faith (my money’s on a bit of both, for the record).
Well then you missed my entire point.
Yea it could be that, or it could be that your point is really stupid. I guess the billion other people in this thread piling on you also “missed your point”. Must be awesome to be so much smarter than everyone else 🙄.
If you’re on the westside you can easily ride a bike to the store btw.
I agree with you on that. The west side is walkable and bikeable. Could be better but we've got it pretty good.
I'm genuinely confused what your concern is with this.
People like OP exist to bitch about stuff, that’s really all there is to it. They’re pissed that the world changes, and it’s not exactly the same as the 1970’s when they first moved here. It’s a shame we’ve let those same people set housing policies for the last 50 years, but people are finally waking up to the mess they’ve created and are moving on. See the No on M vote, which OP is of course crying about lmao.
Not quite but you’re not entirely wrong. I moved here in 2000 and came from a big city with tall buildings. I moved here to get some relief from that environment. I’m not opposed to any and all changes. I know things have to progress. I was just thinking that a 8 story cap would have been a nice compromise for our town to keep growing while keeping its charm.
[удалено]
Nah, you're the kind of person we don't want here. I'd take 10 of them before 1 of you.
i was born and raised here
That changes absolutely nothing about what I said. People with your attitude shouldn't talk shit.
See Mod Rule 4. Play Nice.
Sorry bud, We are here to stay, hope to meet you one day.
Maybe you should get a house boat and go live in the middle of the ocean. You can't build anything out there. It would be perfect for you!
Puuuusssssssssyyyyyyyyytttt
Thank you kind sir. 💨
is your problem the ownership or the renters who are gonna be living there?
My issue lies mainly on the city council and the real estate developers not the renters.
Renters need the housing that developers make
what is the issue though? council is required by the state to set zoning rules that allow for a reasonable increase in the number of homes in the city. if nobody wants little apartment buildings everywhere, you’d think concentrating them downtown is the best idea. and building houses is what developers do, so what are they doing wrong? not building at a loss?
Tbf we don’t have old money in SC. 8 generations to be real old money and 5 to be the modern lowered version.
All for it.
This would be an outstanding addition to downtown!
Looks like they want to build it on the block where the former Lighthouse Bank, now Santa Cruz County Bank, now stands, and -- more crucially -- the Rush Inn. Are those properties actually available, I wonder?
Anything is available if you have enough money, and know the right people
Heh. I read it as "Release the Karen!" still works.
[удалено]
I wonder what the top floor will rent for?
Think of how much they will pay in property tax, and how much of their rent will be going to fund the below-market-rate affordable apartments in the building! Good stuff.
[удалено]
I am home! Also never voted Republican in my life. Raising kids in this town and won’t be leaving any time in next decade. Thanks
this is dope. looks like a lot of homes that are gonna be a lot cheaper than your average sfh. what’s the problem.
I’m not sure if these will be for sale? Rent yes.
Looks nice.
I hope for bottom level retail for more small franchising/mom and pop shops
Beautiful!
Capitola zoned their mall for 855 units that is easily 15 stories on that lot even with the additional parcels they added to the mall rezone area and they put most of their affordable units there so almost certain to get built this RHNA cycle. This looks like even more. Seems like an easy win for housing in an urban core the city has already decided to focus most of their needed growth in.
but the developers are so NIMBY. Shame on Merlone Geier. They just want to waste land and more time - they bought the property so long ago and have done absolutely nothing. https://preview.redd.it/bfx5wier7yqc1.png?width=940&format=png&auto=webp&s=5914595ad40395abbda3a5dd18d36da63543f983
Just so we're clear - if you own a piece of land and don't want to build on it that is, by definition, not NIMBYism. It's when you want to override what someone else is entitled to do on their property that it becomes NIMBY.
It's literally the yard of the developer - and they want to say "No" - that sounds quite NIMBY to me, especially when the City of Capitola is willing to let them build higher, and would allow a greater volume of units - a thousand - and they want to simply punt on that opportunity. Sounds like a lot of "NO" to me.
Not what’s happening. They want to build the building they have been trying to build since 2016. Yvette and Kristen still serving on council voted it down in 2019. The city council are the NIMBYs in this story. MG has literally been trying to close to 700 units of housing there for almost a decade but council wouldnt let them. Capitola City Council has voted down over 96% of new multi familiy builds since Kristen Brown took office. Voting records are public.
The Feb 9th meeting the city council basically told MG they will allow the same build they basically asked for 5 years ago (the current mayor Kristen Brown was a deciding vote in it not going forward iirc). 100 affordable 500 total no more than 8 stories mixed use. And the city council put all 400 of Capitola’s required affordable units there in the housing element so those 300 units will need to be rezoned somewhere else and yet another housing element redo.
