In Chris Herrod’s Sept. 5 letter, he leads you to believe that Measure O would only build on eyesore properties. The Housing Accountability Act restricts the abilities of cities to deny an application to build housing that complies with city standards. Development could take place not only at abandoned gas stations, but also at properties with existing operational structures.
The Healdsburg Downtown Housing Capacity Recommendations Memo dated March 29, 2024, clearly presents plans for 852 new units of housing while increasing our density limit by over four times from 16 units per acre to 65. The designated south entry and train station areas could easily absorb over 1,500 units.
Mr. Herrod states that there has been no market-rate, multi-family housing built in decades, but there are 30 market-rate apartments under construction now at 3 Healdsburg Ave. This represents just a fraction of the 300 housing units we have built in the past year.
He blames the GMO for the proliferation of hotels here when it was his own City Council that approved a fourth Piazza Group hotel on Healdsburg Avenue last September because of a “filing error.”
The “numerous planning efforts” Mr. Herrod cites were all centered on building, but not consequences. There has not been one environmental study.
Because Healdsburg is an agricultural community, we are able to have a legally binding GMO. A vote for Measure O takes this away forever. Building would only be determined by zoning laws, laws that could be changed not by the voters, but at the whim of whoever is in power at that time.
Measure O has no mandates to actually build affordable housing. The City Council has ignored less drastic alternatives to help make housing more affordable and instead decided that they would prefer to take off all the guardrails which maintain our town’s character.
Dan Pizza
Healdsburg
Yes on O
As anyone who lives in Healdsburg knows, and especially anyone who has wanted to buy a home here, the cost of buying a home has skyrocketed since the advent of the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) that was passed 24 years ago. It restricted permits for home building.
Among the unintended consequences of the GMO was the stratospheric escalation of the price of real estate, thus prohibiting some very essential people from living here. People who make this little town such a delightful and desirable place to live.
Now the city has advanced Measure O which would help create more housing that is affordable for middle-class residents. This includes restaurant and shop owners, business people, vineyard managers and employees, the city’s employees, the police, the hospital staff, the men and women who teach our kids to read and do arithmetic, teach language and algebra.
We need housing for locals who are on call for emergencies: the firefighters who extinguish the blazes at our homes and on our hillsides, the men and women who get cardiac arrested hearts started again and who attend to traffic accidents and other emergencies. We want these folks to live with us in Healdsburg.
The GMO, which has failed to produce middle-class housing, has forced many of these folks to commute into town. Please join with me in voting a big YES on Measure O. It creates small but meaningful changes to the GMO so that housing may be built for these essential friends, colleagues, and the hard working men and women who are the backbone of our community.
Barbara Medaille
Bianca Lane, Healdsburg
More No on O
Measure O is flawed. Of course Healdsburg needs more “middle income” or “workforce housing,” but this uncontrolled, open-ended lifting of our voter-approved growth management ordinance is an extreme, unwise approach.
Measure O provides no assurances that developers will build so-called “Missing Middle” housing. As a middle-class public school teacher, I want to see we get this right!
Why is our City Council choosing unlimited housing growth, requiring no annual growth limits and inviting uncertain housing pricing on the one-mile Healdsburg Avenue corridor?
Transparency and trust are needed. There are so many unknowns: Why hasn’t the City informed residents of its preferences for increasing zoning from 16 units to 45-65 units per acre in this corridor? What are the negative impacts of such housing densities? Consider: our water security; traffic and road circulation; more luxury, “multi-family” condos like Mill District; and the impacts on the River, our watershed (south of Memorial Bridge).
With the passage of this measure, how many units “could” be built? What about the needed zoning changes? What can be expected or better yet, required, from these multi-family unit developers?
Healdsburg is a small town, so why not start small? Why not approach this very challenging goal of creating middle-class housing units in a measured, directed manner? The unintended consequences of this uncontrolled housing growth will forever affect the character, charm and livability of our unique small town.
I support a modest, affordable growth plan in limited areas—reasonable annual growth. We need more assurances, more “guardrails,” to guide this noble goal to create more needed, not wanted, housing. Let’s get this right for our vital working people, our middle-class families.
I support building in more strategic geographical locations, such as prioritizing transit-oriented housing near our train depot. That is smart growth!
Brigette Manselle,
Pordon Lane, Healdsburg
A Pledge?
I have written to our councilmembers asking them to pledge to eschew or substantially reduce the proposed 65-unit density boost for that stretch of Center Street between North and Piper. Only Councilmember Kelley has responded with this pledge. Councilmembers Hagele, Mitchell and Herrod have refused; Councilmember Edwards has not responded.
Councilmember Herrod has told me the voters need to “trust” that the City Council won’t do anything “preposterous.” That’s cold comfort when four councilmembers won’t publicly repudiate a density boost that could do something truly preposterous on Center Street.
Measure O would leave the City Council with carte blanche to authorize the construction of downtown housing at whatever density level the City Council chooses. The measure doesn’t deserve our vote if councilmembers won’t firmly commit to restricting density to a specific level that won’t ruin that block of Center Street with overdevelopment.
If the councilmembers were to collectively make this commitment, I would vote yes on Measure O. The fact that they refuse to do so is a compelling reason to vote no.
Jon Eisenberg
Tucker Street, Healdsburg
