Santa Cruz is facing a housing crisis and Mayor Fred Keeley’s proposed Workforce Housing Affordability Act is not the right fix. While the intention behind it may be commendable, the measure unfairly burdens working families, seniors and middle-income homeowners while lacking the transparency and accountability our community deserves.

We can all agree housing in Santa Cruz is too scarce and expensive while acknowledging the mayor’s plan takes a heavy-handed approach. It imposes a $96 parcel tax on nearly every property owner, along with a steep real estate transfer tax that starts at home sales over $1.8 million and climbs to 2% for sales above $4.5 million. In a market like Santa Cruz where modest homes can sell for over $2 million, this tax would hit far more than the ultra-wealthy; it will affect nearly all of us.

Fortunately, there’s a fairer and more balanced solution rooted in community input. The Workforce Housing & Climate Protection Act of 2025, backed by the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors, offers a more thoughtful alternative. It proposes:

• A lower $50 parcel tax, which is about half the cost of the mayor’s proposal;

• A 0.5% transfer tax on home sales over $4 million, ensuring only true luxury properties are impacted;

• Full exemptions for seniors over 55 from both taxes;

• A 10-year sunset clause compared to the mayor’s 20-year timeline;

• Funding that supports first-time homebuyers and homes for sale, not just rental developments;

• And investments in climate resilience including protections for vital infrastructure like the wharf and coastline.

So why vote “no” on Mayor Keeley’s measure?

1. It’s unfair. The mayor’s plan taxes nearly every property owner including seniors on fixed incomes unless they meet low-income thresholds. In Santa Cruz, where older, modest homes can exceed $1.8 million, the so-called “luxury tax” becomes a burden on average families.

2. It’s vague. Keeley’s proposal channels millions into a general housing fund with few details about how it will be spent. There are no concrete commitments to promoting homeownership, no clear affordability targets and no robust public oversight.

3. It’s expensive and long. A 20-year tax with few guarantees is a risky and costly proposition. In contrast, the Realtor-backed initiative is more modest, limited to 10 years, and comes with clearly defined goals and limits.

4. It sidesteps public input. Keeley’s measure was developed behind closed doors, without meaningful community engagement. A proposal with such far-reaching impact should be shaped with transparency not in private meetings.

Critics have labeled the competing Realtor-backed initiative a “dirty trick”, which is intellectually dishonest. California law gives voters the right to choose between competing measures. If both pass, the one with the most votes wins. That’s not trickery, it’s democracy.

No initiative is perfect and the Realtor-backed measure is a clear improvement. It targets luxury properties, protects vulnerable residents, and combines housing affordability with climate resilience. It offers a practical, fiscally responsible approach that serves the whole community not just a select few.

This November, vote “no” on Mayor Keeley’s housing tax. Santa Cruz deserves a better, smarter, more fair housing policy that truly reflects our values and priorities. Let’s choose a solution that lifts the entire community.

John Flaniken is a Santa Cruz County housing commissioner and a Capitola real estate agent.