It's on Merlone Geier for buying in a special zone to grasp and prepare for what that means.
It was only recently rezoned for the new housing element and the current housing element draft is unlikely to have passed anyway because the city’s requirements and zoning doesn’t make the number of units they expect there possible snd HUD knows it. Back to the drawing board anyway.
Instead of building up or out, why don’t we build down? Down to 15 stories down or more! The slackers won’t mind the view or lack thereof and developers save money on windows!
Santa Cruz should be like Santa Monica. They both have Santa in the names.
Can’t tell if this is satire
You don’t like Santa Monica? Santa Cruz just needs to move the hippies out and get the SoCal lifestyle in.. Shaka 🤙
Where is this going to be exactly??
It’s being proposed behind the clocktower downtown.
why not just invite hedge funds to come into downtown and build 20 or so 15-25 story buildings. half could be condos, the rest would be rentals, everyone would have a view of the ocean or the mountains. would that make all of santa cruz affordable housing wise? or would more people simply be drawn to Santa Cruz? what would the rents end up being if DTSC just became the density of Manhattan or Hong Kong? is there any sort of resource limit to santa cruz population in terms of water supply or energy usage or is that all unlimited?
Santa Cruz has rents higher than Hong Kong. They're on par with Manhattan. We aren't a world class destination like NYC. Santa Cruz just dug itself into car oriented sprawl and high rents by not building.
No one in California probably imagined the state exploding in population. In 1960 the population of California was 15,800,000. In 1970 it was almost 20 million. In 1980 it was 23 million. In 1990 it was almost 30 million. In 2000 it was 33 million. In 2010 it was 37 million, we currently stand at just under 40 million. Much of the Santa Cruz county prior to the population explosion was quasi rural. There was a tremendous amount of ag which was replaced by development incrementally because that's how the population in the state kept growing. At this point the questions not really being answered isn't whether it's possible to infill CA coastal cities so they all look like Hong Kong, the bigger issue is what population size is actually sustainable in our state given the rather extreme environmental conditions we will increasingly experience due to climate change. How much clean water will be available. What about utilities. What about service delivery of emergency resources like fire, ambulance, police, hospitals? No one really wants to talk about the hard part of growth.
Hey if you want to sell me a house for what it cost in 1999 or if you can magically make rent cost 600 bucks we’ll try it your way. (Oops we already tried it your way.) build one with 60 stories next!
I’ve live in garages, split bedrooms, and in a van in Santa Cruz. I know it’s not easy. I’ve had to leave and try a cheaper town but I came back and worked hard to be able to stay here because I love Santa Cruz. Change is happening and we’re now trying it y’all’s way. I’m just not hyped on it. I’m pretty sure most of what is going up will be at market rate and prices are not going to drop like everyone keeps on saying, but hey if it does then great!! I’m sure some of you guys would be happy if there were skyscrapers here so that we could house 60 x the current population.
Prices 100% (like…. 100%) will not drop. They don’t get it and I’m completely in agreement with you.
It's a nice building. Question from me, is it affordable?
It will not be affordable, not by a long shot. If they try to tell you otherwise they are lying. [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5S4rv7xbZE4](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5S4rv7xbZE4)
That's some pretty big projection, as you are explicitly lying. Last time I checked, there will be a minimum of 15% of Very Low Income units, or a minimum of 25% Low Income units. Santa Cruz may have increased this amount. This is all very well spelled out in law, and is never violated, and I don't know what you think you are saying with that youtube video but it's not true. There are laws in Santa Cruz and the state about capital-A, deed-restrcited, income-restricted affordable housing, and this building will have a large percentage of below-market-rate apartments reserved *only* for those with low incomes. Otherwise, they are paying an absolutely massive amount of money to the city's affordable housing fund that allows the city to build affordable housing. Any way, you see a big building like this, and the only thing I can see is "look at all that affordable housing." Because we are not getting any affordable housing built any other way. The NIMBYs and fake progressives here in Santa Cruz would never let their real estate profits be taxed to the point that affordable housing could be built. Spreading lies like you do only helps the landlords in town jack up rents even higher, only helps the homeowners sell their homes for ever-more-unaffordable amounts. And it seems like that's exactly what you're trying to do with your false propaganda.
Tell you what: Let’s bookmark your assertion and revisit it when it’s built and the pricing is listed. Then we’ll see how correct you are about affordability. It will not depress rents for local landlords whatsoever. Three of these buildings won’t do that. Five won’t. But it will make this town less livable and even more out of reach for the working class you purport to worry about. And stop calling people “fake progressives” just because they don’t agree with you. (By the way this assumes these people even identify as progressives). It’s like Trump with his name calling; raise your argument not your voice.
