Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Arguments Against "Green" Development in Santa Cruz
Never forget Market St. Field!
As the popularity of "green" development in Santa Cruz increases, those who think that selling the false promise of a healthy planet is disgusting must speak up. These developments are being pushed as good for you, good for the planet and good for your money, but companies and politicians have always done things for the benefit of their wallets rather than for the earth or our communities. On the west side, a new live/work complex is in the works, so you can have an easier time selling your life away. In 2008, a 55-unit condo/retail space was built on 41st avenue. Also in 2008, a 70-unit "highly anticipated luxury condo" development with many "green" amenities was built in downtown Santa Cruz. A year and a half later, only 13 of the 70 500-700,000 dollar condos were occupied. As for the city's plans for affordable housing, a new 5-story bus station and parking garage is being planned, with whatever space is left over on top being designated as affordable housing. On Market St., in a semi-wild field bordering a creek, a 32-unit single-family home development is currently being developed. Many different people and groups have spoken out against the numerous impacts of this development, and this is our contribution.
1. There is absolutely nothing green about destroying a wild meadow where bobcats roam and endangered flowers, live oaks and redwoods grow. The amount of animals and plants that will be hurt or killed by this development has a far more negative impact than the possible environmental benefits of owning a green home. The subtleties of nature cannot be counted and checked off, cordoned over or “saved” behind a fence. We tend to think of a place as isolated, but a meadow like the one on Market St. is much more than that. It is a wildlife corridor, where deer, bobcats, coyotes and other animals go, it is a meadow where many have enjoyed a sunny day and discovered the beauty of the world. Habitat fragmentation is a huge consequence of paving over small areas of wild space like this. While the endangered spineflower may be able to exist here with its’ surrounding habitat destroyed, none of these plants and animals were created in a vacuum, and they all need the entire habitat that their evolution occurred in, in order to survive. Animals need corridors to roam, plants and insects need areas of different climate and temperature to retain enough genetic diversity to survive, and all of these things are negatively impacted when even smaller areas like this one are destroyed. If paving over semi-wild places to build homes for the wealthy is considered a green practice, then we are still on the same path to destroying our planet as before.
2. Many people in Santa Cruz can’t afford to buy a home, especially a new one, and many green building practices are notoriously expensive. People who work in the service industry, people who farm and harvest our food and other low-wage jobs, don’t make enough money to be able to purchase the organic foods they grow and the solar panels they fabricate, let alone participate in these “green” ways of living that are touted as being earth-saving. The changes that need to be made for a healthier earth are not as simple as our lifestyle choices. So, although having an energy efficient home and driving a Prius is more beneficial to the environment than a traditional car or home, the economic position that people must be in to attain these things means that they will never be widespread enough to have the kind of impact their marketers claim they would have. Also, these “consumer choices”, even if widespread, would do little to stem the tide of ecological destruction that goes hand in hand with industrialization and modern civilization. The choices that humans make that impact the earth the most are not choices that you or I are the originators of, even if our consumption of commodities is part of what drives their production.
3. The wealthy people that are already here aren’t creating a more stable economy. When there are thousands struggling to meet basic needs, inviting more wealthy people in to our community is like planting a tree when a whole forest has been cut down. It’s nice, but it won’t do anything. We need more affordable housing and better jobs here. But part of the reason that things like cheaper housing and higher paying jobs don’t happen is because they don’t afford an immediate profit for those who create them, and when the city government is struggling, it too must look for those avenues which it deems will create profit. Thus, we have seen the development of the Rittenhouse building, 2030 North Pacific, and the 41st avenue condo development. Unsurprisingly, they have all gone largely unoccupied and unused. Presumably these buildings were created with the intention of more wealthy people living and doing business here, but in these hard times, even the lure of big buildings and bright lights has not brought the economic relief desired. The city’s hands are effectively tied in providing any relief to those who are struggling to make a living and pay rent in any direct way, except by the bureaucratic and creaky systems of public welfare, which also do little to alleviate more systemic problems.
4. Those who are at the top (people who would be able to buy these “green homes”) rely on the bottom and middle to make their lives possible. They could not be movers and shakers if they were growing all their food, teaching their children and manufacturing all of their household goods. And since those who are in a higher class control the companies that the service sector works for, paying as little wage as possible for these services is common. The economic growth of some always comes at the expense of others. For this reason, the kind of economic growth that the city of Santa Cruz desires to bring in will only create more inequality, more economic and housing problems, and will continue to contribute to the decline of the environment and the destruction of the earth. A truly environmentally conscious society must also be one that is egalitarian in structure and provides for the needs of all of its’ members, while considering the health of the whole earth.
