Santa Cruz Sentinel: Guest Commentary | Vote No on confusing and misleading Measure M
By Ryan Meckel
Confused about Measure M? You’re not alone.
Let’s dig into some very confusing things about Measure M – and clear things up.
First, the private group that wrote Measure M calls themselves “housing for people.” This is confusing because they wrote the measure without the support of any of our local organizations that have worked for years to bring affordable housing to our community.
All these groups oppose Measure M: Housing Santa Cruz County, Affordable Housing Now, Housing Matters, Santa Cruz YIMBY, and the Student Housing Coalition. These groups understand that M will put up roadblocks to critically needed affordable housing.
Next, the M campaign created a compelling story about tall buildings — largely based on concern about the new apartments on Laurel and Pacific. Confusion sets in when you dig a little and learn that if Measure M had been in place when that building was proposed, it wouldn’t have stopped the building from being built. The same thing applies to the controversial proposal on Mission Street. If M were in place, it wouldn’t have set up a citywide vote on that one either. So, if you’re concerned about larger apartment buildings, Measure M is no magic bullet.
You may also be confused about Measure M’s claims to increase affordable housing in Santa Cruz, since most of their campaigning isn’t focused on creating more housing but rather wild visions of very tall buildings.
They got a bit desperate late in the campaign and created a highly doctored photo of Santa Cruz that shows about 15 super tall buildings arranged across the city as some kind of new skyline for Santa Cruz.
Their doctored photo is intentionally confusing. They want voters to think this is the threat we’re facing. We’re not facing that threat. There isn’t one project proposed in Santa Cruz that’s remotely similar to the doctored image Measure M is scaring people with.
Then there’s the Measure M story about “skyscrapers” near the Warriors arena. It’s confusing when the M proponents keep talking about them as a reality when, in fact, the Warriors have already stated publicly that they have no intention of building skyscrapers. Also, the city hasn’t changed the rules to allow for taller buildings there. We already have many democratic tools, including citywide initiatives, to vote on such proposals. This fact is a significant irony as the Measure M authors utilized those same tools to create their initiative, yet claim this is our only chance to have a say.
Another particularly confusing part of Measure M is why the authors were so careless in their writing of an important potential new law. Why didn’t they work with someone who knew how to write a law that would avoid accidentally including all kinds of costly citywide votes on issues that are not controversial? They could have kept it simple, and we’d all be less confused.
The Measure M campaign has sought to further confuse voters by casting aspersions on organizations and businesses that build or advocate for housing. But doesn’t it make sense that those who know how to build homes for our workforce and their families, as well as our elders, would be the ones to build that housing? Such groups have built hundreds of apartments for people who live and work here, and they certainly aren’t the enemy of the thousands of folks who now live in those homes.
One last confusing thing: why is it the case that progressives, labor groups, housing advocates, affordable housing developers, local businesses, and homeless service providers are all aligned in their opposition to Measure M? It might be that groups like these, and many others like them, understand that Measure M moves our community in the wrong direction and will mean fewer homes and more confusion for Santa Cruz.
Clear up the confusion by voting no on M.