Measure O has many complicated details—Good Times (thank you) explored some of them, combining proponents’ and opponents’ comments with reporters filling in details. If voters want to understand what they are actually voting for, they should read the proposed measure and read the independent analysis “Report to City Council” by Keyser Marsten Associates. You may find the measure far from what proponents are claiming. The facts will convince you to vote no on O.
Tim Willoughby
Santa Cruz
These letters do not necessarily reflect the views of Good Times.To submit a letter to the editor of Good Times: Letters should be originals—not copies of letters sent to other publications. Please include your name and email address to help us verify your submission (email address will not be published). Please be brief. Letters may be edited for length, clarity and to correct factual inaccuracies known to us. Send letters to le*****@go*******.sc
The so-called “independent report” of Keyser Marston was paid for by the City government at taxpayer $30,000 expense. It is based on false assumptions and incorrect in its conclusions. For example, it bases projections of affordable housing on a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre, but affordable housing projects in Santa Cruz have been built on smaller lots. False assumptions produce false conclusions. We are better served by voting Yes on Measure O than by believing “experts” who don’t seem to know much about Santa Cruz. Check out “Our Downtown, Our Future” website.