Formula Businesses
We know now that those blue and orange signs “Vote yes on local” are misleading. We will not vote this November to preserve the look of our downtown or the number of “formula” businesses allowed to replace locally owned shops. We can speak up.
The City Council must address this issue with a “formula retail ordinance” that expands the boundaries of the retail area and codifies “formula business.” The 2030 General Plan protects businesses directly facing the Plaza, but not those around the Plaza, which explains why Faherty can slip into Ooh la Luxe’s space.
Councilmember Kelley sounded the alarm at the August 19th meeting: If the council fails to enact a retail ordinance to protect downtown businesses, it will be just a matter of time before formula businesses move in and force local businesses out.
Kelley can’t act without the other members’ support. But some members are unsure if this is even the council’s job, and some believe this task will require the same “scrutiny and attention” as the cannabis dispensary ordinance. Really?
Mayor Hagele noted that if Measure O passes, more people will live downtown, increasing the retail demand. Yes. What kind of retail? Chipotle? Hegele’s daughter would be “head over heels” if Chipotle moved nearby. If she gets her wish, will El Sombrero and Taco Grande survive?
Our council can’t be expected to anticipate every economic eventuality and define every exception. However, they can expect that their inaction is a “slippery slope” with anticipated consequences.
Planning Director Scott Duiven and City Manager Jeff Kay explained the issues, defined terms and provided implementation options. A draft “Formula Retail Ordinance” has been ready since 2011. Is this that hard?
Our City Council will address this again on December 2nd. They want community input. They could use direction. Speak up.
Pamela Rudd
Healdsburg
Paranoia and Worry
Last week’s letters in the Tribune brought you a replay of arguments against Measure O—once again selling paranoia and worry.
What’s painfully obvious is that none of the writers have presented any actionable alternative to Measure O—though they claim to be “pro-housing.” Voters need to understand that a rejection of Measure O will not set the stage for new policies, but will instead guarantee inaction and exacerbation of Healdsburg’s oppressive housing woes deep into the foreseeable future.
For example, the “guardrails” (income-restricted housing) they see missing are a proven stonewall to development. And their suggestion of asking the voters to pay for yet another election, this time in support of a smaller version of Measure O, is a pipe dream. Elections are expensive and exhausting, and this version of “Plan B” will never get to the ballot. Voters don’t have the patience for yet another go-round. It’s an ineffectual plan that would be dead on arrival.
The opponents essentially warn us to “beware of hundreds of massive, unaffordable luxury units!” But the numbers they’ve cooked to support their “worst case is inevitable” conclusions about Measure O have been shown to be patently misleading. Still, they parade them out. Another rebuttal does not bear repeating here. They’ve tested your patience enough.
Housing opportunities under O are intentionally limited, modest and workable for Healdsburg’s middle class. There’s no hidden agenda, no surprises and the homework done to back the Measure up was exhaustive—and supported by years of public input. Just review the City’s in-depth Housing Element update, for starters. Measure O responds to and incorporates Healdsburg’s concerns about growth, water and preservation of our unique small-town character.
Please join Corazón, Healdsburg 2040, Senator McGuire, Sonoma County Democrats and many more local leaders by voting Yes on O!
Stephen Barber
Healdsburg
Honor the GMO
I am a 35-year resident of Healdsburg, and the 2000 Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) has been the one intelligent planning tool that has managed to keep Healdsburg a comfortable and quality-of-life living environment. Now, the City Council, supporting the wine and tourism industry, which wants a dependable service sector to live nearby, is promoting Measure O to the voters. This Measure would blatantly disregard the 2020 GMO and allow multiple multi-family projects, to include thousands of cars, north to south along Healdsburg Avenue, the city’s only main thoroughfare.
Can you imagine that for Healdsburg? They want the voters to “trust” them, yet they do not want to honor the 2000 GMO voters. After surviving two major droughts since 2015 with no rain since April of this year, the climate change advocates are now endorsing Measure O.
The U.S. government is $35 trillion in debt, California is in perilous debt and inflation, which may escalate into a recession, is pushing the working class into unwanted debt. Adding to the dilemma, the wine and tourism industry is experiencing a serious decline in wine consumption. Not the right time or plan.
Healdsburg is a working-class town with some paying property tax on a credit card. Measure O is tragically flawed and may be the demise of a once-wonderful country town. The private equity firms, corporations and politicians do not care about your quality of life. In 10 years they will be gone and taxpayers, not renters and tourists, will be left holding the financial debt and headaches.
Kevin J. McCann
Healdsburg
There is no paranoia in the opposition to Measure O, and yes, we are rightfully worried that all annual limits for multi-family housing would be completely removed. Measure O opposition have made several alternative suggestions to unlimited growth. First, we suggested more multi-family housing, but with an annual limit. We also suggested reducing the hundreds of acres of land exempted by Measure O. And since the largest contributing factor to our housing problem is second homes, we suggested a vacancy tax. All of these suggestions were ignored.
Healdsburg has received the State’s pro housing designation and has met all State building requirements until 2031. There is plenty of time to come up with a workable GMO. Perhaps we wouldn’t have to worry about the cost of another election if the City hadn’t spent $100,000 of taxpayer money to promote O, including $62,000 for a political public relations firm.
Measure O will do nothing to help working families live in Healdsburg. There is no plan for the construction of even one home for purchase so a family could build equity and set down roots here. The only study was for 852 overpriced apartments downtown with only one designated parking space (see link below).
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/17971/HDH_Recommendations-Memo_Final-Draft
Measure O promoters will tug at your heartstrings, but they don’t want you to believe your lying eyes.
Please Vote No on O.
To Undecided Measure O Voters:
Just Imagine………
……You’re upset because of congestion like you’ve never seen before due to unbridled growth.
…..You’re upset because luxury housing construction boomed when you thought workers were supposed to be the benefactor…..
….You’re shocked that housing prices actually increased causing affordability to decrease…….
….You’re upset the City starts discussing the cost pressure of huge infrastructure improvements to support the building boom…..especially at the South entrance…..
…..You’re especially upset the City Council didn’t properly think through a housing measure that would maintain the integrity of Healdsburg and truly bring housing opportunity to the workforce as they promised……
If you can’t imagine these then you should Vote No on Measure O…………….
The proponents of Measure O have not done their homework. They have not answered the potential consequences of “unlimited” growth, nor provided believable assurances of “how” we get workforce housing. Residents are rightfully concerned and worried about this. Yet proponents say trust us, we will work out the details later. No.
Proponents have repeatedly ignored and not answered the concerns expressed by four respected letter writers in the 10/24/24 edition of the Healdsburg Tribune: Bruce Abramson, Gail Jonas, Charles Duffy, and Jon Eisenberg. A smaller version of Measure O was put forward by myself in last week’s letter and in the rebuttal ballot argument. Are proponents blind to this as well as other writers’ suggestions: no inclusion of the Downtown, no South Entry Area, guardrails for workforce and middle class housing, and reasonable annual growth limits. Let’s work together in the future for a better Measure O. Until then, please vote No on O.