Letters to the Editor

Re: housing math
Editor: Mr. Holley was wrestling with housing math in last week’s Main Street editorial. His oversimplification of the issue was entertaining, yet troubling. The lack of affordable housing is a local, state, and national crisis. If developers could build homes with a 25 percent gross margin ($800,000 sell price and $600,000 cost), there would most certainly be no housing shortage anywhere. Nationally, the average margin generated on the sale of a new home is approximately 5 percent. That would equate to a profit of $40,000 in Mr. Holley’s scenario …. not the $200,000 that he made reference to. We live in California, and with it come some of the highest land, labor, and material costs in the entire country. A 5 percent margin on a newly constructed home in California is usually a pipe dream (unless it was built in possibly Bakersfield). While every jurisdiction is different, I think it fair to say that the intention when decreasing fees would be to offer a builder/developer some improved opportunity to generate a modest return. Historically, money has always been an effective motivator. With some assurances of a minimally-acceptable profit margin, then homes will be built. Absent that, the demand will exceed supply, thereby driving up housing prices. Mr. Holley claims that “the only way out of a housing shortage would be to overbuild and lose everything we’ve tried to preserve.” As was discussed at the recent housing forums in Healdsburg, we have already lost much of “what we had,” due specifically to the fact that we haven’t even remotely kept up with housing demand. Children, young families and much of today’s working class are endangered species in Healdsburg because of the dearth of affordable housing. A huge number of Healdsburg’s businesses employ out-of-towners because they have no place to live in Healdsburg.  In some ways, we have become the town of the landed gentry. There are creative and effective ways to address this serious housing imbalance. The first step might be to stop looking at housing as simply unpleasant or unacceptable growth, with negative impacts to our way of life. Rather, let’s instead deal with the challenge of providing homes to the people who most desperately need them. Our next step is to modify the existing growth management ordinance, so those lacking housing might have a realistic hope of someday having a home here.
Eric Ziedrich
Healdsburg
Unintended goof
Editor: I apologize for an unintended goof in my letter to the editor last week. Where I said “my one block alone has at least six long-term rentals and second homes,” I meant “six 30-90 day rentals and second homes (without occupants).” I am not talking about people who rent their home. I am talking about the use of homes solely for vacation. There are two of those directly across the street from me. I apologize to anyone who I misled.
Shonnie Brown
Healdsburg
Pure manipulation
Editor: In 2004, voters approved Measure M, a quarter-cent sales tax increase. Still in effect, Measure M raises $21 million every year, which must be spent on transportation. The latest report on the uses of Measure M funds can be found on the Sonoma County Transportation Authority website: www.sctainfo.org/measure_m_report.htm. The crucial difference is that Measure M funds are restricted to transportation, whereas Measure A funds go into the general fund and can be spent on anything. The proponents of Measure A make it sound like this is the first time the issue of road improvements has been broached, so now the need is desperate. What’s actually desperate is the growing amount of unfunded public pensions and the interest we pay on that each year. Since the first use mentioned in the text of the Measure is “public safety,” it’s obvious that Measure A’s general funds will be spent first on this mounting debt. Why is Measure A designated for the “general fund,” instead of specifically for transportation? Because a “general fund” tax measure only requires 51 percent of the votes cast to pass, but a tax for restricted purposes requires 67 percent of the votes cast. And why is a special election being held with only Measure A on the ballot — predicted to cost our county well over $300,000 – instead of the measure waiting four months until the November election? This is a deliberately cynical move. With only one thing on the ballot, voter turnout is expected to be low. That means that a tiny minority of the citizens of Sonoma County will make this decision. If Measure A were instead put on the ballot in November, voter turnout would be higher, and the likelihood of the measure’s passage would be lower. In addition, the mounting opposition to Measure A would have more time to give the voters the truth. Please vote no on June 2 on Measure A.
Jane St. Claire
Healdsburg
No more taxes, no more water
Editor: No more taxes, either by sales tax, parcel tax, or any other tax. I have been a resident in Sonoma County for 30 years, and have seen the taxes go up, up and up. I have been retired for 20 years now, and have seen my retirement monthly check go down by $600 right off of the top, $400 just in medical costs, and the prescription cost is getting out of this world. One of my prescription copays, for a 90-day supply, was $137.73 in 2010. The same drug copay for me, last time I got it in 2015, was $276. I have also seen drought conditions before, but not as bad as this year. Again the people are asked to cut down on the water usage, cut, cut and cut, just like the taxes. That is it people, all you nice residents of Sonoma County that are living here, cut down more of your water usage so the cities can build more homes or apartment houses, like Santa Rosa, Windsor, Rohnert Park or Healdsburg. Cut down on your water usage so these new residents can enjoy their showers while you continue to cut down.
Milton Lipman
Healdsburg
No on Saggio
Editor: The city council has adopted strict water conservation rules. In view of the severe water shortage, how can the city council allow the Saggio Hills project to go ahead with the construction of 70 mansions and a 130-room luxury resort? Where is the water for that? If this is allowed to be built, prepare for your water bills to go much, much higher. Fellow residents, if this concerns you, please speak up and tell the city council “no on Saggio.”
Anne Berry
Healdsburg