Questions about 3 North
Cc: The Healdsburg City Council
Community Services Director ThemigParks and Recreation Chair Ron Dobley
Board of the Healdsburg Farmer’s Market
Healdsburg City Manager David Mickaelian
-and other interested parties
Hello All,
On the one hand, we have a near perfectly executed project. Several years ago, representatives from our beloved Farmer’s Market impressed the City Council with their need for a suitable, permanent home. Staff followed the City Council’s directive, and after a long series of vigorous public input sessions, with periodic review and input by the Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission, a plan for a permanent home was forged and approved. The plan is flexible, embraces compromise, provides needed parking (another directive from the Council) and would serve a variety of civic functions. Staff sought funding, and after several years of effort, a donor was found to pay for the entire project!
Text book. Beautiful!
And
on the other hand, the Council has been hearing the voices of many
longtime residents who were forced to leave their hometown, being no
longer able to find affordable housing in Healdsburg. The Council made
housing their #1 issue; a humane and difficult choice requiring
tremendous resources, both financial and in terms of effort. To move
forward with addressing the housing crisis with due haste, they sought
to utilize properties presently owned by the city. The study found a
place that, because of its condition and position downtown, was eligible
for a staggering 20+ million dollar tax credit. Essentially, the city
would only have to donate the land, and low-income housing would be
available for 55 families in the relatively near future.
Text book. Beautiful.
Two great wins, except for one problem. They need the same place to happen: 3 North Street.
The crux is that the Farmer’s Market’s new home was developed without any consideration for the property being used for housing. It was originally purchased for parking, and that focus never left. The housing problem never interrupted the development of the site as it clearly should have. This was a huge error, a failure of leadership (by whom, I don't know). With so much expense and effort invested, with the project being generously funded in full by the Foley family, and with the whole process being executed as it should have by Director Themig and the Community Services staff, no wonder that many people are angered by what is being characterized as a fickle, indecisive and wasteful suggestion that this all be scrapped to address a “change in priorities”.
But I think that characterization is unfair. The Farmer’s market could be improved, but those difficulties do not compare with the stress and heartbreak that is the result of our housing problem. That the council, council-member Shaun McCaffrey in particular (though he seems to have support from Mitchell and possibly Naujokas), would make a stand for housing, even at this late date, could be considered courageous and humane. Perhaps we need a wake-up call. Maybe we need to stop and question the 3 North Project, even when doing so can cause some of our most valued contributors to feel angry and disrespected. How essential is it? Is it a luxury for us, a trophy project? Tough questions, that deserve our consideration.
If a vote were held today, I think that with respect for the efforts made by Themig (and others with the City), the public input process, the generosity of the Foleys and the needs and patience of the Farmers, I would side with the 3 North project as it is. This would honor the process and our commitments.
But at no small cost. The site at 3 North offers an unprecedented opportunity to address our greatest problem quickly and economically. There are other opportunities with city owned properties (most notably at 55 Dry Creek), and there will be other places that may open up in the future. But they may be more expensive and challenging to complete. That expense may fuel the idea (misguided, in my opinion) that our TOT income should be partially allocated to housing.
It’s a regrettable situation. Perhaps a broader planning effort would prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future, as changing course mid-stream, or even considering it, sets a horrible precedent. But so does remaining silent in the face of the heartbreak our lack of affordable housing creates.
More questions than answers.
Respectfully,
Chris Herrod
Chrisherrod707@gmail.com
Community Services Director ThemigParks and Recreation Chair Ron Dobley
Board of the Healdsburg Farmer’s Market
Healdsburg City Manager David Mickaelian
-and other interested parties
Please feel free to forward this to the Parks and Recreation Commission members and anyone else you think might be interested.
Hello All,
I
have been talking to many people about the question of changing course
at 3 North, from a new home for the Farmer's Market and events pavilion,
to a potential site for affordable housing. I have more questions than
answers, but one thing is for sure. The City of Healdsburg is in a
difficult situation.
On the one hand, we have a near perfectly executed project. Several years ago, representatives from our beloved Farmer’s Market impressed the City Council with their need for a suitable, permanent home. Staff followed the City Council’s directive, and after a long series of vigorous public input sessions, with periodic review and input by the Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission, a plan for a permanent home was forged and approved. The plan is flexible, embraces compromise, provides needed parking (another directive from the Council) and would serve a variety of civic functions. Staff sought funding, and after several years of effort, a donor was found to pay for the entire project!
Text book. Beautiful!
Text book. Beautiful.
Two great wins, except for one problem. They need the same place to happen: 3 North Street.
The crux is that the Farmer’s Market’s new home was developed without any consideration for the property being used for housing. It was originally purchased for parking, and that focus never left. The housing problem never interrupted the development of the site as it clearly should have. This was a huge error, a failure of leadership (by whom, I don't know). With so much expense and effort invested, with the project being generously funded in full by the Foley family, and with the whole process being executed as it should have by Director Themig and the Community Services staff, no wonder that many people are angered by what is being characterized as a fickle, indecisive and wasteful suggestion that this all be scrapped to address a “change in priorities”.
But I think that characterization is unfair. The Farmer’s market could be improved, but those difficulties do not compare with the stress and heartbreak that is the result of our housing problem. That the council, council-member Shaun McCaffrey in particular (though he seems to have support from Mitchell and possibly Naujokas), would make a stand for housing, even at this late date, could be considered courageous and humane. Perhaps we need a wake-up call. Maybe we need to stop and question the 3 North Project, even when doing so can cause some of our most valued contributors to feel angry and disrespected. How essential is it? Is it a luxury for us, a trophy project? Tough questions, that deserve our consideration.
If a vote were held today, I think that with respect for the efforts made by Themig (and others with the City), the public input process, the generosity of the Foleys and the needs and patience of the Farmers, I would side with the 3 North project as it is. This would honor the process and our commitments.
But at no small cost. The site at 3 North offers an unprecedented opportunity to address our greatest problem quickly and economically. There are other opportunities with city owned properties (most notably at 55 Dry Creek), and there will be other places that may open up in the future. But they may be more expensive and challenging to complete. That expense may fuel the idea (misguided, in my opinion) that our TOT income should be partially allocated to housing.
It’s a regrettable situation. Perhaps a broader planning effort would prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future, as changing course mid-stream, or even considering it, sets a horrible precedent. But so does remaining silent in the face of the heartbreak our lack of affordable housing creates.
More questions than answers.
Respectfully,
Chris Herrod
Chrisherrod707@gmail.com
won't an affordable housing project at that site increase our parking problem rather than help it? the dry creek site seems like a better long term solution. affordable housing won't make our town better if it impedes access to our downtown.
ReplyDeleteSome considerations.
ReplyDeleteThe City has hardly scratched the surface of where housing could be built - a deep looking inventory of all properties for housing, both owned and privately held. The measure P units are not subsidized and could be built anywhere. There is regularly confusion between subsidized housing and housing that is affordable.
The $20 million is speculative and years away. The gift is now.
Why did the electorate kill Measure R? Our problem is not unique, just exacerbated by the limits on our building permits for residences.