The many reasons to oppose Keeley housing tax

I agree the city needs more affordable housing, but I strongly oppose Mayor Keeley’s workforce housing tax proposal.

I’m voting no because city staff drafted and approved the measure before handing it to paid signature gatherers. Mayor Keeley used this political maneuver to circumvent state law voter approval thresholds.

I’m voting no because Mayor Keeley’s tax proposal will never generate enough funds to build anything. Instead, the funds will be used to hire city employees to study the problem or will be dispersed to nonprofits or contractors with no accountability.

I’m voting no because raising the cost of buying, selling or owning property in this city to make housing more affordable is counterintuitive.

I’m voting no because when Mayor Keeley’s tax proposal was rejected by voters throughout the county, he focused on city property owners.

Mayor Keeley knows that the community up the hill, upon whom this tax will have little if any effect, will overcome any opposition from local property owners.

In other words, I find the behavior distasteful and the proposal counterproductive.

— Owen Hendricks, Santa Cruz

South of Laurel: City’s rationale is ‘bogus’

About the South of Laurel plan. The notion that the city of Santa Cruz is constrained by state laws regarding housing is entirely bogus.

The plan is a graphic expression of General Plan policies and values. It is not a developer application seeking permits, which might take advantage of state housing laws regarding density bonuses or height exceptions.

There seems even to be confusion at the city. The mayor is negotiating fewer units and reduced building heights. Why? It’s his and the City Council’s plan.

Replicating development currently under way along Front and Pacific seems inconsistent with city policy for housing diversity. Surely housing needs for the hospitality worker with two kids are different than those of UCSC students or Silicon Valley workers. Why consign them to large tenement developments?

A mix of townhouses, low-rise and walk-up housing in addition to apartment towers seems more in line with city policy.

— Peter Katzlberger, Felton

Finding solace in midst of Trump policies, orders

Like many people I know I am worried, upset, depressed and sad about the government’s policies and the president’s executive orders. I won’t go into details here.

I want to share my solace in these troubled times. Go outside! Take a hike, go to the beach, a park, your yard and enjoy the best thing we’ve got; our beautiful land.

We can immerse ourselves, and forget the sadness and anger for a while. Being in nature always brings joy and wonder back into my life.

Sometimes it also moves us to help. Become a docent, join volunteer days, beach cleanups and beautify your own yard. It will feed your soul and lighten your spirit.

— Laura Shaw, Bonny Doon

Pausing reciprocal tariffs raises many questions

The decision to pause the president’s executive order “Regulating Imports with Reciprocal Tariffs to Rectify Trade Practices,” instituting reciprocal tariffs following the declaration of trade deficits as a national emergency, raises questions such as which reciprocal tariffs are on again, paused, or off again. Does the 10% baseline still apply? Is a no-win trade war with China a national emergency?

Historically, tariffs have been regressive. They generate revenue, protect domestic industries, facilitate trade negotiations, and encourage consumers to buy domestic goods by reducing foreign competition. Although foreign producers or owners importing goods into the U.S. technically pay the reciprocal tariffs, the costs are ultimately passed on to U.S. consumers and manufacturers through higher prices.

Economists are bewildered by the president’s focus on trade deficits since they represent normal economic activity and don’t indicate unfair competition or an inherently weak economy. The timeline for pausing reciprocal tariffs raises further questions about the motivation behind import regulations that undermine global trade.

Overall, I’m concerned about the volatility in the stock markets and the potential long-term consequences of trade barriers.

— Sean Livingston, Santa Cruz