Links to development news:
http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_11858517?nclick_check=1
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=456
http://www.liveworkworld.com/
1. There is absolutely nothing green about destroying a wild meadow where bobcats roam and endangered flowers, live oaks and redwoods grow. The amount of animals and plants that will be hurt or killed by this development has a far more negative impact than the possible environmental benefits of owning a green home. The subtleties of nature cannot be counted and checked off, cordoned over or “saved” behind a fence. We tend to think of a place as isolated, but a meadow like the one on Market St. is much more than that. It is a wildlife corridor, where deer, bobcats, coyotes and other animals go, it is a meadow where many have enjoyed a sunny day and discovered the beauty of the world. Habitat fragmentation is a huge consequence of paving over small areas of wild space like this. While the endangered spineflower may be able to exist here with its’ surrounding habitat destroyed, none of these plants and animals were created in a vacuum, and they all need the entire habitat that their evolution occurred in, in order to survive. Animals need corridors to roam, plants and insects need areas of different climate and temperature to retain enough genetic diversity to survive, and all of these things are negatively impacted when even smaller areas like this one are destroyed. If paving over semi-wild places to build homes for the wealthy is considered a green practice, then we are still on the same path to destroying our planet as before.
2. Many people in Santa Cruz can’t afford to buy a home, especially a new one, and many green building practices are notoriously expensive. People who work in the service industry, people who farm and harvest our food and other low-wage jobs, don’t make enough money to be able to purchase the organic foods they grow and the solar panels they fabricate, let alone participate in these “green” ways of living that are touted as being earth-saving. The changes that need to be made for a healthier earth are not as simple as our lifestyle choices. So, although having an energy efficient home and driving a Prius is more beneficial to the environment than a traditional car or home, the economic position that people must be in to attain these things means that they will never be widespread enough to have the kind of impact their marketers claim they would have. Also, these “consumer choices”, even if widespread, would do little to stem the tide of ecological destruction that goes hand in hand with industrialization and modern civilization. The choices that humans make that impact the earth the most are not choices that you or I are the originators of, even if our consumption of commodities is part of what drives their production.
3. The wealthy people that are already here aren’t creating a more stable economy. When there are thousands struggling to meet basic needs, inviting more wealthy people in to our community is like planting a tree when a whole forest has been cut down. It’s nice, but it won’t do anything. We need more affordable housing and better jobs here. But part of the reason that things like cheaper housing and higher paying jobs don’t happen is because they don’t afford an immediate profit for those who create them, and when the city government is struggling, it too must look for those avenues which it deems will create profit. Thus, we have seen the development of the Rittenhouse building, 2030 North Pacific, and the 41st avenue condo development. Unsurprisingly, they have all gone largely unoccupied and unused. Presumably these buildings were created with the intention of more wealthy people living and doing business here, but in these hard times, even the lure of big buildings and bright lights has not brought the economic relief desired. The city’s hands are effectively tied in providing any relief to those who are struggling to make a living and pay rent in any direct way, except by the bureaucratic and creaky systems of public welfare, which also do little to alleviate more systemic problems.
4. Those who are at the top (people who would be able to buy these “green homes”) rely on the bottom and middle to make their lives possible. They could not be movers and shakers if they were growing all their food, teaching their children and manufacturing all of their household goods. And since those who are in a higher class control the companies that the service sector works for, paying as little wage as possible for these services is common. The economic growth of some always comes at the expense of others. For this reason, the kind of economic growth that the city of Santa Cruz desires to bring in will only create more inequality, more economic and housing problems, and will continue to contribute to the decline of the environment and the destruction of the earth. A truly environmentally conscious society must also be one that is egalitarian in structure and provides for the needs of all of its’ members, while considering the health of the whole earth.
Links to development news:
http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_11858517?nclick_check=1
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=456
http://www.liveworkworld.com/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
What constitutes green is worthy of serious inquiry,in the current green fad there are many untested assumptions at play. A huge part of the reason for the high cost of living in SC is the environmentalist ,anti development orientation for the last 40 years has kept it a really nice place to be,which drives property values up,and brings in people can afford it. Look at Carmel,started by eccentric artists that wanted to live in a beautiful natural place,with others who respected the beauty of nature,it became so valuable as to be a great investment,and turned onto an enclave of wealth and privilege ,rather than an artist colony. This is a difficult issue to deal with well.
