Letters to the Editor 10-29-15

Thoughts on inflation
Editor: I have seen a struggle between labor and management all during my lifetime. There have been some long periods when the system was in equilibrium, as in the recent past since the great recession began.
It seems the large, continuous flow of Mexicans, El Salvadorans, and Guatemalans from the south have continued to keep the wages of laborers low, as there are always new emigrants to fill the jobs at low wages. Most recently, in Healdsburg we have seen out-of-town landlords buying houses for weekend tourist rentals, as it is quite profitable. Now there is evidence that financiers – not only from out of town, but out of country – are looking to Healdsburg renters as a means of making extraordinary profits in a time when investment returns are quite low.
Locals were distressed at those who recently bought an apartment complex, gave all tenants the boot, and told those who might want to return after the complex had been rebuilt, that rents would be 40 percent higher.
Most local landlords have not raised their rents for several years. It is the greed of absentee landlords who are only in this market to make exorbitant returns on their investments, who have set up a situation which will affect us all. We are not alone in this situation. The rents in nearby towns might be less than Healdsburg, but have been increasing due to the same type of landlords.
So where will the vineyard workers, house cleaners and hotel workers live? Some may find places to rent in nearby towns they can almost afford, and commute to Healdsburg. The same is true of many other service job holders who now live in Healdsburg or commute here for work.
We actually have several “affordable” housing units in town and there are several firemen, policemen, and teachers who cannot find an available one and cannot afford the price. Some now live in Healdsburg, so where will the next generation of those people live? This will be a contentious issue for many years as the incentive to build new housing would logically go to those whose houses offer the highest profit potential for the builders.
The cure seems to be strictly economic. If the hotel workers, vineyard workers, etc. cannot afford to commute to their jobs, those businesses will either move to another location, go out of business, or raise the compensation for their workers so they can afford to commute. Assuming those businesses raise their workers’ wages, the domino effects would be felt in increased cost of hotel rooms, wine, and everything else until a new equilibrium is reached. This is inflation. Economists generally believe there is no inflation in the pipeline; based on my thinking, they are not seeing the local inflation of which I speak.
This is not unique to California. Many other East and West Coast states are experiencing the same situation. Adding 85,000 future “Syrian” refugees will only make this situation worse. We have too many workers for the available jobs.
Since the rich generally own the resources, they will likely continue to do well financially until some significant event occurs. The future may be more than challenging.
John Murphy, Healdsburg
Moral authority
Editor: As a Healdsburg resident, I am concerned about the local rent crisis. I have spoken several times at City Council meetings to address this crisis, adding my voice to those asking the council to use some form of rent stabilization to stop the current exodus. There is a great need to protect the many people who live in constant fear of losing their homes and community.
In August, the Healdsburg City Council created a Rent Stabilization Advisory as a measure to counter further mass evictions and dramatic rent increases. This move came as a reaction to the demand of many residents, homeowners and renters alike, to implement a moratorium on rent increases, followed by some form of rent control. However, the Rent Stabilization Advisory was a purely voluntary measure to commit landlords to not raise rents more than 10 percent per year. Non-cooperation by landlords, lack of supervision by the city, and especially, the lack of any legal binding mechanism prevented success from the beginning. It was a toothless effort to stop the rent crisis.
At the October 19 City Council meeting, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission presented a bold and much needed policy for ending homelessness by building housing in cities throughout Sonoma County. According to the commission, more than 3,000 people are homeless on any single night, two-thirds of these without any shelter. The commission further states that 50 percent of low-income households pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent. The accepted affordability standard is 30 percent or less of household income.
These are staggering numbers. Add the escalation of the real estate market to the current depressed low wages. The result is a large exploited population on the brink of becoming homeless. The Community Development Commission has a 10-year plan, starting next year, to end homelessness by building various forms of shelter. Ten years is a long time to project a specific number of homeless to a specific number of units needed (2,200).
Neither the Rent Stabilization Advisory, nor the Community Development Commission report, are presently addressing the urgent need to prevent further drastic rent increases, evictions and displacement. The present plans ignore a vulnerable population. Consequently, the actual numbers of homeless people, and of housing units needed in the next few years may be much higher than the projections of the Community Development Commission, which do not appear to factor in loss of existing housing to rapidly rising rents.
I ask the City Council to use their political and moral authority to implement a moratorium on rent increases, followed by some form of rent control. A vulnerable population deserves priority in their decision making. Rent control will not drive anyone into poverty. No action, on the other hand, will.
Heidi Marino, Healdsburg
Wait on traffic signal
Editor: I have seen Memorial Bridge and it is a thing of beauty. The city most certainly did the right thing to refurbish this Healdsburg icon. However, I urge the City Council not to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Healdsburg Avenue and Front Street, at least until the new four way stop control has been given a chance to prove that this is all the intersection control that is needed.
The primary problem at this intersection is sight distance, not traffic volumes. Motorists on Front Street and Kennedy Lane have a difficult time seeing vehicles approaching on Memorial Bridge because of the superstructure of the bridge. I have experienced this many times myself, going back to when I was in high school (Class of 1954). A traffic signal can always be installed later if it is proven to be necessary. The plans are no doubt complete.
I recall that the city built a traffic signal at the intersection of Matheson and Center Streets. It created a lot of congestion and didn’t solve any problem. This intersection has functioned quite well since the traffic signal was removed and four way stop control was installed. I expect that this intersection handles more traffic than that which is present at Healdsburg Avenue and Front Street.
By the way, engineers, and traffic engineers in particular, love to build things like traffic signals. I know, I’m one of the latter and have designed hundreds of traffic signals throughout my career.
And yes, some of those weren’t absolutely necessary either. Some engineers think that they have to build things to be an engineer. I believe that an engineers job is to solve problems. A traffic signal here is a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Glenn Grigg, Healdsburg