Lookout Santa Cruz: Will measure C make a difference?

By Andrew Goldenkranz

The affordable housing crisis in Santa Cruz is painfully real, especially for seniors on fixed incomes, households facing rent increases that put them on the edge of eviction, young people who were raised in Santa Cruz and want to stay here, and people commuting long distances to jobs in the health care, education and service sectors. The lack of affordable housing in Santa Cruz is harming our community every day. Measure C, the Workforce Housing Affordability Act, takes a big swing at making a difference in addressing the crisis.

Measure C will raise an estimated $4.5 million annually for 20 years through an innovative hybrid tax that includes a progressive real estate transfer tax on property sales of $1.8 million and above, combined with a modest parcel tax that is the equivalent of $8 per month. Both taxes include significant exemptions to protect lower-income residents, renters, older adults, schools and more. The funds will be deposited in the City of Santa Cruz’s well-regarded Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

A reasonable question for some voters is, how can we be sure the funds will make a difference? Similarly, when Lookout endorsed Yes on Measure C, the editorial board asked that the City of Santa Cruz show the effectiveness of its annual expenditures to address affordable housing and homelessness.

The short answer to these questions is to take a look at the investments made by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, combined with understanding that Measure C creates a new oversight committee and requires annual audits and public reports. The combination of the fund’s strong track record and Measure C’s oversight and reporting provisions can give voters confidence that passage of the measure will bring meaningful, positive change to the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

But let’s dig into a longer answer and some detail.

Lookout’s editorial board endorsed Measure C, but called upon the City of Santa Cruz and the campaign to provide an accounting of how the city spends existing funds for affordable housing and homelessness, Though busy city staff might not have the time to complete Lookout’s broad request by Election Day, the volunteers and nonprofit housing representatives who work on the Yes on C campaign have researched important data that is helpful to better understand where and how funding is spent, as well as the impact it has.

Over the past 10 years, approximately $14.2 million has been invested, which includes $13.3 million to support affordable housing projects and $862,000 to prevent homelessness.

These funds come from state grants to the city, as well as the allocations from the city’s general fund. Funding recipients include community programs that provide emergency rental assistance and tenant legal assistance that have benefitted approximately 800 residents. In addition, funding has been provided for six different housing projects to help secure financing and build new, 100% deeply affordable housing in our community.

About those new affordable homes that have been built … with all the change happening in downtown Santa Cruz, are those new affordable housing projects actually needed? Are the units occupied? Given how many units have been built or are under construction, do we need any more? 

The answers are yes, yes and yes.

Two great examples in downtown Santa Cruz are the Pacific Station South project (Pacific Avenue) and the Cedar Street Apartments project. Both are brand-new, both feature only affordable housing units and both are 100% leased – every apartment is filled.

Funded in part by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Pacific Station South features 69 units, received 1,600 applications when it opened and still maintains a waiting list of well over 500. Cedar Street Apartments includes 64 units and has a waiting list of over 300. That’s incredible demand and emblematic of the depth of our affordable housing crisis.

Looking at two of the biggest projects currently under construction, Pacific Station North and the Downtown Library & Affordable Housing Project, they will establish 128 and 124 units, respectively. We have a long way to go before we’ve come anywhere close to meeting the demand in Santa Cruz.

Part of the essential role played by Lookout is to seek clarity on local government funding and accountability, on behalf of the public. Thanks to Lookout, the community-based Yes on C campaign has been inspired to dig deeper into how the City of Santa Cruz has made investments to address the biggest crisis facing our community.

What we’ve confirmed is that the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund is making a truly meaningful impact by providing essential funds for key housing projects. We also can confirm that the city invests a modestly greater amount in preventing homelessness than previously thought, while preventing upward of 1,000 people from becoming homeless. We also can say that the decision to direct funds raised by Measure C to be deposited in the Affordable Housing Trust fund is a sound one that will produce benefits for our community for years to come.

Most of us know at least one family who has been directly affected by this crisis. You very likely know someone who has faced an eviction, has been forced to move out of the area and away from their community, or struggles with the huge amount of time lost to sitting in traffic twice a day on Highway 1 for their commute.

Passage of Measure C will be the biggest step forward for affordable housing in Santa Cruz in a generation. Please join me and dozens of local organizations, including Lookout’s editorial board, in supporting Yes on Measure C, the Workforce Housing Affordable Act, to make a difference for your community.

Andrew Goldenkranz serves as a volunteer with the Yes on Measure C campaign, as well as the board of the nonprofit Housing Santa Cruz County.

Lookout Santa Cruz: I support Measure C, and I’d like to share with you why

By Elaine Johnson

I’ve been engaged in affordable housing issues for years and Measure C is one of the most meaningful efforts we’ve seen in a long time. Measure C will have a real impact in addressing the biggest problem faced in Santa Cruz: the crisis of unaffordable housing and the impact it has on seniors, people on fixed incomes and lower-income essential workers and their families.

The vast majority (87%) of the funds Measure C will provide are legally dedicated to increasing the amount of rent-restricted affordable housing and safe interim shelter for people without any housing. And an additional portion of the funds is dedicated to reducing homelessness by providing emergency funds to prevent evictions.

All of the funds raised by Measure C will be deposited in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This special Santa Cruz-only fund has a great track record of providing seed funding for truly affordable housing projects, especially in downtown Santa Cruz. Several recently completed affordable housing projects in Santa Cruz were made possible through contributions from this fund, including Pacific Station South (Pacific Avenue), Water Street Apartments and Riverfront Apartments (Lindberg Street). 

The projects funded by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund are legally restricted to include low rental rates. Specifically, the rates are typically about half of the amount that people are paying in the new “market rate” apartments in downtown Santa Cruz.

Measure C funds will be administered with strict accountability measures, including establishment of a financial oversight committee, annual audits and public reporting requirements. Every dollar will stay in Santa Cruz – no funds can be taken by the state or federal governments.

Residents from lower-income households who live or work in Santa Cruz need support for housing. We rely on hardworking folks in our community to deliver our health care services, food service, education for local kids, human services and so much more. 

No funds from Measure C can be used to build anything for high-income tech workers from over the hill.

I think it’s valuable to mention who supports Measure C. It’s a long list of trusted community organizations. The list includes pretty much any nonprofit related to affordable housing, as well as the Democratic Women’s Club, Indivisible, NAACP, Santa Cruz Community Health, Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, the editorial boards of Lookout Santa Cruz and the Santa Cruz Sentinel and many more that you can check out on the Yes on C website.

The list of organizations that support Measure C provide a stark contrast to the organizations that are opposed to Measure C, which include the very deep-pocketed National Association of Realtors and the California Association of Realtors, as well as the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors.

Nearly everyone who is registered to vote in the city of Santa Cruz has probably seen the No on C attack campaign against Measure C. It is unfortunate that the real estate industry, largely from outside of Santa Cruz, has decided to spend so heavily to attack a measure that was conceived and written by a large group of community members who worked over the course of a couple of years in public to create a solution that will truly make an impact in our community. 

The realtor associations decided it is in their best interests, and that of corporate landlords, to spend big money to defeat the community-driven Measure C. They even went so far as to craft their own dirty-trick countermeasure (Measure B) that will do essentially nothing to help with affordable housing in Santa Cruz, while at the same time violating the realtor associations’ own core values. 

We can do much better than that by voting yes on Measure C.

Measure C is a balanced approach that includes a larger contribution from those with more wealth, a modest contribution from those with some ability to pay, and exemptions for those with the least ability to pay. Homeowners who are not exempt will pay $8 per month.

Based on my experience as executive director of the nonprofit Housing Santa Cruz County and as an advocate for solutions to Santa Cruz’s affordability crisis, I believe that a well-balanced and carefully designed community investment that comes from transfer fees on the sale of higher-end homes (over $1.8 million), combined with a modest annual contribution from property owners ($96), will truly assist hundreds of our neighbors and co-workers and family members. I hope you agree, and I encourage you to vote yes on C.

Elaine Johnson is the executive director of Housing Santa Cruz County, a local nonprofit.

Santa Cruz Sentinel: Mayor’s Message | Choosing a Santa Cruz that works for everyone

By Fred Keeley

As we approach Election Day, our community faces a defining choice. One that speaks to who we are and what kind of future we want to build together. On the ballot this year is the Santa Cruz Workforce Housing Affordability Act of 2025, a measure designed by the community to help ensure that the people who make this city work can continue to live here.

Every day, we see the consequences of the housing crisis all around us. Our teachers, nurses, small business owners and service workers are being priced out of the very community they serve. Parents are raising their children in long commutes, and young adults who grew up here are being forced to leave. For many, Santa Cruz — a place built on creativity, care and community — feels increasingly out of reach.

I often hear people ask, “Aren’t we already doing a lot? And if it hasn’t solved the problem yet, why do more?” It’s an understandable question. But the truth is, there is no single fix. This work takes persistence, partnership and the courage to keep moving forward even when progress feels slow. The Workforce Housing Affordability Act is not “just another drop in the bucket.” It’s a cornerstone in our long-term commitment to making Santa Cruz a place where working families can build their lives with stability and pride.

Every affordable unit represents a story of stability: a child who can stay in their same school, a nurse who can live near the hospital, a barista who can walk to work, a retiree who can remain in the community they helped build.

We know the challenges are real, from high construction costs to national economic uncertainty. But these are exactly the moments when leadership and local investment matter most. This measure is a responsible, community-driven solution that strengthens our local economy, supports the workforce that powers our city and reinforces the values that make Santa Cruz unique.

