We can safely predict 2025 will be a year of housing development battles.

If you read Letters to the Editor on this page, or some of the guest commentaries we publish, the backlash over new housing projects has been growing.

But as local leaders have been saying for more than a year, there’s not much that can be done about it.

The reality is that the city of Santa Cruz is being required by the state of California to create 3,736 more housing units by 2031. The three other Santa Cruz County cities are also facing significant challenges in meeting housing allocations under the state’s sovereign thumb and the unincorporated areas of the county are on the hook for 4,634 new homes by 2032. The total for the entire county is approximately 13,000 units.

To say this pushes against the prevailing slow-, or no-growth ethos for the past several decades in the city and county is obvious, especially as the county population gets ever grayer (the forecast is that one in three county residents will be 65 or older in coming years). Add to that the high prices paid for local housing by empty nesters and Silicon Valley escapees and the pushback by NIMBYs on more housing seems inevitable. And don’t bring up traffic congestion and other demands on local infrastructure.

But, the state of California doesn’t care if a relatively wealthy coastal community such as Santa Cruz doesn’t want more housing, at least not a lot more. (It should be noted that the city of Santa Cruz is one of 6% of local governments tin California that met the state’s prior housing targets, partly because the city made planning changes that allowed for taller buildings downtown, a process playing out today.)

Projects are either completed in lower downtown Santa Cruz, or in the planning stage (831 Water Street and the Workbench projects on Mission Street and the downtown Clocktower among others). The city is trying to stave off neighborhood opposition to projects by increasing density in downtown areas. But even with all the projects contemplated, only about 2,500 units are on the books currently, leaving the city short by about 1,200.

All these will have a certain percentage set as “affordable,” although arguments continue to rage as to just who this will help in a city where the median income for a family of four is approximately $140,000.

But, it’s arguable that in the city of Santa Cruz most voters wish all this housing would just disappear — evidenced by the failure of Measure M, the “Housing for People” initiative on the March 2024 ballot that sought to increase the amount of affordable housing in new large developments while giving residents more say over building heights.

Meanwhile, Santa Cruz city voters likely will get to vote next November whether to tax themselves to pay for more affordable housing. The much debated measure, championed by Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley, along with housing advocates and local Democrats, would levy a flat $99 yearly parcel tax on every property owner in the city. It would also set up a “progressive” real estate transfer tax that would only apply to sales over $1.8 million. Under this provision, the rate would incrementally increase up to a 2% tax for homes selling for more than $4.5 million.

Keeley told the Sentinel Editorial Board last week the taxes would, at the outset, bring in about $1.7 million annually, or an estimated $130 million over 20 years. Keeley said that 87% of the money raised would have to be spent on affordable housing, with 10% going for homelessness prevention and 3% for administrative costs.

To counter expected opposition from groups such as Santa Cruz Together and local realtors, organizers softened some of the provisions, especially regarding controversial funding for homeless programs, and Keeley said both groups have agreed to not publicly oppose the tax measure.

Putting it on a special election ballot in November also means that it won’t have to line up with any other potential tax measures.

The question will be if there is a majority consensus regarding anything to do with more housing, much less another tax. As we said, the housing debate may just be gathering momentum.