top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Longtime Santa Cruz Residents Forced Out of Town by City and UCSC

by via Save Paula's Cottage
A City of Santa Cruz program backed by UCSC to red-tag and evict residents of "accessary dwelling units" (granny units) are driving longtime residents out of Santa Cruz!
800_paula-and-isabella.jpg
[ Photo: Paula and her daughter Isabella stand in front of their cottage home on Cayuga Street in Santa Cruz. The cottage, and a house in front, were purchased by Paula's parents in 1982. ]

Longtime Santa Cruz Residents Forced Out of Town by City and UCSC

Rents in Santa Cruz have been high since the late '90s. But now, thanks to a City program to red-tag and evict residents of "accessary dwelling units" (granny units) that do not meet every detail of the City's overly complicated building code, rents have reached a new level of ridiculousness. The City is doing this as part of a deal with UCSC. UCSC currently charges $1671 per month for HALF a shared dorm room plus food. No, that is not a typo. But it is one of the reasons students are graduating $40,000 in debt (or more!) with no job prospects.

Frustrated by students renting rooms and granny units off campus, UCSC, rather than looking at their own bureaucratic stupidity and excessive red tape, cut a deal with the City of Santa Cruz. The City evicts tenants from perfectly habitable granny units on technicalities. In exchange, UCSC gives the City reimbursement for the cost of the program.

All this occurs in the middle of a nationwide rental crisis. The foreclosure victims have been pushed into the rental market, and there are not enough rental units to house both them and the existing renters. The resulting shortage has pushed rents to a level that's many working people simply cannot afford, even with two (or even three!) jobs.

Here in Santa Cruz, it's particularly bad. Studios are renting for $1000 and up. Two bedroom apartments are $1500 and up. Watsonville isn't any cheaper. Teachers, artists, activists, car wash attendants, supermarket checkers, the people who make our town RUN cannot afford to pay these rents. Home ownership remains out of reach, unless you happen to have $600,000 dollars. We are drowning.

To make matters worse, predatory speculators are attacking our town, purchasing buildings and evicting all the tenants, in order to jack up rents after a quick "remodel". The speculators make a quick buck at the expense of others. The tenants, after being cruelly ripped from the homes in which we have lived for years or even decades, are cast out into the worst rental crisis in a decade. Some, after a desperate scramble and a lot of luck, find other housing. Many do not. I myself lost my apartment to such a speculator on June 14th, and have left the City of Santa Cruz after 22 years of residency. I still live in the County, but that is temporary.

Here we rally to save one person (and her daughter) in one granny unit. Perhaps if we can help this one person, that will start the ball rolling to save others. Paula, the popular teacher, mom, and PTA president has lived in the cottage on her parents' property for 22 years without difficulty. Now, thanks to the City's UCSC backed eviction program, she has received notice to be out on September 1st or face massive fines. Paula has spoken before City Council and has actually generated a lot of sympathy from public officials, so we may have a chance to save her home.

Help Paula and help YOURSELF by LIKING "Save Paula's Cottage" on Facebook and SHARING as widely as possible. If you live in Santa Cruz County and do not own your home, you may be next, no matter how good of a tenant you are, or how long you have lived there, or how "cool" you think your landlord is. So let's fight back against this now, while there are still enough of us left in Santa Cruz to do so.

Stand Up at City Council to Save Paula's Cottage

Tuesday, September 9 at 5:00pm
Santa Cruz City Hall

We are gathering at City Hall at 5pm to appeal to City Council to spare Paula's home and halt Santa Cruz's destructive rental inspection policies before we lose any more friends to the housing market. Some city officials are already on our side.

You don't have to speak, just get to City Hall to show our community's support of Paula.
§The Sweet Little Cottage & Additional Information
by Save Paula's Cottage!
800_cottage-of-paula-and-isabella.jpg
Inspectors, under the Santa Cruz Rental Inspection Program, are evicting families from safe homes and forcing property owners to turn these perfectly good homes into garages. Despite complying with all of the health and safety recommendations, my parents have been denied the proper permits necessary to "legalize" our home. My ten year old daughter, our dog Lulu and I have been ordered out immediately by the planning department or else my parents will be fined a hundred a day.

Our property lot size does not conform to current lot size restrictions regarding multi-units, therefore, zoning regulations are being enforced to destroy our home- and many like ours- throughout Santa Cruz.

