Against Measure O
I am an affordable housing advocate, but Measure O and its aftermath are riddled with issues. I see it as a huge, uncertain affordability experiment, not a plan.
It will have negative impacts on hopeful residents, if the central themes of “workforce” and “middle class” housing are not realized. Proponents have provided neither plausible evidence nor requirements that developers will build workforce housing. Luxury units are more likely to be built in the downtown and adjacent areas if the City Council implements the Capacity Study’s recommendations to raise density limits to 45-65 units per acre post-election. Vacation rentals and second homes would proliferate downtown. Council disregarded City staff’s warning that land values downtown are a likely obstacle to middle-income development. Council also ignored polling results showing stiff resident concerns on downtown development.
Measure O is overwhelming in coverage. It includes the South Entry Area of 88 acres (why?), a 2-mile stretch of the Healdsburg Avenue corridor, over 50% of the Downtown Commercial District, hundreds of parcels and many very large lots that can hold 100-200 units each. Too much.
Measure O is neither well-crafted nor easily understood. Vagueness and ill-defined terms/expressions are everywhere: “encourage,” “underutilized,” “workforce,” “middle class.” Why do proponents continue to deny that the Council is likely to raise recommended density limits to 45-65 units per acre post-election? Analysis of potential consequences is woefully inadequate.
There are no annual caps on residential growth. Council has failed to disclose the fact that 970 units are already planned for the 2023-2031 housing cycle. Measure O’s undefined growth would add substantially to those 970 units—with no controls and no limits.
Healdsburg needs workforce housing, not luxury housing by default or developer preference. I would remove the South Entry Area and Downtown Area. Council should also commit to specified guardrails on affordability and annual growth.
Bruce Abramson,
Healdsburg
Fix Measure O
In the rush to put Measure O on the ballot in November, the residents were not adequately informed about how it would affect Healdsburg. Allowing for 407 dwelling units to be built in the downtown area just one block from the Plaza and where currently there are many businesses owned by and serving local residents, constitutes a major transformation in Healdsburg. A change of this magnitude should not take place without arriving at a consensus of our residents.
I am opposed to Measure O as it’s currently drafted: “To encourage creation of middle class and workforce housing on underutilized properties, should the City of Healdsburg exempt multi-family housing along certain portions of the Healdsburg Avenue corridor from the limitations of the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO)?”
“Encourage”: This has no teeth. There are no requirements or incentives for a developer to build workforce housing. We will likely end up with upscale or luxury housing, especially in the downtown area.
“Market rate” is determined by the developer. They are going to charge what they are legally entitled to charge and are highly unlikely to do us a favor by reducing the purchase price of the market rate dwelling units.
“Creation of middle class and workforce housing”: The proponents of Measure O are missing the mark here, because 80-85% of Healdsburg’s workforce is not part of the “Missing Middle” and will not be able to afford the housing requiring a minimum of $154,000 annual income.
Here are the annual incomes of several of our workforce: Police Sergeant: $112,000 – $135,000; Police Officer: $90,000 – $114,000; Fire Captain: $108,000 – $130,000; Firefighter: $88,000 – $108,000; Teacher: $69,000 – $125,000; Registered Nurse: $104,000 – $108,000.
Gail Jonas,
Brown Street
“Not the Right Solution”
Healdsburg Measure O is not the right solution to the housing needs of our city. The proposal is written so vaguely as to allow current and future City Councils virtually unlimited discretion in zoning and approving housing development. The Downtown Housing Capacity Study provides a strong indication of how that high-density housing may ultimately take shape.
Much of the Healdsburg Ave. corridor currently contains many of the retail and commercial services that the residents of Healdsburg rely upon on a daily basis. No value would be added to the community by replacing drug stores, auto parts stores, groceries, etc. with multistory, high-density condominiums or apartments.
The current Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) lays out a very precise road map for residential growth in Healdsburg. While restrictive in its annual permitting of market-rate homes, it does provide for badly needed workforce housing. As evidenced by the residential construction that has taken place since the GMO passed, Healdsburg has readily stepped forward to build considerable low-income, workforce housing—meeting our RHNA targets and earning a “Prohousing Community” designation from the State.
The people of Healdsburg are not against new housing, not when there is a defined goal and a well thought out plan, neither of which are included in Measure O. Measure O hopes to “encourage” developers to build higher-density housing on “under-utilized” properties; it is not a plan that provides the affordable, middle-income housing we need. Reject Measure O, Healdsburg, and demand better from our City government.
Charles A. Duffy
Healdsburg
Deception on Measure J
Measure J has stirred emotions in Sonoma County, but you would be hard-pressed to find those supporting animal cruelty on principle, regardless of where they stand.
When I first became aware of Measure J, my first question was, why are we doing this again? In 2018, California passed the state-wide initiative Proposition 12: the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, which went into full effect on Jan. 1, 2024.
Measure J ads show horrific pictures and videos that reminded me of those used in 2018 for Prop 12. A quick Google search confirmed they date from 2014 to around 2018. Yet, Measure J media imply they are current atrocities, not, in reality, from 6 to 10 years ago.
Another search shows veterinarian Brenda Forsythe, featured in our voter guide and promotional ads, is not a local vet. Her practice is in Southern California, but you wouldn’t know that from the ad as she cuddles cute animals in a sunny bucolic farm yard.
And finally, why is a Sierra Club Environmental award-winning dairy being targeted and listed as a “Factory Farm” by those spearheading Measure J? They claim organizations like the Sierra Club “support policies to stop CAFOs.” Yet, the local Sierra Club’s 2024 endorsement web page does not mention Measure J, although other county measures are listed. If their claims of cruelty are true, why then are they relying on lies and propaganda to win over voters?
Look to the stated agenda and intent of the leading group supporting Measure J: DxE [Direct Action Everywhere]. Their goal is to end all animal agriculture and pet ownership to force humanity to embrace veganism. Animal welfare is being used as subterfuge to achieve this desired end.
Measure J is not about animal welfare; it’s about tyranny, and Sonoma County is their testing ground. Vote No On J.
Lilith Berkana De’ Anu
Santa Rosa
Send Letters of 300 words or fewer to editor@healdsburgtribune.com.
