Will we destroy our town in order to save it?

The March 10 commentary piece “The elephant in the room” brought to mind a quote attributed to a U.S. Army officer in Vietnam concerning a military operation there. “It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it.”
In the pursuit of “saving” affordable housing in Healdsburg, do we risk overbuilding (destroying) our town? Sadly, housing – as well as many other of life’s basics – is out of reach here for all but the relatively affluent.
Of course this is not desirable but is proving tough to change. In response to this problem, alteration of our 2000 Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) to allow more residential building is being considered via ballot initiative.
It appears that most new affordably priced homes for sale in Healdsburg will enter the market as a small percentage of larger developments in which high, market prices will prevail for the vast majority of units.
To provide sufficient homes for purchase by this route for the hundreds who work here and presently can’t afford Healdsburg, imagine how many news homes would be required – more than 1000 new dwellings?
In terms of population impact, this would be in addition to moderately priced rental apartments to be built. An additional effect would be that a substantial percentage of any new, more expensive homes will be purchased by affluent individuals as second homes for part time use.
During the 15 years my wife, Nancy, and I have lived in Healdsburg it has morphed into a wine/culinary tourist attraction and playground. This transition is a key cause of our overheated housing market. Becoming the epicenter of the regional wine and culinary culture has a downside in that Healdsburg’s small town/real town feel has been eroded.
This is not to deny there are upsides to this transition, plus the tourist taxes are welcome. But for many who actually live here we may have tipped too far from our town’s basic charms – one being small size.
It’s the future of our burg that concerns us. Even now we suffer significant traffic congestion, tour busses, many unoccupied second homes, numerous short term rentals, cars parked on every square inch of street, a fraternity party atmosphere on many weekends, an increasingly urban feel in the region around the Plaza, etc.
If Healdsburg’s population expands substantially in conjunction with increasing tourist pressures there will be threats to our air quality, water availability, health of the Russian River, quiet atmosphere and general sense of rural sanity. Should we not seek to slow this process down?
Despite all of this, Healdsburg remains a true gem, though somewhat tarnished. Hopefully we’ll resist turning it into a place such as overgrown and over touristed Carmel-by-the-Sea.
This leads to a concern about possible and as yet undefined changes in the 2000 Healdsburg GMO. Keeping what I’ve said above in mind, there may be many unintended consequences of a GMO ballot initiative that encourages increased real estate development in our town.
And from what’s known thus far, a quite substantial percentage increase in the yearly number of building permits is contemplated compared with the 2000 GMO. Apparently this number may be compounded yearly so that 10 plus years in the future the number of new building permits allowed will be formidable.
The 2016 ballot initiative rollout must be straightforward and comprehensive so voters can better estimate its impact. Residents should be provided the exact numbers of proposed new construction permits now and over subsequent years based on any future compounding. Percent increases in permits relative to both current total Healdsburg households and the 30 permit limit in the 2000 GMO should be clearly stated.
I’m not optimistic that we can build our way out of the housing affordability bind our town is in, and feel there is significant risk in this approach.
Be wary that those with financial interests in Healdsburg real estate development might use the mantra of affordable housing to promote projects that are predominantly high end, with only a few homes priced for middle class incomes.
The 2000 GMO does not impede those developers committed to building affordable housing as it contains no restriction on building permits for affordable units.
Finally, the use of the terms “elite” and “elitist” in the March 10 commentary piece was disappointing. The writer has little patience with those who don’t share his views on the GMO, suggesting their prime concern is protecting the value of their Healdsburg homes.
I can’t pretend to know many of those who disagree with his position, but if they are like me their motive in questioning the GMO issue is to promote the future well being of Healdsburg without concern about our homes’ value.
Referring to us as “elitists” turns a rational debate into an argument and listening ceases on both sides.
— Bob Combs is a Healdsburg resident