So let's get this straight, SC Local:
1. You want less development in Santa Cruz.
2. You want cheaper housing. (inversely related to less development as mentioned by first responder)
3. You are an anarchist who doesn't believe in government, which is the ONE entity that could make housing cheaper through rent control. Or build dense, ecological housing for lower-income folks.
Do you see that your philosophy doesn't add up?
1. You want less development in Santa Cruz.
2. You want cheaper housing. (inversely related to less development as mentioned by first responder)
3. You are an anarchist who doesn't believe in government, which is the ONE entity that could make housing cheaper through rent control. Or build dense, ecological housing for lower-income folks.
Do you see that your philosophy doesn't add up?
I don't personally believe that the government is the only entity responsible for creating affordable housing. I think that if people who own houses lowered the rent on them or sold them for less, we would have more affordable housing. People say that the cost of living in Santa Cruz is so high, which is why rent is high, but obviously lots of people are able to scrape by on a lot less than that.. So, why do some landlords and property owners need to be so much more affluent? Sure, you want to pay off your mortgage and keep up repairs and still make a profit, but often the kinds of things that are often justified as "needs" are things that lots of people can't afford, like fancy cars and expensive household appliances.
Also, it's clear that the government doesn't at all prioritize affordable housing, so that's not a road I look down to have those needs met. And why would they? It doesn't bring in a lot of revenue. Right now, there are 15,460 families in Santa Cruz County who are on the waiting list for Section 8 housing assistance. That's a lot of families who really need affordable housing. And the only people who are being accepted to apply are those who applied before December of 2007, so that doesn't even count the thousands of others who have applied since then. For low-income rental assistance, of which there are 5,845 families on a waiting list and 234 homes available (which are actually just apartments), the Housing Authority website states that "It is typical for families to wait years for housing assistance." Right now there are only 8 Measure O affordable housing units available to purchase. The redevelopment agency, which is the main body through which affordable housing is created, has only created 552 affordable units in the City of Santa Cruz.
I'm not saying that I have the answers all figured out, but it is clear to me that what is happening now isn't working.
Also, it's clear that the government doesn't at all prioritize affordable housing, so that's not a road I look down to have those needs met. And why would they? It doesn't bring in a lot of revenue. Right now, there are 15,460 families in Santa Cruz County who are on the waiting list for Section 8 housing assistance. That's a lot of families who really need affordable housing. And the only people who are being accepted to apply are those who applied before December of 2007, so that doesn't even count the thousands of others who have applied since then. For low-income rental assistance, of which there are 5,845 families on a waiting list and 234 homes available (which are actually just apartments), the Housing Authority website states that "It is typical for families to wait years for housing assistance." Right now there are only 8 Measure O affordable housing units available to purchase. The redevelopment agency, which is the main body through which affordable housing is created, has only created 552 affordable units in the City of Santa Cruz.
I'm not saying that I have the answers all figured out, but it is clear to me that what is happening now isn't working.
So are you saying we have to live somewhere ugly in order for it to be affordable?
Most affordable housing is given to people on section 8, who buy it from slumlords who only rent to people on section 8 or go through government programs such as project buildings. Ghettos are created in this way. Thus, while cheaper rent would be great, the current system of ‘affordable housing’ and the racist and classist segregation of the poor from the rest of society is simply another part of capitalism managing its own disaster.
Thus, the above poster is right, anarchists aren’t “for” more affordable housing; we are for the equal access of all people to shelter and homes through the destruction of a class divided society and the control of resources in the hands of an elite few. Having said that, that does not also mean that we will not engage ourselves within struggles for more affordable housing, in rent strikes, go after slumlords, foreclosure resistance, or the occupation of housing for those without, because we see these as expressions of real material needs brought on by capitalism. What is important is that our struggles happen with the intent of creating social relationships and getting organized in such a way that pushes for other destruction of wage-labor and class society.
As for development, just like the police, it is never neutral. Those who own property do not build to help or better working people and the poor, they do it to make money. Recently though, we have seen a switch in their PR to include a more ‘eco’ twist. So, when they knock down a field where animals and plants live, they make sure to tout the yuppie condos they will build on it as “green-friendly.” In all actuality, energy saving for these big-ass homes is just another selling feature for home buyers looking to save a couple bucks. Much in the same way, developers at Glen Cove assure the people now occupied there that once they pave over the sacred burial grounds of their ancestors the park and bathrooms that they will build over the bones will be “eco-friendly” and “still preserve” the space. What. Complete. Bullshit.
