Am I a YIMBY or NIMBY?

I call myself a YIMBY. This is because I don’t believe there is a viable way to address the housing crisis without building more housing, specifically low-income affordable housing. I don’t think it’s a good use of time to try and block individual developments. That said, YIMBY’s have far too often been co-opted by the interests of landlords or property developers. My goal is to promote a working-class brand of YIMBYism, and say “yes” to housing which I’d be glad to have in my back yard.

What makes a development worth promoting?

Considering our current housing crisis, I don’t see much benefit in building that doesn’t include affordable (subsidized to be rented out below market rate) units. I will only fight for developments which include a sufficient number of subsidized units. My votes on developments without a sufficient number of affordable units will be on a case-by-case basis. I hope not to make many votes on developments like these and rather ensure that every project which comes before the council includes subsidized units, moving us towards a housing market which works for all.

What does it mean to de-commodify land?

As it is now, land is treated as an investment just like stocks, bonds, or baseball cards. The difference is that land is necessary to provide housing, and housing is a human right. I don’t believe that peoples’ human rights are something to be bought and sold. We need to extend that value to housing by de-commodifying it. Policies we can introduce to move towards that goal include a public-option for housing, or tenant owned and run developments.

What else can we do while necessary housing is being built?

While there’s a lot we can do to address our housing crisis, these solutions don’t work overnight. Buildings take time to be built, laws take time to put in place, and the overall situation takes time to adjust to our policies. In the mean time, Santa Cruz needs to take care of the people who our town has so far failed. This means providing real safe parking options for those living in vehicles, not criminalizing like the city attempted to do with the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. It also means giving access to food, space, healthcare, clothing, sanitation, etc. to those living outside. Santa Cruz has seen incredible mutual aid efforts by groups such as Food Not Bombs, and has responded by criminalizing these groups. That’s backwards, and that’s disgusting. We need to be proud of these efforts, and extend their work to all who need it while we work on providing lasting solutions.

How can we increase housing supply?

On the local level, we can up-zone parts of our city. This would make it legal to build multi-family homes like quad-plexes or small apartment buildings rather than just single family dwellings. This goes to address the issue of the “missing middle” that so many people talk about in America. In Santa Cruz we need options for housing between just single-family homes or large apartment buildings. As the city, we can also push UCSC to build more on-campus housing which can lessen the demand for housing in the city. We have also been given a fantastic solution by the community! The Empty Home Tax in on the ballot this November, and once adopted, will increase supply by putting people in houses which are now unoccupied. The funds raised from EHT will increase housing supply as well, this will be done by building, up-keeping refurbishing low-income affordable units.

Is the state doing too much or not enough to regulate local governments?

This is a hard question. I think the state needs to be very careful and deliberate with their regulations of local government. While it’s an objective good for the state to force cities towards more progressive housing policies, such as zoning promoting duplexes, our state government can’t have the in depth understanding of communities that local governments do.