The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Pajaronian employees or of the company.
Yes on Prop 5
Yes on Prop 5 – Empowering Local Communities to Build Affordable Housing California’s housing crisis is a constant topic of conversation—filled with frustration, limitations, and seemingly endless obstacles.
But this November, we have a real opportunity to make meaningful change through Proposition 5, a ballot measure that could transform how local communities can tackle the housing shortage. Prop 5 will lower the voting threshold needed to approve affordable housing and infrastructure bonds from an unachievable two-thirds majority (66.7%) to a more attainable 55%.
This is a crucial shift, especially here in Santa Cruz County, where affordable housing is desperately needed. Santa Cruz County has consistently ranked as one of the most expensive places in the country to live.
Housing costs have skyrocketed, displacing long-time residents, forcing families out, and creating a situation where many people who work here—teachers, healthcare professionals, service workers—can no longer afford to live here.
It’s not just about housing anymore. It’s about the survival of the community as we know it. Prop 5 offers a real solution. Lowering the threshold to 55% gives local communities the power to fund affordable housing initiatives without being hampered by the overly restrictive two-thirds requirement.
Historically, even when communities are in favor of housing bonds, reaching a two-thirds majority has been a nearly impossible task. With Prop 5, that changes. A simple 55% majority will allow local governments to fund essential affordable housing projects, which means more homes and more opportunities for the people who need them most. To illustrate just how critical Prop 5 is, let’s look at Measure H.
In 2018, Santa Cruz County put forward a countywide affordable housing bond that had the potential to fund an estimated 1,000 affordable housing units. The measure received 54% of the vote, a clear majority, but it failed because it didn’t meet the two-thirds threshold.
If Prop 5 had been in place then, Measure H would have passed, and we would be seeing those homes in development right now—providing stability to countless families, seniors, veterans, and students. We cannot afford to miss more opportunities like Measure H. The stakes are too high.
We need Prop 5 to remove the outdated and overly high threshold and give voters a real chance to impact housing affordability in their communities. With 55%, we can pass bonds and build homes. Proposition 5 isn’t just about numbers—it’s about the people struggling daily with the rising cost of housing. It’s about families who are being priced out of the communities they love, seniors who are on fixed incomes and can’t keep up with rent increases, and essential workers who commute long distances because they can’t afford to live where they work.
It’s about ensuring that Santa Cruz County remains a place where people of all incomes and backgrounds can thrive. A vote for Prop 5 is a vote for housing justice. It’s a vote for giving our communities the tools they need to build affordable homes and create more walkable, sustainable neighborhoods that can grow in a way that supports everyone.
Prop 5 allows us to prioritize housing and critical infrastructure—ensuring that as we grow, we build communities equipped to handle that growth. We must stop viewing affordable housing as a luxury and start seeing it as a right. Prop 5 is a step toward that vision. By lowering the threshold to pass housing bonds, we’re saying that we want affordable housing to be within reach for everyone and that everyone deserves a place to call home.
As someone who has spent years advocating for housing solutions, I can tell you that Proposition 5 is the most critical step we can take right now to address our housing crisis. It empowers local governments and voters to make real change and brings us closer to a future where affordable housing isn’t an elusive goal—it’s a reality. This November, I urge you to vote YES on Prop 5. By doing so, you are helping to create a more just, equitable, and affordable future for everyone in Santa Cruz County. Together, we can build the homes our community desperately needs and ensure no one is left behind.
Elaine Johnson
Executive Director Housing Santa Cruz County
•••
Vote no on Measure M
I am encouraging my friends and neighbors to vote “NO” on Measure “M” and “Q” or any other property tax increases on the ballot for the following reasons:
1. Pajaro Valley School District already has 4 bond measures we are paying for on our property tax bill. There should be no more than one.
2. This measure will increase property taxes. Many homeowners who live with fixed incomes will face having to move out of the area because they cannot afford to live here.