***

An emergency moratorium must be passed in order to stop abatement efforts and the requirement of garage conversion. The Council should pass an amendment which legalizes unpermitted homes if they pass all safety codes. They can be deemed pre-existing non conforming. The priority should be about saving our homes in order to keep people warm and toasty, not displacing us in order to keep cars warm and toasty!

***

One by one, these sweet little cottages are being put on the chopping block, tenants are being kicked to the curb and Santa Cruz's rental properties are disappearing unceremoniously into the sunset.

Our cottage has many beloved memories and has been occupied without issue or incident for over 32 years. An appeal has been filed to stop administrative action and demolition temporarily. Please help save the only home which my daughter has ever known!

Join the conversation. Share your thoughts or experiences dealing with the Rental Inspection program. Share our story, thus applying pressure on the Santa Cruz City Council members to do the ethical thing and save homes like ours..
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by G
How long before those freshly-squeezed-former-long-time-local-renters encounter the working end of the anti-homeless laws?

Meanwhile, former/current UCSC staff and student body continue to slumber...
This contention that UCSC wants to shut down rental units to force students to live on campus is untrue. I challenge the author to provide any evidence to back up what he/she claims the motivation of UCSC was in regards to partnering with the City on this issue.

-UCSC has been over-subscribed for available student housing for the past 3 years. In every one of those years, they've had to say "No" to students who wanted rooms, because demand outpaced supply.

-In a 2 year period since this program was begun, over 9,200 residences were registered. 16%, or app. 1,400 units were inspected. 44 were shut down, due to safety or sanitation conditions deemed unsafe for habitation.

44 shut downs out of 9,200 units. That's 4/10th's of 1% of all the rentals in the program that were shut down. That's hardly shutting down every apartment "that do(es) not meet every detail of the City's overly complicated building code"> It's a tiny fraction, at best.

Keep it real. It would be just as valid to say the city and UCSC were letting landlords take advantage of the poor and student populations if they didn't keep an eye on the most odious and egregious rentals.

by John Cohen
Criminal Santa Cruz city councils since the 1980's intentionally created this oppressive rental market. Stupidly, they don't understand that once the working class can't afford to live here, no one will be here to make their lattes.
by Man, oh man
It is quite an assertion to claim that this was done by UCSC in the interest of ensuring that students must live on campus. Why would UCSC be "[f]rustrated by students renting rooms and granny units off campus" anyway? Do you think that UCSC is unable to rent its units out to capacity and is taking a loss?

While rents are painfully high in Santa Cruz, making dramatic, unfounded accusations does not help address the actual causes of the problem in the least. In fact, it clouds the issue and gets in the way of people who might suggest potential solutions.
by Trip Weir
One is you marry Ryan Coonerty's business partner Jeremy Neuner, then he goes before City Council and says, "We came from somewhere else, but we love it here and we're so bought into this community, please let us do what we want."

Another is you sell the property to Santa Cruz Seaside Company. Then nobody has to go before City Council; they just naturally do whatever the company wants and get plenty of campaign contributions.
by Razer Ray
whitey_hipster_gentrification.jpg
[Image: Downtown near Plazavisions about a year ago]

Well lets see. Regarding corruption in planning generally, Slater Construction just got done building "Walnut Commons", originally advertised, and I would assume green-lighted by the city's so-called 'planing commission as Co-housing For Middle Class Families" (I believe 'co-housing' circumvents low-cost and affordable [Not!] housing requirements). Shortly after the construction got underway the sign on the project's fence changed to "Co-housing For Urban Lifestyles" or somesuch. Now that Walnut Commons is complete an empirical census of residents seems to show the co-hosing is inhabited by...

Rich White Retired Seniors... And the units cost A HALF MILLION DOLLARS!

Where was the planning commission when the change in targeted tenancy was made? Why have they done nothing to bring the project into compliance with it's planning commission approved purpose?

Could it be due to the FACT that at least one of Slater Construction's former VPs who was a 'consultant' for the commons (Hard sell sales. I overheard him seriously pressuring a potential sale with a 'Do it now or else' pitch on his cellie near city hall one day as he walked his dogs) is a bigwg in Take Back Santa Cruz, and they get politicians elected, and the planers job security is at the whim of those elected.