The breadth of support behind this measure is a testament to what’s possible when we come together. The Workforce Housing Affordability Act is endorsed by an incredible coalition of organizations, advocates and community leaders such as:

Abode Housing Development, Affordable Housing NOW, Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee, Communities Organized for Relational Power in Action, Community Bridges, Santa Cruz County Democratic Party, Democratic Women’s Club of Santa Cruz County, Eden Housing, Equity Transit, Housing for the People, Housing Matters, Housing Santa Cruz County, Housing Trust Silicon Valley, Indivisible Santa Cruz County, Linc Housing, Lookout Santa Cruz, MidPen Housing, Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership, NAACP Santa Cruz County Branch, New Way Homes, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Northern California Carpenters Union, Our Downtown Our Future, Santa Cruz Community Health, Santa Cruz County Office of Education, Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail, Santa Cruz Federation of Teachers, Santa Cruz Sentinel, Santa Cruz YIMBY, SEIU 521, Sierra Club, Temple Beth El, The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz, UCSC College Democrats and the UCSC Student Housing Coalition.

This remarkable coalition reflects a shared understanding: that housing is not just a policy issue, it’s a foundation for community well-being. It’s about the people behind every door, service workers, artists, educators and caretakers who make Santa Cruz the place we love.

As the incredible list of endorsements shows, this is a measure backed by our community, for our community. It represents our collective belief that Santa Cruz should remain a place where people of all backgrounds, professions and generations can live, work and belong.

Fred Keeley is the mayor of Santa Cruz.

Lookout Santa Cruz: Guest Commentary | For affordable housing and a humane Santa Cruz – vote yes on Measure C

By Christopher Connery

Why is housing in Santa Cruz so expensive? 

Some blame regulations, planning restrictions and fees, or an anti-development mindset dating back to the 1970s. But what about beaches, redwood forests, Pogonip, Wilder Ranch, farmers markets, sunsets, crisp air and everything else people love about this place?  

It’s a desirable place to live, and that desirability is a good part of what makes it such an expensive place to buy or rent. Brian Potter’s excellent June 2025 article “Why Are Homes in Western States So Expensive” has some great data on how a county’s rank on the Natural Amenities Scale, a measure developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, affects housing prices. 

It’s a lot. And by that measure, Santa Cruz County is at the top. If people can afford to live here and have the opportunity, it’s often an easy choice to make.

In a desirable place to live like ours, developers can sell as much expensive housing as they can build. We can’t count on the market for construction of the amount of affordable housing we need, especially for those at the low end of the income scale. 

Do we want the people who teach our children, clean our houses, check out our groceries, drive our buses, tune our cars, cut our hair, repair our bicycles or dry-clean our clothes to triple or quadruple up in shared housing, drive 90 minutes or two hours from Salinas, Los Banos or Hollister, sleep in their cars, couch-surf or live unhoused? That is not a tolerable or sustainable situation, unless you think there was nothing wrong with South Africa under apartheid, where Black Africans were forced to commute long hours from segregated suburban slums to their low-wage jobs in the cities. 

We need other incentives, new funding streams and new, creative thinking about how to house those who work here. 

Measure C — a modest $96 annual parcel tax with exemptions for seniors and low-income homeowners, plus a progressively structured real estate transfer tax applying only to homes with a price of over $1.8 million, and also with senior, family and low-income exemptions – is a good start.

California’s real estate transfer tax is, at $1.10 per $1,000 of sale value, one of the lowest in the United States (though in some states it is 0). Although counties are able to increase the rate, most, including Santa Cruz County, do not. This adds up to a little over $2,000 for the sale of a $2 million house. California municipalities can also impose transfer taxes. I was surprised to learn many years ago that Santa Cruz, unlike many municipalities in the state, did not; I had assumed that a progressive city like ours would have implemented one much earlier. Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, San Leandro, Richmond, Hayward, San Jose, Santa Rosa, San Rafael and Petaluma, to name only a few, all have higher municipal real estate transfer taxes than those proposed in Measure C.  

In recent years, Los Angeles, Santa Monica and other cities have passed substantial increases on sales of high-value homes. This has raised the hackles of the real estate industry, which has mobilized considerable resources to defeat real estate transfer taxes at the ballot box or in state and local government.  

Now the industry has its crosshairs on Santa Cruz. 

But rather than putting financial resources into a No on Measure C campaign, which would at least have been a transparent and straightforward advocacy, real estate interests here have invested considerable funds into crafting Measure B, which, though it would raise about a tenth as much money as Measure C would, might at least let its supporters claim that they support affordability, too. 

I hope no one is fooled.

We all know how much housing prices in Santa Cruz have increased over the past 30 years. My house, though according to Zillow it would sell for below $1.8 million and thus not be subject to a transfer tax under Measure C, is probably worth more than five times what we paid for it in 1995.  We’ve done a little remodeling, and have kept up with regular maintenance, but that’s about it.  

If we sold it tomorrow, our more than 400% profit would be due not to anything we’ve done to the house, but to the desirability of living in Santa Cruz. In a desirable area, homeowners’ wealth is created in substantial part by our location: the community we live in. Isn’t it only fair that if we sell, we then pay back a small bit of our profits for the benefit of all in our community, particularly during an era when changes to federal tax policy have disproportionately favored the wealthy?  

Will Measure C solve our affordability problem? Of course not, but it is an important step in the right direction. 

There is much more that we can do. Our city could learn a lot from Montgomery County, Maryland, Minneapolis, and Vienna, Austria (the gold standard), which is one of many cities that dispels the myth that public housing can’t work.

Passing Measure C now will not only provide substantial resources for more affordable housing over the next 20 years, but it will also send an important signal: that we as a community take housing affordability seriously; that we acknowledge our obligations and responsibilities for each other; and that we want a community where all can live well and flourish. 

Our votes are important. That’s why I say yes on C and no on B.

Christopher Connery taught at UC Santa Cruz from 1990 to 2025 as a professor in the literature and history of consciousness departments. He is now emeritus and lives in downtown Santa Cruz. He was a UCSC undergraduate from 1970 to 1975.

Santa Cruz Sentinel: Guest Commentary | Why I support Measure C for Santa Cruz

By Andy Schiffrin

These are depressing and uncertain times. Our national government bombards us daily with threats to our democracy and values, with low-income people and people of color under sustained attack. However, despite these realities, it is important to resist feelings of powerlessness and to support efforts in our community to help those in need.

Need

It’s almost a cliché that housing prices in Santa Cruz are among the highest in the country and that the market rate housing that is being constructed is unaffordable to low- and moderate-income families.

We are faced with an affordable housing crisis that jeopardizes the future diversity of our city. Are we moving inexorably to becoming an enclave for the wealthy?

Measure C’s purpose is to do what we can, as a community, to respond to the affordable housing crisis and help provide homes for families priced out of the private housing market.

Impact

Measure C will generate an average of $5 million each year for affordable housing.

By itself, these funds are obviously inadequate to construct affordable housing projects.

However, since the cost of building new housing is so high, affordable housing developments need a variety of subsidies, which usually come from state and federal sources.

Often, though, the outside funding is insufficient. This is where Measure C assistance will be crucial. It can fill the financial gap and make an infeasible development feasible.

What is affordable housing?

For rental housing, a family is eligible for affordable housing if their income is 80% of the HUD determined county median income or below.

Currently, 80% of the median income for a two-person household is $127,000.

Trying to calculate the number of city families who could qualify for affordable housing is tricky. However, using census data, it appears that perhaps 30% of the city’s non-student households have income below 80% of the median.

This means that a significant number of Santa Cruz residents are struggling with high housing costs and could benefit from the provision of the additional affordable housing that Measure C could support.

Cost

The opponents of Measure C claim that the $96 a year parcel tax is massive. However, $96 a year translates into 25 cents a day and this amount will not be increased over the 20-year life of the measure.

What about the transfer tax? If a house sells for under $1.8 million, there is no tax.

The tax would only be imposed on the price over this amount. For example, if a house sold for $2 million, the tax would be $1,000 ($2,000,000 – $1,800,000 = $200,000 x $5 per $1,000 = $1,000.)

The transfer tax is .05% of the purchase price (that’s five hundredths of 1%).

As a point of interest, a 3% fee for the seller’s real estate agent on the sale would be $60,000.

Leverage

There’s another potential benefit of Measure C to Santa Cruz residents.

Under current state laws, the city has very little ability to either deny or improve proposed housing developments.

We’ve seen massive projects approved with little or no consideration for the parking or visual impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.

Measure C revenues would give the city leverage in working with developers to ensure that there is a balance between the production of affordable housing and the concerns of its neighbors.

Opposition

The real estate industry has put a competing measure on the ballot for one reason only — to defeat Measure C. Like the beverage industry that tried to kill the soft drink tax by spending oodles of money, their concern isn’t with the welfare of our community but with making money, pure and simple.

Conclusion

Measure C isn’t a cure-all, but it will provide critical help in response to our affordable housing crisis.

Don’t just say that you care about the affordable housing crisis, show that you care. Vote for Measure C!

Andy Schiffrin is a Santa Cruz city resident and member of the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County.

Santa Cruz Sentinel: Guest Commentary | Why I’m voting for Santa Cruz Measure C

By Laura Knobel

I moved to Santa Cruz from the Central Valley in 2002 to attend UCSC as an undergrad. While attending the university, I fell in love with our city and wanted to make it my forever home. For the majority of my twenties, I worked full-time as a personnel clerk and then personnel technician (now called HR clerk and HR technician) for the County of Santa Cruz recruiting and hiring other civil servants. Based on the current rates of pay for those job titles, if I were in that job today I would qualify as “low income” under the 2025 California State Income Limits for Santa Cruz County.

Not having much parental support or a partner, I was on the hook for paying my own way, which unfortunately led to $9,000 in credit card debt by the time my now-husband and I moved in together and could start saving a bit on rent. If I hadn’t married someone more financially well-off than me, I would likely still be carrying that credit card debt and likely still be in the rental market.

