In the public interest: Housing harbinger: Is the community ready for more projects like the Santa Cruz Food Bin redevelopment?

In 1969, singer Edwin Starr repeated a question heard around the world: “What’s the point of war?” » then followed up with the definitive answer: “Absolutely nothing”.

Reporting on a story published Tuesday about the Food Bin redevelopment in the city of Santa Cruz, the new powers of developers to get what they want and the diminished influence of project-by-project politics, I found myself humming regularly Starr’s chorus, although with my own twist, “Public hearings on developments at city council and planning commission meetings: What are they for in the new Californian real estate landscape? Absolutely nothing. (?) »

These hearings are far less important in deciding the fate of new development than they once were in California communities. Developers know this, but the community and elected officials are still catching up. “Absolutely nothing” might ultimately prove to be an extreme answer to the question, but we’re at a time where everyone is still trying to figure it out.

A rendering of the proposed development at Mission and Laurel streets in Santa Cruz, where the Food Bin & Herb venue is now located. Credit: Worktable

The redevelopment of Food Bin, a five-story, 59-unit apartment project proposed by Workbench, will be a reset of the Mission Street corridor, where buildings barely exceed two stories and none exceed three; not to mention the density. It may also prove to be a reset of the public’s understanding of its influence in destroying or drastic downplaying of a development project. The Santa Cruz City Council will take a final vote on the project Tuesday. As I report in my article, the vote will be something of a proxy: The proposal complies with state law and the city’s general plan, making it nearly impossible for the city council to reject it, despite objections from neighbors.

As Workbench co-founder and chief architect Jamileh Cannon told me, it’s an “exciting time” to be a real estate developer, but there are new challenges to balance; namely, continuing to pursue ambitious and slamming housing projects while making the community feel cared for despite its diminished power.

To note

Power struggle within the supervisory board: “Say,” “debt,” “cuts” and “layoffs” are not the words the public wants to hear from elected officials responsible for managing their tax dollars and their services. All four were upset last week as tempers flared during the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors’ 2024-25 budget discussion.

In opening discussions last week, County Executive Carlos Palacios noted the difficulty of crafting a budget that does not propose program cuts or layoffs at a time when the county is desperately short of financial wiggle room. . However, this requires compromise, and Palacios decided not to dedicate any local tax revenue to regular road maintenance.

District 1 Supervisor Manu Koenig rejected the proposal, saying roads are among the most basic services a government provides. He proposed ordering Palacios to dedicate $4 million of the county’s tax revenue to roads, and $6 million from the new county sales tax increase that voters approved in March through Measure K. “We can’t continue like this,” Koenig said of the county’s lack of resources. road investment.

Palacios got defensive, reminding Koenig that the money he was seeking would require cuts to another department’s budget or programs.

“It’s going to be very painful,” Palacios said. “If we want to blow the budget, we can do it, I can do it, and we can get 300 people together (at the next budget hearing on June 4) and have a massive food fight, and I’m not doing it. I think everything will change. Every penny is allocated. There is no new funding.

Koenig said he couldn’t think of an easier way to do it. At one point, District 4 Supervisor Felipe Hernández supported Koenig’s motion to fire Palacios for proposing cuts in the name of road maintenance; however, the vote would have been tied 2-2, because in the middle of the discussion, District 2 Supervisor Zach Friend left the stage without explanation and did not return. A friend later told me that he had a leak in his house and had asked for a plumber to come out at the time.

When I asked him why he didn’t say anything to the public that he was accountable for his departure, when the supervisors had more say in the matter, he defended the reason for his departure but replied, “I can see where do you come from. »

The four remaining supervisors ultimately settled on a compromise, led by District 3 Supervisor Justin Cummings, who directs Palacios to return in September with options for how the county could better invest in road infrastructure.