Personally I think the arrangement with UCSC and it's regents is 'full-spectrum' whether coordinated or not. Control by various mechanisms of the housing AND JOB market. They have college students... "flexible labor' as Fitch referred to them when the council crowed about it's bond rating, aka Cheap Disposable Labor, manning most of the stores downtown selling things to each other paid for with money they earned working at stores downtown

I await you reply "Man, oh man"
by Taxpayer
Razer, the Planning Commission has no authority to make anyone do anything. That power rests with the City Council. And that's true throughout the state. Planning Commissions are legally advisory bodies. They make recommendations to either their City Council or Board of Supervisors (if it is a county planning commission). Commissioners are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the council (or board of supervisors as the case may be). You may be surprised to learn there is no requirement that planning commissioners have to have a background or training in urban planning. They are laypeople who are supposed to reflect whatever their community values are.

The only requirement in state law regarding affordable housing is that local general plans have to have a housing element. There's no requirement that a certain percentage of new housing has to be "affordable." However, if certain pots of money are tapped to build, that's where the percentages come from. I know at least one city in California (Clovis) that does not build "affordable housing." The community believes that market forces should set housing prices, not local government.
by Razer Ray
scruz_the_politicians__eradication_project.pdf_600_.jpg
Reiterated for search engines: "At least one of Slater Construction's former VPs who was a 'consultant' for Walnut Commons is a bigwg in Take Back Santa Cruz, and they get politicians elected, and the planners' job security is at the whim of those elected."

---------------------------------------

So what your saying is the planning department approves a new use for property and the followup responsibility gets dumped on the council? Bullshit. That's the way you'd LIKE to think it works.

Without court action it DOES sort of work that way, and no, I'm NOT referring to wannabe politician/lawyers like Steve Pleich actually doing anything substantial. The CRLA sued the county for red-lining, won, and said they were coming for the city next.

http://www.metroactive.com/metro-santa-cruz/12.20.06/nuz-0651.html

I, and thousands of local resident workers...

(students or their parents usually get to deduct a considerable part of their housing expenses so I'm excluding them from this cohort but NOT from a solidarity or collaborative role, and this also points to how the housing costs around here got so jacked up... Santa Cruz just ain't THAT desirable a place to be anymore, get over it.)

...anxiously await that.

PS, in regard to "There's no requirement that a certain percentage of new housing has to be "affordable.".

Sure there is. It's FEDERAL LAW, with all sorts of loopholes for sure (like 'co-housing'), but it's there. Whether or not 'percentage' RED-LINING RENTALS IS JUST AS ILLEGAL AS DOING IT WITH HOMES-FOR-SALE.

Personally I think the options pictured in the image above are viable, when applied to local politician's cars, homes, and other property, as a way of saying "Time to move on... You're not from around here and neither are your idealizations of what community is."

by J
"UCSC currently charges $1671 per month for HALF a shared dorm room plus food. No, that is not a typo. But it is one of the reasons students are graduating $40,000 in debt (or more!) with no job prospects."

Ah yes, the reason we have no job prospects upon graduating is because we pay for expensive dorm rooms. What? Keep it logical and on topic please. Throwing in ominous phrases like "no job prospects" in an article that has nothing to do with students' job prospects just further reinforces the fact that this article is a rant and not an informed and objective report.

by G
I keep hearing rumors that, during planning/construction, UCSC committed to having sufficient housing for their customers, on campus. And they never met that requirement, even while adding to their client base. Is it true that UCSC 'broke those rules'?

Obviously, the predictable pressure on local housing, which benefits (absentee) landlords (among others), provides ample motive to perpetuate that situation. And given the 'free loans for campaigns' DA, it seems unlikely that violators will be prosecuted any time soon. But the question remains, did UCSC really 'break those rules'?

Obviously the UCSC customers don't seem to care, unless some trees on campus are up for cutting.

The same kind of question could be asked about the 'approval for affordable housing/expensive retirement rentals' switcheroo mentioned, which raises the same doubts about enforcement. Did developers really 'break those rules'?

Has prosecution really been avoided?

If so, that is a serious problem, because such disregard for rule of law (1% or not) breeds disregard for rule of law, and history has shown time and time again how ugly that can get.
by @
it is well known that both city and county planning departments are corrupt. $1600 for half a room? ridiculous.
we are a charter city, we could pass ballot measures to liberate up to 90% of private property without it being considered a taking under federal law.

our rents are high partly because we house workers from over the hill. if traffic were for some reasons consistently slow during commute hours, those people would have to move out of our town, thus lowering rents.
by nicholas holder
Tenants being evicted from illegal or substandard dwellings by city enforcement actions should be aware of their right to relocation assistance. An attorney versed in tenants rights should be able to advise you.
by Razer Ray
Whatever that means. Like the city's Noise Ordinance (which has no standard except 'we have a complainant'), the city's standards for what qualifies as 'legal and standard' are at variance with state laws.