Now, I am watching other young people who look a lot like I did in my twenties try and make it in our community. Except the market-rate rents they are facing are even steeper than the ones I faced in the mid 2000s. Their incomes qualify them as “low income,” but unfortunately there’s not enough low-income housing stock to meet demand.

The bulk of my sons’ preschool teachers commute in from Watsonville or Boulder Creek every day, because the rents are lower in those communities. All his swim instructors have had second and third jobs. Restaurants are struggling to keep shifts staffed because the lower-wage workers they need are moving away.

I am voting Yes on Measure C to give the young people and working families our community relies on a fighting chance. No one should have to spend two to three hours a day sitting in commute traffic on top of a full-time job. No one should have to work three jobs to try and keep a roof over their head and food on the table. No one should carry thousands in credit card debt just from trying to afford the basics.

Now, at 41, I’m an important part of the fabric of our community — I am the deputy director for a local nonprofit, I sit on the Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial Board, I am a commissioner for the city of Santa Cruz, and I volunteer at my son’s elementary school. If I hadn’t fought to stay here in my twenties, our community would have lost me, and all of the good I have done for our community over the years and will continue to do. What will we lose if these young people and these young families leave?

I will happily pay $96 a year to invest in the members of our community who are trying to find affordable housing. And for those who are concerned about the real estate transfer tax, when I look at the houses currently up for sale within the city of Santa Cruz limits (where this measure would apply), and throw out the top two most expensive houses on West Cliff and East Cliff drives, the most anyone would pay would be a one-time $53,500 transfer tax. When you’re transferring a home worth $5.75 million, $53,500 isn’t going to make a meaningful difference in the sale. The vast majority of homes on the market are currently listed for under $1.8 million  and therefore would be exempt from the transfer tax. Both the parcel tax and the real property tax will expire in 20 years.

This is a chance for our affordable housing stock to catch up from decades of underinvestment. It probably won’t entirely meet the demand, but it will dramatically improve the current situation. A vote for Measure C is a vote to invest in the young people and families that make our community vibrant, interesting, and sustainable.

Vote Yes on Measure C on or before Nov. 4. Vote-by-mail ballots are expected to be mailed to registered city of Santa Cruz voters next week.

Laura Knobel is a member of the Sentinel Editorial Board and a Santa Cruz resident.

Lookout Santa Cruz: Editorial | Yes on Santa Cruz’s Measure C – with a caveat

The ballot facing Santa Cruz residents on Nov. 4 feels unusually mean-spirited. 

City residents are being asked to choose between two competing bills on affordable housing, one of which (Measure B) came to life intentionally to kill the other. 

Statewide, we, too, face a bill that is an angry response to another. Proposition 50 asks us to vote on a temporary statewide redistricting – to counteract attempts by Texas to “rig” elections via gerrymandering. We are told we must “fight fire with fire.” 

It’s ugly and exhausting, and easy for voters to dismiss the entire ballot because of the rancor. 

That would be a mistake. 

Locally, we live in the least affordable rental market in the nation. It’s a painful title for those of us who try to live our values and incongruous with the quiet beach town vibe we enjoy. Washington is ablaze with disruption, and we can, for the next few years, no longer rely on federal and state funding to help us. That makes looking for answers locally urgent.

Measures C and B both ask city of Santa Cruz taxpayers to provide more money (a parcel tax and a real estate transfer tax) to help solve problems that feel unsolvable – homelessness and affordability. That’s not an easy sell. Taxes never are. And they feel especially grim when the city keeps assuring us it’s making progress we don’t readily see. 

The biggest question on this ballot: Can we make our local money more impactful so we keep making progress on affordable housing and homelessness prevention? The secondary question: Do we approve of how the city is currently spending money on affordable housing and homelessness? 

If so, we have to support Measure C. 

The proponents – who include Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley, who ran his 2022 campaign on a promise of bold housing solutions, and the nonprofit Housing Santa Cruz County – say the measure, a combined $96 parcel tax and real estate transfer tax on homes sold for more than $1.8 million (with exceptions), will generate about $5 million yearly, which the city would apply to affordable housing initiatives, shelters and prevention. That would  include rent vouchers, funds for people to avoid evictions, seed funding for developments and impetus to build more affordable family housing, rather than studios – all programs now in place that could expand.

Measure C (the Workforce Housing Affordability Act) would offer, they say, a breakthrough moment, not a “home run swing” in the affordability and homelessness fight. It’s the art of the possible in a time of too many impossible demands.

During our endorsement meeting, proponents told Lookout that the city has spent about $500,000 per year for the past 2½ years for housing and homelessness aid and has used it to help 800 people yearly. 

Measure C’s $5 million, they say, would give the city 10 times that power.    

That seems promising, exhilarating even – if we believe the city is headed in the right direction. 

What Lookout doesn’t know – and what we challenge the city to produce – is an accounting of how it has spent that $500,000 on affordable housing. When we asked, we got a partial accounting – including that in 2022-23, the city paid $108,000 to landlords to prevent eviction. 

This is one good datapoint, but we think we and the voters need to know more. 

We’d like the city and proponents of Measure C to help us and the public understand how 800 people have benefited and how that model will work when scaled up. We understand the money might have been intermixed with other programs’ funding to maximize impact; still, the city should offer as much transparency as possible. With that kind of accounting, voters could feel good about multiplying that work.

We’d like to see this before the Nov. 4 election, and believe it’s essential in winning the minds and hearts of the voters.

If passed, 87% of the Measure C money will be earmarked for affordable housing initiatives and 10%, or $100,000, supporters say, will be funneled into homelessness prevention efforts. That is five times more than the city currently spends and could be what finally allows Santa Cruz to make more progress on getting our unhoused housed.

The measures are not fun to read. Measure C includes exemptions for low-income households (below 60% of area median income), most older adults and 100% of below-market housing developments, schools and religious institutions. Its transfer tax offers progressive tiers — 0.5% for sales over $1.8 million up to $2.5 million. It applies higher rates up to 2% on larger sale amounts, subject to a cap.

So, for instance, a sale of a home for $2.4 million would incur tax of $3,000; that’s .5% of $600,000, the increment above the $1.8 million floor. Opponents of C say this might add significant burdens to a buyer, slow a sluggish market or keep folks from selling homes. 

We’re not convinced. We don’t think these fees – significant as they are – will prevent sales of such expensive homes, even as they edge toward the median cost in Santa Cruz. 

Measure B (the Workforce Housing and Climate Protection Act) offers a watered-down, warped version of Measure C. Even its backers, the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors, know it has flaws and wouldn’t be miffed if it didn’t pass. It aims to generate $1.3-$2.3 million via a lower parcel tax of $50 and real estate transfer taxes that start when houses sell for $4 million and more. 

It was written in protest – and is intended to sow voter confusion. Keeley and others had early talks with the realtors group, which foundered and produced this confusing-to-voters result.

Its sole purpose is to kill Measure C.

While we hear and appreciate the good questions about process and consensus the realtors groups raise, we wish all this vitriol could have been avoided. We wish our leaders had spared us this circus. 

In the end, though, as we vote, we have to sort through the debris of lost consensus and recognize Measure B as a classic spike campaign – something we haven’t seen in local politics in decades, and hope is a one-off.  

The unnecessary messiness threatens to torpedo the real good Measure C  could do. But it shouldn’t.

The argument comes back to that big, ugly statistic: Santa Cruz is the highest rental market in the country. 

If we can make it marginally better by building more affordable housing, we have to try. 

We say yes on C. No on B. But with the caveat that we want the city to show effectiveness on how it’s been spending that $500,000 before Nov. 4. 

Let’s give the city tools, but also keep it accountable.

Santa Cruz Sentinel: Editorial | Yes on Santa Cruz affordable housing Measure C

Voters in the city of Santa Cruz are being asked to decide about a parcel tax/real estate transfer tax to generate millions of dollars for badly needed affordable housing.

We urge Santa Cruz voters approve the Workforce Housing Affordability Act (“Measure C”) on the Nov. 4 ballot.

But unless potential voters have studied the measure, unfortunate confusion could sway the vote, as “Measure C” led by Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley and the nonprofit Housing Santa Cruz County is being countered on the ballot by the Workforce Housing and Climate Protection Act (“Measure B”), which is backed by the real estate industry.

On the surface they seem similar. But they’re not.

Measure C if passed by voters will put in place an annual $96 parcel tax — with a number of exemptions: low-income households (below 60% of area median income), most seniors and 100% below-market housing developments, schools and religious institutions.

It also would place a levy (“transfer tax”) on property sales above $1.8 million, with progressive tiers — 0.5% over $1.8 million up to $2.5 million, with higher rates up to 2% on higher sale amounts, subject to a cap.

Backers say Measure C could generate over $5 million a year for affordable housing and homelessness prevention if passed.

The Realtors’ Measure B would put in place a $50 per parcel tax, with a transfer tax that begins on higher value properties, with lower overall rates in many tiers.

Because of lower rates, B would generate less revenue but still backers say it would provide funding for climate-repair projects (including the Municipal Wharf) in addition to housing and homelessness programs. B also contains exemptions, although these are more limited given the lower rates.

Opponents to Measure C accuse Keeley and other city officials of passing off C as a “citizens’ initiative” thus needing only a majority vote instead of a two-thirds threshold required for special taxes initiated by a local government. They also say that C, if passed, will make it difficult, or prohibitively expensive, for parents to share home-equity wealth with their children.

Moreover, they say, nearly a thousand “affordable” apartments have already been built in the city with many more in the pipeline.

Keeley and C proponents say the real-estate industry came up with Measure B to confuse voters who might be reluctant to agree to a new tax.

