Measure B is the better choice for Santa Cruz — reject the insider play of Measure C

Editor’s note: Measures B and C are both on the ballot on Nov. 4 for voters in the city of Santa Cruz. Lookout has featured arguments for both sides in our Community Voices opinion pages, but here, we have asked both campaigns to offer their best arguments to help voters choose. Find the piece from backers of Measure C here.

Santa Cruz faces a housing crisis of historic proportions — rents and prices are out of reach for many working families, and homelessness continues to haunt our community. We in the real estate industry know this acutely because we talk to residents and clients every day. But solving housing inequity is not just about more funding — it’s about how that funding is raised, and who is trusted to put it to work.

That’s why I support Measure B, the Workforce Housing & Climate Protection Act, and oppose Measure C, the Workforce Housing Affordability Act. Though both claim to raise revenue for affordable housing, they differ sharply in accountability, fairness, and process.

First, Measure B is a true citizen-led initiative; Measure C is an insider tax play.

Measure B was placed on the ballot via a petition signed by more than 6,000 residents. It represents a bottom-up process — driven by community members, not Santa Cruz City Hall. As I said in the rebuttal of the arguments against Measure B:

“Measure B is the only true citizen-led measure on the ballot. Unlike Measure C — which was pushed by insider political operatives at City Hall using legal loopholes, political gamesmanship, and a deliberate effort to avoid transparency and accountability — Measure B is the only true citizen-led measure on the ballot.” 

In contrast, Measure C was engineered behind the scenes. City officials and their allies conducted taxpayer-funded polling, message testing and campaign material development — then “handed off” the materials to a housing advocacy nonprofit to qualify the measure as a citizen initiative. 

This allows a lower voting threshold (simple majority) rather than the two-thirds required for special taxes. It’s a legal sleight of hand. 

MORE ON MEASURES B AND C: Read Lookout news and Community Voices coverage here

Second, since Measure C circumvents the two-thirds safeguard, it risks legal challenges.

Under California law, truly special taxes imposed by a governmental body require a two-thirds supermajority. Measure C’s architects appear intent on circumventing that safeguard by dressing up the initiative as a “citizen measure” rather than a city-imposed tax. If courts find that the city’s involvement crosses the line, Measure C could be struck down — costing taxpayers in lawsuits, delays and lost credibility.

Measure B, as a citizen measure, does not depend on that loophole. Its legitimacy is more defensible and less vulnerable to legal attack.

Measure B also strikes a more balanced, sustainable tax model.

Measure C is a steep “double tax” — a $96 parcel tax plus a tiered real estate transfer tax starting at $1.8 million. While that sounds ambitious, it burdens a broad swath of property owners, potentially chilling transactions. 

Our organization supports affordable housing, but the proposed “double tax” would make selling homes too burdensome.

Meanwhile, Measure B provides a more pragmatic, targeted approach. It lowers the burden on everyday homeowners by setting a lower parcel tax and raising the transfer tax only at much higher thresholds (over $4 million). It also includes funding for climate resilience projects such as wharf and coastline repairs. In short, it integrates housing goals with civic infrastructure needs rather than forcing an all-or-nothing shot.

 I believe accountability, transparency and governance must be built in.

Measure C sidesteps normal transparency by masquerading as a citizen initiative. That means city officials can claim “hands off” even as their offices design, staff, and coordinate the campaign. In contrast, Measure B is more transparent from the outset: citizen sponsors, public petitioning and no pre-campaign built by city agencies.

Voters deserve to know which group is accountable for implementation, oversight, reporting and auditing. Measure B provides clearer guardrails; Measure C obscures them.

We can’t let a procedural trick override real public support.

If we allow politics by procedural gimmick, we erode public confidence in every future ballot measure. The housing crisis demands bold action, but not at the expense of democracy. 

In sum, I support Measure B because:

• It is citizen-initiated and accountable to the voters.
• It avoids abusing public funds or city machinery to circumvent legal protections.
• It balances the burden, limiting impact on everyday homeowners while targeting greater tax only to luxury transactions.
• It includes support for climate resilience in addition to housing, recognizing real interdependence.
• It reduces risk of costly litigation and uncertainty if a court strikes down a scheme disguised as a citizen ballot.

I’m not absolving realtors of responsibility in the housing crisis — we must be part of the solution. But the solution should be fair, legal, durable and built on trust. Measure C attempts a shortcut that is ethically and legally dubious. Measure B is the wiser path forward.

Santa Cruz deserves a housing funding plan that commands legitimacy, endures legal scrutiny, and invests equitably. For me, that is Measure B. 

Renee Mello is the president of the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors.

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.