Letters to the Editor 7-30-15

Market rate housing not the answer
Editor: I’m late in responding to Mr. Reed’s letter  of July 9 about escalating home prices in Healdsburg. It contained so many assumptions stated as fact that it was hard to know where to begin. But after a recent discussion with a neighbor, I feel motivated to at least correct a misstatement in the first paragraph. Mr. Reed points the finger at “The no-growth, urban boundary initiatives of a decade ago.” First, let’s define what we are talking about. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Initiative, approved in 1996 and recently extended by a resounding majority of voters, simply sets a geographic boundary for the expansion of urban services. Although sprawl development may look like a bargain at first, it is more expensive to maintain in the long run. And in fact, there is no evidence that correlates UGBs to higher housing prices. To the contrary, cities such as Portland, with its long-standing UGB policies, have experienced less dramatic price increases than sprawl-friendly cities such as Phoenix and Salt Lake City. Mr. Reed may actually be referring to the Growth Management Ordinance passed by Healdsburg voters in 2000. This ordinance caps new housing to an average of 30 units per year. While it may inhibit the development of market rate apartments, affordable housing is excepted. Neither the growth management nor urban growth boundary measures inhibit the construction of affordable housing, because it is specifically excepted in both cases. The problem, in a nutshell: no amount of market rate housing will satisfy our need for affordable housing, because the market rate is not affordable for a large number of our residents. And yet they still seem like a bargain to the Bay Area second-home buyers and investors who snap them up. The reality is that affordable housing (defined by the county’s computation of percentage of average annual income) will not be constructed here unless it is subsidized. Healdsburg did that when we had redevelopment funds to work with. We bought appropriate parcels and worked with a nonprofit to build and manage the units. These funds have been taken away by the state, so we no longer have the wherewithal to buy property for this purpose. Until a new funding mechanism is found to provide a subsidy for affordable housing, we won’t see much of it constructed. And more market rate housing won’t necessarily solve any problems for the many local residents who don’t have the means to shop in this market.
Leah Gold
Healdsburg
Advantage of being small
Editor: Healdsburg’s housing crisis isn’t just about houses and apartment buildings. It’s a fight for the soul of a small town, a fight that other places are losing. Here’s Roger Cohen writing in the “New York Times” about London: “Real estate as investment and tax dodge, rather than as dwelling, is a life-sucking force. Georgian mansions of cream-colored splendor sit there, empty much of the time, with a banner to the great unwashed on their shuttered windows proclaiming: Stay out!” And here’s a comment on the column: “Might as well be writing about NYC or Los Angeles or San Francisco; cities where the middle class has been eviscerated. They are cities for the haves and have nots. The in-between need not apply.” In the process, these cities risk becoming what another commenter calls “theme parks.” He writes, “It’s like bars were once bars, now they’re ‘Irish’ bars, ersatz themed places; like London and Greenwich Village, once real, are now cosmetically turned into Disneylands.” We bill ourselves to tourists as having “small town charm,” but you can’t have the charm without the small town. For now, we still have one. Four-star hotels and restaurants, but also a senior center that serves lunches; spas and tasting rooms, but also a Boys & Girls Club; and shops full of beautiful objects whose owners do things like start a food pantry and help serve breakfast to elementary school children. We have people like Rodney and Charlotte Strong, who donated $2.4 million to our animal shelter; successful business people who contribute individually and through organizations like the Kiwanis and Rotary; people like Christine Webster, who doesn’t let a disabling stroke stop her from volunteering; and junior high school students, many of them from our Hispanic community, who have raised money and collected items for the food pantry. We have diversity, and therefore we have community. Our visitors don’t need to know the details to sense that Healdsburg is a real place, lived in by people of all income levels, many of them working together to make things better for everyone. For a lot of our tourists, it’s part of our appeal. And unlike London, New York City, or San Francisco, we have the big advantage of being small. We can go to city council meetings, talk to our elected officials, join with local organizations, brainstorm for solutions. If we can find ways to win the fight – if we can continue to attract tourists while preserving diversity, opportunity, and community – we can be a poster child for other, similarly embattled communities. Perhaps visitors will come here to stay in our beautiful hotels, eat in our fine restaurants, and learn from us how it can be done.
Nancy Roberts
Healdsburg
Wineries backlash
Editor: No one would disagree that the wine industry is a vibrant and important component of Sonoma County’s economic picture.  Yet the full page ad campaign by the Winegrowers assuring us that they are growing a ‘sustainable’ future is a waste of theirs and the taxpayer money funding it. Growth for growth’s sake is not sustainable. Sustainability takes into account the environment, balance, safety and economic security for all (including a living wage for workers) and the quality of life for our community. The backlash that prompted their PR campaign stems from the out of control growth of wineries and event centers by the county, and those operating without permits or ignoring the ones they have by hosting more events than allowed. This negatively impacts traffic, neighborhoods and creates safety, noise and water resource issues. It is surprising that the wine industry is pushing against the increasing community outrage to stop the out of control development of more and more wineries and event centers. Why would any business fight so hard to invite more competition? There are currently over 1,100 permit applications for new and expanding wineries in Sonoma County. Enough is enough. If we are going to talk about sustainability, our Board of Supervisors and Permit and Resource Management Department need to get a handle on how granting more and more winery and event center permits, while ignoring the destructive cumulative impacts upon rural neighborhoods and our environment, is unsustainable.
Padi Selwyn, Co-chair
Preserve Rural Sonoma County
Sebastopol