[epistasis]

This was the explicit plan for Santa Cruz, to stop all housing after the 70s and 80s and see a massive rise in property values.

It's all there in the opinion articles and letters to the editor from the time, this future was predicted. It was the plan that was accepted by leaders at the time.

[gen220]

You could go further and say this was the plan for California writ large. This is the natural conclusion of Prop 13 (1978).

[baron816]

Yes, people flooded in and then firmly shut the door behind them.

[mwattsun]

I'm not aware of any such plan. The plan was always to preserve open space such as Lighthouse Field and the green belt around Santa Cruz. I'm grateful for both of those. Property values would have risen even if they had built on Lighthouse field and the green belt. It just occured to me that I could think of them as the equivalent of NYC's Central Park or SF's Golden Gate Park.

[epistasis]

I love the green belt! But talk to the Greenbelt's original proponents, like Primack, and you will find that the city left out the other part of the green belt proposal that was necessary for environmental protection: allow apartments to be built up.

So instead of building taller, we have decades of people living further out, building into the urban wild land interface outside of the greenbelt. That results in massive ecosystem destruction, more car pollution, and of course tons of traffic everywhere.

The solution is to merely allow apartments and 3-4 story buildings. It only takes three four story buildings to equal that 12 story building, for example.

[mwattsun]

They're doing that outside the city limits, in Live Oak for example, but inside the city limits, the Beach Flats is the only place I can think of until recently, when they started building downtown Santa Cruz. As unsightly as the downtown buildings are, if they revitalize downtown it won't be so bad. Maybe Logo's used books will come back.

[epistasis]

There have been some buildings on Water Street in recent years too.

But that's the "plan" I was talking about: all other areas are banned from having apartments. It's right there in the city general plan. No more housing, except for a few tiny areas.

A few years ago we proposed housing along Soquel in the commercial area, and millionaire homeowners bemoaned that we were destroying their poor "working class" neighborhood by allowing apartments and affordable housing. Meanwhile these same wealthy homeowners would never consider selling their homes to anyone who is not extremely wealthy or with an astronomical income. They cater to the wealthy while blocking more affordable housing.

This is the plan continuing its execution.

Recent state law will change this, slowly, over the coming decades by making such unfair plans illegal. More housing must be allowed in city general plans, and it can't all be stuck in the poor areas, or that will violate the states interpretation of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing provisions, as enforced by state HCD.

The city will delay as long as possible, and block as much as possible, but it will happen eventually. And if the city delays too long in updating the plan to allow for more housing, the Builders Remedy will allow developers to build without city having any discretionary approval.

[mwattsun]

Good to know. Thanks for the info.

[dllthomas]

> Maybe Logo's used books will come back.

Probably a typo, but I have to note that it's Greek "Logos", not possessive or plural English.