Poll: Most support a building moratorium

Argus-Courier readers responding to an online poll mostly agreed with the idea of a proposed moratorium on development in Petaluma. Fifty-eight percent felt that more development would strain Petaluma’s water resources during the drought. Thirty-three percent don’t agree with the idea of a moratorium and felt that more development would help solve the city’s housing shortage.

Here are some of the comments:

--

“Focus on conservation and reducing water use as the priority. A moratorium only affects future water use. It won’t help reduce water use, which is the issue.”

--

“Absolutely! Development encourages more people to the area, which taxes our infrastructure beyond repair. Not only in Petaluma, but state-wide. Forty-million people using resources that were originally in place for 20 million.”

--

“Should have been a moratorium before the massive monstrosity luxury 144-unit apartment building behind Safeway was approved.”

--

“We can’t afford a return to progressive politics! The progressives brought this town to its knees financially, favoring elite social projects and ignoring the working class families’ needs. Enough of that already!”

--

“Moratorium is knee jerk reaction. Countless reasonable measures can be implemented regarding conservation and efficiency. We need the council to be much more balanced.”

--

“We don’t have enough water to support more people living here. Building more anything will also make traffic worse and we are already near gridlock in much of the city.”

--

“We have a housing shortage with rising rents. We need more choices not less.”

--

“It would be a big mistake to stop development and send the message to the world that we are ‘closed for business.’”

--

“All efforts should be placed on helping existing homeowners retrofit their homes with graywater systems first, and also incentivize all businesses to do the same (especially high volume users - food and beverage manufacturing, health clubs, etc.) before any new housing units are created.”

--

“A moratorium on development would also discourage economic expansion here, since businesses would not be able to add to their existing facilities nor would new businesses be able to build new structures.”

--

“Presently Petaluma has a unique small town quality, keep building and it will be distinguishable from every other strip mall town in California. Why do you think that tourists flock here? Not to see strip malls and new construction.”

--

“No. A blanket moratorium is a solution without planning. A moratorium will hurt existing businesses who need to grow to stay competitive and we need to keep the Petaluma economy vibrant. It will prevent the creation of new housing stock that will help address the shortage in the community. It will have numerous unintended consequences that can’t even be foreseen because it’s a blunt instrument for a large scale, complex problem. It attempts to solve a regional problem with a very local solution that only hurts Petaluma while allowing other cities and areas to remain wasteful. While conserving water is critical and necessary, a building moratorium is a bad idea all around.”

--

“Petaluma residents and businesses have successfully reduced water usage to levels below percentages requested by the Sonoma County Water Agency. No doubt Petaluma will continue to do that, so why punish people who want to live and do business in Petaluma by stopping development that would be a positive impact on our economy? We can all use less water!”

--

“If our utility infrastructure can’t support more residents, then we should limit growth until we can. I understand that this will make affordability more difficult for many, however, we can’t make more water by simply willing it to be.”

--

“The lack of housing in Petaluma is only going to drive prices further up and our children won’t be able to buy in their home town.”