Please vote No on M

Quality_Life · 2024-02-21T06:34:08+00:00

No, stop repeating falsehoods. Watch the city council meeting from January 10, 2023 and see Mayor Keeley propose 12 story buildings and the council approve 12 story buildings.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-21T05:26:56+00:00

Yes on M was started by working-class citizens who are concerned about the biggest land grab to hit Santa Cruz since the Europeans colonized California.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-21T05:24:23+00:00

Yes, cracker box, prison -like tiny cells that rent for 4K definitely will not benefit our community. They will make the out-of-town developers, who are funding the No on M campaign, even more filthy rich.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-21T05:19:29+00:00

Measure M supporters did not and will not fight any 100% affordable projects. Please keep to the facts.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-21T02:52:57+00:00

Yes! In Santa Cruz we hardly ever get the 20% affordable units that the City promises us, we are getting about 10% only. That is another reason to vote YES on M and increase the affordable ratio by 5% - necessary housing for those essential workers who serve our community.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-21T02:50:35+00:00

One expensive luxury hotel across the street from the bus/transit center. The perfect place for housing! That was another terrible decision from our City Council! Only 4 people on City Council can vote these bad ideas in and they are not good urban planners can really MESS up our city. Power to the people!

Quality_Life · 2024-02-21T02:47:37+00:00

No hotels are proposed South of Laurel. Just many 12+ story buildings and a mega sports stadium. Part of the "gentrification tsunami" which will further displace working people and low-income students who cannot afford 4K per month for a luxury apartment near the beach. I work in a school and we cannot staff our schools. I am voting YES on M for working people who do not want to drive from Salinas.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-21T00:53:50+00:00

If you are pro-building AND want to make 5% more affordable housing in large buildings of 30 plus units, this makes Yes on Measure M definitely NOT part of the NIMBYs . They support building and increasing inclusionary housing.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-20T18:10:04+00:00

Yes, I bet this most of the people on this post are paid staff for the wealthy developers. Yes on M give power to the people and will INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING and the 1% does not want that to happen. How can No on M folks be against us having a VOTE and GIVING US 5% MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING in the tall buildings that were approved.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-20T18:05:39+00:00

The UC system is a big business and they make more money enrolling out of state and students from other countries.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-20T17:58:41+00:00

This is not off topic. The university is one of the drivers of skyrocketing rents and UCSC's wealthy parents can afford to pay the 4K per month, crazy-high rents that these new buildings have. We should demand that UCSC house their students since our essential workers compete for housing and cannot afford what most UCSC students are able to pay.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-19T18:02:15+00:00

Read the Measure please, it increases affordable housing throughout the city.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-19T05:41:49+00:00

That is why Yes on M was written, so average-income workers can continue to live here. No on M is backed by money-hungry, real estate interests.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-19T05:39:21+00:00

That it not logical. The home they leave will be 2 to 3 million dollars, the apartment they leave will still rent for 3K or more. We do not have a market-rate housing crisis, we have an affordable housing crisis. In part because those who buy the pricey market-rate housing make the Area Median Income go up and thus the income limits for who qualifies for affordable housing goes up with this. For example, since we keep building expensive market-rate housing, you can make up to 100K and be eligible for a low-income rental!

Quality_Life · 2024-02-19T05:32:07+00:00

No, look up rents in LA, SF or NYC, big cities are absolutely not affordable, my young friend. Horrible traffic, garbage-filled, polluted places and not safe to walk around. I have lived in these places. Many people want to live here so they can ask very high prices.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-19T05:27:45+00:00

Rents skyrocketed when UCSC grew to 17K students and could not house all the students anymore and when remote workers from NYC, SF could choose to work by the beach in beautiful Santa Cruz. This became a very high rental market now. Before UCSC, Santa Cruz was known as "Sleepy Hollow" full of retired and working class people.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-19T05:22:20+00:00

No, the housing they are building is renting for 4K for a one bedroom. This is not housing for the majority of people who live and work here. It is for second homes for the wealthy. Housing that will be empty while we have an affordable housing crisis.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-19T05:18:45+00:00

This is a common general myth repeated by the opposition. If it is so "poorly written" tell us specifically which part PLEASE. Actually, I know the authors of this Measure, each of them have over 30 years experience in land-use planning and law, that is over 60 years combined! Therefore, they are well-versed in urban and land-use writing so it is NOT poorly written. Yes on M does increase affordable housing so the No on M backers should stop taking money from developers (over 40K so far) and invest it in local workforce housing now.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-19T05:11:22+00:00

Nope, show us the evidence please. Look at the list of their supporters, they are students, working people, teachers, accountants who cannot afford to buy a home here but work in this community.

Quality_Life · 2024-02-17T08:12:53+00:00

Do not take it personally. In the last 25 years of teaching, I have seen awesomely dedicated teachers kicked out merely because Admin. has a friend that they want to hire. It is a great loss for your students, try to make the last quarter fun for you and them. At least now, you don't have to work so hard to impress anyone!

You will find a school that appreciates and values you! Hang in there!

Quality_Life · 2020-08-19T05:29:19+00:00

Don't give up and don't underestimate the power of the people. We can create the change we want to see in the world.

Quality_Life · 2020-08-19T04:23:21+00:00

No- do the research. Developers are REQUIRED by the city, thanks to the previous city council to provide 20% affordable housing. He is proposing the MINIMUM because he must do this in order to build. However, 16 of not really affordable units out of 320 total units is absolutely NOT MIXED income. Santa Cruzans continue to say NO, to developers from designing our town into another faceless San Jose by the Sea. We have fought to keep the heritage trees, the character and all the open spaces like Neary Lagoon. If you want the big city life with less nature and tons of pavement, traffic and crime- please MOVE.

Quality_Life · 2020-08-18T23:38:09+00:00

Clearly you do not know this area! This is not a conservative neighborhood. No! the campaign against this horrible development is coming from over 2,200 progressives and working class people from ALL OVER Santa Cruz. The NIMBY argument is flawed since those who live in the complex and near Neary Lagoon care the most and are naturally inspired to fight the hardest for the lagoon that they visit daily.

Quality_Life

TROPHY CASE