Quick Take
Measure C passed with just 54% support, leaving nearly half of Santa Cruz City residents not wanting it. Some of those naysayers are concerned about loopholes, transparency and who will actually benefit from the new taxes, writes Keven Cook, an electrical engineer and veteran of political campaigns. Cook believes the measure gives developers and large investors a break and objects to the mayor’s role in shaping and funding the initiative. He fears the planning process on new developments is shutting the public out. He says the public and the media must be vigilant about Measure C accountability. He also looks to 2026 and 2028 as chances to push for new leadership.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
Measure C passed in Santa Cruz, although 46% voted against it.
Mayor Fred Keeley, who essentially created the plan and backed it with $50,000 of his own money, has vowed to address the concerns of those of us who voted against the combined parcel and real estate transfer tax.
That is a good thing, as 46% translates to a lot of people.
Those of us who voted against it did so for a myriad of reasons. Some, like me, were questioning the details of how the money would be raised and how the public would see accountability for the money spent on affordable housing.
We thought Measure C had too many loopholes in the transfer tax, including a big one that allows developers and real estate investors with transactions over $13 million to pay fewer taxes, and another that allows those with multiple transactions below $1.8 million to pay nothing.
MORE ON MEASURE C: Read Lookout’s news and Community Voices opinion coverage here
We wanted investors and developers to pay their fair share. We thought the additional money could help with the affordable housing crisis, or lower the transfer tax rates for everyone else, and possibly eliminate the regressive parcel tax.
The realtors put Measure B on the ballot to trick the voters into voting for a watered-down version of Measure C. Most voters didn’t fall for it.
Measure B got only 12% of the vote. Some voters believed they needed to choose between the two measures, which was not true, and this might have helped Measure C.
After the election, the realtors were quick to accept the results. I think that could be because they got most of what they wanted with the Measure C transfer tax loopholes.
The results for Measure C might have been different without Proposition 50 on the ballot. It made voter turnout higher, which some say had a positive effect on the Measure C vote. High voter turnout is something I support – so I don’t see that as a good argument.
Having a university in town with many student voters who do not have a history or deep connection to the city has an effect in every Santa Cruz election. Only about 1 in 4, or 25%, of UCSC students are from Monterey Bay/Santa Clara Valley/Silicon Valley. Students and the university community might have affected the Measure C vote, with 60% of voters living on or near campus voting yes.
Critics complained that the mayor abused the election system by initiating the measure, passing it off to a citizens group and then contributing $50,000 of his own money. That ensured the measure needed only 50% approval by voters, rather than two-thirds. Measure C received only 54% of the vote, and would not have passed if two-thirds was required for approval. The city attorney says this is legal, but many of us feel it was questionable.
Those of us against Measure C didn’t think we had much chance of defeating it. We simply wanted voters to think about how the money would be raised, used and accounted for so they could make an informed decision.
We were happy to see, at the last minute and only because of community insistence, that the Santa Cruz City Council voted unanimously to create a draft version of an accountability mechanism to ensure local workers get preference in affordable housing. Now the media and public will need to track the city council’s progress – and make sure the public knows who the tenants will be.
Many in my circle don’t trust the city to do what it says it will with our tax money. Some fear Measure C is another bait and switch, like 2016’s Measure S, which was sold to the public as a renovation and upgrade of the existing downtown library, not a vote to move the library and make it a mixed-use project.
Many see Measure C as a ploy to help developers overbuild, gentrify and ruin our town, while pushing the working class out of town. What will happen to the people displaced by the construction in the new downtown expansion area and “entertainment zone”? Who will profit from the affordable housing to come?
People I talked to don’t want to see their tax money used to build tall buildings they don’t want and that tower over their small homes. This includes neighbors near the Food Bin project on Mission Street, the one going up where the carwash used to be at 823 Water St., and the Clocktower monster project.
Last week, we learned that Santa Cruz planning department staff wants the Santa Cruz Planning Commission and city council to approve the creation of new “overlay zoning districts” and eliminate public hearings for 100% affordable housing developments.
Isn’t eliminating public hearings what authoritarians do? This sounds like less, not more, public accountability.
Santa Cruz Planning Commission members are appointed by individual city councilmembers or the mayor, and the term of a planning commission member expires when the term of the city councilmember who appointed them expires.
Most of the people in my circle now believe that our only option going forward is to vote them all out in 2026 and 2028.
__
FOR THE RECORD: This op-ed has been updated to clarify vote totals needed to pass ballot measures.
__
Keven Cook graduated from UC Davis with a degree in electrical engineering, worked in Silicon Valley for 20 years and has lived in Santa Cruz for 35 years. He was the data manager for the 2008 Obama for president campaign in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, and has worked on four local campaigns, including the successful 2012 campaign to block the building of a desalination plant in Santa Cruz. He is now looking into the possibility of passing rent stabilization for the city of Santa Cruz in 2028.