3. This measure will also increase rents because landlords pass on their expenses to the renters.
4. We keep saying we need affordable housing. To have affordable housing we must not increase property taxes. I work with many young people who cannot afford to live here because the rent is too high and buying a house is out of their reach. So, they must commute from Salinas and other long-distance locations to get to work in this area.I am not denying our community has needs in so many ways. Increasing property taxes creates an adverse effect on what we need to keep our current residents and encourage your people to buy homes in our area. Please vote NO on Measure “M” and “Q”. Making housing affordable depends on it.
Celeste Silva
Watsonville
•••
Concerns About Kim De Serpa’s Judgment after Teen Stabbing Death
As Kim De Serpa campaigns for Santa Cruz County Second District Supervisor, her past decisions as a Pajaro Valley Unified School District trustee warrant scrutiny.
In July 2020 De Serpa’s vote to eliminate the School Resource Officer (SRO) program, which aims to create a more nurturing school environment, had tragic consequences.
On August 31, 2021 a student at Aptos High School was fatally stabbed — a tragedy linked to the absence of SROs. The event highlighted the critical role of on-campus security, leading to the program’s reinstatement—although, too late to prevent the loss of a young life.
De Serpa’s role in ending the SRO program raises serious concerns about her judgment and understanding of policy impacts. As voters consider her bid for higher office, it’s crucial to reflect on whether her past decisions align with the safety and well-being of our community.
Corinne Spreckert
Santa Cruz
•••
Vote YES on Prop 33.
We have been inundated by ads opposing this proposition. Who is paying for these ads? In a search of the “No on Prop 33” website, Google states that the website is sponsored by the California Apartment Association. This, in turn, is described as “a member organization representing apartment building owners.”
Prop 33 replaces which is very complicated and open to interpretation. (see Official Voters Guide) As the resident of a rent controlled mobile home park it has been my experience that the owners have found ways around the law and imposed excessive rent increases.
Prop 33 simply states, “The state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain or expand residential rent control…” Statements by the opponents to Prop 33 have been very misleading, such as Prop 33 is a slumlord scheme to weaken 100 affordable housing laws. This is not true. Just read the law.
Emelyn Buskirk
Watsonville
•••
Support for Kim De Serpa
I am supporting Kim De Serpa for Supervisor Second District. She has been resolute for three decades to serve our community, and also because Together For Community (TFC) means she will support or oppose issues that are favored or disfavored by a majority of the Second District residents.
I will not vote for Kristen Brown. She has shown herself to be Detached From Community (DFC). This DFC is best illustrated by her continued opposition as a past Capitola Mayor running for Supervisor. She has been outwardly against the 2019 Measure L amendment by Capitola voters which amended Capitola City’s Health and Safety Ordinance. She now openly supports Santa Cruz County doing just the opposite than the wishes of Capitola voters. From my viewpoint that means she is DFC within the Second District.
Briefly, in November 2018 Capitola residents voted YES to maintain the Capitola segment of the SCCRTC’s Rail Corridor and Trestle over Soquel Creek. The stated health and safety purpose is to keep the proposed Rail Trail entirely within the existing Rail Corridor, including across the Trestle.
Fortunately, this amendment by the citizens of the City of Capitola can only be changed by the voters of the City of Capitola.
Kim De Serpa is best for Supervisors because she will honor the voters’ desires regarding this issue and contemporary issues that will be considered by the Board of Supervisors. Remember Kim De Serpa’s motto “TOGETHER FOR COMMUNITY” and vote for her for the Board of Supervisors.
J. Ben Vernazza
Aptos
•••
Community holds opportunity
I will have a better chance to become a more successful person because here in the United States, we have more opportunities and resources to help.
My parents grew up in Mexico and had a lot of hardships growing up and family always came in first. So I believe that they made their way to the States to give my siblings and I, a better education with some unique opportunities. I’m so thankful to them because my parents had everyday struggles yet they still managed to give my siblings and I a better life than them. So yes I will become more successful but it will be thanks to them.
Leilany Gonzalez
Watsonville
•••
A vote for Kristen Brown
I will vote for Kristen Brown because I don’t want District 2 to be run like PVUSD! Kim denied protection to the students of AHS, then why would she protect us in the community? Kim has made some bad decisions so I fear her decision making skills.
Monica Hernandez
