Santa Cruz Tenants Community Meeting and Meal [Private/Public]

Moving Toward Consideration of a Rent Control or Rent Stabilization Ordinance in Santa Cruz

There has been some discussion during the current election cycle about the relative merits of considering a rent control or rent stabilization ordinance in Santa Cruz. While I generally favor the broader concept, there are many questions that need to be addressed before moving forward with even a draft ordinance. However, one fact is beyond contestation. Rising rents in our community continue to force out working men and women who have traditionally used reasonably priced rentals as a gateway to the purchase of a family home. Unless we move right now to stabilize rental prices in Santa Cruz, we will continue to lose our local workforce and the hard earned dollars they contribute to our local economy. And what is worse, we will simultaneously open up the very real possibility of becoming a "bedroom" community where higher wage workers and professionals from out of the area dominate the housing market further marginalizing our resident workforce.

So let's take a closer look at the basic elements which must be included in any prospective rental control or rent stabilization ordinance. Chief among these is whether or not the ordinance would be limited to units constructed before a certain time. For instance, the ordinance may provide that rental units constructed before 1980 would arguably be fully paid for and so the need to raise the rent to compensate for existing or rising mortgage payments would not be a factor. Also, in light of the fact that Santa Cruz has such a large number of mobile home rental units, it may be both fiscally wise and administratively expedient to separate the ordinance to provide subsets of regulations for mobile homes and apartment rentals. It would also be necessary to limit any rise in rent to not exceed more than once in any twelve (12) months. We must also consider whether such an ordinance would provide for exemptions such as units voluntarily vacated or vacated subject to eviction and include an overall exemption for any rental funded through a government subsidy program.

I believe it would be wise public policy to consider including greater protections for renters within the body of the ordinance. Specifying and requiring binding or non binding rental dispute mediation and/or arbitration and the clear delineation of tenants legal rights would serve to clarify and codify the respective legal positions of landlords and tenants in a way that could guarantee fundamental fairness of process. Renters must be free from retaliation or threat of lawsuits for exercising their rights under any rental agreement and the imposition of "pass through" charges must be specifically prohibited.

These are but a few of the legal, commercial and ethical questions that must be considered by council and subject to discussion in an open and transparent public process. To think we know more than we do about this incredibly complex issue is a recipe for failure as a public policy and would cause the visitation of unnecessary hardship on landlord and tenant alike. I recommend that we take a good look at regional models before we take this leap that can, and will, have such a lasting and profound effect on our community.

UCSC has also told our elected officials that the solution to Santa Cruz Housing Problem is to build an off Campus Dormitory Complex. See attachment for more details.

A Simple Solution to our Housing Problem

Teachers, police officers, firemen, city employees, mail carriers, blue collar workers, and our children cannot afford to live in Santa Cruz due to exorbitant rents. Our schools are having trouble hiring teachers. Working people are becoming homeless. Many can only afford to live in Watsonville, which contributes to Highway 1 gridlock. Residential neighborhoods are being destroyed by the conversion of housing to mini student dormitories with parking and party noise problems. Some of our neighborhoods will become like Isla Vista where it’s a great place for drunken parties because a majority of residents are UCSB students.

There are strong incentives for students to live off campus. Currently UCSC does not provide beds for 8200 (increasing soon to 9300) students) or about half of student enrollment. On campus beds, with meals, cost approximately $1900 per month. As a result, local rentals are expensive and consumed by students and more residential houses will become mini dormitories.

Any construction work on UCSC property, by any firm, cost 4 times as much as construction work on private property. As partial evidence, UCSC has funding for 125 to 150 4 person units. Cost is $150 million. And they own the land. UCSC cannot build sufficient housing no matter how much we complain. UCSC would have to pass a bond measure of over $2 billion to house all students. Any bond measure would take many years

The only solution is for the City and/or County to rezone some privately owned land and enlist private investors and developers to build a dense complex of attractive multistory dormitories with good bus connections. Controls could be imposed on rents while still providing a reasonable rate of return.

With UCSC students concentrated in this new off campus dormitory complex, residential party houses would be minimized, residential areas would remain residential, rental prices would drop, more housing would be available for locals who work here, traffic would be reduced, bus transportation would be effective for the new dormitories, and these off campus dormitories would provide tax revenue. In addition, these off campus dormitories would satisfy state requirements for building more housing.