No on 32 Editorial: Nothing to help working people

The Sept. 11 “As We See It” was one of the most brutally cynical editorials I have ever read in the Sentinel.

Santa Cruz is one of the most expensive places to live in the country. The majority of jobs in Santa Cruz are service jobs. People are desperately struggling to survive.

Prop. 32 would raise the minimum wage by $1-$2 an hour over the next two years. That is $40-$80 per week.

The California legislative analyst projects that this increase in wages could possibly raise costs by ½ of 1%. Not much.

What is the solution, according to the editors?

1. Reduce the cost of living in California. Good luck with that.

2. Tax cuts for, and deregulation of development and construction businesses.

3. Increase school vouchers. Which takes money from public schools and gives it to the wealthy to subsidize their private school “choice.”

None of these ideas have anything to do with helping the working people of Santa Cruz but they would help consolidate control by the wealthy and powerful.

— John Morris, Santa Cruz

Spend SC funds on preventing homelessness

The city of Santa Cruz (taxpayers) spend an enormous sum addressing homelessness. The bulk of that money is spent on response while very little is spent on prevention. Last month, for example, the Santa Cruz City Council approved a $140,000 contract to clean up about 40 campsites. That works out to about $3,500 per campsite.

The Sentinel’s Opinion page recently (Sept. 10) included a piece titled, “St George Apartments – Save the 71” that explained 71 elderly and vulnerable people are about to lose their low-cost housing due to drastic rent increases. Some, if not all the residents may be forced to move and likely become homeless.

If the city were to spend that same $140,000 to prevent homelessness in this case it could provide each resident with about $2,000 in rent assistance.

Even if the city were to spend more than $2,000 per resident to keep them in their homes, in all likelihood it would be less than what would be spent if they become homeless with a much more favorable outcome.

— Michael Funari, Santa Cruz

Don’t deny US was flying immigrants into country

One of the starkest examples of disinformation was a recent letter in which the person denied the existence of the Biden/Harris CHNV program, which allows the U.S. Government to fly 30,000 immigrants from four counties (Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua), into this country per month. Although the program was placed on hold earlier this year after 21 states sued claiming it was impacting their ability to provide adequate housing, medical care, and education to their citizens, last week a judge ruled against them and the current administration has announced it will resume the flights next week.

According to Homeland Security, since January 2023, the program has flown more than 357,000 immigrants to six cities in this country. Their website states they’ve immigrated more than 138,000 Haitians, 86,000 Venezuelans, 74,000 Cubans, and 58,000 Nicaraguans. Whether you agree with this program or not, let’s not deny its existence.

— Owen Hendricks, Santa Cruz

Workbench Soquel Avenue project is not progress

Why Workbench’s 1024 Soquel Ave. housing complex is not a diviner of progress, but stands in the path of progress:

• First and foremost, building on this property ignores environmental laws and climate change. (SB 330)

• Causes insufficient parking resulting in neighbors fighting over parking spaces.

• Blocks the sun for close neighbors.

• Crowds our Seabright neighborhood.

• Wastes water.

• Increases unbearable traffic.

• Develops “out of scale” warehouse ugly buildings (density bonus).

• Boom and Bust potential.

• Exploits, rids us of our well thought out zoning laws, and mines our land and water resources.

• Fools us into believing developers are altruistic or diviners of progress.

The City Council can stop this overbuilding, by ignoring donor-developers, but encouraging smart, common-sense affordable real homes for the city of Santa Cruz and surrounding neighborhoods. The state and local planners do not have the our best interest in mind, only profit.

— Joan Bare, Santa Cruz