Editorial: Biting the ‘bullet’ on housing

'We must strike the parasites, and the parasites only – we must search for magic bullets.' – German physician Paul Ehrlich

The Sonoma City Council has been conducting its own search for magic bullets in recent days. One such search took place at the Wednesday, Sept. 7 meeting in which city officials considered Councilmember Rachel Hundley's appeal of two Planning Commission decisions approving the conversion of a pair of commercial/residential apartments for vacation rental use.

While no one in Sonoma is extending Ehrlich's 'parasite' comment, as quoted above, to AirBnBs, exactly, their increasing number has many locals wondering if vacation rentals will eventually suck the lifeblood out of the community.

Ehrlich was the 19th century immunologist credited with coining the term 'magic bullet,' a term he used to describe a medicinal cure-all for a particular disease. Today, however, it is a euphemism for the idea that certain problems can be solved by a single factor, a sole negation, a nuclear option.

The concept came to mind during the City Council meeting last week when the absence of a magic bullet was used as a justification for allowing owners of the Sonoma Court Shops to convert two of its second-story commercial/residential apartments into vacation rentals. Hundley had filed appeals to both Planning Commission decisions on the basis that the conversions would deplete the city's market-rate rental housing stock at a time when the city is facing a housing-shortage crisis.

While there's been very little 'agreeing' on the council in recent months, there are three factors pretty much everyone at the dais would have to acknowledge:

• There is a problematic shortage of housing in Sonoma

• These Sonoma Court conversions would remove two potential long-term residences from an already-squeezed market

• One of the City Council's most ballyhooed 'goals' has been 'housing' – and we assume that goal is to improve opportunities for it.

Given those three factors, one would logically conclude that the Council would graciously laud the building owners for their entrepreneurial spirit, but support the appeal, effectively denying the conversions and saving two units for willing commercial or residential renters – which is what Sonoma needs and what the council's goals call for.

And, of course, one would be sorely wrong.

Instead, the council deadlocked over the issue, upholding the Planning Commission's vacation-rental approval. And why?

Because there was no magic bullet.

'I don't think the housing problem is going to be solved with this unit,' said Councilmember Madolyn Agrimonti, explaining her vote against the appeal.

Councilmember David Cook echoed her concerns in justifying his 'no' vote: 'This is not going to solve our housing crisis.'

Of course, the fallacy in this type of reasoning is pretty clear – and that's not simply because there's an actual deductive fallacy named for it. ('The fallacy of the single cause,' a favorite of my SF State philosophy chair, who'd cite it every time I had an excuse as to why a paper was late.)

But, rather, if city governments only ever took action to solve a problem if and when such action firmly solved all such problems, we'd be living in a state of anarchy. It's like refusing to install a crosswalk at a busy intersection because a single crosswalk won't ensure pedestrian safety throughout town.

Of course, councilmembers Cook and Agrimonti weren't declaring they'll only take action when it involves a panacea. They were saying that the two vacation rental units were just that: two units. Small stuff. But, with apologies to best-selling life coach Richard Carlson, those Sonoma residents in attendance at the Sept. 7 meeting made it clear they would rather the council 'sweat the small stuff.'

'We have a housing crisis at every (income) level,' said Sonoma resident Amy Harrington, who's running for one of the two council seats, currently occupied by Cook and Mayor Laurie Gallian, up on the Nov. 8 election. 'We have to focus our energy on making sure the people who live here have housing.'

Jack Wagner, also running for city council, dismissed the argument that the two units won't solve the housing crisis.

'Every single unit matters,' said Wagner. 'And every single decision matters.'

When it became clear Hundley's appeal didn't have a majority support to be upheld – Councilmember Gary Edwards, a likely supporter of the appeal, had to recuse himself from the item, as he owns property within 500 feet of the two apartment units under question – Hundley called out the elephant in the room.

'We (the council) talk all the time about (protecting housing) and community character,' said Hundley, 'but every time we have an opportunity to side with residents, we side with vacation rentals.'

Perhaps Wagner hit it best, by saying a moratorium on vacation rentals is necessary, 'if we're going to take this (housing crisis) seriously.'

And that's it, in a nutshell: People are wondering if the City Council takes the housing crisis seriously.

The 'crisis' has been in crisis mode for over two years now. During that time, the council has been housing-crisis shy – instead choosing to contend with leaf-blowers critics, leashed-pooch lovers and poor grades from smoking watchdogs. All issues championed by minority factions in the community, none addressing community needs as a whole.

Ironically, while councilmembers seek a magic bullet for the housing crisis, they fail to recognize their own status as triggers of change – it's wholly in their arsenal to make a concerted and consistent effort to champion residential opportunities at all levels in all reasonable circumstances.

Until that happens, city leaders can talk all they want about targeting housing – but they'll continue shooting blanks.

Email Jason at jason.walsh@sonomanews.com.