Hacker News Reader

> Santa Cruz since the 70's has been a very environmentally conscious no-growth city

Dense construction with high-quality public transport is a significantly more environmentally-friendly city design than a sea of single-family homes with mandatory car ownership. The latter may be more superficially "natural" - green swaths of suburbia vs. concrete jungles - but it really is only superficial.

> San Jose style growth

San Jose, like the entire Bay Area, is crippled by the exact same rampant NIMBYism and suburban sprawl as Santa Cruz. Not only would a densely constructed San Jose be more environmentally friendly, its economic growth would be _significantly_ higher.

Underneath all the posturing about the environment and "the feel of the community", the only thing NIMBYism protects is high property values and rents.

EDIT:

> natives who resent 5 story huge San Jose style apartment blocks going up in their beautiful city

I'm sorry, _what_? In what universe is a 5 story apartment building huge or unreasonable in one of the most desirable areas to live in the country?

Most people who live (and vote) in Santa Cruz prefer to be in a low density area. While I understand that some people actually like to live in denser cities, the majority prefer some space and privacy. This is not unreasonable.

Places like Santa Cruz have never had any real intentional urban planning, so building a lot of additional housing is going to overload the infrastructure. They would need to upgrade all the utilities, build more schools, and completely revamp the transportation system. Good luck convincing any long-term Santa Cruz residents that they should sacrifice their quality of life and live in the middle of a construction zone for years for the sake of reducing someone else's rent.

For students at UCSC, housing is somewhat cheaper and more available about 20 miles away in the Watsonville area. There are public bus routes. Of course, Watsonville isn't as fashionable. You can't walk to the beach and go surfing before class.

> Most people who live (and vote) in Santa Cruz prefer to be in a low density area. While I understand that some people actually like to live in denser cities, the majority prefer some space and privacy.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with that. What _is_ unreasonable is fighting tooth and nail to prevent anyone without a sufficiently large bag of money from moving to Santa Cruz to try and preserve that low density.

> Places like Santa Cruz have never had any real intentional urban planning, so building a lot of additional housing is going to overload the infrastructure. They would need to upgrade all the utilities, build more schools, and completely revamp the transportation system.

I don't see how this is a valid argument against densification. It's not as if the current infrastructure in Santa Cruz was just lying around when people got there. Every growing population center has had to deal with expanding infrastructure to match. This isn't some novel, unsolvable problem.

> Good luck convincing any long-term Santa Cruz residents that they should sacrifice their quality of life and live in the middle of a construction zone for years for the sake of reducing someone else's rent.

Why should they get to decide? Why are their preferences so much more important than those of poorer or newer residents?

>What _is_ unreasonable is fighting tooth and nail to prevent anyone without a sufficiently large bag of money from moving to Santa Cruz to try and preserve that low density.

Why? Why shouldn't locals be allowed to set development restrictions to their liking? Even if their desire is to intentionally stop population growth.

Because there are major societal losses incurred by preventing development. I see no reason why governments should enable locals to enjoy the benefits of high property values and low density while externalizing the costs of that behavior onto others.

I suspect you don't understand the difference between Santa Cruz and San Jose. Have you been to Santa Cruz?

"You don't understand why we're unique and special and therefore need special housing rules that just so happen to be identical to the ones in every other town" is also a bog-standard NIMBY argument. You're really ticking every single checkbox here.

Ok, I'm NIMBY. So? I'm sure you would too if they were to build a 5 story apartment building overlooking your backyard. My point is that Santa Cruz and San Jose are very different. Santa Cruz is a spot of natural beauty worth preserving. There really aren't many beach towns like it on the coast. The closest one to the North is probably Pacifica 50 miles north. Santa Cruz doesn't have much more land available while San Jose has a lot of land. Also it makes sense to build up in San Jose, which it's doing. San Jose has a lot of room for growth, Santa Cruz does not. San Jose is a like many other California cities, Santa Cruz is unique, which is why massive amounts of tourists come from the Central Valley and Santa Clara Valley to enjoy a day at the beach at the Santa Cruz Boardwalk.

Didn't get a big nimby vibe from your first post, just sounded like you were explaining the local situation.

But now you've mentioned it, nimby is the reason your nieces and nephs won't be able to live there. The richest folks always win when there is a refusal to build.

I'm not even sure what NIMBY means but if it means concerned about the development in my hometown then I'm NIMBY.

"Not in my backyard" ensures scarcity, in cahoots with Econ 101 whilst denying it.

^Insert quote about salary preventing understanding. In this case home equity.

Excellent article.

Here we have it ^, the opposition to housing solutions. Not pitchfork wielding homeowners, but polite good citizens who are NIMBY and disguised as environmentally friendly people who really care for the city's character, as well as blaming the UC.

Please tell me how the massive meth-filled homeless encampment behind the courthouse is being handled in a "progressive" way. By the way they were forcibly evicted 2 weeks ago. The fact that there is any homeless encampment is an inexcusable embarrassment.

