I wish I wanted to vote for Measure C, to take my place alongside all the caring, generous people who trust the sincerity of our politicians, bureaucrats and academics. I wish I didn’t know better, but after spending decades watching our housing crisis justify the tenure of those important people, I’m weary and weary of shoring up the well-heeled in the name of the needy. So I’ll stick with what I know.
Property owners have very little impact on property values, but cities and counties are bigger players than you may think, politically and especially administratively. If your neighborhood were rezoned for a battery storage facility, your property values would tank, Jacuzzi or no Jacuzzi. Zoning is ultimately the work of politicians.
Behind the facade of politics, the bureaucratic control of time, money and uncertainty in advancing any project is a larger factor than those on the inside care to understand or admit. Running the gauntlet of local entitlements multiplies the cost of housing unnecessarily. Measure C will only feed that beast.
And of course here in Santa Cruz, the University determines everyone’s rents. What UC charges on and off campus — think six students to a house — sets the bar for the rents and market value of all residential properties. It’s purely academic.
So, is there a property transfer tax that could actually generate substantial housing affordable to the people who live here now? Of course there is. Politicians, bureaucrats and academics aside, here’s what it would look like.
The tax would be modest, with every penny going toward paying city fees — zoning, historic, building, water hook-ups, public works, schools, energy, parks, traffic, general plan maintenance (I’m not making that one up) and all the rest, for any and every citizen willing to create additional housing on their own property, be it a tiny home, studio, one-bedroom apartment or even a duplex. That housing is allowed “by right” under state law, and costs a third to a half less than large developments in Santa Cruz. And the money would come from local homeowner equity, not hedge funds. So, two to three times as many homes for those tax dollars. A good start but only the beginning because, unlike Measure C, this one would be a gift that keeps on giving.
There’s just one reason the bureaucracy of housing in Santa Cruz is such a costly, time-consuming, burdensome mess. It’s because only those of us who are building housing pay their salaries. But if all those administrators from planning, public works, fire safety and building departments were paid directly from city funds through an effective “Measure C,” with the city manager writing General Fund checks to cover the time stolen or time wasted, the reduction in purposeless oversight would make our heads spin. It’s happened before — the Tannery center, the Warriors Pavilion — when the City has had a stake in holding costs down.
Would buildings still be safe? Of course they would. Architects, engineers and contractors are licensed by the state and they — not the city — carry all the liability and responsibility for the durability and safety of the buildings they design and build.
Apart from a return to stable multi-generational, inclusive neighborhoods, what’s in it for city government if for once it took such a forward-looking approach? They’d gain increased property tax revenue from new housing on properties already served with adequate city infrastructure, at little cost to themselves. And they’d regain respect. You can’t put a price tag on that.
What’s in it for those at the bottom of Section 8 waiting lists, those among us who don’t qualify for that list, or don’t want to (which is most of us)? Mom and pop landlords are far more likely to hold rents steady than out-of-town management. I know that because I rented for 17 years in this town while living at or near the poverty level, and because I’ve rented space to a friend or relative in need, when the question was not how much but how little I would need to charge. But, that’s community. Or was. Or could be again.
Measure C will achieve none of this. It’s not even trying.
Mark Primack would like to hear from you at mark@markprimack.com.