Quick Take
Darius Mohsenin says he goes to most Santa Cruz housing meetings and he’s tired of the “gray hairs,” who purchased their property decades ago, complaining. “Their objections follow a tiring, predictable pattern,” he writes, naming concerns about water, construction emissions, temporary disturbances to local wildlife, traffic congestion or simply aesthetic preferences about building heights. “These arguments ignore the reality that concentrating housing and traffic in our downtown core is precisely what sustainable urban planning calls for. It reduces sprawl, promotes walkability and creates vibrant community spaces.”
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
The future of Santa Cruz is being held hostage by those who won’t be around to see it.
At nearly every public meeting I attend on housing development in our city — and I attend most of them — the same demographic dominates the microphone: “gray hairs,” which includes my 65-year-old self, who purchased their properties decades ago. Protected by Proposition 13’s tax increase limits and comfortable in their secure housing situations, these people consistently oppose the very housing developments our city desperately needs simply because they don’t like change.
Their objections follow a tiring, predictable pattern: concerns about water, construction emissions, temporary disturbances to local wildlife, traffic congestion or simply aesthetic preferences about building heights. These arguments ignore the reality that concentrating housing and traffic in our downtown core is precisely what sustainable urban planning calls for. It reduces sprawl, promotes walkability, and creates vibrant community spaces.
The water scarcity argument has been thoroughly debunked by municipal studies showing our supply can accommodate planned growth. Yet it continues to be raised as if repeating it might somehow make it true.
What’s rarely acknowledged is the fundamental inequity in who gets to decide on housing policy. Those who purchased homes in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s benefited from dramatically lower housing costs relative to income. They’ve enjoyed decades of property appreciation and tax protection that younger generations can only dream about. Many will not face the long-term consequences of the housing decisions being made today.
Meanwhile, younger residents — many born and raised in Santa Cruz — are priced out of their hometown, forced into hourlong commutes or living in overcrowded conditions. These are the voices systematically underrepresented at planning meetings, as they’re likely working multiple jobs or caring for children during evening hearings. This was affirmed with all the silver manes and dye jobs at last week’s planning commission hearing on the Downtown Plan Expansion.
This isn’t about disrespecting our elders or dismissing their contributions to our community. It’s about recognizing an inherent conflict of interest.
When someone owns a single-family home with protected property taxes and has no personal housing insecurity, their incentives simply don’t align with addressing our housing crisis.
The Santa Cruz of 2060 belongs to those who will live in it — not those who will be worm food in the next 30 years. Our city needs housing policies that prioritize the needs of current and future generations of workers, families and community members across all income levels.
It’s time for a new approach to public input on housing development — one that actively seeks out and amplifies the voices of those most affected by our housing shortage. Perhaps that means changing meeting times, providing child care during public hearings, creating digital participation options or weighting feedback based on housing security.
Santa Cruz faces a critical choice: We can continue allowing a small, unrepresentative minority to dictate our housing future or we can embrace development patterns that serve the broader community and future generations.
The answer should be obvious.
The housing crisis won’t be solved by preserving Santa Cruz in amber. It requires bold action, density where appropriate, and the courage to sometimes say “no” to those who say “no” to everything.
Darius Mohsenin has been a Santa Cruz real estate investor since he purchased his first triplex in 1986 and owns a portfolio of rental properties in Santa Cruz, Monterey and Solano counties. He received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Carnegie Mellon University and worked in the defense/intel industry at multiple companies in Silicon Valley. He is currently a second-year law student at Monterey College of Law and intends to provide low-/no-cost legal services to low-income tenants and landlords upon passing the bar.