The people running Santa Cruz are incompetents being led by vested interests to the detriment of the average citizen and they REALLY need to have the state take a good looong look at what's essentially misuse of their charter-given 'right' to make laws and regulations.
by Taxpayer
Taxer, the definition of "a illegal or substandard dwelling" is very simple. Such a dwelling is one that does not meet state or local building codes. It's also one e.g. a garage conversion that no building permits or other approvals (i.e. variances or zone changes) were obtained from the municipality. Legally it is an appropriate use of the City's police powers to abate illegal or substandard buildings.

Usually, the property owner is given a chance to bring it up to code and/or to obtain the necessary permits. However it has to be vacated during that process.
As I was saying: "...the city's standards for what qualifies as 'legal and standard' are at variance with state laws." and the state "...need(s) to ... take a good looong look at what's essentially misuse of their charter-given 'right' to make laws and regulations."


Ps. One of local icon Travus T. Hipp's Woman friends, "Ruthie the Goatherd" used to live in a BEAUTIFUL handmade, ornate treehouse built as a 'ring' around the base of a redwood somewhere up by Ben Lomond on Highway 9. That's not legal housing... but some shitty motel room with a microwave is.

by cp
I just looked up the UCSC dorm rates, and you're totally right. They are at $1671 for a standard double plus the mandatory food plan. I remember that UC was ranked as one of the top ten schools for dorm prices in the country a couple years ago, but it has gone up quite a bit since then

http://www.housing.ucsc.edu/pdf/rates-brochure-2014-15.pdf

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-expensive-college-dorms-2011-11?op=1
by James Weller
I think it's high time we had a strong rent control ordinance in Santa Cruz. I don't know what the legal limitations are on "restraint of commerce," but I'd like to see all residential rents rolled back 30 percent across the board, and annual increases limited to 2% or the amount of increase in the non-housing CPI, whichever is less. The level of market-rate rents here is criminal, and property owners' greed is rampant. I am certain that fewer than 1 in 10 working people here can afford to buy a house, and a majority of residential renters are paying more than a third of their income to landlords. We must get this under control!
by Taxpayer
I think you're the one with the comprehension problem. Local government in California can, based upon local conditions, legally tweak the various Uniform Building Code books. This occurs all the time here in the Valley.

The bigger issue with garage conversions is the typical lack of building permits in the first place. State law was changed about 15 years ago to allow second units in areas zoned for residential. However second units could not be rented out. They could only be used by extended family members of the property owner. When the law was changed to allow second units, there was a lot of blow back from neighbors who feared their quiet single family home neighborhood becoming dominated by back yard rentals with on street parking problems. The law requires off street parking for second units. Also, the lot has to be a minimum size.
by John Colby
The only way to pass rent control in SC would be through a ballot initiative -- like the vote on Desal. The rightwing and "progressive" members of the elite who run this town are completely against rent control (along with the renters' protections rent control includes).
by Razer Ray
Dude! I'm saying

1> The city's policies in re housing and jobs are corrupt and illegitimate, and the state needs to investigate a city policy-created situation that creates a socioeconomic clusterfuck statistically resulting in 70% of the homeless being local residents who are then subject to City-created ORDINANCES specifically designed to criminalize these citizens.

2> IF the city can declare an 'emergency' and issue draconian laws to limit street performance and vending when its obvious no such emergency exists then it's over-fucking-due in declaring an emergency order capping the amount of housing and jobs that can be taken by UCSC students.

