Santa Cruz plans high-rise living as a fix for sky-high housing costs
Santa Cruz’s plan to allow downtown high‑rises as a response to soaring housing costs exposes a broader clash between preserving “idyllic” low-density character and accommodating demand in a constrained, highly desirable coastal market. Commenters debate whether building up will meaningfully improve affordability versus just attracting more wealthy residents, and contrast that supply-side approach with alternatives like reforming property taxes, curbing speculative and absentee ownership, and loosening restrictive zoning statewide. Many note that decades of NIMBY politics, Prop 13, and blocked campus or infill housing have produced a situation where local workers, students, and even lifelong residents are increasingly unable to live in the community.
Housing shortage vs. NIMBYism
- Many argue high housing costs are fundamentally a supply problem: every city saying “build somewhere else” produces a statewide shortage.
- Others, especially long‑time or former residents, fear losing Santa Cruz’s “idyllic beach town” character and are wary of high‑rises or large changes.
- Some point out that virtually every town has similar NIMBY reactions, so “just build elsewhere” is not a real solution.
Tax policy, ownership, and rentals
- Several comments blame Prop 13 and low property taxes for long‑term owners who sit on underused or dilapidated homes while extracting high rents.
- Proposals include:
- Heavily taxing nonresident owners / absentee landlords to push sales to resident buyers.
- Preferential treatment or tax breaks for primary residences.
- Banning or restricting corporate / hedge‑fund ownership of single‑family homes.
- Others counter that such taxes would mostly be passed on to renters, won’t change supply, and risk becoming de facto rationing.
Where and how to build
- Strong support from some locals for more housing in Santa Cruz itself, preferably by going “up, not out” to avoid sprawl and habitat destruction.
- Others suggest building in Central Valley or other less-developed areas instead, or preserving low density in at least some coastal towns.
- Debate over high‑rises vs. mid‑rise (3–6 story) buildings; many see mid‑rise as cheaper, better fitting, and less controversial.
- Code issues (e.g., mandatory two stairwells) are said to make small multi‑story infill projects uneconomic; others argue fire safety data is unclear.
Santa Cruz specifics: UCSC, greenbelt, and history
- UCSC adds major demand; some complain it underbuilds dorms despite large land holdings, partially due to local lawsuits and traffic/parking politics.
- The city historically preserved a greenbelt and limited denser housing, which critics say intentionally produced today’s high prices.
- State “builder’s remedy” and housing targets are now forcing Santa Cruz toward more downtown density.
Desirability, displacement, and effectiveness of building
- Many emphasize coastal climate, nature, and SV proximity make high prices inevitable.
- Others argue that without substantial new housing, outcomes are: only the rich stay, rising homelessness, and generational exclusion.
- Skeptics say new high‑end units will fill quickly, prices will rebound, and the city will be denser, more crowded, and still expensive.