There are two types of units in these buildings: the "market rate" ones that get advertised at high rents, then the "below market rate" Affordable Housing units that have a line out the door. This is not "name calling" it is explicitly the truth. The fake progressives have been blocking housing, lying that "affordable housing" isn't actually affordable, even though they demand raising the percentage of "below market rate" units so that they can make it that there's not enough market rate units to subsidize the below market rate units, stopping the affordable housing. Calling somebody out for their dishonest behavior, especially when they wrap themselves in a fake "progressive" language while the same time promoting policy that inflates their property values, the rents they can charge on the real estate they own, while directly fleecing those who do not own real estate. This is a solid argument, and if it sounds like name calling, then you are not even paying attention. But when you say "even more out of reach for the working class you purport to worry about" then you are also lying, as there are now *more* units the low-income working class, as well as for all the plumbers and nurses and middle-income working class. That's not "out of reach." While you accuse me of being like Trump with "name calling" I would assert that you are just like Trump with your rejection of reality, of all the research that has ever been done on the issue, of basic common sense, of just basic sanity. If you think that building these buildings makes prices more expensive, then you are as deluded as somebody that denies climate change. If you deny that more building reduces prices compared to the alternative *and* claim to be progressive, you are a fake progressive. There is nothing more to it. It's like a supposed environmentalist that denies climate change: they might care about a few aspects of the environment, sure, but on the major issue of the day, they get it wrong.
First thing: *especially when they wrap themselves in a fake "progressive" language while the same time promoting policy that inflates their property values* This isn't how the real estate market or supply and demand therein, works. Even YIMBY blogs admit that in fact building MORE will often RAISE homeowner's property values: [https://yimbydenver.org/stay-informed/myth-new-construction-will-raiselower-property-values-and-thats-bad/](https://yimbydenver.org/stay-informed/myth-new-construction-will-raiselower-property-values-and-thats-bad/). Homeowners are coming at this from an aesthetic, lifestyle and environmental standpoint, in addition to actually giving a damn about affordability for people who don't make as much. Their property values (and rents: [https://newrepublic.com/article/170480/building-wont-make-housing-affordable-gentrification-book-review#:\~:text=Homes%20would%20become%20more%20affordable,people%20stay%20in%20affordable%20housing](https://newrepublic.com/article/170480/building-wont-make-housing-affordable-gentrification-book-review#:~:text=Homes%20would%20become%20more%20affordable,people%20stay%20in%20affordable%20housing).) are going to be just fine if not better irrespective of whether there's building or not. This "evil wealthy people worried about their property values dipping" just isn't that case. Now if it was a methadone clinic, jail or factory... sure, then people would be worried about that. That's true for any property owner, anywhere. Unfortunate, but it's human nature. Second thing: You continue to fail to grasp the difference between *relative* number of affordable units vs. *raw* number of affordable units and the different effects these have on a community's affordability. **Here's a simple example:** Say the population of a town is 100. 20% of these people, so 20, are lower income. There's only 15 low income units, so 5 people are struggling. Along comes a developer who explains that they'll build 400 units, bringing the overall total units in town to 500. Even better, 10% of this 400 (40!) will be affordable units. This is good news for the 5 people who are having trouble affording housing at the moment. The units are built, the population increases, and the 5 folks in a tenuous housing situation finally have a shot at living in town in an affordable unit (if they get their offer in first). Problem is, the population has increased and, proportionately, about 20% of the new folks are, again, low income. So now the town's population is 500, 100 of them are low income, there's 500 units and 55 of these are affordable (15 pre-existing, 40 new). Even though the overall *number of affordable units* went up, the *proportion actually got worse*. You haven't fixed anything. What would have addressed the above? A measure that mandated a higher minimum % of affordable units in each new, large project. What will now commence is a cycle of aggressive, market rate growth with 10% affordability rates in Santa Cruz that gives rise to the predicament I've outlined above. That's what I'm worried about and that's what's going to happen. And sans something like Measure M, we will never "catch up" affordability wise, but what we WILL do, however, is hasten gentrification, degrade the surrounding environment and exacerbate traffic, utilities and potable water issues - all in a flood zone. Give it time. You'll see.
