Letter to the Editor – “It is a ‘we’ moment”: Call for unity on Commons debate
Dear Editor,
I want to expand the discussion about the Commons in a way that gets to our responsibilities and our concerns for the protection of our town. That is the central component of our job as citizens of this community.
The recent referendum did not make the town’s housing obligation go away. It may have made it harder and more expensive to meet. But it did not make it disappear. I think we owe it to each other to be honest about that, on every side of this debate.
In 2024, this Council adopted a housing element, and the state certified it. That document commits Yountville to planning for 72 units of housing by 2031. Some market rate and some restricted affordable, at the income levels the state has assigned.
That is the plan we have on file with the state. I want to be clear about something that has not been said clearly enough in public. Every single one of those 72 units, in our certified housing element, is reliant on private land. Every site in our plan is a parcel where the town has to wait for a private owner to decide if they want to build, when they want to build, what they want to build and who they want to sell to. We have very little real leverage over parcel development that includes housing since state laws changed.
The owners of those parcels are under no legal obligation to build. The state has been clear that if those sites do not show movement, we cannot keep counting on them. The town continues to be responsible to provide viable sites with possibility for housing production. The state reviews progress, or the lack of it, every year. Our plan does not just sit on a shelf until 2031.
This is part of why we bought the former school site. The Commons allows us to change the dynamic. Ownership can put the process more in the hands of the town and the community rather than disconnected developers and state agencies. This made sense to townspeople through two election cycles, and it continues to make sense for the town. However, we have yet to have a complete conversation on what workforce housing would look like in real terms. We have much information, options, ideas and comments to explore.
Our discussion should start with the concept of local control. The purchase of the Commons was not reckless. It was prudent. A conceptual plan came out of long conversations with this community. So far, we have created a town asset with resident uses and the possibility of fulfilling the need for housing for our workforce.
The first full year on that site was about listening. About what we wanted there. A fitness center, the locals’ lounge, the reimagined garden, the Coop and Farm Stand, and the dog park came out of those community meetings, not out of a planner’s office. So did agreement that workforce housing should be part of the plan.
The voters had already approved Measure S to set aside money for workforce and affordable housing. I know not every person in this town voted yes on that measure, but a clear majority did. Measure S funds went into buying the school site because most of us shared a vision that the town should acknowledge and help the work force who maintain and contribute to the success of Yountville as a great place to live AND a great place to visit.
I understand there are people in this town who are uneasy about workforce housing. I have heard those concerns. But I want to gently say this: These are not strangers we are talking about. They are your neighbor’s son or daughter. They are somebody’s niece or nephew. In some cases, they are our grandchildren. They are part of what makes this town actually work, day to day, and they have a part to play in what this town becomes.
The school closed because there were not enough children. That loss is palpable in this town. Owning this site gives us a chance to bring some of that life back and to keep this town relevant for the next generation.
So, when we talk about the school site, I would ask all of us to remember what it actually is. It is not just a park site. It is not just the old school. It is not just a ball field. And it is not just a symbol in a political argument.
It is the one place where we can make something happen that enhances our community—a place where we can expand civic amenities and fulfill our housing responsibilities while maintaining our standards and preferences.
If you disagree with the design or the options that were presented on February 17, we can have conversations about that, but we need to proceed in a constructive way—one that focuses on the needs and obligations of the town as well as thoughts and concerns of individuals.
Those are the conversations still in front of us. I am here to say that we should not take this site off the table without first being honest about what taking it off the table means. Because if we walk away from it, we need to understand what comes next.
Our housing element may need to be amended. Our list of sites may need to be revisited. We may have to explain to the state how we plan to meet the same obligation without this significant town-owned piece of land. If the private sites do not perform, we are going to need replacement capacity.
That is the position we are in today, on every site in our housing element. If we cannot show a credible plan, the consequences for the town will be more serious than the public disagreements we are having right now. You can see the reports from towns all around us—what can happen if communities are not forward-thinking. (Look into state forced zoning changes in Sausalito and Palo Alto, and Builders Remedy threats in St. Helena)
So, I want to ask a few questions, because I think the public deserves to hear them.
1. Can the town still meet its certified housing element without using the school site?
2. What risk does the referendum create for our compliance with state law?
3. And what is the safest path for Yountville to keep control of its own housing future?
Those are not rhetorical questions. They are the questions in front of us.
We have a very capable planning department and town attorney who are versed in these issues. And we are about to bring on an interim town manager who is an experienced planner himself. The expertise is in the building. We do not need to go hire it from somewhere else.
We have asked staff and the new town manager to come back to a future meeting with a clear, public accounting. Not a defense of any one project. Not a brief from any one side. Just a plain explanation of where we stand with our housing element, what we owe the state, what the referendum has changed, what is the timeline for action, and what options are still in front of us.
We owe that to the people who signed the referendum. We owe it to the people who did not sign it. We all will need to live with the consequences of this process—let’s clear the air and begin to understand where we stand and how we can move forward.
This is not a “them and us” moment. It is a “we” moment.
We are a small town. We are going to keep seeing each other at the same coffee spots, the same grocery store, the same parking lot, for a long time. The way through this is not louder voices on either side. It is honest information, in public, where we can all hear it together, and with a little more grace with each other than we have been showing lately.
Sincerely,
Pam Reeves
Vice Mayor, Town of Yountville
Sponsored
Author
