Q&A Sessions

Several factors contribute to the housing crisis. One is the ever-increasing size of privately constructed housing. Average home size has climbed from a modest 1200 square foot average to nearly 2500 square feet for the average new home. Probably the only thing holding the average back from that barrier is the City's large home ordinance.

Another huge factor is the scarcity of housing. Because there is a very small vacancy rate, prices soar. Both for sale prices and rental rates are excessive to say the least. With prices so high, people who work here often cannot afford to live here. The housing cost takes such a huge percentage of the income even of a moderate income level that they would not choose to spend that much of their money on housing alone.

The housing supply shortfall and affordability crisis is having a disproportionately negative impact on minority families. The result tends to be a "white only" gentrification.

The January 17, 2002 issue of the Santa Cruz Sentinel reported, "Santa Cruz is now nation’s least affordable housing market." One grim statistic reported therein was that "... just 6.9 percent of Santa Cruz County residents can afford to buy a median-priced home here."

As a result of these factors, some residents are finding new homes in Fresno, Modesto and Los Banos, or other central valley towns. This is often true of our newly hired police, firefighters, teachers and other vital workers in the community. As soon as employment opportunities arise closer to their homes, these new employees are gone. Besides the social disfunctionality,

Although only about 50% of our population is in the form of traditional families, developers most often want to build only single-family homes.

My directions and priorities are to build more SRO units, more ADUs, more live-work housing, to legalize the conversion of garages for housing. The so called "illegal units need an amnesty and an opportunity to bring them into compliance with health and safety codes. We need to earmark a larger percentage of our redevelopment money to affordable housing and increase the inclusionary requirement to 25%.

I support greater density in the Downtown and in transit corridors. Most commercial buildings along transit corridors should have second and third story housing added when they are modernized or replaced. In addition, the General Plan revision must include serious consideration of mixed use in industrially zoned land. Placing housing above new commercial and industrial construction is a win-win. Then workers can live very near to or AT their place of employment.

By developing housing in these in these locations the communities desire to preserve the R1 neighborhoods is satisfied.

1. Use of redevelopment funds for affordable housing projects.
2. An increased inclusionary requirement for housing projects.
3. Use of tax increment financing to essentially enter into a public-private partnership to build a mix of market and affordable housing. I can be proud to say I was an advocate of such programs from the time I came onto the Council in 2000. We were able to change one project, the one at 1010 Pacific from an office only project to a Commercial project on the ground floor with housing above. That project along with the Schaffer Road project is BOTH 40% affordable housing.
4. The City will soon be in a position to enter into a partnership with the Transit District to construct more affordable housing above the downtown Metro Center.
5. In the last four years, we engaged the services of Bob Odermatt to identify housing opportunity sites in the Downtown. He brought us back some beautiful plans for several significant possibilities. They included housing on the Cedar Street Corridor and also on Front Street along the River. There, the tantalizing prospect of housing lining the River should be exciting to all of us. There is opportunity to build hundreds of units or possibly more.

The units are designed in such a way that they can be quickly and easily modified for people with special needs without major construction.

We can enter into partnerships with some of the numerous agencies we are so fortunate to have here that help to serve

Access Santa Cruz County http://www.scaccessguide.com/social.htm

My personal view is that, if the University sells prospective students on this Idyllic campus location and then, when they get here, they must cram 4 into a room, I think that’s fraud.

I reject the worn out notion that the Santa Cruz residential housing stock would magically absorb the growing student population. That time has passed and we must not let it start all over again in the next round of University expansion.

We must press for a University commitment that the housing required for its students will be built and earmarked for those students.

But, I don't want to imply that it’s all gloom: The current leadership on the Campus has expressed willingness if not an eagerness to take on these issues in good faith. Further, There have been developments in Sacramento beginning to budget for costs incurred by Cities because of University presence and expansion. We need to work with our State legislators to move such measures forward to adoption.

All of the smart growth ideas mentioned above for density housing

I want to use caution when repeating a term such as Nimbyism. While we often decry this reaction of current residents of a neighborhood. But, they have a right to expect that zoning will be what it was when they purchased their homes.

And, I don't like such stereotyping.

So, I don't think we can make generalities about neighborhood preservation as though it is not an important issue.

However, that being said, when people opposed the Outback Steakhouse on Water Street, we agreed with them and rejected the proposal. When they then opposed a very nice housing development on the same property, we DID approve it. It’s on a major transit corridor and fits our plan for such developments.

And, as I pointed out above, there are many, many opportunity sites for good density housing projects in our Downtown, along our transit corridors, in mixed use projects on our industrial lands, in redevelopment projects either public or private above existing commercial buildings, and on the University campus itself.

And I want to compare two developments. One at Reed way received unanimous approval of Council. The developers consulted with the neighborhood at every step of the way and virtually everyone supported the plan.

But, At High and Cardiff, that kind of collaboration did not take place and now the project is mired in a lawsuit. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see that the Reed Way it the right way.

One Big step is the family shelter nearing completion. I think this community can be justifiably proud of this accomplishment.

I think a next step is to obtain a year around shelter facility. The Armory rent is exorbitant and only operates from November to March. If we owned a permanent facility, the armory rent could just about cover the cost of running the year round.

Possibilities are the current skills center when that program moves to Cabrillo.

Or, there is an unused piece of City owned land across from the 911 center a bit uphill from the currently used Armory location.

I have researched the possibility of building a replacement building equivalent to the armory using steel building technology for about $120,000.00

If, when the family shelter is finished, we focus the same energy on fundraising for some Armory replacement such as this we could have it within a few years. I also think it should not be entirely supported by the City but rather by the Continuum of care project that has membership from all communities in the County.

It’s important if we are going to tell people they can't sleep in any particular location, that we are able to offer them a place to go.