And, with more condos comes more everything else, as does the pushing out of lower-income people who cannot afford the rent in neighborhoods that are changing beyond their control, and increased police presence which seeks to keep the ‘rabble’ off the grass, and the destruction of more and more open green and non-developed public space.
There’s nothing actually new about this thought process – it’s one that has existed for as long as colonialism and capital have invaded North America. It’s not genocide, its progress. It’s not gentrification, we’re just trying to stop crime and build new homes. It’s not environmental destruction, we’re putting in eco-condos. Whatever line helps them sell it. In the end, they aren’t looking for our approval; just like your boss doesn’t need a reason to fire you or reduce your hours. The rich and those that own property in this world have powers that we don’t: access to government, the courts, and the police. We only have each other and our ability to resist.
Capital always seeks to expand itself and generate more profits. It also seeks to mask the violence and destruction that it creates in doing so. By unmasking the realities of everyday life we can begin to see the tensions and struggles that exist beneath the surface, waiting for us to turn them into full blown revolt and make them explode.
Thus, the above poster is right, anarchists aren’t “for” more affordable housing; we are for the equal access of all people to shelter and homes through the destruction of a class divided society and the control of resources in the hands of an elite few. Having said that, that does not also mean that we will not engage ourselves within struggles for more affordable housing, in rent strikes, go after slumlords, foreclosure resistance, or the occupation of housing for those without, because we see these as expressions of real material needs brought on by capitalism. What is important is that our struggles happen with the intent of creating social relationships and getting organized in such a way that pushes for other destruction of wage-labor and class society.
As for development, just like the police, it is never neutral. Those who own property do not build to help or better working people and the poor, they do it to make money. Recently though, we have seen a switch in their PR to include a more ‘eco’ twist. So, when they knock down a field where animals and plants live, they make sure to tout the yuppie condos they will build on it as “green-friendly.” In all actuality, energy saving for these big-ass homes is just another selling feature for home buyers looking to save a couple bucks. Much in the same way, developers at Glen Cove assure the people now occupied there that once they pave over the sacred burial grounds of their ancestors the park and bathrooms that they will build over the bones will be “eco-friendly” and “still preserve” the space. What. Complete. Bullshit.
And, with more condos comes more everything else, as does the pushing out of lower-income people who cannot afford the rent in neighborhoods that are changing beyond their control, and increased police presence which seeks to keep the ‘rabble’ off the grass, and the destruction of more and more open green and non-developed public space.
There’s nothing actually new about this thought process – it’s one that has existed for as long as colonialism and capital have invaded North America. It’s not genocide, its progress. It’s not gentrification, we’re just trying to stop crime and build new homes. It’s not environmental destruction, we’re putting in eco-condos. Whatever line helps them sell it. In the end, they aren’t looking for our approval; just like your boss doesn’t need a reason to fire you or reduce your hours. The rich and those that own property in this world have powers that we don’t: access to government, the courts, and the police. We only have each other and our ability to resist.
Capital always seeks to expand itself and generate more profits. It also seeks to mask the violence and destruction that it creates in doing so. By unmasking the realities of everyday life we can begin to see the tensions and struggles that exist beneath the surface, waiting for us to turn them into full blown revolt and make them explode.
that's what's up, lilprole
I think that building some condos (which will eventually turn into apartments when they can't sell them) will at least take pressure off the working class and student rental market. Prices are so ridiculous in this city, and that includes the dormitory prices, which are about the highest in the country. The number of wealthy people is limited somewhat by the jobs available in this region, and I think truly wealthy or retired people would shoot for Monterey or a house in the woods.
Santa Cruz has a very low proportion of apartment buildings compared with other cities, when so many people want any form of cheaper housing, so I was renting a $800 RV in some people's back yard for a while when I first moved here. Lots of the house owners or people with mortgages run some sort of 'tenant farm' by renting out their garage or a hut in the back yard.
If you visit Seattle, Los Angeles, or San Francisco or Oakland, there are neighborhoods with dense apartments everywhere, and even high end units can be a release valve for people stacked up in shared houses.
Santa Cruz has a very low proportion of apartment buildings compared with other cities, when so many people want any form of cheaper housing, so I was renting a $800 RV in some people's back yard for a while when I first moved here. Lots of the house owners or people with mortgages run some sort of 'tenant farm' by renting out their garage or a hut in the back yard.
If you visit Seattle, Los Angeles, or San Francisco or Oakland, there are neighborhoods with dense apartments everywhere, and even high end units can be a release valve for people stacked up in shared houses.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 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