3> Fuck off. You don't just have a comprehension problem you're either A> "stuck in a loop", B> peddling an agenda, C> Stuck on stupid
by Susan Dreyer
I understand how frustrating the planning commission is to deal with. We are so over-regulated in Santa Cruz.
However, I think it is always important to sight you sources, and forgive me if I didn't see those with regard to U.C.S.C. It is a public university and is under an even bigger magnifying glass than some private institutions. In the interest of good journalism, please make sure you sight your sources even as you try to help those in need. Thanks!
rates-brochure-2014-15.pdf_600_.jpg
There is a lower room rate listed than the article suggests: $1200 a month for a shared small double apartment room on campus at UCSC, or $1500 for a shared double, is an option with the 55 meals per quarter plan.

http://www.housing.ucsc.edu/pdf/rates-brochure-2014-15.pdf

2014-15 Meal Plan Rates

7-day meal plan
Monthly $1,852 $1,671 $1,397 $1,436 $1,390 $1,397
Quarterly $5,556 $5,013 $4,191 $4,308 $4,170 $4,191
Academic Year $16,668 $15,039 $12,573 $12,924 $12,510 $12,573

5-day meal plan
Monthly $1,806 $1,625 $1,351 $1,390 $1,344 $1,351
Quarterly $5,418 $4,875 $4,053 $4,170 $4,032 $4,053
Academic Year $16,254 $14,625 $12,159 $12,510 $12,096 $12,159

SINGLE DOUBLE SMALL
DOUBLE
LARGE
TRIPLE
TRIPLE QUAD

7-day meal plan
Monthly $1,923 $1,746 $1,449 $1,487 $1,437 $1,452
Quarterly $5,769 $5,238 $4,347 $4,461 $4,311 $4,356
Academic Year $17,307 $15,714 $13,041 $13,383 $12,933 $13,068

5-day meal plan
Monthly $1,877 $1,700 $1,403 $1,441 $1,391 $1,406
Quarterly $5,631 $5,100 $4,209 $4,323 $4,173 $4,218
Academic Year $16,893 $15,300 $12,627 $12,969 $12,519 $12,654

55 meals per quarter
Monthly $1,671 $1,494 $1,197 $1,235 $1,185 $1,200
Quarterly $5,013 $4,482 $3,591 $3,705 $3,555 $3,600
Academic Year $15,039 $13,446 $10,773 $11,115 $10,665 $10,800
by Taxpayer
Razer you say you want the city to issue an emergency order capping the amount of housing and jobs available to UCSC students. There's no way, legally, the city could do it. In many respects California is a "right to work" state. I won't get bogged down in wage and hour rules and the like because that's where California differs from typical "right to work" states, but private sector employers are free to hire whomever they want to. Due to Prop 209, affirmative action rules no longer apply in the state. From reading case law I don't see how a city could put your suggestion in place.

Speaking of Prop 209, there was just an appellate court ruling reviving a lawsuit against how redistricting was done several years ago. Wade Connerley challenged how the commission that drew the new maps was chosen because gender and race were two of the criteria. His case was dismissed by the trial court. The Third District reversed, saying Connerley had shown a violation of Prop 209 that should be settled in court. If the suit is successful, the current congressional and legislative district mapping would be void, and would have to be redone.
by Razer Ray
One RICO Act indictment and ALL the scumballs go down.

"How long? Not long. 'Cause what you reap is what you sowed"
"Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." ~18 U.S. Code § 4 Misprision of felony

"Crimes are offenses against life and liberty of persons and social order and stability, they can only continue and cause more crimes if left unreported by those with knowledge they have been committed;"

("...the requirement under 18 USC 4 does not apply to reporting Torts (disputes between named persons and groups not having implications on lives and liberty of persons, social order and stability) or aiding in the litigation of Torts; only crimes. Crimes are offenses against all of society not just named persons..." )
by Angela
Can someone please provide information about the agreement between UCSC and the city of SC from a reputable source?
by Keep It Real
The poster who claimed as such is posting personal opinion posing as fact. (If you follow this link to the Facebook page, you'll see the name of the poster, and that they have a long history of political activism and not much love for existing government structure or personal property rights in any form. Essentially, an Occupy propagandist.(
by G
There is little recourse when people post falsehoods on indybay, Angela, so read everything with scepticism.

There were some legal actions around 2008, resulting in an agreement to restrict enrollment and house a minimum number of students on the UCSC campus. The pressures and problems created by too many UCSC customers remains.

There were also pushes to bar UCSC students from voting, which have failed, although their voting block has been shown to be naive at best (see: oppressive professors/mayors), so I suppose the investors that be don't really mind.

BTW, the city and county use ordinances to ticket, laws (such as 647(e) switcheroos) during trial. Some seem unaware of that fact, perhaps because they magically duck prosecution.
by The Take Backs are Back
"If you follow this link to the Facebook page, you'll see the name of the poster, and that they have a long history of political activism and not much love for existing government structure or personal property rights in any form. Essentially, an Occupy propagandist.("

The troll 'Keep it Real' is talking about Mithrell, who wrote this article. 'Keep it Real' has no evidence to show that Mithrell is against property rights in any form. 'Keep it Real' just makes it up as he trolls along.