Clearly, that is exactly what the Realtors’ measure aims to do.

One indication of that is the amount of money Realtors have put into the campaign. According to initial campaign finance reports, the National Association of Realtors put “just” $150,000 into Measure B over the last three months. For context, the beverage industry spent $2.8 million to try and defeat the Measure Z soda tax in 2024.

Pro-C had raised about $185,000 through June 30, including $56,000 from Keeley, $25,000 from Eden Housing and $10,000 from Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas.

Will the effort to confuse voters be successful? The two seemingly similar measures won’t help. Moreover, the resentment felt by many residents as the city continues to approve large-scale housing developments (never mind Santa Cruz city officials’ hands are mostly tied in this approval process because of state mandates) could hurt C as well.

Another question raised by our Editorial Board is whether the affordable units financed through C would go to local residents. Santa Cruz’s Tenant Preference Policy states a housing project owner retains discretion in the selection of eligible renters, but that when multiple rental applications exist, preference shall be given to city residents and then those working in the city.

Bottom line is that despite recent housing developments, Santa Cruz isn’t close to meeting the need for housing by local families and workers in the most expensive rental market in the nation.

Moreover, times are getting tight in terms of public subsidies for housing, and Measure C will provide money to get more projects underway. Should it fail, future “affordable” projects might find financing unaffordable.

Measure C isn’t perfect, but its goals are laudable. Don’t be confused. Yes on Measure C.

Santa Cruz Sentinel: Guest Commentary | Local democracy in action created housing tax Measure C

By Don Lane and Gretchen Regenhard

Real estate agent John Flaniken’s Guest Commentary on Sept. 18 in the Sentinel paints a horrifying picture of what was actually community organizing and local democracy in action. Unfortunately, his cherry-picking of facts distorts reality, like any good horror fantasy.

Housing Santa Cruz County, the organization we helped create in 2020, was formed by a diverse team of community members sitting around a table at a conference room at a local nonprofit organization. Its primary objective was to create a community movement to get more local funding for affordable housing in our county. Private citizen Fred Keeley (well before he was elected mayor) was part of that team because he shared everyone’s concern about housing affordability.

Housing Santa Cruz County mobilized hundreds of local residents in this drive toward a new funding source for housing for struggling households in our community. Jumping to 2023: At Housing Santa Cruz County’s urging, Keeley and other members of the Santa Cruz City Council began exploring how the city of Santa Cruz might advance a law to create this new funding source.

The City Council explored this possibility and convened, in partnership with the Housing Santa Cruz County, community meetings to discuss the potential paths forward. The city also conducted polling to get an understanding of the community’s willingness to adopt a funding ballot measure.

It became clear that the best path forward was to use a very well-known process: the citizen initiative. So the City Council stood back and let Housing Santa Cruz County and dozens of volunteers take on the task.

Only a profit-driven real estate industry spokesperson could find using the democratic process to be ethically questionable.

The housing funding effort led to a successful signature-gathering campaign and we now have Measure C on the November ballot. Measure C will provide the funding Santa Cruz needs to continue to make progress on housing for lower income families and to prevent homelessness.

Speaking of ethics … consider this: In their fear over the loss of profits, the real estate industry concocted their own ballot measure using the same citizen initiative process. Their measure (sometimes called Measure B and sometimes called Measure BS), will rely on the same “loophole” as Measure C to facilitate its passage.

We believe this is what’s often referred to as “the pot calling the kettle black.” The key difference between the two measures is that Measure C’s pot has real housing solutions in it while Measure B’s kettle (like most kettles) is full of steamy hot air.

Santa Cruz voters have a stark choice. We can support real housing solutions with a yes vote on Measure C. Or we can support the ethically challenged real estate industry with their nationally funded, hot air advertising campaign.

We’re proud to stand with our neighbors in need of housing solutions as we support Measure C. Vote Yes on C.

Don Lane and Gretchen Regenhardt are both founding board members of Housing Santa Cruz County and have spent their entire careers working for housing for less advantaged local residents.

Lookout: A Santa Cruz affordable housing primer – and why Measure C makes sense

By Don Lane

I get asked a lot about what’s happening with housing in the city of Santa Cruz, including all the current and planned construction, and what it means to call housing “affordable.” To start my response to those questions, here is a list of what I think are the most important housing projects:

• Pacific Station North – 128 apartments.

• Pacific Station South – 70 apartments.

• Jessie Street – 50 apartments.

• Library & affordable housing project – 124 apartments.

• Cedar Street Apartments –  65 apartments.

• Harvey West Studios – 120 apartments.

• Natural Bridges Apartments – 20 apartments.

• 831 Water Street – 140 apartments.

• Almar Village – 38 apartments.

• 136 River Street – 50 apartments.

• 525 Water Street  – 90 apartments.

Why are these the most important? Because every one of these projects consists of only “affordable” apartments – no “market rate” apartments. (More on “affordable” below.)

Yes, these buildings add up to 895 affordable apartments. 

This means about 1,800 people will get new homes in Santa Cruz between 2024 and 2027. Maybe one of these homes will be for your co-worker, your relative, the family of the health care assistant at your local clinic, the teacher of a kid you know or the worker at your favorite eatery. Or maybe one of those unkempt guys who’s been living in the park or under a bridge for the past few years. Maybe someone who’s been struggling to get by while working and living in her car. 

Not one of these homes will be for a wealthy tech worker from Silicon Valley.

Here are some other important housing projects in the local pipeline:

• Delaware Apartments – 352 new beds just for UC Santa Cruz students and 62 UCSC staff apartments.

• Swift Street – 100 apartments for local public school employees.

• Student Housing West/Family Student Housing – 2,400 new beds for students.

• Kresge College remodel/expansion – 587 additional student beds.

These other projects are important because they serve our local workforce and student populations, and they take the burden off the highly stressed rental market in neighborhoods. And rent won’t be collected at these places to make a profit – just to cover costs. 

As an affordable housing advocate in Santa Cruz, the questions I hear the most go something like this: “But are these places really affordable?” or “What does affordable really mean?” or “Aren’t these places really just for rich people from over the hill?”

With all due respect to those who ask these kinds of questions …  please knock it off and pay attention to reality.

The definition of “affordable” that folks who work in the field of affordable housing consistently use is this: If the rent is not more than 30% of the household’s income, it is affordable housing. All the 895 affordable apartments listed at the top of this article are using that definition and aim to set their rents accordingly. These are households that used to spend more like 50% to 60% of their income on rent.

And the only households that qualify for this kind of affordable housing are households with modest incomes or low incomes. Highly paid folks from the tech industry cannot live in any of these apartments.

Those wealthier folks have a shot at some of the new apartments in the big buildings being built downtown, near the river. But the number of apartments in the two new big “not affordable” projects is about 400. So the majority of new housing projects (895 from that first list) are actually affordable. 

Which brings me to Measure C, which is on the ballot in the city of Santa Cruz this fall. One might ask, why do we need Measure C if we’re making solid progress in building affordable apartments?

There are three key answers. The first is that we got so far behind in building affordable housing over the past 40 years that we have not yet caught up to meeting the current need. Hundreds more families who already live or work here will still be without affordable homes even when all the projects above are completed and occupied.

Second, almost all the affordable projects listed above were financed with public subsidies of one kind or another. The main source of local subsidy dried up a few years ago. That local source was the one that kick-started many of the projects on the list. We need to kick-start several more, and Measure C will provide the funds to do that.

Third, Measure C also has a modest amount of funding for prevention of homelessness. Essentially, this means funds to provide short-term emergency rent assistance so a family will stay housed rather than being evicted to the street.

I wish we could solve most of our state and national problems on the ballot this November. But we can’t. (Proposition 50 is the one hopeful exception.) However, as we find ways to resist the terrible things the Trump administration is doing, we still need to act locally, where we can have a more immediate positive impact. 

Measure C will do our community some real good.

By the way, the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors, with major funding from the Sacramento-based California Association of Realtors, put together a sham called Measure B (perhaps it would have been more accurate if it were called Measure BS?). The only reason Measure B exists is to confuse voters and create the laughable impression that the real estate industry is a champion of affordable housing in Santa Cruz. 

The industry goes even deeper into dark comedy when it pretends that the measure will build low-income housing and fix West Cliff Drive and remedy the climate crisis for almost no money. We need only look at the hundreds of thousands of dollars the industry is spending to both defeat Measure C and to promote Measure B to see what’s happening here. The real estate industry is spending all this money to defeat C, even though C will create at least 10 times as much housing as their cynical and warped Measure B. 

I guess they believe they can get away with saying this is what leadership on affordable housing looks like in 2025. Let’s prove them wrong.

Don Lane is a former mayor of Santa Cruz. He is a co-founder of Housing Santa Cruz County, serves on the governing board of Housing Matters and has been a homeowner for 40 years.

Press Release: Yes on Measure C, The Workforce Housing Affordability Act, Endorsed By Over Two Dozen Organizations

Affordable housing nonprofits, Democratic Party, labor, equity and health organizations agree Measure C will make housing in Santa Cruz more affordable and help prevent evictions 

(Sept. 22, 2025) SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — The Yes on Measure C, Workforce Housing Affordability Act campaign today announced it has earned the endorsements of more than two dozen organizations.  

“Today’s announcement of a truly broad range of endorsements not only shows deep community-level support for Measure C, it also highlights how vitally important it is that we act now to create housing in Santa Cruz for workers, seniors, people with disabilities and others on fixed income,” said Elaine Johnson, Yes on Measure C campaign manager. 

ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE ENDORSED MEASURE C: 

• Abode Housing Development 

• Affordable Housing Now 

• Communities Organized for Relational Power and Action (COPA) 

• Community Bridges 

• Democratic Party of Santa Cruz County 

• Democratic Women’s Club of Santa Cruz County  

• Eden Housing 

• Equity Transit 

• Housing for the People 

• Housing Santa Cruz County 

• Housing Trust Silicon Valley 

• Linc Housing 

• Mid-Pen Housing 

• Monterey Bay Central Labor Council 

• Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) 

• NAACP, Santa Cruz County Branch 

• New Way Homes 

• Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California 

• Our Downtown Our Future 

• Santa Cruz Community Health 

• Santa Cruz County Board of Education 

• Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail 

• Santa Cruz YIMBY 

• Temple Beth El 

• The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz 

• UCSC Student Housing Coalition 

Learn more at YesonCSantaCruz.org or via Facebook and Instagram.  

### 

Lookout: Fact check - Cutting through the fog of competing affordable housing petitions in the city of Santa Cruz

Shoppers walking into Whole Foods along Soquel Avenue last week might have been confronted by a pair of men behind an unfolded table, asking whether passersby were registered city of Santa Cruz voters. Next to the men sat a whiteboard with the words “Rebuild the Wharf” scribbled in black marker. 

Curious shoppers would then learn that the men were seeking signatures for the Workforce Housing and Climate Protection Act, a proposal in which the wharf is but a fractional concern, along with homeless shelters and affordable housing construction. Hyper-civically engaged shoppers might have associated this petition with the effort being led by Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley and the nonprofit Housing Santa Cruz County to raise money for affordable housing construction. 

Those shoppers would have been wrong. 

Right now, two competing petitions are circulating within the city’s boundaries. The Workforce Housing Affordability Act, and the Workforce Housing and Climate Protection Act. The similarly named acts each propose two of the same kind of taxes — a citywide parcel tax and a real estate transfer tax — but at different degrees and with different intentions, creating a confusing situation for the average voter presented with a petition and a pen.

As the petitions make their way through neighborhood blocks, farmers markets and shopping centers, Lookout has parsed through the language to highlight the key distinctions so you, the voting public, can be sure of which proposal you are choosing to support, or reject. 

Who is behind the petitions?

Workforce Housing Affordability Act of 2025 (Keeley’s petition)

The WHAA was the product of an intermittent, 18-month process of discussion and collaboration, steered by Mayor Fred Keeley, the nonprofit Housing Santa Cruz County, and a handful of well-known community members, such as Andrew Goldenkranz, the then-chair of the local Democratic Central Committee. During his mayoral campaign in 2022, Keeley vowed to put a measure on a ballot to finance affordable housing and homelessness solutions. The idea was spurred by the results of 2018’s Measure H — a countywide ballot measure to raise tax dollars for affordable housing — which failed overall, but had strong support among city of Santa Cruz voters. The petition has been circulating since January.

Read the full petition notice here.

The Workforce Housing and Climate Protection Act of 2025 (realtors’ petition)

President of the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors Renee Mello said her organization is philosophically opposed to real estate transfer taxes. So, in March, the group drafted and began circulating its own petition in direct response to the effort by Keeley and Housing Santa Cruz County. 

Mello said the mission of their ballot measure is to defeat the Workforce Housing and Affordability Act. To legally do that, however, the realtors had to closely mirror the language and proposals put forth by Keeley and the housing advocates. This meant, despite the group’s philosophical opposition against the notion, the realtors’ petition had to propose a real estate transfer tax

SCCAR is the local arm under the larger statewide and national Association of Realtors organization, a monied group known to be one of the most powerful lobbies in California. The group spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in local Santa Cruz elections in 2018 and 2022 to defeat ballot measures proposing rent control and an empty homes tax.

Read the full petition notice here. 

What do the petitions propose?

WHAA (Keeley)

The Keeley petition proposes a real estate transfer tax — a fee charged when a piece of real property transfers ownership — that begins at 0.5%, applied to home sales that eclipse $1.8 million, and climbs from there. It uses a complex, incremental equation that levies a tax only on the value above $1.8 million, rather than the entire sale price.  The tax rate reaches 2% for homes that sell for $4.5 million and above. The petition also proposes a parcel tax — a flat, annual fee levied on all land parcels throughout the city of Santa Cruz — of $96 per year. 

WHCPA (Realtors)
The realtors’ petition also proposes a real estate transfer tax of 0.5%; however, instead of kicking in at $1.8 million, the realtors propose the tax apply to homes sold for at least $4 million, significantly capping the revenue it can raise. Representatives from SCCAR say the $4 million threshold ensures the levy remains a “mansion tax” and doesn’t apply to middle class home sellers. The realtors also proposed a parcel tax of $50 per year. 

How does the parcel tax work? 

WHAA (Keeley)

The parcel tax is levied on every parcel according to the assessor in the city of Santa Cruz. Owners of single family homes will have to pay the parcel tax, as will the owners of a standalone business, such as Brazil Cafe or Yan Flower. For apartment and condo complexes — where a single structure on a single property can contain multiple housing units — one $96 tax will be levied on the property as opposed to each unit.  The same goes for those properties downtown where many businesses operate out of the same building: one $96 parcel tax will be levied, not one for each business or storefront. 

WHCPA (Realtors)

The parcel tax for the WFCPA works in the same way, but charges $50 per year instead of $96. 

Is anyone exempt from the parcel tax? 

WHAA (Keeley)

The WFHA exempts homeowners who make less than 60% of the area median income. As of May 2024, the area median income sat at about $127,200 for a single person, and $145,300 for a two-person household. (The affordability threshold would be roughly $76,320 and $87,180, respectively.)  Homeowners 65 years and older who make 80% of the area median income ($101,760 and $116,240, respectively) are also exempt. Affordable housing complexes, housing sponsored by nonprofits, and religious institutions will also not have to pay the tax. 

WHCPA (Realtors)

The WHCPA largely mirrors the exemptions laid out in Keeley’s proposal. The key difference is an additional exemption for homeowners aged 55 years and older, regardless of their economic status. 

How does the real estate transfer tax work? 

WHAA (Keeley)

The real estate transfer tax proposed in the WHAA uses a more complex and incremental equation than its counterpart. 

The tax is only levied on home sales that eclipse $1.8 million, and the tax rate only applies to the dollars spent in excess of $1.8 million, as opposed to the total sale price. The increments are as follows: 

1. For every additional dollar spent over $1.8 million and up to $2.5 million, a 0.5% tax will be levied. This tax rate works out to $5 on every $1,000 between $1.8 million and $2.5 million. 

1. For every additional dollar spent over $2.5 million and up to $3.5 million, a 1% will be levied, which works out to $10 per $1,000. 

1. For every additional dollar spent over $3.5 million and up to $4.5 million, a 1.5% tax will be levied, or roughly $15 per $1,000. 

1. For every additional dollar spent over $4.5 million, a 2% tax will be levied, or $20 per $1,000. The real estate transfer tax is capped at $200,000 per transaction. 

This equation means that a home sold for $5 million would be subject to a transfer tax of $38,500:

• $0 on the first $1.8 million

• $3,500 for the 0.5% on the $700,000 between $1.8-2.5 million

• $10,000 for 1% tax on the $1 million between $2.5-3.5 million

• $15,000 for the 1.5% tax on the $1 million between $3.5-4.5 million

• $10,000 for the 2% tax on $500,000 between $4.5-5 million.

WHCPA (Realtors)

The real estate transfer tax proposed by the WHCPA uses a more streamlined equation, though it will drive far less revenue. The realtors want to levy a 0.5% tax on every additional dollar spent over $4 million on the sale of a home. 

This means that that same $5 million home would only see a $5,000 real estate transfer tax (0.5% on the $1 million in value between $4-5 million), as opposed to the $38,500 charged under the Keeley proposal. The realtors also propose that the transfer tax caps out at $100,000 per sale.

Is anyone exempt from the real estate transfer tax? 

WHAA (Keeley)

Real estate transfers due to bankruptcies, foreclosures and reorganizations are exempt from the tax, as well as property transfers within a family, as well as for any properties that have an enforceable covenant that requires affordable housing. 

WHCPA (Realtors)

The same exemptions as the WHAA apply to the WHCPA. The only additional exemption is that homeowners 55 and older are exempt from the real estate transfer tax. 

How long do the taxes last? 

WHAA (Keeley)

The WHAA’s parcel and real estate transfer taxes would last for 20 years. It will kick off in the 2026-27 fiscal year, and expire after the 2045-46 fiscal year. 

WHCPA (Realtors)

The WHCPA would only last 10 years, from the 2026-27 fiscal year and expire after the 2035-36 fiscal year. 

How much money will the taxes raise per year? 

WHAA (Keeley)

The WHAA estimates it could raise at least $5 million per year. 

WHCPA (Realtors)

The WHCPA has not released an official estimate of how much money it would raise, but Victor Gomez, director of government affairs for the SCCAR, told Lookout last month that he expects the tax to raise $1-2 million per year. 

How will the money be spent? 

WHAA (Keeley)

Using $5 million as the reference point, 87% of the revenue, or roughly $4.4 million per year, will go into a newly created Affordable and Workforce Housing Trust Fund, which can be used in a variety of ways to foster affordable housing in the city, from helping to directly finance construction and preserve existing affordable housing, to providing down payment assistance for first-time home buyers and predevelopment loans to help affordable housing developers with studies or property purchases. 

Another 10% of the funds or $500,000, will go into the Housing to Prevent/Reduce Homelessness Fund, which can be leveraged to attract federal and state grants and loans and finance supportive housing, shelter, and navigation center construction. 

The final 3%, or $150,000 will fund the administrative staff costs of managing the tax revenue. 

WHCPA (Realtors)

The WHCPA largely works in the same way. The only difference is that the 87% bucket gets a little more diluted in the realtors’ proposal. 

