Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The Santa Cruz Rental Ordinance and You
bad news bears!
The rental ordinance, passed in August 2010 by a 5-1 vote, spells bad-news-bears for those of us renting in Santa Cruz. The rhetoric around the measure was mostly about cracking down on illegal units and rentals that don’t meet basic habitability standards. At first glance, this might seem like a step towards a safer and saner rental market in Santa Cruz. Will this finally be the end of uninsulated garages listed as studios (at $800 a month) or two-bedroom bungalows crawling with rats and mold (at $1400-1600)? Maybe it will, but it’s going to cost us.
The rental ordinance was part of a deal made between the City and the University in 2008. City officials have debated it for years, and only recently has it taken its final form. The city has been asking the university to house more students on campus for a long time. Understandably so, since the city is under pressure from homeowners who feel like college students and their parties are ruining their quiet Westside neighborhoods. The ordinance is a response to this pressure.
The rhetoric behind the rental ordinance is aimed at “illegal units” or rentals that don’t meet basic habitability standards. The ordinance calls for periodic inspections of rentals, to be paid for by the rental owners. Rental owners must correct code violations that are found, which may lead to displaced tenants. Even Mike Rotkin admits that this displacement is inevitable. Property owners are angry that they have to pay while some renters are afraid of getting thrown out of the only rentals that they can afford.
Tenants are also worried, and rightly so, that the rental ordinance will drive up rental prices. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the ordinance passes costs onto landlords, who will in turn pass them onto tenants. The second reason is that the most affordable rentals in this town are the obviously illegal ones. By eliminating these, many people will be priced out of the remaining rentals.
It would be naïve to think that the ordinance is actually about protecting renters. To understand who the ordinance actually serves, we can see who stands to benefit financially. The $322,000 budget for the rental ordinance is paid in half by UCSC. The rental ordinance is part of a push by UCSC to house two-thirds of the student population on campus in the next phase of campus growth. Connecting these facts, it’s obvious that the UC can make a significant amount of money by housing students on campus. By raising rental prices in town, the university can entice students to move onto campus. Sharing a room in a university apartment costs more than $1500 a person for the 2010-2011 school year. For that to be cheaper or more appealing than housing in town, rental prices in town will need to go through the roof.
Though this ordinance will address the concerns of homeowners, desperately clinging to their property values, and of the UC, which wants to capture student’s rental money in the wake of its financial implosion, ordinary renters in Santa Cruz will bear the brunt of its effects. As rental prices increase, our wages won’t. We will be forced to pay higher prices and, unlike some students, Mom won’t be footing the bill.
The proposed campus expansion to accommodate the students would develop 120 acres of previously undeveloped land around UC Santa Cruz. The very forests that attract students to Santa Cruz will be destroyed to accommodate them. Those of us who have nothing to gain from campus expansion are also losing a precious wild space. This may be ground for interesting alliances. Those of us who care about rental prices have common ground with those who want to protect wild places.
Capitalism is full of false choices. The rental market in Santa Cruz has asked renters to choose between pricey habitable rentals and less-expensive shoddy rentals. That we might want affordable and habitable rentals is, to them, laughable. Recent efforts by groups like Santa Cruz Solidarity, which bills itself as a “mutual support network for tenants and workers”, are interesting attempts at demanding both.
There is a pressing need for working class folks in Santa Cruz to stand up for themselves. I hope that this article creates conversations among friends, sipping 40’s or sipping coffee (or both, for a really crazy time), about the current situation in a new light. As working class folks, we need to come together to defend our interests. Those with money and those with power are organized to exploit us; we need to organize to defend ourselves.
The rental ordinance was part of a deal made between the City and the University in 2008. City officials have debated it for years, and only recently has it taken its final form. The city has been asking the university to house more students on campus for a long time. Understandably so, since the city is under pressure from homeowners who feel like college students and their parties are ruining their quiet Westside neighborhoods. The ordinance is a response to this pressure.
The rhetoric behind the rental ordinance is aimed at “illegal units” or rentals that don’t meet basic habitability standards. The ordinance calls for periodic inspections of rentals, to be paid for by the rental owners. Rental owners must correct code violations that are found, which may lead to displaced tenants. Even Mike Rotkin admits that this displacement is inevitable. Property owners are angry that they have to pay while some renters are afraid of getting thrown out of the only rentals that they can afford.
Tenants are also worried, and rightly so, that the rental ordinance will drive up rental prices. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the ordinance passes costs onto landlords, who will in turn pass them onto tenants. The second reason is that the most affordable rentals in this town are the obviously illegal ones. By eliminating these, many people will be priced out of the remaining rentals.
