Paula Gregoire: Save Paula's Cottage

What proof does anyone have that UCSC had anything to do with any of this?

I'd be VERY curious to see the evidence of any collusion or direct cause-and-effect.

Read the supporting information, including articles, comments, Sentinel coverage, etc... for yourself.

For more information on the fight to Save Paula's Cottage, the Santa Cruz rental ordinance, and UC Santa Cruz, please see:

Community Members Rally to 'Save Paula's Cottage'
Longtime Santa Cruz Residents Forced Out of Town by City and UCSC
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/09/07/18761261.php

The Santa Cruz Rental Ordinance and You
Rental Inspections to Drive Up Rent in Santa Cruz
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/05/18/18679986.php

They Pledged Your Tuition
An Open Letter to UC Students
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/03/18631358.php

--

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."

"The city is bound by the settlement with UC Santa Cruz over campus growth to adopt a rental inspection ordinance within two years of the agreement, which would be Sept. 12 [2010]. If the city fails to do so, the university can reduce its obligation to house more students on campus -- the foundation of the agreement -- by 450 beds."
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_15564483?IADID

One of local icon Travus T. Hipp's lady 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 'safe' legal housing... but some shitty motel room with a microwave oven is.

"illegal or substandard dwellings" ... 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 and need to be 'wiped from the slate' along with the city's state-given 'right' to make it's own ordinances and codes.

The City of Santa Cruz is a racket. It should be prosecuted under the RICO Act.

This should be chalked up to "be careful what you hope for cuz you might get it!" The idiots in charge of the City decided to sue UCSC. It's never a good idea to sue the State of California, because it almost always gets its own back. In this case, it was a settlement that required the city to curb second unit rentals (many of which were being rented to UC students) in exchange for UCSC requiring more students to live on campus.

There have been so many anonymous posters making unsubstantiated claims (such as 'there are no agreements between UCSC and the City/County') lately, it is refreshing to see one of them posting a more realistic acknowledgement of facts.

Once residents and students have a better understanding of the facts, it will be easier to find reasonable solutions to these chronic problems.

BTW, that open letter (2009) about UCSC tutitions was very interesting!

The "agreement" is NOT an "agreement." It was a court settlement in a well-known lawsuit between the City and UCSC. As I recall, the City sued the university, trying to stop increased student enrollment. After several years of litigation, a settlement agreement was reached that required both parties to do certain things. Part of that was making sure the housing students were renting was safe and up to building code (I know UCSC alumni, and they've told me horror stories about rental housing in SCfor years). In exchange, if the City set up an inspection program, the university would require more students to live on campus, lessening the pressure students place on the local rental market (hopefully). In my opinion, that's a reasonable tradeoff.

UCSC isn't responsible for the fact housing in most coastal communities in California is priced well outside the means of average people to either rent or own. The housing issues in SC are typical of the majority of coast towns around the state. As an example, I saw a piece in one of the Santa Barbara newspapers the other day reporting on the fact many City of Santa Barbara employees have to live in Santa Maria or Lompoc in order to find housing they can afford. SC is not unique in its housing issues--you may think it is, but it really isn't.

That is a good summary of the ACTUAL issues here. Does it suck that these people have to move? Yes. However, it has also sucked how landlords (slumlords) have been allowed to put substandard, non-code compliant housing on the market. For those of you who WANT to live in a place where building codes do not exist, I would suggest a Red State... or perhaps Somalia. No need to worry about building and safety codes there...

Oh, so the agreement you mentioned isn't an agreement, but instead is an agreement. OK, have it your way(s).

Meanwhile, Proposition 13 is commonly cited as a significant factor in inflated housing costs in California, especially on the coast. I look forward to your spin on that fact that isn't a fact but instead is a fact, or whatever.

At least the UCSC legal trivia is NOW common knowledge...

Court settlements such as this one are entered into under coercion of some sort. Neither party gets what it really wants, which is the essence of a true agreement. I don't think UCSC actually wanted to force more students to live on campus, and I doubt the City wanted to set up an inspection program and regulate landlords. But it was in everyone's interest to settle the lawsuit, regardless of how crappy the settlement terms were.

Mr. Taxpayer implicitly admits what the rest of us know to be true: Santa Cruz has a housing crisis created by the 1% and the politicians they bought.