Looks like many in the Bay Area disagree — see the comments in the San Jose Mercury News.


Santa Cruz has a landmass of 13 square miles compared to Palo Alto’s 26.

Our watershed is EXCLUSIVELY filled by rainwater and Santa Cruz remains on the top-10 list of cities most likely to RUN DRY. Note: Please watch ‘Last Call at the Oasis'

All around us cities are initiating or extending building moratoriums, it’s the sane and responsible thing to do! We don’t want to drink sewer water to build a new home for you, other transplants or UCSC’s increasing student body. If you can’t find an existing property that suits you move somewhere else.

THERE’S NO H2O TO SUPPORT Santa Cruz’s General Plan 2030 growth and development, period! Their own expert-reports says so: GP2030 pg.73 and Final EIR 4.5–1

To the Pro-Build advocates: Get Your Head(s) Out of The Sand! You’re Embarrassing.

The apparent GREED and DYSFUNCTION of our too-long-in-office local government MUST GO!We’re DONE with ‘behind-door’ deals. We’re DONE with council members of lacking integrity and self confidence voting so they’ll be ‘liked’ by other members on council!It’s insanity…Teenagers are deciding our future. Public outcry is being criticized and bulldozed over!

Say, anyone down at the city remember democracy and The Brown Act?

Santa Cruz’s housing problem has been exasperated by the current short sited city officials that have allowed/promoted 1.) unmanaged UCSC growth without campus housing, 2.) too many homes allowed to be purchased for vacation rental wealth, rather than used as much needed longterm rental property, 3.) AirBnbs mostly unregulated, need to be reduced, strictly ordinanced and overseen…

ADU/granny units must be returned to our longterm rental inventories with relief from the ordinances that drove them into Airbnb inventories: (search: Santa Monica 80%).

High Density = Affordable Housing


Developers are allowed to misuse ‘loopholes’ designed to support ‘affordable housing’ development under Brown’s ‘By Right’ bill; then at completion developers are free to charge even ‘aggressive’ market-rate rents i.e., The Breakers @ 630 Water Street — $1,750 per/mo for a spacious 310 square foot SRO (single resident occupancy)…Sound affordable? BTW those units have 2 and even 3 persons living/dividing the rent!

Oh, one of the loopholes of these nightmare constructs is that they’re allowed under-ordinance parking! Another negative component to these boxes.

Awake citizens have come to realize that Cindy and her city council shut down granny units by increased ordinances so that they could herd us into their Corridor growth goals via high-density developments.

IT’S GREED PEOPLE pure and simple, coupled with DROUGHT negligence & irresponsibility.

Article after article supports ADUs NOT SROs as the affordable housing solution. Turns out our grassroot community was on the right path all along! We’ve just had the wrong crew onboard.

We are not interested in the Palo Alto or San Francisco gentrification that forces out generational residents, artists and lower income households. Note: Please watch ‘San Francisco 2.0'

Anyone moving here needs to respect our LIMITED resources, EMBRACE our lifestyle, RESTORE not destroy OUR History and FRAGILE ecosystems…

WE’RE NOT INTERESTED in becoming what you’ve just left.

California’s WATER situation is getting WORSE NOT BETTER. Santa Cruz does not have the resources to support continued growth…Please, have some common sense and decency.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.