|
|
|
How Santa Cruz, California, Progressive Politics Created The Housing Shortage
and is now destroying the city by permitting luxury condos.
![]() Before Now
In 1979 the Santa Cruz city passed Measure O to cap housing growth at 1.4% and in 1981 a firmly progressive majority took control of the council and their policies further prioritized slow growth and neighborhood preservation
However no such cap was imposed on UCSC which between 1979 and 2025 increased its enrollment by some 14,400 while the general population growth only increased by some 6,400.
A housing shortage was born and in 2024 Sacramento, as part of a state-wide home building program, ordered the city of Santa Cruz to build 3,736 new units
Although UCSC is building a 3,000+ bed development on its campus, in response to the 2024 housing mandate the council is overbuilding the city with disproportionally large and expensive high-rise investment-grade studio apartments and condominiums that not only are financially out of the reach of locals but that, if and when occupied, will strain the city's resources and utilities and cause more traffic congestion. And if that is not bad enough these will do nothing to solve the city's housing problem.
# # #
NOTES:
1) The city's political shift from conservative to progressive: In 1979, the election of progressive activists Mike Rotkin and Bruce Van Allen to the Conservative-leaning Santa Cruz City Council set the stage for a political shift. A progressive majority was secured in 1981 when additional left-leaning members joined the council, launching a long era of local progressive governance. Activists shifted focus to local elections with Mike Rotkin and Bruce Van Allen winning seats and they joined liberal member Bert Muhly to focus on greenbelts and rent control.
2) City Growth Cap (measure O)
in 1979, similar to the county, the city imposed a strict annual growth cap of roughly 1.4% on new city housing construction
In 1981 Two more progressive activists won election and the conservative-leaning majority was eliminated when two more progressive activists won election. Mardi Wormhoudt and John Laird joined the council. and a firm progressive majority took control and policies prioritized slow growth and neighborhood preservation.
3) A cap on new housing while the city's population grew
In 1979, the population of the city was approximately 41,000
In 1985, the population of the city was approximately 45,000 increase of 4,000 in 1995, the population of the city was approximately 51,900 increase of 6,900 In 2005, the population of the city was approximately 54,550 increase of 2,600 In 2015, the population of the city was approximately 63,800 increase of 9,250 In 2025, the population of the city was approximately 61,797 Decrease of 2,003 In 1979 - 2025 the population (including UCSC) Increases of 20,797
4) UCSC growth took it's toll on housing:
In 1979 UCSC enrollment 5,900
In 2025 UCSC enrollment 20,140 increase of 14,400 5) In 2025 Sacramento Orders California Cities to build more homes:
In September 2024 Newsom signed key reform bills—AB 1893 and AB 1886— which went into effect on January 1, 2025, to codify, clarify, and strengthen the rule to force cities to build more homes. UCSC steps up
UCSC has broken ground on a 3,000+ bed development on its campus, (A lawsuit from advocacy group Habitat and Watershed Caretakers had stalled the project)
The city is conned by developers
For the 2023–2031 state housing planning cycle (RHNA), the City of Santa Cruz was allocated a target of 3,736 new housing units, while unincorporated Santa Cruz County was assigned 4,634 units. Local reports and civil grand jury findings indicate that regional building has fallen significantly behind these mandates, leaving the area thousands of units short of its state-defined goals and affordable housing needs
# # #
|

click on image to see small print
|
The Truth About Wildfires: The Human Element
A closer look should to be taken at wildfires that are media-linked to global warming as an estimated 80% to 95% of global wildfires are ignited by human activities rather than natural causes like lightning according to the World Health Organization .
1: Common Human Causes Debris and agricultural burning: Power lines: Campfires: Equipment and vehicles: Negligence and arson:
2: Regional Breakdown of Wildfires United States: About 84% of wildfires are human-caused.
