A respondents to an online Argus-Courier poll were mixed about Petaluma’s new housing policy to accommodate victims of October’s wildfires.
Here are some comments:
“Petaluma voted down just cause for lease renewals, and it is criminal greed. Now my lease is up and landlord wants 1,200 more and won’t renew the lease unless he gets it.”
“Building out Petaluma further would not do anything significant to alleviate the housing demand crisis. The thousands of units built in the last 25 years, at all price levels, did not result in affordable housing. More construction will only increase traffic, and congestion.”
“Creative and innovative city planners do exist. Get them here. This is just part of the larger housing crisis that already existed and is only getting worse. Of course I don’t want the charm of Petaluma to be ruined, but the next generations need reasonably priced homes to raise their families in, and seniors need reasonably priced apartments, and now fire displaced families are in a huge pickle. This can be done well with proper planning. How greedy and self centered are those who would close the door after they’ve moved here?”
“I’m encouraged to read that further steps are being considered to increase the stock of affordable housing.”
“It goes too far. Santa Rosa has the problem from the wildfire, period. Petaluma already has far too many people and houses and development for the infrastructure it has, namely available drinking water, street capacity and schools. Petaluma should have a building moratorium in place.”
“The fees and restrictions are still blatantly anti-growth.”