In addition to affordable housing construction and preservation, the realtors say they’d like to see that money also used for tree planting, and repairs to West Cliff Drive, the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf, and other “city facilities that have been or will be harmed by climate change.”  

In his role as city attorney, Tony Condotti attaches a short, independent summary to all petition proposals, so potential signees can get a legal sense of what they’re being asked to support. In his official summary for the realtor’s petition, Condotti said it could violate what’s known as the single-subject rule, which requires the money derived from a ballot measure tax to spend on projects and projects that align with a single purpose. Basically, Condotti believes the realtor’s idea to raise tax revenue in the name of affordable housing and climate change could be too broad, making it vulnerable to a court challenge.

Lookout: Tensions start to flare as sides submit dueling Santa Cruz housing measures

Even in an off year, city of Santa Cruz voters are poised to be divided by yet another heated ballot measure campaign.  

In spring of 2024, voters had to decide whether they agreed with Measure M’s effort to cap the heights of new buildings, or side with growth and development advocates. Then, in the fall, more than $2 million poured into the community as Big Soda attempted to fight Measure Z’s proposed sugar-sweetened beverage tax. 

Now, this fall, the dueling factions behind two affordable housing measures plan to stake yet another battle in the public square, as the county’s realtors and its housing advocates work to persuade voters to side with them. 

This week marked a major milestone in that effort. On Wednesday, the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors submitted 6,051 signatures in support of placing its Workforce Housing and Climate Protection Act on the Nov. 4 ballot. On Thursday, the group led by Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley and Housing Santa Cruz County’s Elaine Johnson submitted 4,170 signatures in support of balloting its Workforce Housing and Affordability Act. 

Each petition needs 3,620 signatures from registered city of Santa Cruz voters to qualify for the ballot, and each side says they used their own signature verification system to ensure the submitted names are valid. The county clerk now has 30 days to certify the petitions. If both measures qualify, the Santa Cruz City Council is scheduled to vote at its June 24 meeting to place each on the ballot. In November, the measure with the highest support over 50% will win. 

The similarly named acts each propose a citywide parcel tax — a flat annual fee levied on all land parcels throughout the city of Santa Cruz — as well as a real estate transfer tax — a fee charged when a piece of real property transfers ownership.  

Lookout previously pored through each measure to highlight the myriad technical differences, but broadly, the measure proposed by Keeley and Johnson puts forward a greater and broader tax and expects to bring in around $5 million per year toward affordable housing and homelessness initiatives. The realtors’ proposed taxes are lower and more narrow, and thus expect to bring in a fraction of their rivals’. 

The realtors have also been upfront that their measure was designed only to defeat the Keeley/Johnson proposal, which was the product of an intermittent, 18-month shaping process with different sectors of the community.  

On Thursday, Keeley and Johnson hosted an event outside Santa Cruz City Hall to mark the submission of their signatures. The event’s fiery rhetoric offered a preview of what Santa Cruz voters are likely to hear as the campaigns heat up over the summer. 

“Our quarrel is that a narrow special interest didn’t get their way and has decided that the way to get their way is to scuttle a proposal that was built for two years by the entire community,” Keeley said. 

After the event, Keeley, who liberally used the phrase “dirty political trick” throughout the hour to describe the opposing effort, said the realtors’ proposal would “have no impact on affordable housing.” 

Victor Gomez, the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors’ director of government affairs and lone architect of the group’s housing measure, said he was “taken aback that the proponents of the other initiative are against voters having options.” He also pushed against the claim that his measure won’t raise a meaningful sum for affordable housing. 

“We had the option of making our parcel tax as low as a dollar per year, but we didn’t do that,” Gomez said. “We’re able to save people money with a lower [parcel] tax than Keeley that still generates some decent revenue,” which he estimated at $1 million per year. The realtors’ most significant qualm with the Keeley/Johnson measure is the real estate transfer tax, which SCCAR is “philosophically” against, according to the group’s president, Renee Mello. However, in order to compete directly against that measure at the ballot box, the realtors’ measure needed to mirror Keeley and Johnson’s in kind. Gomez referred to SCCAR’s proposed real estate transfer tax as a “mansion tax” since fees kick in only for home sales of at least $4 million. The Keeley/Johnson measure’s tax kicks in for home sales of at least $1.8 million. 

Gomez described SCCAR’s summer campaign strategy as “money, money, money,” as in, relentless fundraising to ensure the group has enough resources to launch an effective campaign by late summer. 

During her group’s submission event on Thursday, Johnson said supporters needed to prepare for a battle. 

“This fight is not over,” Johnson said. “We made it this far together, and we’re going to need that same energy and commitment to get this to pass in November.”

Santa Cruz Sentinel: Workforce Housing Affordability Act campaign turns in signatures

SANTA CRUZ — Housing advocates, local leaders and community members gathered in the courtyard of Santa Cruz City Hall on a warm and sunny Thursday to commemorate the handing off of more than 4,000 signatures to the Santa Cruz city clerk to place the Workforce Housing Affordability Act tax measure on the ballot this fall.

“We are here to celebrate a huge milestone on our path to bring more workforce housing to the city of Santa Cruz,” said Housing Santa Cruz County Executive Director Elaine Johnson at city hall. “This measure represents more than a funding mechanism. It’s a reflection of what’s possible when our community comes together. We’ve built a broad coalition of housing advocates, labor, educators, business leaders and neighbors, standing shoulder to shoulder to make sure the people who power our city can actually live here.”

Johnson has served as a champion of the measure for about two years alongside others including Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley, who discussed the initiative’s evolution from the series of community meetings held in 2023 to the campaign’s official launch in January.

“It’s been a long journey,” said Keeley. “This didn’t just begin a couple of years ago. It began many years ago. This community has been searching for a solution to housing affordability for decades, decades. There have been good faith efforts to get a measure to the ballot that could get the support of a majority of the voters. There were at least three previous measures.”

Keeley said that figuring out the right formula for an affordable housing tax measure that could be supported by a majority of city residents has been difficult but by consulting with the community and local stakeholders before deciding on the details of the measure, he believes they struck a balance with the Workforce Housing Affordability Act.

“Everyone was in that conversation and everyone who was in it, made it a better product,” said Keeley. “Even the folks that don’t support it made it a better product, a much better product.”

Eden Housing CEO Linda Mandolini, Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley and Housing Santa Cruz County Executive Director Elaine Johnson celebrated on Thursday after supporters of Workforce Housing Affordability Act turned in petition signatures to place the measure on the Nov. 2025 ballot. (Shmuel Thaler – Santa Cruz Sentinel)

The Workforce Housing Solutions Act has two components. If the initiative passes with a majority vote in November, it would enact an annual parcel tax of $96 per parcel in the city of Santa Cruz. The initiative also includes a real property transfer tax for homes sold at the price of $1.8 million or more. The initiative is estimated to raise $5 million each year for the city’s affordable housing trust fund and would sunset in 20 years.

Keeley also mentioned a similar city ballot initiative called the Workforce Housing and Climate Protection Act, which was created by members of the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors and which Keeley calls a “dirty political trick.” The Realtors’ association campaign handed off about 6,000 signatures to the city clerk Wednesday, according to the group’s Government Affairs Director Victor Gomez.

“We are excited to have our initiative officially qualified and look forward to a strong campaign,” Gomez told the Sentinel. “As we met and discussed our initiative, folks are thrilled at the opportunity to fund improvements and safety upgrades to the wharf and the possibility of actually being able to purchase an affordable home, instead of just more rental housing. Unlike the other proponents, we have planned to build for sale, not only for rent units. Additionally, we believe exempting seniors over 55 is critical, as many are already struggling to make ends meet.’

At city hall, using a visual aid, Keeley said that the Workforce Housing Affordability Act campaign gathered about 7,000 signatures in total but after verifying them with the help of former mayor and political consultant Bruce Van Allen, handed off 4,170 to the city clerk. The campaign needed to gather 3,620 signatures to make the ballot.

“I have worked on affordable housing and as a tenant advocate for a long time,” said Van Allen. “When a community can commit a serious contribution from its local resources, that really brings in a lot more money. It leverages the state and federal money, foundation money and tax credits. A community either has to provide the land, which we don’t really have, or the money to show that local commitment. And so this just gets us in the good graces with all of the sources from outside of the community to make a project affordable.”

Following the ceremony at city hall, community members enjoyed cake in the courtyard and further discussed how the revenue gathered through the measure will help leverage additional funds for affordable housing developments such as Santa Cruz Planning Commissioner Pete Kennedy and local “land title guru” Jim Weller.

“This gives us that seed money, which is critical,” said Kennedy. “There are so many funding sources for these jobs. I was at an Eden Housing grand opening last week and there were 12 funding sources. So if we can put some taxpayer money in and multiply it by 10, that’s good times.”

Weller mentioned that the seed money provided by the tax initiative can also be used to secure the issuance of a bond.

“So, $10 million could secure $100 million in a 30-year bond measure,” said Weller. “That’s real money. You can do something with $100 million.”

Now that the initiative has tentatively made it on the ballot after years of effort, Johnson said she feels a sense of relief and told the Sentinel she was going to celebrate with a meal at her favorite restaurant after the ceremony.

“You don’t know how much you’re carrying until you let it down,” said Johnson. “This signature gathering piece has been six months in the making and there were no days off. Handing in those petitions to Bonnie (Bush), it really felt freeing. I feel confident that we will qualify and that in itself is a victory.”

KSBW: Santa Cruz affordable housing initiative gains momentum with thousands of signatures

Supporters of a new affordable housing initiative in Santa Cruz County have submitted thousands of signatures in hopes of qualifying for the November ballot, aiming to increase affordable housing units, prevent evictions, and provide more access to funding.

