It’s been quite a week. A presidential contender — a master at weaving themes — told me that if he didn’t win the upcoming election fairly, he’d blame me and all my relations. And then he casually mentioned he’d been dreaming of staging some version of “Kristallnacht,” a spectacular evening of “serious violence” to prepare a few millions of my neighbors for relocation to internment camps so the rest of us can live in peace, prosperity and harmony like you wouldn’t believe.

And yet here I am, still dwelling on this metaphor of a 2-year-old in a car seat and questioning this community about its complicity and responsibility in the changes overtaking our quaint yet deeply unaffordable city. Am I living on two different planets? Hardly.

In the very same week, it was reported that our beloved university is an unapologetic agent of neoliberal capitalism, anxious to profiteer off of the housing crisis that they themselves helped orchestrate and intensify. They casually admitted that they’d known all along that property values soar around universities, and are naturally taking advantage of it. That’s why — way back when — Wells Fargo, posturing as the Cowell Foundation, gave them land for a campus, but held onto Pogonip for future development. And that’s why UC bought the Outlook Apartments on Western Drive, having colluded with UCSC administrators in a non-competitive, price-fixing scheme to further bolster the astronomical rents charged for on-campus housing. It’s capitalism, Seth, and not education, that drives UC policy today. And when I look at the roster of no- or slow-growth politicians and political activists hired and paid by campus administrators, well, I’ve got to hand it to them. While we’ve been thwarting any and all attempts to build housing to meet our needs, they’ve been raking it in, playing us for the suckers we are.

Santa Cruzans have accepted the same trope that fuels all bigotry and hatred, that of outside invaders ruining our town, eating our pets, taking our housing, jobs and parking spaces and driving the value of our private homes so far off the charts that our own children can’t afford to live here. Oh, and making buildings ugly by virtue of their very newness. When state government tells us to share our toys, we grow indignant, arch our backs, shoot the messengers, demand local control and stack commissions and councils with those who would make Santa Cruz great again. And, most disingenuously, we’ve convinced the undesirables themselves, scapegoats of our indignation — students, young workers, techies, people of color — to vote their support for those working to exclude them.

My generation was weaned on protest; it’s what we know; it’s what we do; it’s what we’re most proud of. But protest ran its course four years ago come Jan. 6. Anger is now the opiate of the masses.

Neighborhoods exist to support permanent residents; not tourists, not students. We must make our neighborhoods welcome to our young, our old and to those who support this community through their labors. Single-family properties with oversized, underutilized homes must accommodate multi-family, multi-cultural, multi-generational and mixed-income residents through zoning rules that already exist but have yet to be revealed and supported by local officials.

Our downtown must welcome high-density, high-rise housing to populate and empower our urban core as the post-retail cultural and social center of our community engagement.

And our transit corridors must fully accommodate our transient populations — visitors and students. Neither group is compatible with stable neighborhoods. Both would thrive on and support the commercial streets that lead to campus, beach, downtown and, eventually, back to where they all come from.

Acknowledging the difference between living here permanently and just visiting is the first step in planning a safe, inclusive future. It’s long overdue.

Mark Primack would like to hear from you at mark@markprimack.com.