By MAGDALENA RIDLEY - ROSELAND RESIDENT
Santa Rosa Press Democrat - Mar 18, 2007
Now that development in Roseland is on hold until we have an annexation plan, governmental officials sure seem serious about helping out. After years of neglect, it's suddenly all about fixing it up over here.
Toxic waste will be cleaned up and parks will finally appear, paid for with tax revenue from the redevelopment to come. It sounds beautiful.
Instead of people getting drunk in front of the boarded-up grocery store, I can see families strolling around a spacious plaza. Alongside the Joe Rodota Trail, storefronts and apartments could replace old warehouses and truck-storage yards. Where there are empty lots, we could have playgrounds or mixed-use buildings. I can imagine all of us Roseland residents smiling ear to ear as we walk around our clean, reinvested community.
Except redevelopment isn't that warm and fuzzy. Go to any recently redeveloped area and you can see how the original residents are excluded. In the beginning it is all about helping the neighborhood, but developers are interested in profits. Affordable housing and broad sidewalks are not nearly as profitable as expensive condos and luxury retail spaces.
When a place is driven by "economic feasibility" and "market demands," it gradually becomes too expensive for the very residents who were to benefit from the increased services and improved infrastructure in the first place. Which is why affordable housing is so important.
People live in second-rate neighborhoods because they are cheaper. Roseland is special because it has found ways to thrive in spite of that second-rate status. What has flourished here is a multicultural bastion of locally owned businesses and working-class residents. We should embrace that. The very idea of this unique community disappearing into a fog of high rents and chic stores makes me want to hold on tight to the dilapidated buildings, crummy roads and occasional shady characters.
Developers certainly won't mandate preservation of Roseland's working-class character. Sadly, it seems the city won't either. Santa Rosa requires only that 15 percent of any new housing development be affordable, and even that is easily waived. In mixed-use projects, there is no requirement. Citywide, new developments have been geared to the wealthy for just that reason - it is too easy to not bother with affordable housing.
But somebody has got to work in the grocery stores and do oil changes and teach school, and they deserve to live in nice places too. The Accountable Development Coalition, a broad group of local organizations that advocate for policy on developmental issues, has made an affordable housing recommendation for the Downtown Station Area Plan: 40 percent affordable units - 20 percent for individuals making under $42,000 a year, and 20 percent for individuals making under $63,000 a year.
These recommendations would be a good starting point for affordable policy in Roseland, and, really, they should be applied citywide. If we want our kids and workers to live here, we cannot just build luxury units in all the convenient spots and leave Burbank Housing to pick up the slack wherever it can.
Redevelopment in Roseland should include parks and a plaza and a community center. Existing occupied structures and our small businesses should be preserved. We should have police who are on foot. Most importantly, we must push for affordable housing. Redevelopment here could be amazing. It could be a chance to revitalize what is downtrodden and at the same time reinforce what is great. It could be a chance to sow hope instead of despair. Roseland and its residents, especially the kids, could finally get some acknowledgment and respect.
People talk about wanting to end the gang problem and stop crime and lower dropout rates, but they still want to treat the lower half of the economic spectrum like we are disposable. Redevelopment cannot magically erase the problems associated with not having money, but neither should it chase off everyone but the affluent. It should not be just another way in which the lower half is told they don't matter - especially here in Roseland, because we've already heard it enough.
Santa Rosa Press Democrat - Mar 18, 2007
Now that development in Roseland is on hold until we have an annexation plan, governmental officials sure seem serious about helping out. After years of neglect, it's suddenly all about fixing it up over here.
Toxic waste will be cleaned up and parks will finally appear, paid for with tax revenue from the redevelopment to come. It sounds beautiful.
Instead of people getting drunk in front of the boarded-up grocery store, I can see families strolling around a spacious plaza. Alongside the Joe Rodota Trail, storefronts and apartments could replace old warehouses and truck-storage yards. Where there are empty lots, we could have playgrounds or mixed-use buildings. I can imagine all of us Roseland residents smiling ear to ear as we walk around our clean, reinvested community.
Except redevelopment isn't that warm and fuzzy. Go to any recently redeveloped area and you can see how the original residents are excluded. In the beginning it is all about helping the neighborhood, but developers are interested in profits. Affordable housing and broad sidewalks are not nearly as profitable as expensive condos and luxury retail spaces.
When a place is driven by "economic feasibility" and "market demands," it gradually becomes too expensive for the very residents who were to benefit from the increased services and improved infrastructure in the first place. Which is why affordable housing is so important.
People live in second-rate neighborhoods because they are cheaper. Roseland is special because it has found ways to thrive in spite of that second-rate status. What has flourished here is a multicultural bastion of locally owned businesses and working-class residents. We should embrace that. The very idea of this unique community disappearing into a fog of high rents and chic stores makes me want to hold on tight to the dilapidated buildings, crummy roads and occasional shady characters.
Developers certainly won't mandate preservation of Roseland's working-class character. Sadly, it seems the city won't either. Santa Rosa requires only that 15 percent of any new housing development be affordable, and even that is easily waived. In mixed-use projects, there is no requirement. Citywide, new developments have been geared to the wealthy for just that reason - it is too easy to not bother with affordable housing.
But somebody has got to work in the grocery stores and do oil changes and teach school, and they deserve to live in nice places too. The Accountable Development Coalition, a broad group of local organizations that advocate for policy on developmental issues, has made an affordable housing recommendation for the Downtown Station Area Plan: 40 percent affordable units - 20 percent for individuals making under $42,000 a year, and 20 percent for individuals making under $63,000 a year.
These recommendations would be a good starting point for affordable policy in Roseland, and, really, they should be applied citywide. If we want our kids and workers to live here, we cannot just build luxury units in all the convenient spots and leave Burbank Housing to pick up the slack wherever it can.
Redevelopment in Roseland should include parks and a plaza and a community center. Existing occupied structures and our small businesses should be preserved. We should have police who are on foot. Most importantly, we must push for affordable housing. Redevelopment here could be amazing. It could be a chance to revitalize what is downtrodden and at the same time reinforce what is great. It could be a chance to sow hope instead of despair. Roseland and its residents, especially the kids, could finally get some acknowledgment and respect.
People talk about wanting to end the gang problem and stop crime and lower dropout rates, but they still want to treat the lower half of the economic spectrum like we are disposable. Redevelopment cannot magically erase the problems associated with not having money, but neither should it chase off everyone but the affluent. It should not be just another way in which the lower half is told they don't matter - especially here in Roseland, because we've already heard it enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment