Measure would hurt library and housing
The Sentinel recently printed a Guest Commentary concerning the proposed ballot measure to block the Library Mixed Use Project planned for a City-owned downtown parking lot. Unfortunately, there were significant errors and omissions in that commentary.
Let’s take a look.
The commentary claimed the measure would prioritize affordable housing on specific lots. However, it didn’t mention the measure will prevent more than 100 affordable apartments from being built —apartments that could begin construction in about one year. The measure would also compromise other affordable housing projects that are even closer to construction.
The commentary noted the measure will preserve the existing downtown library. The claim is that this honors our history and sense of place. What isn’t said is that this leaves us with an inferior library. Also unsaid is the fact that a committee of residents and experts conducted a thorough, public study and unanimously concluded a new library is the best option. So, we can honor the outdated building that is not serving our community well … or we can create a new library with modern services to meet our community’s needs. It all depends on what we want to honor: our community’s people or a mediocre building.
The commentary promoted building apartments on Front Street because they would be near the San Lorenzo River. However, any theoretical housing built would have a view of buildings on both Pacific and Front Street, not the river.
The commentary spoke of creating a new funding stream for affordable housing. To call this a dedicated funding stream is not accurate. If the measure passed, there might be a bit of funding for housing, but it would be competing with transportation, parking, farmers market improvements, and library improvements. And, the funding stream referred to already exists. It’s not new. Also, with the already-inprogress Library Mixed Use Project nearly 100% funded now, another ballot measure is not necessary.
The commentary also claimed that the current project’s housing would look out over a parking garage. This is just an imaginative fabrication designed to alarm us. In fact, the project follows best practices in green urban housing and planning because it will support consolidation of various 20th-century surface parking lots, resulting in zero net-new parking spaces and will facilitate building about 300 affordable housing units at four sites that might otherwise not be feasible. Parking associated with the Library project is only going to replace parking that’s being removed elsewhere downtown.
The commentary aims to build support for preserving the current location of the Downtown Farmers’ Market. This is a case of a solution in search of a problem, since the Farmers’ Market has publicly stated they have a “phenomenal” relationship with the City of Santa Cruz. They’re working together to identify a new, permanent location downtown. In fact, the Farmers’ Market has stated they have nothing to do with the proposed measure.
It’s always good to “Let the people decide,” as the commentary stated. What’s also good is what’s already happened: a multi-year public process with many citizen committee meetings, community input sessions and City Council hearings with vigorous community debate. Putting together a confusing, misleading ballot measure is particularly troubling for those of us who strongly advocate for affordable housing.
The environmental value of creating many apartments for Santa Cruz workers and families is real. Consider how many fewer car trips will occur when 100 households can use non-automobile transportation for work and for basic needs — rather than commuting for 25 or 50 miles.
Creation of an environmentally sustainable downtown with additional affordable housing, an excellent library, and a more efficient use of limited parking is now underway. The proposed ballot initiative prevents it from happening.
This Guest Commentary was authored for Downtown Forward by Martín Gomez, Downtown Library Advisory Committee 2017-18; Amelia Conlen, Chair of the RTC’s Bicycle Advisory Committee; Stacey Nagel, Board Chair of the SC County Business Council; and Don Lane, Cofounder of Housing Santa Cruz County.