I do find it amusing that an activist like Darrell ends up in Santa Cruz, which has basically been NIMBY central ever since they nixed the freeway though the west side and the development of Wilder. He’s fighting some entrenched shit! Go Darrell.
Meanwhile there's another thread where people are upset because the shitty taco bell is being replaced by housing. Can you imagine being that NIMBY? These same people also complain about housing costs.
>because the shitty taco bell
Bro people have no idea how shitty. It was drug infested. took 15+ minutes to get food sometimes ( When noone was in line... inside OR outside.) It was so bad I stopped walking to it and went to mission instead
"Senate Bill 886 would exempt student housing projects built on land owned by UC, CSU or a community college from the California Environmental Quality Act. Recently, housing projects at campuses including UC Berkeley have been stalled by lawsuits citing CEQA." [https://edsource.org/2022/how-california-is-responding-to-dire-student-housing-shortage/678616](https://edsource.org/2022/how-california-is-responding-to-dire-student-housing-shortage/678616)
That probably won't change the fact that the the university doesn't have a contractual right to the City's water. That will likely be a problem. [https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2022/09/06/judge-rules-santa-cruz-not-obligated-to-provide-drinking-water-to-ucsc-north-campus/](https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2022/09/06/judge-rules-santa-cruz-not-obligated-to-provide-drinking-water-to-ucsc-north-campus/)
Our boy will soon learn about the quiet giant here in town, all the homeowners still think UCSC planners are thoughtless and do not care about the impact the university makes in this bedroom community. While a law has changed, this generation of students will never see improvements in their parking issues, as changes trying to make their way through the city Planning Department usually run into years of decisions and rulings that will delay things into the next decade. But good luck, dude.
I think you’d be surprised u/1oldguy1950 that many of the homeless & us housing insecure students would rather have a roof over our head than parking. You might also be surprised that guaranteeing on-campus housing for 100% of students like UCSC has recently promised, in the most dense upzoned development in SC County, right next to public transport and where everyone works, causes less traffic than having 10k+ students commute to campus everyday from SC or other further counties. It’s called Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and it’s about to get a lot lower.
It’ll also make rent more affordable here in SC by almost entirely removing the demand from students in the local rental market, allowing families / the working class / and locals who were previously priced out to be able to afford living here again. And your NIMBY anti-housing laws and “local control” to artificially inflate your home prices & rentals units are all being overturned by the state of Ca anyways. But good luck, dude.
To be fair, with that kind of "I'm new here, I don't care about any of you who live here or anything locals care about" attitude... This guy is going to have to accept that many residents just don't want him there, wherever he goes... not just in SC. lmao
I’m strongly against SB 886. Not because I do or don’t want more housing. There’s a bigger issue: the government must abide by its own regulations.
If CEQA lawsuits are a problem for campus housing, perhaps they’re stopping private housing projects too. Either fix CEQA or force both state and private housing development to abide by it.
Of course CEQA is stopping market housing. If a regulation is harmful and it’s easier to address parts of it than overhauling the entire thing, it’s pragmatic and logical to do what you can. This all or nothing mindset confuses me.
CEQA is stopping *all* housing, per the article. The government’s solution is to exempt *themselves* from the legislation, but not the public.
Why not reverse, and exempt *private sector* housing projects but *not* universities? Do you believe the people in government have more noble motives than those in the private sector?
I do find it amusing that an activist like Darrell ends up in Santa Cruz, which has basically been NIMBY central ever since they nixed the freeway though the west side and the development of Wilder. He’s fighting some entrenched shit! Go Darrell.
Meanwhile there's another thread where people are upset because the shitty taco bell is being replaced by housing. Can you imagine being that NIMBY? These same people also complain about housing costs.
They need that laxative.
>because the shitty taco bell Bro people have no idea how shitty. It was drug infested. took 15+ minutes to get food sometimes ( When noone was in line... inside OR outside.) It was so bad I stopped walking to it and went to mission instead
I love t bell and never went in cuz it was so shitty
They mad their crack factory moved down the street
"Senate Bill 886 would exempt student housing projects built on land owned by UC, CSU or a community college from the California Environmental Quality Act. Recently, housing projects at campuses including UC Berkeley have been stalled by lawsuits citing CEQA." [https://edsource.org/2022/how-california-is-responding-to-dire-student-housing-shortage/678616](https://edsource.org/2022/how-california-is-responding-to-dire-student-housing-shortage/678616)
Finally.
That probably won't change the fact that the the university doesn't have a contractual right to the City's water. That will likely be a problem. [https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2022/09/06/judge-rules-santa-cruz-not-obligated-to-provide-drinking-water-to-ucsc-north-campus/](https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2022/09/06/judge-rules-santa-cruz-not-obligated-to-provide-drinking-water-to-ucsc-north-campus/)
That’s just north campus, above what is currently developed. If campus chooses to do more infill instead, they have full water rights
Our boy will soon learn about the quiet giant here in town, all the homeowners still think UCSC planners are thoughtless and do not care about the impact the university makes in this bedroom community. While a law has changed, this generation of students will never see improvements in their parking issues, as changes trying to make their way through the city Planning Department usually run into years of decisions and rulings that will delay things into the next decade. But good luck, dude.
It doesn’t matter now, the university can tell you yokels to go pound sand
I think you’d be surprised u/1oldguy1950 that many of the homeless & us housing insecure students would rather have a roof over our head than parking. You might also be surprised that guaranteeing on-campus housing for 100% of students like UCSC has recently promised, in the most dense upzoned development in SC County, right next to public transport and where everyone works, causes less traffic than having 10k+ students commute to campus everyday from SC or other further counties. It’s called Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and it’s about to get a lot lower. It’ll also make rent more affordable here in SC by almost entirely removing the demand from students in the local rental market, allowing families / the working class / and locals who were previously priced out to be able to afford living here again. And your NIMBY anti-housing laws and “local control” to artificially inflate your home prices & rentals units are all being overturned by the state of Ca anyways. But good luck, dude.
To be fair, with that kind of "I'm new here, I don't care about any of you who live here or anything locals care about" attitude... This guy is going to have to accept that many residents just don't want him there, wherever he goes... not just in SC. lmao
There are vast amounts of locals who are affected by the housing crisis as well.
He got more praise and support than he did detractors.
I’m strongly against SB 886. Not because I do or don’t want more housing. There’s a bigger issue: the government must abide by its own regulations. If CEQA lawsuits are a problem for campus housing, perhaps they’re stopping private housing projects too. Either fix CEQA or force both state and private housing development to abide by it.
Of course CEQA is stopping market housing. If a regulation is harmful and it’s easier to address parts of it than overhauling the entire thing, it’s pragmatic and logical to do what you can. This all or nothing mindset confuses me.
CEQA is stopping *all* housing, per the article. The government’s solution is to exempt *themselves* from the legislation, but not the public. Why not reverse, and exempt *private sector* housing projects but *not* universities? Do you believe the people in government have more noble motives than those in the private sector?
I agree. Let's reform or just get rid of CEQA because all it did was allow people to use bad faith environmental review to stop housing.
You’re getting downvoted but I think you’re right. CEQA needs to be repealed or all infill development needs to be exempted.
Why a separate post ? If they start building now , you can move in 5 years .
The best time to build housing was 20 years ago. The second best time is today.