10-31-22: Helter Shelter

In Santa Cruz, citizens who disagreed with the city’s decision to build the Mixed-Use Library Project pushed to get for Measure O on the ballot, which would “prohibit construction of the proposed Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project and relocation of the Downtown Farmers Market.” The measure instead seeks to develop affordable housing on certain city-owned surface parking lots and use surplus parking district revenue for affordable housing.

The text of Watsonville’s Measure Q is brief: “Shall the City of Watsonville amend provisions of the Watsonville General Plan as provided in the Watsonville Planned Growth and Farmland Protection Initiative?” Basically, a “yes” vote extends until 2040 the slow-growth provisions approved by voters back in 2002. But a contingent on the Watsonville City Council placed the competing Measure S on the ballot, which allows for development outside the city limits for “any property identified by the City Council during the General Plan update, subject to community input, as being well suited for development that would create local jobs, parks, and safe spaces for kids to play, or housing for working families, seniors, and residents with disabilities.”

What Watsonville resident wouldn’t want all the things that Measure S promises to prioritize? And what Santa Cruzan is against affordable housing? After all, the housing crisis is at the heart of the economic struggles of Californians. (For more on that, click on the link below to Jonathan Vankin’s recent article, “Is California’s Housing Crisis Making Economic Inequality Worse?”)

But one of the costs of construction is destruction. For a new building to rise, something must fall: historic buildings, productive farmland, beloved neighborhood landmarks. All three of these ballot measures are born out of this dilemma.

But whatever the outcome of next Tuesday’s election, change is inevitable. Two articles published recently by local news outlets offer differing perspectives on this inevitability: one envisions what we might gain in the future; the other looks back at what we’ve lost in the past.

Veteran columnist Wallace Baine takes Lookout Santa Cruz readers on a trip to 2026, envisioning a time when the Palomar Inn—a dominant feature of the downtown skyline—will be dwarfed by the projects that are set to be built around Front and Laurel streets. In a piece published by in September, Baine invites the reader to imagine what will be gained, and lost, in the impending tectonic shift in the look and feel of downtown Santa Cruz.

Speaking of tectonics, columnist Ross Eric Gibson gives Santa Cruz Sentinel readers a tour to the Pacific Garden Mall of yore—before the Loma Prieta earthquake, which wreaked havoc on downtown’s Pacific Garden Mall. Gibson points out how the rush to redevelop after the ’89 quake led to the loss of cherished landmarks—most notable the Cooper House—that lent grace and beauty to Santa Cruz’s historic downtown.

Neither of these articles address the ballot measures. But you will find articles from our media allies that do. And if you’re one of the many Santa Cruz County residents who want to have a voice in how that change unfolds, you can do more than vote. Check out our directory of local organizations and our guide to local government. Get involved in local groups working to preserve farmland, save historic landmarks, and prevent lower-income residents from being priced out of the county.

As publisher Mike Gelbman writes in a recent blog post, “California Local is set up to connect the dots between community members, elected officials, and the local nonprofits that serve their communities.” Take a look and start making connections.