It would be naïve to think that the ordinance is actually about protecting renters. To understand who the ordinance actually serves, we can see who stands to benefit financially. The $322,000 budget for the rental ordinance is paid in half by UCSC. The rental ordinance is part of a push by UCSC to house two-thirds of the student population on campus in the next phase of campus growth. Connecting these facts, it’s obvious that the UC can make a significant amount of money by housing students on campus. By raising rental prices in town, the university can entice students to move onto campus. Sharing a room in a university apartment costs more than $1500 a person for the 2010-2011 school year. For that to be cheaper or more appealing than housing in town, rental prices in town will need to go through the roof.
Though this ordinance will address the concerns of homeowners, desperately clinging to their property values, and of the UC, which wants to capture student’s rental money in the wake of its financial implosion, ordinary renters in Santa Cruz will bear the brunt of its effects. As rental prices increase, our wages won’t. We will be forced to pay higher prices and, unlike some students, Mom won’t be footing the bill.
The proposed campus expansion to accommodate the students would develop 120 acres of previously undeveloped land around UC Santa Cruz. The very forests that attract students to Santa Cruz will be destroyed to accommodate them. Those of us who have nothing to gain from campus expansion are also losing a precious wild space. This may be ground for interesting alliances. Those of us who care about rental prices have common ground with those who want to protect wild places.
Capitalism is full of false choices. The rental market in Santa Cruz has asked renters to choose between pricey habitable rentals and less-expensive shoddy rentals. That we might want affordable and habitable rentals is, to them, laughable. Recent efforts by groups like Santa Cruz Solidarity, which bills itself as a “mutual support network for tenants and workers”, are interesting attempts at demanding both.
There is a pressing need for working class folks in Santa Cruz to stand up for themselves. I hope that this article creates conversations among friends, sipping 40’s or sipping coffee (or both, for a really crazy time), about the current situation in a new light. As working class folks, we need to come together to defend our interests. Those with money and those with power are organized to exploit us; we need to organize to defend ourselves.
For more information:
http://surfcityrevolt.blogspot.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
You say: "Connecting these facts, it’s obvious that the UC can make a significant amount of money by housing students on campus.".
I think that's sort of a shady statement. Can you clarify it?
I think it's shady because it doesn't specify whether you're talking about UC making money, or making profit. And, because you use the statement to imply collusion is being applied.
From what I understand, UC doesn't make any profit on it's rentals. It instead charges a rate based upon the construction and management cost of it's properties. (And that's why UCSC housing is higher than comaprable housing at many other campuses. The res. halls are newer, so cost more to build, so UC is mandated, by law voted in by Californians, to charge a rate commiserate with costs.
I also understand it to be the case that UCSC currently houses the highest % of its students of any UC in the system. That it's the City that keeps pushing UCSC to house a higher %. That students have freedom of choice and choose to live in town as opposed to campus after their first year, in most cases.
So, can you clarify: Are you saying UC stands to make profit, based upon your premise? Or are you saying they'll make money?
There is a big difference between those two realites. I don't question they'll make money, but there's no shame or crime in that if they aren't profiting and are instead recouping cost. But your statement and stance seems to imply profit, and I don't believe that's the case.
Your reply and some data to back it up appreciated!
I think that's sort of a shady statement. Can you clarify it?
I think it's shady because it doesn't specify whether you're talking about UC making money, or making profit. And, because you use the statement to imply collusion is being applied.
From what I understand, UC doesn't make any profit on it's rentals. It instead charges a rate based upon the construction and management cost of it's properties. (And that's why UCSC housing is higher than comaprable housing at many other campuses. The res. halls are newer, so cost more to build, so UC is mandated, by law voted in by Californians, to charge a rate commiserate with costs.
I also understand it to be the case that UCSC currently houses the highest % of its students of any UC in the system. That it's the City that keeps pushing UCSC to house a higher %. That students have freedom of choice and choose to live in town as opposed to campus after their first year, in most cases.
So, can you clarify: Are you saying UC stands to make profit, based upon your premise? Or are you saying they'll make money?
There is a big difference between those two realites. I don't question they'll make money, but there's no shame or crime in that if they aren't profiting and are instead recouping cost. But your statement and stance seems to imply profit, and I don't believe that's the case.
Your reply and some data to back it up appreciated!
