Community Matters: Development fuels Petaluma political divide

Historically, the overwhelming number of votes taken by the seven elected members of the Petaluma City Council are unanimous. But on issues involving proposed housing or commercial development projects, fractious divisions inevitably erupt as anti-development forces marshal strong opposition.

Even for projects that are fully compatible with Petaluma’s General Plan and existing zoning policies designed to accommodate appropriate new development on carefully selected parcels, elected officials who dare approve them risk angry and vituperative political attacks.

At the same time, other council members share an innate aversion for development of any kind, and despite extensive mitigations and concessions from a developer to make a project more palatable, these members always seem to find a reason to deny approval.

And that approach is just fine with most people in town who would rather not see a lot of new home development and particularly don’t want such projects built anywhere near their own homes. Typical concerns focus on increased traffic and noise, less street parking, loss of neighborhood character and a perceived strain on local services. Environmental concerns are frequently cited and anti-developer sentiment is also a factor.

Public opposition to new development has grown stronger in Petaluma over the last three decades and helped spawn the formation of a local political group in the 1990s that came together to oppose construction of the auto plaza and factory outlet mall. After winning election to a majority of seats on the city council, these anti-growth activists successfully blocked multiple proposed residential and commercial projects for many years, often earning accolades for preserving the small town character of Petaluma.

But some of their opposition was directed toward new retail development projects at a time when residents were leaving town in droves to do their shopping elsewhere. Despite the enormous loss in vital sales tax revenues that was undermining the city’s ability to provide adequate public services, opponents fought vigorously to stop construction of the proposed Target and Friedman Home Improvement shopping centers.

Following several years of lawsuits by residents and neighborhood groups, the two shopping centers eventually won narrow city council approvals during the Great Recession.

But housing construction proposals during those lean years had dried up almost entirely and so did the familiar cavalcade of contentious public hearings over such projects.

That all began to change in 2015 as the strengthening economy and increasingly urgent need for affordable housing prompted developers to submit several housing proposals, mostly apartment projects, which soon began winning city council approval. Basin Street Properties concurrently started work on a long-delayed mixed-use development off Lakeville Street which promised dozens of new homes, townhouses, apartments, a hotel and office space.

But it was not long after all this new construction had gotten underway that the political tide began to shift. Many local residents grew tired of all the new building and the usual inconvenience it entails which included some increased traffic congestion. Within a few years, lawsuits were filed to reverse two newly-approved housing development projects and leaders in the aforementioned anti-growth political camp agreed to try to unseat the three incumbent city council members who had voted to approve the controversial projects were running for re-election: Mike Healy, Kathy Miller and Gabe Kearney.

In the run-up to the 2020 city council election, two former mayors, David Glass and Pam Torliatt, joined current mayor Teresa Barrett in championing the candidacies of three newcomers who were anointed to defeat the incumbents. The mayors then decided to debase the electoral process by falsely accusing the three incumbents of filling their pockets with campaign donations from developers that had caused them to forsake the pursuit of “viable traffic solutions, flood protection or adequate recreational facilities.”

The notion that a $200 campaign donation (the maximum allowed under municipal code) would influence any council member to vote one way or the other on a project is absurd, while the statement that such donations caused the incumbents to abandon their commitment to traffic solutions, flood control or recreational facilities had no basis in fact. But the falsehood quickly gained traction on the “Next Door” social media app, where so-called “moderators,” sympathetic to the mayors’ political attacks, frequently allowed users to pillory the incumbents with misinformation, innuendo, verbal abuse and distortions.

Come election day, two of the incumbents, Miller and Kearney, were tossed out of office and two of the mayors’ candidates, Brian Barnacle and Dennis Pocekay, were voted in, thus securing a development-averse city council majority. It turns out that opposing new housing during a nascent building boom can make you quite popular come election time.

But that does not necessarily translate into good governance. Example: In its ongoing quest to stem climate change, the city council has for some time unanimously endorsed a ban on the use of natural gas to power new development in favor of more renewable all-electric power. A new law will soon be passed to codify that very sensible policy.

Extensive use of solar power with dozens of electric vehicle charging stations was the idea behind Sid Commons, a scaled-back, council-approved apartment project that still drew legal challenges from neighbors and helped lead voters to replace the two sitting council members in November with candidates disinclined to approve new development. But how will the city’s goal of using clean, renewable energy to power new housing projects be achieved if none are allowed to be built?

Let’s face it: Nobody in Petaluma wants to “pave paradise,” as Joni Mitchell sang so eloquently. That’s completely understandable, and very few enjoy construction noise or more traffic.

But for moral, economic and social justice reasons, some new housing construction is necessary in Petaluma, particularly to house lower income-families. Many people who work in Petaluma, including teachers, nurses, tradespeople and service sector workers such as restaurant and hotel employees, commute long distances because they cannot afford to live here. Many lower-income people, including Latinos, suffer chronic housing instability with overcrowding and the constant threat of eviction, a situation that creates stress, depression and hopelessness for too many families.

Creating permanent housing for the chronically homeless is a moral imperative and produces significant savings in the healthcare and public safety systems.

All of the white, highly privileged, liberal Democrats currently serving on the Petaluma City Council enjoy living in their own homes. How progressive is it for them to deny housing to those who don’t happen to share such privilege?

John Burns is former publisher of the Petaluma Argus-Courier. He can be reached at john.burns@arguscourier.com.