Split council unable to agree on November ballot measure
The Healdsburg City Council split Monday on whether to place a housing bond on the November ballot, effectively missing a deadline to move forward on the idea.
While all four councilmembers present at the meeting (councilmember Leah Gold was absent) supported some sort of financing method to provide a housing subsidy for low income families, they were divided on whether it is advisable to push for a bond at this time.
Public speakers at the meeting were also united in support of finding a way to pay for worker and family housing, but divided on timing and tactics.
“I urge that you delay,” said Gail Jonas. “There are too many decisions that need to be made tonight and there are alternatives that have not been considered.”
Jonas and others pointed out that voters will be asked to approve state housing bonds this November, and with a local bond and a growth management modification on the ballot, voters could feel overwhelmed and start voting no on everything.
Ari Rosen supported the idea of placing a bond on the ballot next year as a special election. “We need a comprehensive plan for housing in this community,” he said, advocating that the city consider “not only a bond measure but a reallocation of the transient occupancy tax” from community services to housing.
Speakers came from outside Healdsburg as well. Susan Upchurch, the district director for west county supervisor Lynda Hopkins, read a prepared statement on Hopkins’ behalf, supporting immediate action on a housing bond, in order to address a critical housing shortage in the country.
“Children are our future,” said Upchurch. “When a vast majority of our school kids live in a situation where their parents have to make the choice between paying rent and buying food, how will this affect these children and their ability to have successful outcomes?”
Councilmember Shaun McCaffery was on the side of moving ahead now. He argued that the County of Sonoma had already done much of the groundwork for a countywide bond, before relinquishing the idea after business and agricultural groups opposed it.
“A lot of people were counting on that money,” McCaffery said, referring to the scrapped county bond. In response to concerns that a bond would cost almost twice the issuance amount after compounded interest for 30 years, McCaffery noted that all municipal bonds work that way, as well as personal mortgages. “Every single person who takes out a 30-year mortgage has the same thing … everybody does it,” he said.
Councilmember Joe Naujokas favored a cautious approach. “I’m firmly in the camp of ‘what’s the rush?’ — we can do this (a bond) whenever we want,” he said. “If we go to the voters we have to have the strongest argument possible.”
Councilmember David Hagele agreed. “It would be a mistake to put it on the ballot in November,” he said. “We have to educate people on what it would be used for, we need to have that dialed in.”
Hagele asked that the city staff update the city’s current housing needs assessment, which is using 2014 data. “It’s not reflective of where we are today.”
Mayor Brigette Mansell, who pushed for the council to consider a November bond, was clearly frustrated that she could not muster support for immediate action. “I’m disappointed that you can’t see the urgency for this November,” she said to her fellow councilmembers. “Man, we gotta try, it’s all about effort, it’s all about passion.”
In the end, with two councilmembers favoring a bond on the November ballot and two favoring more time to plan, the issue never came to a vote.
The council agreed to task the Community Housing Committee with studying the issue of housing financing, which could include a bond, a local land trust, or other tools. The council and the housing committee will meet in a joint session as soon as it can be scheduled.