Looking forward

Clarity on Watsonville Airport: I’ve written about local government, in one form or another, across the country for the past decade, and this week I came across a first. The Watsonville City Council will vote to clarify a decision made more than two months ago regarding the closure of a runway at the Watsonville Municipal Airport. The resolution emphasizes that the city council voted only to study closing the trail, not to close it permanently. In March, the City Council narrowly supported a closure as a way to free up land around the airport for housing development, but the Federal Aviation Administration will first have to greenlight the plan.

A vote clarifying the intent of an earlier decision isn’t too uncommon, but the resolution submitted to the Watsonville City Council cites specific moments, with video timestamps, from that initial March 19 meeting to make its point. view. This looks more like an evidentiary document you’d find in a court filing, and that’s likely because the city is facing an active lawsuit from the Watsonville Pilots Association, which claims the city council voted to close the track, not simply to explore its closure. .

South County Cannabis Review: It appears that eight years after California legalized recreational cannabis, communities are rethinking how to regulate the market. The governments of Watsonville, Santa Cruz City and Santa Cruz County have all considered significant changes to their cannabis rules, and on Tuesday the Watsonville City Council will take the first step in codifying some of those changes. Among them, increasing the maximum cultivation area for cultivation permits by 340%, from 5,000 to 22,000 square feet. The city will also look to expand its cannabis manufacturing permits from nine to 15 across the city.

Independent police audit recommends changes: The City of Santa Cruz’s independent police auditor, OIR Group, has released its annual audit of the Santa Cruz Police Department and will present its report to the Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday. The OIR group listed 14 recommended changes for the city’s law enforcement agencies, including several related to handling officers who witness an officer-involved shooting, and changing a policy that allows officers to review footage from their body-worn camera before giving a formal witness statement.

Weekly news diet

Local: After some pushing, the community finally learned last week when the sheriff’s office might begin allowing Santa Cruz County Jail inmates to hug their families again. The jail’s contact visitation program has been suspended since 2020. Sheriff Jim Hart said contact visits could resume by the end of summer, but will depend on hiring.

Golden State: Graduate students at UC Santa Cruz went on strike last week to protest campus police’s treatment of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. On Tuesday, graduate students at UCLA and UC Davis followed UCSC’s lead, giving up their jobs and demanding amnesty for protesters. The strikes come at a critical time for campuses, as students prepare to take their quarterfinals. The president of the university system said the protests were a violation of the workers’ employment contract.

National: How do you push for the vice presidency without looking like they want it too much? Republican Sen. Marco Rubio is trying to toe that line as the 2024 election draws closer and the window for Donald Trump to choose a vice presidential nominee narrows.

A great vintage read

Walking by Henry David Thoreau, for The Atlantic (1862)

I spent the holiday weekend hiking in Big Sur, surprised that my favorite trails remained somewhat of a secret to the throngs of Memorial Day weekend visitors. Hey, you all enjoy the concrete majesty of Bixby Bridge, I’m going to go get lost among the redwoods, deep in the canyons and ridges of the landscape.

It’s hard to spend a weekend traveling through some of the country’s most beautiful wilderness without thinking of Henry David Thoreau, the 19th-century naturalist who urged us to get out of the office, out of the house, out of the chair, and into ourselves. engage directly with nature. world. One of the best examples of this work is his essay “Walking,” the only piece of literature you’ll need to inspire you to get up and move.

After re-reading the essay this weekend, I was surprised by Thoreau’s foresight.

“At present, in these surroundings, the best part of the land is not private property; the landscape does not belong and the walker enjoys relative freedom. But perhaps the day will come when it will be divided into so-called pleasure grounds, in which a few will have only a narrow and exclusive pleasure, where fences will be multiplied and where man-traps and other devices will be invented to lock up the inhabitants. men on the public highway, and walking on the face of God’s earth will be interpreted to mean trespassing on a gentleman’s land. To enjoy something exclusively is to commonly exclude oneself from the true enjoyment of it. So let’s improve our opportunities before the bad days arrive.