BrogressiveTwat

Do you support the construction of market-rate housing in Santa Cruz?

I'd argue that some housing is better than no housing, but I'm also surprised at the university's short-sightedness here. They clearly must not think rent prices are a deterrent for potential students attending.

Like, building smaller, cheaper apartments actually makes sense in this case from a financial perspective if you think that better recruitment means more research and thus more grant money

Do you happen to know if newer admits are receiving better stipends? I have to imagine that at a certain point it's hard to attract new students when you can't cover cost of living

This should be a huge red flag to the university, jeez. Keep fighting the good fight.

I think you're missing a very obvious artifact here: All the small 1950's houses that cost over a million dollars and would be less than 100k elsewhere in the country. In much of the rest of the country, this is lower to middle-class housing. People with SV salaries would buy nicer housing if it was available, but it's not. So the small 1950's houses become the defacto upper-middle to upper class housing. Low to middle income people aren't likely to occupy new market rate construction, but wealthier people currently living in older houses are.

New market-rate apartments probably weren't an affordable option for low and middle class in the 70's either, but who do you think would be living in them now if they had been built back then?