A tale of two cities (Santa Rosa and Healdsburg)

I lived in Santa Rosa for 51 years. Since 1986 my wife and I have lived in Healdsburg. I feel  the long experience in these two “cities” gives me some perspective to make judgments about our current squabble about what is best for Healdsburg.
First of all, the business community, wherever, are members of a leadership group often with a definite growth orientation. This is motivated by the complex goal of wanting a personal profit potential and wanting a happy citizenry. Happy citizens are good for business.  They strive to achieve personal and community goals at the same time.  That can be tricky. They find it difficult to understand that some citizens might not be happy about growth that has been beneficial up to now but might not be so in the future.
In Santa Rosa over the years well intentioned city councils, usually dominated by business interests, made some bad decisions. There were citizen groups that spoke out on such decisions. Always the arguments against these critics were that they were against progress that was inevitable. And of course the common accusation from the city fathers was that they were “anti-business” “anti-development” and had “no understanding of economic realities.” Its always the need for an expanded tax base that can only be achieved by more growth that motivates the city councils of both cities.
What is tragic here is that when citizens speak out they are vilified as ingrates, as whiners,  “self serving con artists” according to a recent Healdsburg letter. There may be a tipping point for any governmental decision making, when too much of what has been considered a good thing becomes the shifting weight that sinks the ship.
For former or current city council members to flippantly dismiss citizen’s concern by saying that they should “be careful what you wish for,” and “be thankful for what you’ve got”, seems an effort to silence the “whining … naysayers”, and make them appear both ignorant and superficial in their thinking and concerns. It seems to say, just go away, what you think has no validity. These are sad comments from those who have served the city and its people so well so far.
No one is challenging the good intentions of members of city council, their hard work, their devotion to public service. But when council members become defensive and disparage the  good intentions of citizens who are only thinking of what is best for Healdsburg, the city they love equally with council members, then they do a disservice to the the process of decision making. Citizens who question want answers that can reassure them that the city they love will not be hurt by certain decisions. We want to trust our representatives, and the best indication of trustworthiness might be to acknowledge that for every pro there is a con and to give study to the potential disadvantages of a decision.
Thus far the city has done well in making us a destination resort for national and international travelers. At what point do we become a traffic jam of tour busses and limousines? What is the definition of “small town” and do the number of hotel rooms affect the small town character? When and how does the City Council really poll the citizens as to what they want? Would an election on maximum size and number of hotels be a worthy subject for an initiative?  Do the water supply problems put a limitation on projects that will lead to growth? Would a concerted effort to attract clean industries and thus diversify our economy, create sufficient tax income to change our emphasis on hotels?  If someone claims the city can sustain 500 new hotel rooms, will the council say “Go” to that?
We could go on and on with questions.  We may be near that tipping point. None of us want to lose a good thing. Perhaps now is the time to decide what we want to be in the future, and if it means that we should put a brake on a few things, maybe it is time to do just that.
John Crevelli is a Healdsburg resident.