Increased density is coming to everywhere in California, like it or not. Thankfully the governor occasionally passes laws removing some NIMBY arguments - though too little too late.

I'm writing this from a converted garage in Santa Cruz that I'm paying nearly $3k/month for. There are a couple ADUs and a zillion AirBnBs, but no multi-family homes around me for miles.

> Increased density is coming to everywhere in California, like it or not.

If you're hoping to have a well intentioned, successful argument with NIMBY folks, this is _not_ the way to do so.

People who own the land & houses in an area are saying they do not want this. No matter how much you say "but I _really_ want it, and it's going to happen" is not going to change that.

And they've been winning for _decades_....hoping for yet another election to somehow change that is not a winning strategy.

There are thousands of other colleges in the US - if you make the choice to go to a school that did not have the foresight nor ability to house the students they let in, that is not the problem of the Santa Cruz property owners and tax payers.

Disclosure: I'm not taking sides on this, because I don't live in California (anymore) and bought in a pro-growth city...largely because I evaluated my options and made the choice to live in that type of environment that was more welcoming.

If you're hoping to have a well intentioned, successful argument with NIMBY folks, this is _not_ the way to do so.

The problem is that the entire regulator framework produces self-serving bad faith on the part of NIMBYs, making argument impossible despite these people seeming like nice, reasonable types.

The idea is that a developer offers a design and the locals lodge their objections and if the developer can satisfy these objections, the development proceeds. But when the real goal of the homeowner is no develop at all 'cause any development reduces the value of their home (via supply and demand) then the homeowner learns to offer a wide series of unmeetable demands. This means the only change that's going to happen is change that's imposed by an outside entity like The State of California (if that does happen).

But the GP is right: state law is now forcing these places to increase their density. This isn't wishful thinking, it's the result of a dozen or so state bills which remove density limitations and give teeth to the Housing Element law. I think there's a good argument to be made that the correct people have already been convinced, and the NIMBYs are not winning any longer.

If your plan for living in California is ruined by lots of new construction in the next 5 years, you'd be well advised to brace yourself.

It is coming. Tides are already turning as older folks die off and multiples of younger folks want housing.

It is a nationwide problem however. One seaside town ain't gonna cut it.

> bought in a pro-growth city

Which city is it? A pro-growth city in USA is a news to me.

There are cities that are pro-growth in the sense of not having NIMBY zoning but that have awful urban planning from a transportation perspective. Houston and Atlanta come to mind. Pro-growth perhaps, but certainly not pro-density. I don't know of any city that has both pro-growth housing policy and decent investment in public transportation.

Call it what you want, but the goal was to keep Santa Cruz from turning into Waikiki, Hawaii with high rise apartment buildings lining the ocean. We fought to keep Lighthouse Field from being developed. I think it was worth it even if I can't afford to live there. I'm leaving behind a city that is as nice as when I grew up there, except now there are far too many surfers to make going out enjoyable.

> as well as blaming the UC

I mean UCSC is to blame (for the most part). UCSC keeps increasing enrollment without any concern as to where these students are going to live, knowing full well there isn't any housing available in the city.

Meanwhile the entity which holds the most undeveloped land in the area is UCSC itself!

UCSC has open land to build housing for all the students and then some.

"We like our city as it is and don't want it to grow."

Soon followed by

"We can't afford to live in our city because rich people are outbidding us for the very limited housing."

Same story as everywhere else. You make your bed, you sleep in it.

And this part is hilarious but telling:

> Homeless is a problem but Santa Cruz tries to handle it a progressive way, for example, by setting up the homeless camp next to the courthouse and providing it with services

Setting up slum cities is now the standard of progressiveness in America.

> Setting up slum cities is now the standard of progressiveness in America

The alternative was to continue to let people live in the surrounding forests while shooting up heroin with dirty needles, trashing the woods and causing lengthy service calls for police and ambulance. This way they are all in one spot and are serviced by clean needle program, etc...

What's your solution?

Example of Santa Cruz progressive homeless solution

https://www.reddit.com/r/santacruz/comments/blxiye/drone_foo...

... build housing.

Okay great, let’s build housing for addicts. What do you think happens next?

We are talking about people that get kicked out of shelters because they are dangerous and can’t act coherently.

Why is the solution everything else but the obvious: arrest drug dealers, outlaw drug use in open air drug scenes, offer real recovery and/or jail time for those that refuse.

These people are here for drugs: outlaw drugs (for real) and they will leave, and just like that, no more housing crisis.

Does this look like a housing problem to you? https://twitter.com/ericajsandberg/status/157377720286841651...

They are... several huge apartment blocks downtown that are ugly as sin but necessary. The homeless problem in Santa Cruz is mostly about drugs and mental illness. People who couldn't keep an apartment if you provided them with one.