1) The current (8/2026) Washington State fire that has destroyed 600 homes. 2) The 2025 Palisades Fire destroyed 6,831 structures and damaged another 973 in the Pacific Palisades and Malibu areas. In the city of Malibu alone, the mayor confirmed that nearly 600 single-family homes were among the structures destroyed. https://laedc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/LAEDC_2025-LA-Wildfires-Study_090525-UPDATE.pdf 3) The 2025 Eaton Fire, which swept through Altadena and surrounding areas destroyed a total of 6,011 homes. An additional 100 multi-family residential structures were also completely lost to the fire: Total structures destroyed: 9,418. https://www.kcra.com/article/southern-california-edison-equipment-2025-eaton-fire-cause-los-angeles-county/73346640 4) The 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California destroyed about 11,000 to 14,000 homes, with a total of roughly 18,700 destroyed structures overall. Total area burned: 153,336 acres. https://www.britannica.com/event/Camp-Fire-of-2018
4: US Wildfire Arson Facts Percentage range: Intentionally set fires account for roughly 6% to 10% of all recorded wildfires in California, and up to 10% to 15% in specific yearly data reviews. Total yearly counts: For example, Cal Fire reported 358 arson-caused wildland fires during the 2022 tracking period. Arrests made: State fire law enforcement agencies typically make between 70 and 120 arson arrests each year depending on the severity of the fire season. Broader context: While lightning and accidental human actions (like power lines or campfires) start a larger total volume of massive acreage fires, arson remains a steady criminal risk (New York Times)
# # # Comments to editor@theStreetWallJournal.com
|

|
Chinese investment in London developments includes billions poured into commercial real estate, major regeneration sites, and corporate infrastructure. Notable mainland and Hong Kong investments include the £1.3 billion acquisition of the Walkie Talkie building and Greenland Group’s $2 billion commitment to sites like the Ram Brewery. ont-weight: 400; border-bottom-color: rgb(10,10,10); margin: 0px">Arab nations—primarily Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have invested tens of billions of pounds into London's real estate and development market. Foreign government money via Gulf sovereign funds makes up nearly 44% of international real estate investment in the capital
|
|
The "massive Arab development Thameside West, a massive £2.5 billion ($3.34 billion) waterfront regeneration project in East London's Royal Docks. The project is spearheaded by Arada, a prominent UAE-based real estate developer backed by Gulf royalty, which acquired an 80% stake in the 47-acre site Arada, the UAE-based master developer, is primarily owned by KBW Investments (60%)—chaired by Prince Khaled bin Alwaleed bin Talal—and Basma Group (40%), owned by Sheikh Sultan bin Ahmed Al Qasimi
If you are looking at Arada's Chinese business ties, consider: Construction Contracts: Arada has awarded over AED2.7 billion in main building contracts to China Tiesiju Civil Engineering Group, a subsidiary of the state-owned China Railway Group. Flagship Projects: These contractors are building a large portion of the Aljada megaproject in Sharjah and the ultra-luxury Armani Beach Residences on Dubai's Palm Jumeirah
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of Many Middle Eastern Owned Projects in London
Middle Eastern investment, particularly from UAE and Saudi developers, has seen a major surge along the Thames. For example, Aldar (an Abu Dhabi-based developer) owns London Square, which is developing prime residential real estate on the Thames dockside near Battersea Aldar investments from Apollo Management and Apollo Global Management has Chinese investors, primarily through its Global Wealth Management division and regional institutional clients. However, due to heightened geopolitical tensions, Apollo's approach to raising capital in the region has shifted heavily toward high-net-worth private wealth and away from mainland government entities. Where Apollo's Chinese Capital Comes From Greater China Wealth Management: Apollo actively raises money from wealthy individuals, family offices, and private banks across mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. It maintains a dedicated Greater China Global Wealth Management team to feed capital into its private credit and yield-focused funds. Regional Institutional Clients: The firm utilizes a Greater China Institutional Group based out of Singapore to secure capital from regional Asian insurance companies and retirement funds looking for global market exposure
The Chinese Stage Development a Case of "All's Well That Ends Well" But Perhaps Not for Londoners China Vanke was a primary equity investor and joint venture partner in The Stage, a £750 million mixed-use redevelopment project in Shoreditch, London. The Chinese real estate giant acquired a 21% stake in the consortium in November 2015. This move marked Vanke's official debut into the United Kingdom and European property markets. Strategic and Financial Details The Investment: Vanke invested over £30 million to purchase its stake from existing equity holders. The Consortium: Vanke entered the joint venture alongside Cain International (formerly Cain Hoy), McCourt Global, Galliard Homes, and Investec Structured Property Finance. Operational Setup: To manage this and future UK interests, Vanke established Vanke UK and appointed a former UBS executive, Lily Lin, as its UK managing director. Value Contribution: Beyond capital, Vanke provided additional development expertise, international connections, and cross-border marketing access to global buyers The office space at The Stage development in Shoreditch, London is fully let, but the retail and residential sectors are not completely filled. According to the master developer Cain International, the leasing and sales status is split across the different sectors of the mixed-use site:
Retail & Leisure: Leasing is currently underway. The developer is actively curating a distinct mix of boutique brands, cafés, and restaurants to populate the central public piazza and restored Victorian viaducts. Residential Apartments: Nearly sold out but units remain. The 37-storey landmark tower features 412 luxury homes. While the majority are occupied, select apartments and final upper-floor duplex penthouses remain available for immediate purchase or tenancy.
