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

Former Santa Cruz mayor Don Lane says the public’s anger about new “affordable” housing is based on a “misunderstanding.” I am not so sure. I think the public sees things correctly.

The problem starts with the word “median.” Usually, that means the middle –  half earn more, and half earn less. However, here, the government takes the median income and inflates it. Officials add a “high housing cost adjustment” to create a “manufactured median.” While this makes more people eligible for housing on paper, it creates a loophole: It allows developers to charge near-market or even full-market rents while still calling the specific homes in mixed housing “affordable.” 

It’s a misnomer at best.

According to recently published data, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development median income for Santa Cruz-Watsonville is $137,200. While the manufactured median is much higher, this number represents a significant markup. Then, officials take a percentage of that inflated number to set income limits. For a two-person household, the limit is $139,650, which is higher than what most Santa Cruz families actually make. A couple earning $140,000 is not “low income” –  they are well-to-do.

Mr. Lane dismisses concerns about “tech bros” moving into affordable units, but these manufactured numbers include the professional class that has been displacing longtime renters. A household making $140,000 doesn’t need a taxpayer-funded subsidy to live here. Our teachers, healthcare workers, Metro employees, and service workers making $50,000 to $95,000 do.

The biggest issue is that developers get tax credits and faster permits to build units that rent at market rates. For a two-bedroom unit at the 80% tier, the rent hits $3,500 a month. When a local worker applies for “affordable” housing and sees a price tag of $3,500 for a two-bedroom or $2,900 for a one-bedroom, that isn’t confusion; it’s frustration.

Thankfully, Mayor Fred Keeley and Santa Cruz voters saw through this. In November 2025, they passed Measure C, the Workforce Housing Affordability Act. Measure C raises about $5 million a year via a transfer tax. Crucially, over 85% of that money must go to housing for people earning 30% to 60% of the median income – not to the inflated 80% tier. This allows the city to “buy down” units. Instead of more $3,500 apartments, the city can subsidize those same units down to $2,100 to $2,600, which is a rent a teacher can actually pay.

Santa Cruz voters deserve credit for seeing through the state’s flawed definition. The public isn’t confused; they just want housing that is actually affordable. Measure C gives us the tool. Now the city must use it appropriately. 

Kevin Cummings

Santa Cruz