Valley Forum: Timeshares? It’s about time...

Signs have sprung up, like weeds, across the neighborhood where I grew up.

"Stop Pacaso!” they shout; a chorus of negativity to greet me on my morning bike ride.

Sonomans are more agitated about the prospect of fractional home ownership than the economy, the pandemic we've all been through, or climate change. But why?

Opponents of Pacaso claim that opening up the Valley to timeshares will inflate housing prices and deprive middle-class residents of homes. This makes as much sense as trying to reduce gridlock traffic by banning carpooling.

Pacaso takes ultra-luxury homes -- worth millions of dollars each -- and divvies them up among eight owners. The homes Pacaso sells would never be available to the middle class anyway; and by redirecting second-homers toward the higher end of the market, more middle-class homes remain available for full-time residents. Plus -- while I'm no mathematician -- packing eight people into one home is obviously better for housing supply than spreading them over eight homes.

Many of the anti-Pacaso signs are placed in front of very nice homes. The cynic in me wonders whether the motivation behind stopping Pacaso is not to increase housing supply, but to restrict it; thus protecting their investments by keeping the Valley prohibitively expensive.

And then, there are the murmurs about preserving "neighborhood character." Slogans like these have a nasty history; after de jure racial segregation was outlawed, segregationists used vague references to "character" to push exclusionary policies that ensured de facto integration would remain impossible. Restricting timeshares continues this ugly legacy and keeps Sonoma inaccessible to new, diverse residents.

I grew up in Sonoma (I was a student cartoonist and reporter in this very paper for several years in middle school); my family still lives here, and I recently purchased a home in nearby Napa. But most in my generation -- the first in American history to have less than our parents -- are not so fortunate.

Timeshares allow those who wouldn't otherwise be able to own a chance to start building wealth. Pacaso naysayers may want Sonoma to remain a nice place for their kids to grow up; but if they get their way, they make it that much more difficult for their kids to start families of their own.

Even from the perspective of the self-interested homeowner, banning Pacaso is shortsighted. I may increase the value of my home a little by keeping supply low; but in the long run, I'll do much better by ensuring that the Wine Country remains a thriving place to live.

New residents bring revenue, businesses and ideas; these all ensure that Sonoma remains a vibrant community for generations to come.

Building a moat around the city is not civic pride.

Phil Nova lives in Napa and grew up in Sonoma.