If the question is whether the UC will "make money" or "make profit", the answer is in the shady middle ground. Regardless, they stand to gain. Much of the money that the UC takes in from students, it uses to back (and to pay off) its bonds. Is the money going directly into someone's pockets? No. Is the money being used to bolster the UC as an economic force, rather than an educational one? Yes. Sorry the article wasn't so clear; this stuff gets mucky fast.
While I won't pretend to completely understand the UC's budget nightmare, I can point you to someone who does. Check out Bob Meister's article "They Pledged Your Tuition" (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/03/18631358.php). He points specifically to the equivocation between student fees (that appear earmarked for different departments) in footnote 11.
Hope this helps!
While I won't pretend to completely understand the UC's budget nightmare, I can point you to someone who does. Check out Bob Meister's article "They Pledged Your Tuition" (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/03/18631358.php). He points specifically to the equivocation between student fees (that appear earmarked for different departments) in footnote 11.
Hope this helps!
For more information:
http://surfcityrevolt.blogspot.com
Hey there - The measure was voted on almost a year ago. Has it already gone into effect? If so, is there any data you can provide that will corroborate your claims that property owners in town will automatically pass the costs onto renters? I don't doubt this claim completely however, it would be helpful to see some numbers on the rental-market in town today as compared to last year.
-You admit you don't know if UC makes any profit on their housing, but you imply they do. Don't try to skate by with this crap about "gain". They either make profit or they don't, and if they don't, which they don't appear to, there is no "gain".
-You claim "The rental ordinance is part of a push by UCSC to house two-thirds of the student population on campus in the next phase of campus growth. " But the truth is UC isn't the one pushing for that mandate; it's the City. UCSC currently houses just under 50% of their students, and that's the highest ratio in the UC system. Do you seriously expect me to believe that they are the ones "pushing" in this budget crisis to build an additional 2,000+ beds to rent at break-even prices?
..your politics have outpaced your facts or credibility.
-You claim "The rental ordinance is part of a push by UCSC to house two-thirds of the student population on campus in the next phase of campus growth. " But the truth is UC isn't the one pushing for that mandate; it's the City. UCSC currently houses just under 50% of their students, and that's the highest ratio in the UC system. Do you seriously expect me to believe that they are the ones "pushing" in this budget crisis to build an additional 2,000+ beds to rent at break-even prices?
..your politics have outpaced your facts or credibility.
i am going to speculate the universities "costs"
for construction are as inflated as the salaries of
those at the top of its hierarchy.
the city gives the homeless center $160,000
a year, half of which goes to monica martinez's
salary.
the city is losing $500,000 a year on
inflated salaries and mismanagement at its
golf course.
and let's not forget the $180,000 a year our
beloved former police chief gets after retiring
with his tail between his legs when the
anarchists broke the windows last year.
if 30,000 anarchists came and squatted
this town next election, we could turn the
tables on the oppressors!
oh wait.. anarchists don't vote.
never mind.
for construction are as inflated as the salaries of
those at the top of its hierarchy.
the city gives the homeless center $160,000
a year, half of which goes to monica martinez's
salary.
the city is losing $500,000 a year on
inflated salaries and mismanagement at its
golf course.
and let's not forget the $180,000 a year our
beloved former police chief gets after retiring
with his tail between his legs when the
anarchists broke the windows last year.
if 30,000 anarchists came and squatted
this town next election, we could turn the
tables on the oppressors!
oh wait.. anarchists don't vote.
never mind.
If 30,000 anarchists came to Santa Cruz and all took over housing, why would we care about participating in an election?
Being that the vast majority of Americans DON'T vote, I fail to see how anarchists (rightly) not engaging in a political process which helps manage capital is a bad thing.
If the anarchist movement were big enough to actually become a material force, why in the world would we want to then engage in electoral action?
Being that the vast majority of Americans DON'T vote, I fail to see how anarchists (rightly) not engaging in a political process which helps manage capital is a bad thing.
If the anarchist movement were big enough to actually become a material force, why in the world would we want to then engage in electoral action?
"why would we care about participating in an election?"
i guess neo-anarchism isn't all that participatory after all.
"Being that the vast majority of Americans DON'T vote, I fail to see how anarchists (rightly) not engaging in a political process which helps manage capital is a bad thing."
you can take their capital away through voting.
the corporatists love it when their enemies don't vote.
they also engage in government sucks rhetoric themselves.
ever wondered why?
"If the anarchist movement were big enough to actually become a material force, why in the world would we want to then engage in electoral action?"
30,000 isn't big. concentrating your forces against a single
town increases their relative effectiveness. behaving legally
while maintaining a revolutionary posture allows you to build
pressure against the oppressing class. they can't call in the
national guard to get rid of you.
by the way, how is that general strike coming along?
actually a small strike at the boardwalk would be enough
to scare the shit out of the fascists downtown.
i guess neo-anarchism isn't all that participatory after all.
