Is progressivism dying in Santa Cruz?

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

In 2009, William Domhoff and Richard Gendron published “The Leftmost City” about Santa Cruz’s progressive “heyday.” Since its publication – and especially since the March 5 election – many pundits have weighed in on the possible “death” of progressivism in Santa Cruz. 

Some want to retain the progressive moniker for the city while denouncing a large, legitimate demographic of people who care about open space and community input into urban planning as archaic, backward or NIMBY.

Lookout’s politics and policy reporter, Christopher Neely, quoted me in his March 11 article on “progressive” trends, and I hope to add analysis to what he quoted. First, even a cursory glance at the politics of Richmond or Oakland should be enough to set the record straight: Santa Cruz is not now, nor perhaps has ever been, the “leftmost city” of anywhere.

From the 1970s through the 1990s, a series of relatively progressive mayors and councils protected Lighthouse Field, agricultural land and greenbelts and, quite honestly, this is now why so many people want to live here, and not in Long Beach, for example. I appreciate their work because I know why I live here and love this area. But all this is ancient history. 

Progressive Santa Cruz City Council candidates who ran against centrist incumbents and opponents in this past election were Gen Z and Gen X, not boomers. These include: Héctor Marin, Dave Tannaci, Joe Thompson, Joy Schendledecker. Most of these candidates have only a passing familiarity with folks like former county supervisor Gary Patton, who championed many of the protective measures of the past. 

Their stances on Measure M, which sought to give community members more say on the height of new buildings and on percentages of affordable housing in those buildings, were wobbly at best. Joe Thompson was “no” on M. Tannaci did not take a stand. Marin, a young renter and working-class Latino, came out most strongly for M. And they all know housing costs and availability are a major issue in this city and state. No one denies that, but approaches differ. 

True progressives, in my mind, are willing to push back against the increasingly overwhelming forces of unfettered capitalism, including real estate. And contrary to Lookout politics columnist’s Mike Rotkin’s recent column, area unions did not endorse Measure M. The unions endorsed progressive candidates. As I see it, they did so because they saw them as more friendly to working-class issues.

But here, the informal alliance between two political organizations, Santa Cruz YIMBY and Santa Cruz Together (SCT), is driving the election of “corporate” or “moderate” Democrats on the council. Both Santa Cruz YIMBY and Santa Cruz Together are aligned with powerful real estate interests.  

Unfortunately, these powerful forces – including nonprofit developers – have truncated our housing options and reduced dialogue in our community to mostly neoliberal solutions, especially at the council level. This benefits massive corporations like Trammell Crow Residential (yes, Harlan’s father’s company) and the private equity giant Greystar that operate or want to operate here. Both are currently being sued by the state of Arizona for price-fixing rents.

Measure N (the “empty homes tax”), which voters rejected in 2022 amid a furious SCT campaign against it, would have provided some pushback against large landlords who “warehouse” apartments and people who own second homes they rarely use. Rent control and tenant protections would also help with the high cost of housing. But these kinds of systemic reforms seem off-limits for discussion here under the new “establishment.”

Other cities host a more robust and open politics. San Jose instituted a real estate transfer tax in 2020 and hosts a community land trust. Oakland passed an empty homes tax in 2019. In Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass relaxed the red tape only for 100% affordable housing developments in 2022 and developers have lined up to build. 

This belies the argument that there is some “magic formula” in affordable “inclusionary rates” (mandatory lower-cost units) or incentives that will hinder or help building housing for everyone. But because our current and, unfortunately, new council is heavily backed by local and out-of-the-area real estate firms (real estate is one of the most powerful lobbies in California), we cannot explore these options without ensuing hysteria.

And housing is certainly not the only issue we should be looking at. 

It’s problematic to me when a city council votes as a block and without robust discussion. This happened during the recent attempt to pass a cease-fire agreement, when five councilmembers voted against it without comment. More than 70 other cities managed to pass one, as did our own Democratic Central Committee.

I am also concerned about police oversight, increased police surveillance and drone purchase and the council’s active opposition to proven harm-reduction programs – like needle exchange – as overdose deaths skyrocket and syphilis and shigella outbreaks emerge in our county. 

The city council supported lawsuits by Santa Cruz Together attorneys and Councilmember Renee Golder against the local Harm Reduction Coalition. And now we learn of discussions between the council and city staff for a possible fire and “cop city” training ground, with an eye toward partnering with UCSC. And, most recently, the council granted a $500,000 forgivable loan to a multinational company, Joby Aviation, with a roughly $4 billion market capitalization. These are all concerns progressives generally care about.

From my view, we have become ripe pickings for huge, multinational corporations like Trammel Crow and Greystar that take our money and data (in our case, our license plate numbers via new, council-approved traffic surveillance cameras) and, in some cases (Anton DevCo, builder at Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street downtown and major supporter of the Ron DeSantis campaign), hand it to the GOP. 

True progressive politics is not naive to the influence of money in all levels of politics and works to counter that influence to protect the least privileged and our natural systems (our life support) from harm. This does not mean one does not work with developers, but that one does not roll over for them. 

In 2024, we face unthinkable threats to our liberties, rights, even our homes and lives – and those of all species – due to mass extinction and climate chaos, all because an “endless growth” mentality prioritizing profit at all cost has become the ethos of our nation and world. This mentality has given rise to a vast income disparity and concentration of wealth that is reflected in our own community. And this unhealthy state of affairs is fueling MAGA and populist support for cruel and corrupt “strong” men and women around the world.

In order to counter the all-pervasive influence of a neoliberal capitalist system, one cannot climb into bed with it. But that seems to me to be just what Santa Cruz has done.

My hope for this city is in the fact that everything changes. City districts approved by a centrist council (over city staff, resident and consultant-recommended districts) and an early primary with low turnouts for council elections make progressivism difficult now. 

But, if voters begin to see we have tipped too far in one direction, perhaps they will help us find balance again.

Ami Chen Mills is a resiliency educator, Democratic Central Committee member and host of the radio show and podcast “Moment of Truth with Ami Chen Mills.”

—

FOR THE RECORD: Editors changed one line in this article to more accurately reflect discussions about a possible law enforcement and fire training ground.

—