If anything, activists like Mithrell who were involved with Occupy Santa Cruz stood up strongly for people's property rights and the rights for people to keep their homes when OSC worked with the county to try and end foreclosure fraud by the banks here in town.
by OSC 2014
About the number of red tags in SC?

If Keep it Real is making stuff up about Mithrell we probably can't trust his 'facts' about the red tag percentage.
by J.Bauer
Why is Santa Cruz still letting this group of non-residents ruin their lives and livelihoods? This kind of senseless violence to your lower income residents will kill Santa Cruz. When in Colorado, for instance, I can rent a 4 bedroom house with a yard for $900 a month and you can't afford a studio in Santa Cruz for that, something is truly wrong with your ideology. The beach view is not worth that much.
The Planning Commission met last Tuesday in advance of the City Council meeting on September 9. This is from the Santa Cruz Sentinel article about it:

"Many in Thursday's audience also expressed chagrin with the 3-year-old rental inspection ordinance — which has uncovered a number of units that don't meet requirements — and said the law has evicted people from otherwise safe homes and driven up rents."

"Joe Mancino and Kat Bailey, who work at Bookshop Santa Cruz, said they were booted out of a one-bedroom unit, which is owned by a property management firm, and pushed into a rental market they can no longer afford. The couple — who said they participated in an inspection only to be told their unit could not be legalized — doesn't understand how Santa Cruz can really boast of being a "shop local" economy."

""A local economy can't be local if local citizens can't afford to participate," Mancino said."


Read More:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_26472169/santa-cruz-planning-panel-oks-law-unit-changes
by Taxpayer
You want affordable housing in SC (or anywhere else along the coast)? First, get rid of most of the environmental laws and regulations and, second, abolish the Coastal Commission.
by Angry Taxpayer
The Santa Cruz elite -- who represent retail and tourism business interests -- squeeze homeowners, wasting our tax dollars on enforcement of "nuisance crimes" by homeless people, while they keep rents jacked up, creating more homeless people to criminalize.
by G
You want affordable housing? Prosecute scoflaws that get permission to build it and then and switcheroo into expensive units.

Another option is repealing Proposition 13, an 'untax the 1%' scam from the 1970's.

Yet another option is prosecuting corporate scoflaws that hide profits (locally and overseas), sometimes reducing their tax to $0 (or less!), which drains public funds (those corps benefit from citizenship, yet shirk their responsibilities, via 'externalities'). They also benefit from Prop 13; two scams, one repeal.
by Homeowner
Prop 13 was passed to prevent Middle class retirees/longterm residents living on A pension/fixed income from being taxed out of their family home. Their property taxes kept on increasing while their income stayed the same. It limited the amount of increase. So stop with the 1% conspiracy bullshit, because that's contradictory to the facts.
Like many Hayekisms/Friedmanisms (failed economic theorists; see Iceland 2008 for a classic example, and see Piketty for a recent debugging), the sales pitches used to fool 'average people' hide the gross theft that was intended. If 'average people' were intended to be the beneficiaries, the legislation would have been crafted for that specific purpose, instead of offering a very real and large windfall to the '1%' (at the expense of the '99%').

It is well known (apparently only to some) that corporations use their peculiar 'life spans' and 'ownership' loopholes to avoid triggering the reassesments that would raise their property taxes to 'current market rates'. Individual wealth benefits from similar unpatriotic greed. When Buffett, famous for financial management, suggested fixing the Proposition 13 problem, the Republican in power retorted with 'girly man'. This, in a nutshell, is the deplorable quality of economic thinking in California. A dangerous line of thinking, as the short term gains often lead to bloody revolutions.

The negative effects of Proposition 13 are well documented, and include the decline of the California educational system, which will have lasting negative effects, for generations. The decay has also spread to City and County infrastructure and services.

Perhaps 'homeowner' is ignorant of these facts? I suspect not, given the 'conspiracy theory' spin (well known as a false rhetoric device).
by Keep It Real
Here's the link: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_24040512/safety-first-santa-cruzs-rental-inspection-program-hits

9,200 units registered.
Over 1,400 inspected.
44 red tagged.

