No on Measure M: Let’s not make it harder to build affordable housing

Quick Take

Don Lane makes a case against Measure M for voters in the city of Santa Cruz.

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

Measure M would require two things.

The first is a citywide vote on any change to the city zoning ordinance or the general plan that would allow for greater heights or greater density in any kind of development project in the city of Santa Cruz.

The second is an increase in the inclusionary housing standard to 25%.

These ideas, on the surface, probably sounded good to many people who signed a petition to put Measure M on the ballot. Unfortunately, the signature gatherers didn’t provide information on the real-world impacts of this measure.

Here are some of the real impacts of Measure M, if adopted.

It will become more difficult to permit taller apartment buildings or apartment buildings that use greater density to create more housing units on a single site.

It will be more difficult for the people who build housing to build apartments downtown because of delays and additional costs.

Santa Cruz – like all cities in California – is required to plan for thousands of units of housing: If we make it harder to go higher and denser downtown, builders will look to other areas – closer to other neighborhoods – to put multistory apartments.

This means moving housing away from the best location in terms of walkability, public transit and reduced car use — and strengthening the economy of our downtown. Measure M would be an obstacle to a new multiuse arena and keeping the Warriors basketball team in town. The arena won’t be for just basketball — it will be a first-class concert/entertainment venue, a place for cultural events, youth sports and community gatherings.

Measure M contains language saying that several different circumstances around changing zoning rules or the city’s general plan will require citywide votes. It applies to more than just taller apartment buildings. Each one of these elections would cost the city taxpayers money … and cause expensive delays in implementing what would otherwise be simple changes.

Try as they might to brush this aside, an independent analysis confirms that elections over minor issues will be required.

This measure tries to sell itself as a benefit to affordable housing. However, none of the leading affordable housing groups in our area support Measure M. Housing Santa Cruz County, Santa Cruz YIMBY, Student Housing Coalition and Affordable Housing Now oppose Measure M.

They know it’s an impediment to housing. It’s essential to remember that including affordable apartments in a private project costs the builder a lot of money. If we set the standard too high, the cost becomes too high, and the builder avoids the high cost by building nothing.

As we all know, 25% of nothing is nothing. Younger families and local workers need more than empty promises — they need the apartments. Several communities in California have reduced their inclusionary percentages – because they found it was a mistake to have the percentage so high.

In terms of meeting our housing needs, in terms of planning, in terms of city costs, and in terms of a thriving downtown, Measure M is a real mistake.