"Being that the vast majority of Americans DON'T vote, I fail to see how anarchists (rightly) not engaging in a political process which helps manage capital is a bad thing."
you can take their capital away through voting.
the corporatists love it when their enemies don't vote.
they also engage in government sucks rhetoric themselves.
ever wondered why?
"If the anarchist movement were big enough to actually become a material force, why in the world would we want to then engage in electoral action?"
30,000 isn't big. concentrating your forces against a single
town increases their relative effectiveness. behaving legally
while maintaining a revolutionary posture allows you to build
pressure against the oppressing class. they can't call in the
national guard to get rid of you.
by the way, how is that general strike coming along?
actually a small strike at the boardwalk would be enough
to scare the shit out of the fascists downtown.
It wasn't just made up that UCSC is paying for the costs of implementing the rental ordinance.
"The law was written in part due to an agreement with UC Santa Cruz to prevent unsafe housing conditions and control student growth." http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_17797185?IADID
"...the agreement with UCSC, which will pay for half the program's estimated $322,0000 annual cost of two inspectors and a clerk." http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_15564483?IADID
Do you seriously believe that in this budget crisis UCSC would just do this to be responsible neighbors to people living beneath their City on the Hill? This is the entity that was sued by the Community Water Coalition for its plan to consume "an estimated 100 million gallons more per year." (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_16776216?IADID) Did you actually read the Bob Meister article about UCSC's shady dealings with student fees and paying off bonds? The "costs" they are recouping are the costs of junk bonds and construction. Profit isn't something capitalists just sit on, they re-invest it into development and expansion plans. Some of the new science labs being built will attract more corporate funding to build more labs, and the cycle just keeps on escalating at everyone else's expense...
"The law was written in part due to an agreement with UC Santa Cruz to prevent unsafe housing conditions and control student growth." http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_17797185?IADID
"...the agreement with UCSC, which will pay for half the program's estimated $322,0000 annual cost of two inspectors and a clerk." http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_15564483?IADID
Do you seriously believe that in this budget crisis UCSC would just do this to be responsible neighbors to people living beneath their City on the Hill? This is the entity that was sued by the Community Water Coalition for its plan to consume "an estimated 100 million gallons more per year." (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_16776216?IADID) Did you actually read the Bob Meister article about UCSC's shady dealings with student fees and paying off bonds? The "costs" they are recouping are the costs of junk bonds and construction. Profit isn't something capitalists just sit on, they re-invest it into development and expansion plans. Some of the new science labs being built will attract more corporate funding to build more labs, and the cycle just keeps on escalating at everyone else's expense...
You said:
"-You admit you don't know if UC makes any profit on their housing, but you imply they do. Don't try to skate by with this crap about "gain". They either make profit or they don't, and if they don't, which they don't appear to, there is no "gain".
-You claim "The rental ordinance is part of a push by UCSC to house two-thirds of the student population on campus in the next phase of campus growth. " But the truth is UC isn't the one pushing for that mandate; it's the City. UCSC currently houses just under 50% of their students, and that's the highest ratio in the UC system. Do you seriously expect me to believe that they are the ones "pushing" in this budget crisis to build an additional 2,000+ beds to rent at break-even prices?
..your politics have outpaced your facts or credibility."
The truth is that there might not be any "profit," on the books, but the managers and brokers who are responsible for maintaining the books get to keep that money. That's the beauty of not turning a profit while stuffing your pockets: you get to say that you're broke.
You're wrong. Thanks for playing.
"-You admit you don't know if UC makes any profit on their housing, but you imply they do. Don't try to skate by with this crap about "gain". They either make profit or they don't, and if they don't, which they don't appear to, there is no "gain".
-You claim "The rental ordinance is part of a push by UCSC to house two-thirds of the student population on campus in the next phase of campus growth. " But the truth is UC isn't the one pushing for that mandate; it's the City. UCSC currently houses just under 50% of their students, and that's the highest ratio in the UC system. Do you seriously expect me to believe that they are the ones "pushing" in this budget crisis to build an additional 2,000+ beds to rent at break-even prices?
..your politics have outpaced your facts or credibility."
The truth is that there might not be any "profit," on the books, but the managers and brokers who are responsible for maintaining the books get to keep that money. That's the beauty of not turning a profit while stuffing your pockets: you get to say that you're broke.
You're wrong. Thanks for playing.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network