It contains this info, in an article printed a year ago:

"Since implementing its rental inspection ordinance two years ago, the city of Santa Cruz has registered 9,200 units, the great majority of them through self-reporting by property owners. To date, about 16 percent of units have been inspected because of a code violation, failure to register, discrepancy with city records or at the request of the property owner.

Forty-four units have been or are in the process of being shut down for being illegal or posing safety hazards that can't be mitigated, according to the Planning Department. Eleven other units that did not meet code were later brought into compliance and legalized."
by Razer Ray
Prop 13 was passed ON THE HEELS OF A CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PAID FOR PR CAMPAIGN WHICH PROMOTED IT AS A PANACEA to prevent Middle class retirees/longterm residents living on A pension/fixed income from being taxed out of their family home... Corporations got what THEY wanted and California's economy has been a slow-motion train wreck ever since.
by Angry Homeowner
While local corporations are paying pennies for their property taxes, my property is being taxed to death because of the inequities built into Prop. 13 (by design).
by Observer
California's economy has been a train wreck since 1979?
Did you sleep through the 90's?
Funding isn't our issue. How we use the funds is our issue.
Government has grown rapidly, teachers, not so much.
Hello, I'd like to contact Paula to offer support. I don't have a facebook page and thus can't comment on her support page. Please email me, Paula.
I am organizing tenants to lobby Santa Cruz cities and County officials to pass ordinances that can help renters. Please contact me, Cynthia, at

SantaCruzTenants [at] gmail.com.

I'm looking for participants for pro-tenant combined with Raise the Wage demonstrations in several areas of Santa Cruz (cities and County).
We'll be having a sign-making session Saturday, September 13, where we will also be calendaring dates, places and times for public demonstrations for the next month.
We will need folks to table at UCSC right away in the beginning of October.
City Council candidate Bruce Van Allen is perhaps the ONLY candidate - who is a tenant and has helped create coop housing for low-income tenants. We can lobby him to offer ordinances like San Francisco has that protect renters.
We need to demand JUST CAUSE for eviction - like they have in the State of New Jersey.
It Is Time For Renters and Wage Earners to Unite and organize. Tenant Farmers also Welcome
by Razer Ray
houselessness_grows_balconies.jpg
Yeah. I remember the dotcom crash.

Santa Cruz should heed what happened to Palo Alto and curb it's tendency to act like marketers of apps-n-shit are EVER going to be 'Wosniaks', or even be in business, or residents, 2 years from now. Cisco's presence for a few years and leaving wasn't enough to destroy Santa Cruz' economy so they're gonna go bigger with MORE of the same with different names.

I remember the exodus of computer peeps from their retreats in Zayante and the SLV as they sold their homes and moved closer to work in Santa Clara b/c 'insecurity over downsizing'. The Scotts Valley Sentinel, when it was still in Santa Cruz, ran 'feel-sorry-for-them' puff stories about those folks and their lost JUNK mortgages they could never really afford because none of those jobs was ever going to last 15 years... by design and intent. One of my regular rides into Felton, a middle manager for Compaq ended up losing her JUNK MORTGAGE house in Z AND over-the-hill. She was 30, and Compaq was the only job she'd ever had.

I remember Wrigleys and Lipton going away along with hundreds of light industrial jobs. Those jobs were never replaced... People who didn't look like an ad in 17 magazine or Boys Life suffered. Some just went on welfare-for-life, or as the city and county unspoken-ly preferred, moved away.

I remember A LOT about the 90s.
by video
Meanwhile, some Santa Cruz haters are now focusing on Aptos. Where is the compassion in Santa Cruz? Kicking people out of their homes. Throwing away the only possessions people living without a home have. $6 million from the taxpayers gifted to three huge hotels, and nothing for the people ... just more money to the police and their collaborating non-profit organizations!