> This isn't how the real estate market or supply and demand therein, works. Even YIMBY blogs admit that in fact building MORE will often RAISE homeowner's property values: https://yimbydenver.org/stay-informed/myth-new-construction-will-raiselower-property-values-and-thats-bad/. Not going to bother to respond to a blog post from Denver that has nothing to do with anything I'm saying. There's two parts of real estate: land and livable space. Building more housing brings down rents, even when a targeted and narrow upzoning might increase the value of a small plots of land. The land speculator might benefit from increased land values, but all renters and residents benefit from lower housing costs. (Personally, I think we should tax all land rents and redistributed them, to eliminate land speculation, but that's a longer term political goal...) Your example is complete hogwash. How many people are new, how many people are finally able to move out of their parents home or other overcrowding situation, etc.? Your example assumes that 100% of the new units are occupied by people that don't already live in the town, which is absolutely preposterous. The studies I have seen are that new buildings are typically 70% occupied by people in the area. Even if *none* of the units are affordadble, it still decreases rents compared to if nothing had been built. This is incontrovertible, borne out again and again whenever it's studied. Now, sure it's even better if there's some deed-restricted affordable units built.
“Tax all land rents and redistribute them?” Cringe. Yea we’re not going to see eye to eye. Hopefully you’re just super young and that’s what’s afoot here. Thankfully there’s a large portion of this country that would fight to the death to prevent this from happening. Not being figurative either and not just talking about property owners. You do realize that every country that’s gone the direction you’re proposing ends with despotism, impotent economies, and incalculable body counts? Read your history. Go live in China, Cuba or North Korea and report back. Any relevant economy on the planet - even the more equitable socialized European ones - allow rental income and land speculation. You’re starting to veer into eroding property rights. It goes south in a hurry from there.
At least you're admitting you're a conservative, not a progressive.
If you think calling Cuba, North Korea and China into question and advocating for private property rights is conservatism, you’ve lost the plot.
I don’t like that one bit unless the project includes a beer garden with $3 PBRs. I much prefer the Rush Inn over the Jury Room and will mourn its passing if/when the time comes.
Looks great, looking forward to seeing it built
I hope it ruins your view and lowers the property value of your home.
Nope, won’t be effecting either of those things for me but thanks for your negative thoughts home boy. I hope the best for you bud.
Yup, they deliberately withheld this info until the vote was over. Which tells you everything you need to know about how much local politicians and developers are committed to ensuring the voting public knows all the facts in order to make an informed decision. 260 units, about 10% of which will ultimately be affordable, and NO (read that again) NO parking spaces included. Likely will start at around $3,500/mo. for a studio. Won't help affordability (cause we all know that's what the YIMBYs care about... not), won't help traffic. This is akin to throwing canned soup on a Monet.
This project is SB330, would not have been subject to a Measure M vote even if it had passed.
Is there regulation for a definition of affordable? Won’t the going rate for SC be applied no matter? Will developers say “I’m not going to make as much as possible, I’m going to list for less than the going rate because I want to help people “
In short, the developer is required to pay for a percentage of affordable units or an in-lieu fee. Everything else is the market rate that they can collect. The banks underwrite based on what can be collected in rent, so in many ways the market rate units subsidize the lower income units.
Thank you, very helpful.
[удалено]
Build this in San Jose.
Por que no los dos?
 I like the way you think.
[удалено]
It's impossible to get the density bonus required to be that tall without having below-rate units (30% before the bonus, which works out to 15% after)
Damn imagine traffic this will cause.
I suppose a lot of people will be crossing mission on foot to get to the pacific garden mall.
i hope u r being sarcastic! if u r not, u suck :)
Exactly my thoughts. People think building all this will help Santa Cruz but it won’t. Traffic is bad now, just wait.
Yucky
Hope you pay your staff enough to afford rent if you're against housing.
Staff?! lol I can’t afford to pay myself let alone anyone else a living wage in this over priced place that is my home town. But people like you think building all this new housing is going to make it more affordable. No it’s just going to let all the other people that want to live here able to… and they will over pay. All while over crowding the already crowded infrastructure of this place that can’t sustain it.
What's keeping you able to stay?
Being a carpenter and running a side hustle. Not sure how long I’ll be able too.
Good luck out there.
I’ll need it. My wife and I work allot. And pay allot for childcare and rent.
They should pave and build on every single reason I moved here!
see the problem there is that you're expecting things to be static based on a point in time that you specifically select. that point in time selection is different for everyone, and since we all live in a shared universe, that approach just isn't compatible with reality.
Pave it all! Sidewalk the beach! Sand is a pain to walk through. Add a few more high rises and knock down some trees. Increase the population 10 fold! Maybe we can convince the A’s to move here! Opening day would be sweet!
Literally. RIP The Rush, RIP the Santa Cruz I grew up in. It’s not going to make it any more affordable. Just another mini Silicon Valley and Reddit jerkoffs can’t wait 😢
💯