The initiative gathered over 4,000 signatures, surpassing the necessary requirement to qualify for the November 2025 ballot. "Signature gathering is no small thing, if it wasn't for our community, if it wasn't for our volunteers, we wouldn't be standing here right now," said a housing official involved in the effort.

Housing officials have spent the last two years working on this measure, with involvement from city and county leaders. "As we all know Santa Cruz is the most expensive place to live in the nation, it's the most expensive in a sense of rental markets so we need to continue to build more homes so that people from all walks of life, all different income levels can be able to live here," said another official.

Funds from this measure will be managed by the City of Santa Cruz's Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which works to preserve housing for Santa Cruz residents with low-income levels. "What we got here is the opportunity we think we got it right with the community, and so we believe that by submitting these signatures, we have a real opportunity in November to make a serious, meaningful, sustainable commitment to affordable housing," said a representative of the initiative.

One volunteer who dedicated her time to gathering signatures noticed mixed responses from residents, with some being enthusiastic about it and others less so. "Sometimes it took a little bit of a conversation to educate on what this measure is trying to do and how it will help us get to affordable housing," she said. "Honestly, more often times than not, that will yield a signature."

If approved by voters, the measure will raise approximately $5 million annually for a period of 20 years.

Press Release: Affordable Housing Initiative Campaign Reaches Major Milestone for Nov. Ballot: Petition Signatures Submitted

Measure aims to increase the supply of workforce housing, prevent evictions, preserve senior housing, establish shelters and gain new access to state and federal housing funds 

(May 15, 2025) SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — Gathered to celebrate in the courtyard at Santa Cruz City Hall, the Workforce Housing Affordability Act campaign, joined by supporters and volunteers, today announced 6,923 petition signatures were gathered, with 3,620 required to be verified by elections officials to qualify for the November 2025 ballot.  

Responding to the ongoing and acute housing crisis in the City of Santa Cruz, a broad coalition of local housing, education, labor and business advocates and leaders, convened by nonprofit Housing Santa Cruz County, created the Workforce Housing Affordability Act. The Act will deliver needed community benefits, including: 

• Community investment to construct new homes for lower-income workers, especially downtown and in transit-rich areas in the City of Santa Cruz. 

• Funding to prevent evictions, preserve senior housing and establish housing-focused shelters.  

• Greater access to state and federal workforce housing and supportive housing funds. 

• Reduction in vehicle miles traveled by workers by locating housing closer to jobs, which helps reduce production of greenhouse gases by motor vehicles – the leading contributor to climate change in Santa Cruz County. 

Funds raised by the measure will be managed through the City of Santa Cruz’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which has an outstanding track record of creating and preserving housing for Santa Cruz residents who have a lower-than-average income. In the past five years, the fund has helped create approximately 400 affordable apartments. 

The measure is supported by local organizations and elected officials including: State Senator John Laird, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley, Santa Cruz City Councilmembers Sonja Brunner, Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, Scott Newsome and Gabriela Trigueiro, and County Supervisors Justin Cummings, Manu Koenig, Monica Martinez and Felipe Hernandez; Communities Organized for Relational Power and Action (COPA), Eden Housing, Housing for the People, Housing Santa Cruz County, Mid-Pen Housing, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP), Temple Beth El and UCSC Student Housing Coalition.  

The measure will raise approximately $5 million annually for a period of 20 years through an innovative hybrid revenue model that includes a real estate transfer tax that will apply to property sales of $1.8 million or more, and a modest parcel tax. The measure will include parcel tax exemptions for seniors and low-income homeowners, as well as real estate transfer tax exemptions for families transferring ownership of property within an immediate family.   

Learn more at www.workforcehousingnow.net.  

### 

Press Release: Anti-affordable Housing Initiative Launched by Local Realtors Association

Realtors’ measure aims to trick Santa Cruz voters with a ballot measure that in truth does little-to-nothing to address affordable housing crisis

SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — The Workforce Housing Affordability Act campaign today issued the following statements by Housing Santa Cruz County Executive Director Elaine Johnson, Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley and former Santa Cruz City Councilmember Sandy Brown in response to an anti-affordable housing initiative that has been filed with the City of Santa Cruz by a lobbyist and a representative of the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors:

Elaine Johnson, Executive Director, Housing Santa Cruz County:

“Today we learned the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors has decided to place a counter measure on the ballot that will result in virtually no affordable housing.

Without any community input, the Realtors association decided to devise a ballot measure that, at first glance, looks remarkably similar to the one we have already launched for voters to consider this November. But when you look even a little closer, it doesn’t take long to understand their proposed measure is actually anti-affordable housing while doing nothing to support first-time homebuyers and leaving renters more vulnerable to rent increases.

Our campaign’s Workforce Housing Affordability Act was designed over a two-year open transparent process with participation of dozens of our hardworking community members who are determined to help more folks in our community to access to more affordable housing.

Our campaign is working in the best interest of the entire community. We’re proud to have earned the support of a broad range of elected officials, nonprofit affordable housing organizations, and many more.”

Fred Keeley, Santa Cruz Mayor:

“The cynically crafted title for the Realtors association’s measure claims a focus on affordable housing and includes both a property tax and a real estate transfer tax (just as does the Workforce Housing Affordability Act), but in truth their measure is an empty hoax that includes enough poison pills to fill a prescription bottle.

In fact, their proposed property tax exempts the majority of property owners, leaving few to pay the annual tax. Their proposed real estate transfer tax applies only to transactions that are over $4 million in Santa Cruz, of which in 2024 there were just 4. This compares to 289 transactions that would be covered under our proposal. Their measure cuts in half the life of the revenue source, dramatically limiting the time available to address our local affordable housing crisis. Their measure also takes aim at renters, who make up the majority of residents in Santa Cruz, by eliminating protections for renters that are included in the Workforce Housing Affordability Act.

The Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors complained in a recent op-ed that the Workforce Housing Affordability Act’s property tax and real estate transfer tax amounts to a “double tax,” only to then propose both a property tax and a real estate transfer tax. This willingness to embrace such hypocrisy is at the heart of what makes their measure a cynical play against local voters. That cynicism is also on full display with their attempt to entice voters with the promise of funding for the Santa Cruz Wharf and West Cliff Drive, even though funding for both has already been identified.

In that same recent op-ed, the Realtors association also implied they have been collaborative during the public process that resulted in our Workforce Housing Affordability Act. However, after 19 months, the realtors were the only party to oppose the community consensus that emerged. In an effort to kill that community consensus, the realtors' out-of-town lobbyist drafted their deceptive measure.

We don’t need the self-interested real estate lobby working in secret to engineer the future of affordable housing in Santa Cruz. Our community should quickly reject this cynical and hypocritical attempt to pull the wool over Santa Cruz voters’ eyes.”

Sandy Brown, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember:

“It is deeply disappointing that the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors, representing an industry that has not offered anything to address our critical need for affordable housing and has opposed previous efforts, is now trying to undermine a community-driven campaign to establish a local, dedicated funding stream to address our affordable housing crisis. They are instead choosing to sow division at a time when local collaboration is critical as local workers and families are being pushed out due to exorbitant housing costs and federal funding for housing is being gutted.”

Key Endorsements of the Workforce Housing Affordability Act:

State Senator John Laird; Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas; Assemblymember Gail Pellerin; County Supervisors Justin Cummings, Manu Koenig, Monica Martinez and Felipe Hernandez; Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley; Santa Cruz Vice Mayor Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Santa Cruz City Councilmembers Sonya Brunner, Scott Newsome and Gabrielle Trigueiro; former Mayor Ryan Coonerty; former Santa Cruz Mayor Mike Rotkin; former Santa Cruz City Councilmember Sandy Brown; County Board of Education Trustee and former Santa Cruz Mayor Bruce Van Allen; Former Mayor and Realtor Hilary Bryant; nonprofit Housing Santa Cruz County; nonprofit Eden Housing; nonprofit Mid-Pen Housing; nonprofit Housing for the People; nonprofit Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP); Communities Organized for Relational Power and Action (COPA); UCSC Student Housing Coalition; and Temple Beth El.

Learn more at www.workforcehousingnow.net.

###

Lookout Santa Cruz: I support a proposed tax measure for the city of Santa Cruz in November

Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley at a January kickoff event for the Workforce Housing Affordability Act tax measures. Credit: Kevin Painchaud / Lookout Santa Cruz

I support Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley’s proposed tax measure.

I know taxes are unpopular, but we must address the homelessness and affordable housing crisis in our community. The measure – currently gathering signatures for a November 2025 ballot – consists of two taxes set to sunset after 20 years. The first, a real property transfer tax, will raise the most money and will bring in more funding every year it is in place. It will tax the price of property sold for more than $1.8 million in the City of Santa Cruz. Property sales within an immediate family will be exempt from this tax.

Keeley spent the past two years working this tax out with leaders in the real estate industry and, rather than targeting these leaders as the enemy, he invited their participation in shaping the measure. They agreed that our community has an affordable housing crisis and that they would not actively oppose this measure, even if they also wouldn’t actively support it. But, within days of the signature-gathering kickoff for the measure, the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors shocked Keeley by voting to oppose it.

Still, this is not the same as agreeing to mount a well-funded effort to defeat the measure, and only time will tell if the representatives of the real estate industry who negotiated the details of the tax measure will be able to restrain the rapacious avarice of their colleagues.

They agreed on the minimum $1.8 million sales value to be taxed, as discussed above, and the increasing percentage of tax that would be applied as the value of sales increased. A .05% tax will be applied to properties selling for $1.8 million to $2.5 million. Properties that sell for more than $2.5 million, but less than $3.5 million, will be taxed 1%, and properties that sell for more than $3.5 million, but for $4.5 million or less, will pay a 1.5% tax. Properties that sell in excess of $4.5 million would pay a 2% tax, but with a cap of $200,000.