"This is my friend Deborah. She's a 60 year-old registered nurse who suffers from diabetes and Peripheral Neuropathy. She has been an Aptos resident since the early 70s. She doesn't have a home, and because of her medical condition, she can't work. She lives in the forest with her Schizophrenic son waiting until she's old enough to collect her pension. On September 19th and 20th, a vigilante group, made up of mostly people from Santa Cruz has scheduled a "cleanup" of the creek near where she lives. Their motives are not to clean the environment of paper and plastic litter, but rather their motives are to dispose of what they see as human detritus. To me, it's pretty hateful to kick someone when they're already down. How these do-gooders justify harassing the less fortunate in their souls is beyond me, and I'm not going to allow their brand of hatred to flourish in my neighborhood.
Deborah isn't hurting anyone by living next to the freeway. She needs help; a little hand up.
Will you join me on the 19th and 20th to observe their actions, and to make sure that Deborah and her few worldly possessions are safe from these vigilantes? Please bring a camera."
by John Colby (john.roncohen.colby [at] gmail.com)
Take Back Santa Cruz (TBSC) has become politically irrelevant because of their members' looniness. However TBSC has devolved into a domestic hate group which should be investigated by the FBI then prosecuted by the USDOJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

TBSC members who are also hate criminals must be investigated then prosecuted.
by @
how long will you take being fucked by them before you stand up?

when they came for the hippies on pacific ave, i did not protest, because i was not a hippie on pacific.
when they came for the homeless i did not protest, because i had a home.
now they have come for my home, and there is
no one left to protest for me.

gentrification is inevitable under landed capitalism.

a simple solution is a twist on one of the republican talking points.
WE NEED A FLAT TAX. but not on income.
we need A FLAT TAX ON WEALTH.
that is a truly fair tax, and it will drive the wealthy away.

too late for santa cruz though, you won't be able to get the 66.6% consensus required by prop 13 for a ballot initiative to win.


by John Cohen
1%er's suck the vitality from the working class.
by John Colby
I received this email tonight:

john font
9:06 PM (1 hour ago)

to me
Read your post. You are obviously a fool. I am aproud member of TBSC and have done more to clean up this Town than you ever have and probably ever will. Where do you get off talking such trash? You sound like the enemy. TBSC and the actions of TBSC ARE focused on improving the quality of life in Santa Cruz. People like you are part of the problem. I you want to get into the solution, Drop your B.S. and join us.

Johnny Font
by Steve Pleich (spleich [at] gmail.com)
In her recent letter to the Sentinel, Paula Gregoire bemoaned the loss of residential housing units in our city and she is right to ask for emergency measures to halt this increasing trend. But the greater question is why city government is not, and has not, invested in new affordable housing development to address this presently existing need in our community. For all the talk of “living locally, working locally and buying locally”, our civic leaders continue to turn a blind eye to creation of the affordable housing that can be the foundation of a revitalized and sustainable local economy. Our civic and business leaders must look to the creation of public/private partnerships to redefine the meaning of “affordable housing” and reaffirm our commitment to realizing the American Dream that Paula and her situation are so passionately speaking to.
by John Colby
I hear the same BS about public/private partnerships creating affordable housing from big wigs at HUD and affordable housing corporate welfare cheats like The John Stewart Company.

Private investment has been a disaster for low income housing, primarily benefiting poverty pimps. The government should be building housing with public money (taxed from the 1%), not giving away taxes from the 99% for affordable housing speculation.
by John Colby
Santa Cruz City Attorney John Barisone was surprised when Paula and her daughter filed a harassment lawsuit against the City. Good for them!!!

Word on the Street is that Barisone was forced to "retire" because fraud he committed against HUD embarrassed the California Democratic Party.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_26566298/santa-cruz-woman-forced-vacate-illegal-unit-sues
by John Colby
The City Council — comprised of property owners — has nothing to offer desperate (student) renters who can't find a home here. Their hands are empty. Yet they continue to OK new luxury hotels and infill luxury housing.

It's time for a Renter's Revolt.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_26609203/ucsc-students-burned-by-hot-rental-market?source=rss
by Scott Larson
IF anybody is suffering from code violations from Santa Cruz county officials please contact me. I want to help stop this.
The basic issue is you are not dealing with these people correctly: 1) At the beginning of the contact them know your method of communication is in writing and from that moment forward handle everything in writing. Get this stuff on the record so when it gets to court you have evidence of this criminality. 2) You are allowing agents to place conditions of ownership on your property. They have no power other than what you give them. You need to let them know that your time and rights and property have value. Nobody has a right to place a condition of ownership on your property but you, unless you let them. You need to give them rules, let them know about your communication method and hand them a feed schedule for your time for dealing with them. remember its not just agents that can do this, you can also do that as well. If they are going to waste your time you have a right to charge them for your time (in writing). That way, up front they know that its going to cost them for wasting your time.
You need to learn your rights though, dont let them railroad you.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 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.

IMC Network