‘No one gave me anything’: Disagrees with housing op-ed

Steve Pleich (“Housing is a human right” – Guest Commentary, June 18) is a personal friend and I’ve always supported him and his missions; I have trouble with “must be given” (housing).

I can only speak from my personal experience. I transitioned from a “renter” to “homeowner” at age 55, after 19 years of hard work in the building trades. I made my purchase with a “first” (mortgage) of 8% and a second at 10%. No one gave me anything.

Granted not everyone can reproduce my path, but if “we as a community” are going to “give” it should be all inclusive: housing, health care and the right to be free from hunger.

– Lee Brokaw, Santa Cruz

Op-ed claim of housing as a human right? ‘Nonsense’

The Guest Commentary of June 18 claims that housing is a human right.

That is nonsense.

A human right is inalienable and non-rivalrous. A right such as free speech imposes no obligation on someone else, so may be enjoyed by anyone without reducing anyone else’s enjoyment of the same.

A claim to housing requires others to provide goods or services. This is not a right but a political wish.

– Tom Pennello, Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz filled with ‘no character’ housing projects

On a recent trip to Park City, Utah, I was met with a city full of breathtaking views, a quaint downtown and grand architecture. How sad to come home to Santa Cruz where new high-rise buildings have taken over our lovely town! What used to be a happy and funky beach town has now been filled with New York projects-style housing with no character. All of these buildings cast giant shadows on the downtown and neighborhoods.

While I support housing for all and understand the politics involved, I ask the question: Why didn’t the city government demand building architecture that blends with the character of our city? Santa Cruz had an opportunity to provide housing for all reflecting the natural beauty and heritage of our town. Instead, they bowed to pressure and put up unattractive and invasive buildings.

As always, “it is always about the money!” Shame on the city government for allowing this to happen.

– Joy Parker, Santa Cruz

Letter writer chose to make tragedy a political point

A life was tragically cut short in a hit-and-run accident next to the Santa Cruz Town Clock. The person had friends and family who are still grieving their loss less than three weeks later.

A letter write shamefully chose to leverage this fatality to make a political point in her June 16 Letter to the Editor “Tragic hit-and-run and Chen Mills’ anti-Flock advocacy.”

The writer blames Ami Chen Mills’ privacy advocacy against Flock license plate reader cameras, saying: “our police were denied a critical tool to identify the driver who killed our neighbor.”

Flock requires a license plate number to look up. Per Santa Cruz Police Department scanner traffic, the license plate of the suspect vehicle was unknown. The writer is wrong that Flock could have helped find the suspect. And the suspect was arrested by the Santa Cruz police the same day, without using Flock.

The writer owes the victim’s family and Ami Chen Mills an apology for her reprehensible and deceptive smear.

– David Moore, Santa Cruz

Why 2022 Measure D vote was not a ‘mandate’

Over the past many, many months we’ve read multiple letters written by members of the FORT alliance proclaiming that the “majority” of Santa Cruz voters “overwhelmingly” voted down Measure D in 2022 and consequently are opposed to the RTC’s proposed Interim Trail. I believe the term mandate may have also been used in one letter.

I find this confusing as, irrespective of “wants” or “desires,” the simple facts are available for all to view (Santa Cruz County election website):

• Total Registered Voters in 2022 =167,659 Total Measure D Votes = 78,902(= 47% of all registered voters)

• Total NO Votes = 56,390 (= 33.6% of all registered voters).

Yes, for those who chose to vote, the majority voted against Measure D. However, less than 50% of all registered voters actually cast a vote on Measure D and, most importantly, those who voted “NO” on this measure accounted for less than 34% of all registered voters.
Does 34% represent a “majority” or “mandate” or an “overwhelming” representation? I think not.

– Marc B. Yellin, Capitola