That means the following things are true.

This is a progressive tax. This tax will not affect many residents of Santa Cruz. This tax has a fairly modest impact on the high price of properties to which it is applied. The absolute amount of funding for affordable housing that this tax will raise will go up each year due to the inevitable inflation of housing prices in our region. Even in its early years of implementation, this tax should raise between $5 million and $7 million per year.

The City of Berkeley, whose city council passed a property transfer tax in the early 1970s, before a public vote was required for such taxes, took in $24.8 million last year from its tax.

The other tax that would be included in the November 2025 measure is a $96 annual parcel tax on real property in the City of Santa Cruz, or about $8 a month. This amount will not increase one penny over the next 20 years. The tax, while not progressive, has a number of important impacts.

First of all, it allows everyone in Santa Cruz to make a contribution to addressing our affordable housing crisis – not just complain about it. It is important because we can know exactly how much this tax will raise over the next 20 years, unlike the property transfer tax that depends on an unknowable number of sales and sales prices. It is also a funding stream that can be bonded and brought forward so our community can begin addressing our affordable housing crisis now and not wait for future years, when the larger income from the property transfer tax will actually be in the city’s coffers.

The parcel tax part of the proposal has important exemptions for qualifying low-income households, low-income senior households, affordable housing projects, schools, churches and other entities that are otherwise exempt from property taxes. Unlike some earlier attempt at housing measures, this one was well thought out before signature-gathering began.

I am somewhat skeptical of the provision in the measure that outlaws landlords passing the parcel tax on to their tenants, because I don’t know how, without rent control, it could actually be enforced. But I believe that the small amount of the parcel tax at $8 a month, whether passed on or not, will be less of a burden than the funding provided to the low and moderate-income community will be a benefit.

Where will the tax money go?

None of the funds can be used to help subsidize a developer’s cost in meeting the affordable housing requirements they already have to meet because of various city ordinances. The funds can be used only to increase the number and affordability of units built above those statutory requirements.

Eighty-seven percent of the funds must be spent on affordable housing for those in our community who meet the requirements for low-, very low- or extremely low-income families. That means the housing will have to be affordable to households that make less than 60%, 30%, or even a lower percentage of the median household income in our county, which is currently $107,720. In other words, the housing constructed with this funding would have to be affordable by people making $70,000, or $35,000, or less a year. This part of the funding will be deposited in the city’s housing trust fund to support affordable housing projects.

Although it is possible that some of the homeless individuals in our community could get into housing if the funds are combined with social service funds for things like residential mental health, drug or alcohol treatment programs, most of the funding would support what is known as “workforce housing” – housing for teachers, city and county workers, police officers and firefighters.

Ten percent of the funding from the two taxes in the proposed measure may be used to help people who currently have housing from falling into homelessness. Many low-income families depend on two or more jobs to be able to pay their rents and if even one member of the family loses a job, the family can quickly find themselves on the street.

The city and county of Santa Cruz currently maintain a $150,000 fund to provide temporary rent loans when these situations occur. The proposed new measure would help provide up to $500,000 to make sure that we don’t increase homelessness while we are trying to address it.

Only 3% of the funds raised by the proposed measure can be spent on administration.

To be clear, the proposed measure will not provide sufficient funding to build housing that is affordable to people working at minimum-wage jobs like baristas or dishwashers employed at fewer than 40 hours a week. (An exception might be such young people who are either couples or willing to share small apartments with friends.) But this measure will provide affordable workforce housing for a huge number of individuals who currently have to commute long distances to work and provide essential services in our community.

The funds from this proposal include a preference for local residents and local construction workers to build them.

Given how little financial burden this proposed tax measure places on any of us, that is a goal worth accomplishing.

Santa Cruz Local: Ballot measure aims to build more affordable housing in Santa Cruz

Elaine Johnson, executive director of Housing Santa Cruz County, speaks at a Jan. 16 event for a campaign to fund affordable housing. (Jesse Kathan — Santa Cruz Local)

SANTA CRUZ >> A signature-gathering effort kicked off Thursday to put a new parcel tax and property transfer tax on the Nov. 4 ballot in the city of Santa Cruz. The taxes aim to raise $5 million annually for affordable housing and homelessness prevention.

The proposed Workforce Housing Affordability Act needs 3,620 signatures to qualify for the November ballot. It would need more than 50% of the vote to be adopted. Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley, leaders of the community organization Housing Santa Cruz County, and a coalition of housing activists and local professionals are leading the effort.

“There’s still people unhoused, still people struggling to pay the rent,” said Elaine Johnson, executive director of Housing Santa Cruz County. After nearly two years of community meetings with attendees across the political spectrum, “we came up with a little something that everybody was wanting,” Johnson said.

“This is a community problem that needs community-level support,” said Marvin Christie, president and co-owner of Felton-based real estate firm Anderson Christie Inc. “Asking property owners to share in that load seems like a reasonable request.”

How much is the tax and who would pay?

Voters in many cities and counties across the country, including Berkeley and Santa Clara County, have approved local housing bonds to pay for new below-market-rate homes.

The proposal for Santa Cruz is different. Instead of borrowing a lump sum, the city would accumulate money over time through a parcel tax and a property transfer tax.

The proposed $96 parcel tax, unlike a bond, can legally exempt certain property owners. The ballot measure includes parcel tax exemptions for:

• Low-income households earning below 60% of the area median income according to state guidelines.

• Seniors age 65 and older who earn below 80% the area median income.

• 100% below-market-rate housing developments.

• Schools and religious organizations.

The ballot measure also proposes a property transfer tax paid by sellers.

Property transfer taxes have been used elsewhere to fund affordable housing, although Keeley said he doesn’t know of any that have been paired with a parcel tax. In Los Angeles, a 4% “mansion tax” approved in 2022 is assessed on the sale of properties over $5 million to fund affordable housing and homelessness prevention.

The proposed measure for the city of Santa Cruz would kick in for properties sold for more than $1.8 million. The median listing price for homes in Santa Cruz is $1.6 million, according to aggregated real estate listings.

The tiered tax rate would increase for higher-value properties. For example, the seller of a $2 million property would pay a 0.5% tax, or $10,000. A $5 million sale would be assessed a 2% tax, or $100,000. The maximum transfer tax for any property would be $200,000.

Both taxes would start July 2026 and expire July 2047.

How would affordable housing be built? 

About 90% of the money would go towards the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund to pay for the creation and protection of below-market-rate housing. 

The city wouldn’t directly build homes, but would offer loans or grants to nonprofit and for-profit developers or other groups. For example, the fund could offer a loan to a developer to buy land for affordable housing, or give a grant for a nonprofit to buy existing apartments and rent them below-market rate.

The money could also be used to preserve existing affordable housing, renovate below-market-rent apartment buildings or offer loans for down payments to first-time homeowners.

The measure allocates 10% of the money for measures to reduce homelessness, including permanent supportive housing, transitional housing and shelters. It could also include temporary assistance to help keep people in their existing homes. 

Although the city has made progress in reducing homelessness, those efforts have been hampered by the number of people who continue to fall into homelessness. 

If one member of a household loses their job and is at risk of eviction, “The cost to us and to them to get back out of homelessness is enormous,” Keeley said. “What if instead we said, ‘Here’s a check for your rent this month. Use that period of time, go find that other job, and we’ll just keep you where you are.’”

Santa Cruz created its Affordable Housing Trust Fund in 2003. It receives money from sales of city property and in-lieu fees from developers who do not build the required amount of affordable housing.

How was the tax developed?

In 2018, then-Santa Cruz County Supervisor Keeley championed Measure H, which would have allowed the county to borrow $140 million for affordable housing and pay back the loan with a property tax increase. Although the measure was defeated, it won more than the required 66% vote within the city of Santa Cruz. Keeley said the results speak to the willingness of voters in the city to put money towards affordable housing, even if it means higher taxes. 

During his campaign for Santa Cruz mayor in 2022, Keeley vowed to propose another measure to fund affordable housing. But it took two years of community meetings and collaboration with nonprofit Housing Santa Cruz County to work out the details.

The challenge was to craft a tax that would raise money for affordable housing and be palatable to voters.

Some attendees at the community meetings spoke out against parcel taxes as a regressive tax that disproportionately affects lower-income taxpayers. Others said they didn’t like a real estate transfer tax. To compromise, the coalition created versions of both taxes that most attendees could accept. 

“We were trying to accommodate different values and belief systems in coming together, and that’s what this represents,” Keeley said.

Santa Cruz Together, which formed to oppose rent control proposal Measure M in 2018 and campaigned against the empty-home tax Measure N in 2022, announced in a Jan. 16 newsletter that the organization will be neutral on the proposed measure.

Lookout Santa Cruz: Before the headlines, a snapshot from downtown Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley speaks to the crowd at Thursday's kickoff event for a housing funding measure supporters aim to get on the November ballot.

After nearly two years of discussion and negotiation, a group of Santa Cruz politicians and housing advocates on Thursday began circulating a petition for a measure to fund housing that it hopes to place on the ballot in November.

The group officially introduced the petition for what it’s calling the Workforce Housing Affordability Act with a sizable event outside the new, 65-unit affordable housing complex at 525 Cedar St. in downtown Santa Cruz. 

The proposed funding measure could raise around $5 million per year, deriving revenue from a pair of new taxes: an annual $96 tax on every individual parcel throughout the city and a 0.5-2% real estate transfer tax tacked onto home sales greater than $1.8 million.

The petition will need nearly 4,000 signatures from city of Santa Cruz voters over the next 180 days to qualify for the November ballot. – Christopher Neely