Maybe the progressives of Santa Cruz could have figured out a progressive way to build housing before the ways with the most money won. Or maybe they could have imposed at least the requirement that large apartment buildings be attractive or maybe to NIMBYs all apartment buildings are ugly sin.

Not a local, but I've been here for a while.

Santa Cruz was already ridiculously unaffordable before the pandemic. Then the pandemic hit, the students went away, and other people moved in. The CZU Fire destroyed many homes in the mountains. Wealthy people from the Bay Area realized that Santa Cruz could be a nice place to live in if they want to work remotely while having the option to visit the office on short notice. Now the students are back, and there is much less housing available for them than there used to be.

The university shares the blame, but it's at least trying to build new housing. The NIMBYs are simply doing their best to prevent that. There is a wide coalition consisting of students, alumni, locals, landlords, and so on that opposes building anything new on university lands.

I came here to work at UCSC, but I've pretty much given up on the city and the university. Santa Cruz is not even particularly nice for its price. It feels more like a missed opportunity than a desirable area.

The locals wonder why UCSC doesn't build housing on their land? Admittedly, it's a beautiful spot up on the hill and housing blocks in the meadow would be a crying shame from an aesthetic standpoint. So don't expand the university to preserve the meadow.

UCSC can tunnel into the hill and build hobbit holes.

Homeless is a problem but Santa Cruz tries to handle it a progressive way, for example, by setting up the homeless camp next to the courthouse and providing it with services

Claims of "progressive approaches" are simply bogus here. Santa Cruz' response has been typical for any and every city with a homeless problem. Santa Cruz has never established a well-ordered, permanent tent city. Like just about everywhere with a huge homeless problem, they tolerate homeless camps for bit and then tear them down, destroy people possessions and move them on 'till a new camp appears. [1]

Just as much, Santa Cruz closed all institutional free food distribution locations at the start of Covid (Saint Francis Soup Kitchen may or may not have reopen but if it has, it is all). This left the anarchist group Food Not Bomb as the only source of food for homeless and Food Not Bombs has been repeatedly criminalized by the city of Santa Cruz. [2]

In the context of what cities provide, one has to keep in mind a broad court decision that essentially cities can't evict people from public areas without providing them some sort of housing - which has meant that every city has formally given housing to the homeless in terms of shelters and camps but every city makes that housing as miserable as possible since they really want to push the home out since every city thinks of this as a "local problem".

[1] https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2022/09/08/first-zone-of-s...

[2] https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/8...

Really amazing to try and offer perspective of a "native" with some unique insights about a community only to offer up the same tired NIMBY arguments you hear in every housing-starved city.

ANd then to claim that your homeless problem is fine because you put them in a slum tent city with "services" is truly the icing on the cake lol

I guess we could just let the homeless smoke meth and shoot heroin in the Redwood forests like we used to and not do anything

You’re supposed to bus them to San Francisco like any good hearted people would do.

> UCSC problem because the university is expanding without building enough dormitories and relying on development in the city instead

This is the largest root cause of the problem.

Population of Santa Cruz is ~64K people. Enrollment in UCSC is nearly 20K. That's a lot of incoming students for a small town.

Combine with the geography of being surrounded by steep mountains and the ocean, there is very little area to the city.

City of Santa Cruz is ~8000 acres, all of it pretty much built already.

UCSC campus is ~2000 acres, a large part of it (couldn't find percentage) is forest and open land.

So while UCSC owns most of the undeveloped land in the area, they keep increasing enrollment but don't provide housing. Where are students going to go?

There should be a law that UCSC can only enroll as many students as they have housing for. They have plenty of land to build it.

I feel like higher education and housing for students should be a higher priority than turning the city into a museum frozen in time for aging "locals".

I repeat, the University should build dorms on their land up on the hill. They have plenty of it, but they want to preserve it's natural beauty

We all should build. In case you forgot the acronym, "Not In My Back Yard" means a tragedy of the commons in which everyone points their fingers the other way, and we end up in this terrible situation.

To be fair, the only entity who owns very large amounts of undeveloped land in the area is ... UCSC itself.

The worst NIMBY in the area is UCSC. They want to bring in all the students but not provide enough housing even though they own tons of open land in which they could build such housing.

...........building MORE housing is the one thing that would make the city more affordable no? Odd take. And UCSC is (comparatively) and a very small school.

> very environmentally conscious no-growth city

> growth would ruin the city

So I take it you'll be doing your part and packing your bags?

I live in San Jose and currently can't afford to live in Santa Cruz

Given he stated he was a native, why would he (your pedantry aside)?

For the environment, and to not "ruin the city".

Or is your belief that the city was the exact perfect size when his bloodline moved in and it's only people who showed up later that are undeserving?

LOL. The self-righteous hyperbole is just downright use-net circa 1996 adorable, but it doesn't make your statements any more compelling, nor does it show that you grasped the point very well.