www.montereycountynow.com OCTOBER 1-7, 2026 MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY 17 street and sidewalk repairs, parks, and youth and senior programs. Roughly 16 percent of the city’s workforce would be in jeopardy if the tax lapses. There are legitimate, strong arguments that the city government could run leaner. Those are worth pressing separately. But gutting the city’s revenue isn’t the way to force that reckoning, especially as federal cutbacks under the Trump administration continue to target California initiatives. The local community needs to keep the torch burning, while electing a council that mandates further savings from City Hall. MEASURE H | SALINAS RENT STABILIZATION | YES Measure H is not a vote on whether to build more housing, and both sides agree (and so do we): Salinas needs more housing. The city issued 544 permits from 2023 to 2026, all for moderate-income housing or above, toward a state-mandated target of 6,674 units by 2031. None of that changes on Nov. 3. What changes is who bears the burden of the housing shortage while the city waits for supply to catch up. A yes vote repeals four ordinances: a rental registry, enacted in 2022, followed by three renter-protection ordinances passed in 2024—a tenant anti-harassment policy, restrictions on evictions and rent stabilization cap of annual increases no greater than 2.75 percent of rent, or 75 percent of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is lower, on multi-family units constructed before Feb. 1, 1995. A yes vote would send Salinas renters back under state law: Assembly Bill 1482’s 5-percent-plus-CPI cap, with a sunset date of Jan. 1, 2030. A no vote keeps the local protections in place indefinitely, enforced through a cityrun program (though a future council could still amend or repeal them). Neither outcome accelerates construction or resolves the underlying crisis. Any new housing in Salinas will be built, or not, based on perceived economic opportunity by developers, infrastructure, water and political will—forces that have nothing to do with whether a pre-1995 apartment can raise its rent by 2.75 percent or 5 percent. According to the state, the city needs roughly 1,520 units at extremely low-, very low- and low-income levels. The city has produced essentially zero of those units in recent years. The families the rent stabilization ordinance protects have nowhere else in the pipeline to go. The evidence we reviewed suggests Salinas’s moderate, CPI-linked design produces smaller negative market effects than the Yes on H side claims, while delivering real and consistent benefits to the families it covers. But the benefits are narrower than the No on H side acknowledges—and the costs are real. Research from comparable communities shows that tenants in rent-stabilized units tend to stay put, sometimes for decades. That stability, while genuinely valuable to incumbent families, reduces turnover and shrinks the pool of available units for everyone else trying to get a foothold in Salinas. Those in protected units benefit; everyone else does not. There is also a maintenance problem. Owners of rent-stabilized properties, facing capped returns, tend to reduce investment and meet only the minimum standards. Over time, that means the oldest, most affordable housing stock in Salinas—the pre-1995 buildings—slowly degrades. The tenants that the ordinance was designed to help end up in deteriorating units with nowhere else to go. Rent stabilization as currently written will deliver meaningful protection to roughly 1 in 5 rental units in the city, while newer buildings and incoming renters absorb higher market rents. That is not a solution to Salinas’ housing crisis. It is a tradeoff that asks some renters to subsidize stability for others. It’s an uncomfortable decision, either way. This issue has become deeply polarizing for Salinas. It’s the result of an impassioned referendum effort led by tenants and volunteers who collected more than 10,000 signatures to get this on the ballot, a sign of how much this matters to voters. In many ways it matters as much as a proxy for housing woes as it does in terms of policy that stands to materially improve the housing market. We hear the impassioned plea of renters, but we are unpersuaded this suite of ordinances is the right solution. MEASURE I | CARMEL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND | YES Carmel Unified School District has the highest per-pupil spending of any Monterey County school district, at $34,438 per student. And yet, walk around Carmel High, for example, and you’ll quickly see the campus is desperate for an upgrade. Measure I is MICHAEL DADULA JOEL ANGEL JUÁREZ Road work in Pacific Grove. Measure R would bring the City’s share of sales tax to the maximum amount allowed, generating an estimated $1 million annually for 10 years for the general fund, with “fixing potholes and streets” listed as a priority item. Superintendent Caroline Cota leads South Monterey County Joint Union High School District, which serves 2,584 students in grades K-12. If Measure J is approved, SMCJUHSD is one of three districts that would be consolidated into two new districts with projected enrollments of 4,652 and 3,846 students.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjAzNjQ1NQ==