Growth is not healthy. Growth is a burden to the taxpayers.

By John F. Hudson

Voters need to question what growth is really about. It is not about anything more than putting more profits in the developers pockets while leaving the residents with problems of ever increasing property taxes and related expenses.

It is a big lie that growth is inevitable. Houses do not build themselves or spring up like mushrooms after a rainstorm. The sprawl industry can only operate in the open and with a great deal of governmental assistance in the provision of sewer, water, road improvements, and other infrastucture. If it is true that growth is inevitable, the sprawl industry would not waste the time, money and effort to spread this big lie on on political campaigns. They would sit back and laugh at their opponents.

2) Give Relief to Renters Through Rent Control. President Nixon imposed national rent control as part of his wate and price control program. Nixon was no bleeding heart! The need for rent control in Rohnert Park today is at least as great as it was at the time it was imposed by Nixon.

Measure O is not the answer. Measure O proposes 800 units over 20 years or 40 units per year. In 1999, according to page 9-4 of the Housing Element to the new General Plan there were 5020 apartment units in Rohnert Park. Meeasure O would add .008 per year to the number of apartments. However, the same inclumbents who support Measure O plan to increase the population by .010 per year. Under the incumbants plan, assuming the percentage of new residents who qualify for assisted housing is the same percentage as current residents, the population increase they plan will increase the need at a rate of .002 per year faster than the supply is increased under Measure O.

Rent control will provide immediate relief for all apartment renters except for those exempt by state law. (Civil Code sections 1954.52 and 1954.53 exempt certain units including single family homes and condominiums, buildings with certificates of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995, and apartments where tere is some form of public assistance.)

Middle class homeowners have nothing to fear from rent control. State law requires that landlords be allowed to increase rents for maintenance and improvement costs. Rent control thus provides an incentive for landlords to improve their properties.

Rent control will also increase the units available to Section 8 renters. As noted above, publicly assisted rentals are exempt. This creates an incentive for landlords to participate in the Section 8 program! Rent control also creates an incentive for landlords to renew affordability contracts with public entities instead of allowing the contracts to expire and have the buildings go uncontrolled.

The incumbents seeking re-election have not endorsed rent control for the City's apartment renters. They only support rent control for mobile home space renters. This is only because the mobile home space renters became politically active and forced the City to enact mobile home rent control through an initiative petition and they have been extremely well organized. As a result, mobile home space renters do not face the double digit rent increases that apartment renters face.

Apartment renters should take a lesson from mobile home space renters. Mobile home space renters are not demanding that more mobile home parks be developed. They are demanding rent control!

3) Stop Subsidizing the Sprawl Industry! All of the incumbents voted in favor of Amendment 11 of the Sonoma County Water Agency Contract. Amendment 11 is a plan to pick the pockets of existing water customers for $140 million to expand the water delivery system "to accomodate the growth in the general plans" of the cities that signed off.

The existing Rohnert Park sewer ordinances also requires that " . . . service charges for its use shall be calculated and changed from time to time to operate and maintain the City sewer system and to provide for the expansion of the system to meet the needs of all users, without resort to the general or other funds of the City." (R.P. Ordinance No. 267 §10 (d)(1) (1975) (emphasis added))

None of the incumbents were willing to change this ordinance when I brought it to their attention. Isn't it time that the hand of the building industry was removed from your pocket?