# # # |
|
'NO PAYMENT' HOME EQUITY LOANS
![]() THIS PREDATORY 'HARD TIMES' PRODUCT IS AN EQUITY-RETURN BASED MORTGAGE
that will probably strip millions of homeowners of their properties.
A case of "We take ours at the back end - and we give it to you in the rear end"
The lender's 'share of your home's equity' calculation is based on the amount borrowed as a percentage of your home's value. The lenderI will appraise your property at below its value to adjust the loan's equity percentage - and then the equity is doubled. So you would be selling your equity at under 50% on the dollar. THEN over a 10 year period and regardless of whether the property appreciates OR depreciates the sum due grows on average between 10% -19.99% a year so whatever - and the lender can force a sale if you cannot pay back the loan.
Here is a calculator by one of the lenders. https://www.jgwentworth.com/home-equity-cashout-calcul
BELOW IS HOW THIS PREDATORY LENDING WORKS
EG. A 10-YEAR HOME EQUITY AGREEMENT
# # #
|
|
A Consumers' Guide to How the Federal Reserve Affects Credit Card Interest Payments
![]() How many Americans know that the Federal Reserve is owned by the banks and NOT a government agency?
Established on December 23, 1913, by President Woodrow Wilson through the Federal Reserve Act , the Federal Reserve System (the Fed) was created as the U.S. central bank to ensure financial stability following the Panic of 1907. It serves as a decentralized system with 12 regional banks and a central Board of Governors, designed to create an "elastic" currency and regulate the banking system. Below is a Current Example of How the Federal Reserve Might Act AS A REACTION TO the current Iran conflict - at a time of great hardship for the American people - the Federal Reserve is contemplating raising interest rates to slow down inflation. But the rise in inflation will be due to increases in the price of basics. such gasoline for all forms of transport and food that can't be controlled, So the American people will be paying more so let's look at how the credit card banks would benefit Statistic 1: Cardholders pay annual interest of $159 Billion 111 million American credit card holders carry forward a monthly balance of $6.500 at an adjustable rate of 22%, each paying some $1,430 a year in interest or a total of $159 Billion
Statistic 2: A 25% rate increase would increase each cardholder fees by $3.58 When the Federal Reserve raises of lower interest rates by 25 basis points (that's .25% to most people) the impact on the majority of credit card holders in pretty minimal with average adjustment going up of down approximately $3.58.
Statistic 3: Banks currently net $132 Billion in excess interest (over the FederalFund rate) The current Federal Funds rate is 3.75% and on a card with an interest rate of 22% the margin is approximately 18.25% or $132 Billion (111.000.000 x $6,5000 x .1825)
Statistic 4: A 25% rate increase would net the banks a further $397 The annual cumulative impact on the credit card companies when the Federal Reserve card companies raises or lowers the interest rate by .25% is $397 million (111,000,000 x $3.58)
Statistic 5: A .5% rate increase would net the banks a further $795 million The annual cumulative impact on the credit card companies when the Federal Reserve card companies raises or lowers the interest rate by .5% is $795 million (111,000,000 x $7.16)
SO, LET'S LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN The key Federal Reserve member banks (Shareholders) are: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Citibank, Bank of America The major credit card issuers companies. Major credit card companies that, work with the four primary card networks —Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover are led by :
Chase, Citicorp, Bank of America. Comments to editor@theStreetWallJournal.com
(c) Copyright 2026 www.TheStreetWallJournal.com
|
![]() |
|
This Edition is Sponsored by London Art Walls
|
comments to editor@theStreetWallJournal.com
|
|
|
. A FREE CIRCULATION NEWS SHEET
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# # #