From: Frederick Allebach
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Cc: Nutt, Jason; Osburn, Gabe; Basinger, Megan; Hennessey, Dan; Wagner, Scott Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment for 7/14/26 Santa Rosa City Council study session, item 4.1 Revenue Enhancement Date: Monday, July 13, 2026 8:40:09 AM
Fred Allebach
7/13/26
Public comment for 7/14/26 Santa Rosa City Council study session, item 4.1 Revenue Enhancement
I acknowledge that budget issues are tough all over. Household budget issues are a fractal of City budget issues.
My impression is that there are two Santa Rosas, one that is wealthier, whiter, systemically advantaged and votes for the majority of Council members. The other is people of color, much poorer, and who are not represented on their material issues (high cost of housing, food, insurance, medical, transportation etc.) in proportion to their numbers. I see the City goes on with a business as usual approach as if the poorest 40%’s issues were not really that important. Like an inconvenient truth, the poor remain locked in steerage like on the Titanic The Revenue Enhancement staff report is IMO a foregone conclusion leading the Council to do exactly what staff wants, without studied alternatives with different views and options that account for the poorest 40%’s material interests. How can the Council know any alternate, viable plans to raise revenues if none appear in the staff report? What about making the wealthy pay more by various means? The cost of living is already unsupportable for 40% of city residents and the top remedy is to add a regressive tax? Are we in a Progressive area of the country?
I see a disproportionate impact coming for lower-income residents. For increased taxes and fees, lower-income residents already have their own very serious household budget problems.
It’s unfair to put regressive fees and taxes in place. In a world where the eternal financial squeeze on the poor has only become worse, I can’t support any higher taxes, period. No household under duress will either. Never-ending high costs are too much for households to bear.
The poor have already sacrificed more than their fair share, time for the wealthier to sacrifice more.
What to do?
One, a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. Santa Rosa can be in the vanguard, start a city lobby to kill Prop 13 and modernize CA municipal financing. If wealthy city residents and their high property values oppose that, then screw them and their 911, sidewalks and potholes. Who is acting to maintain Two Santa Rosas?
Two, if more affordable housing supply is unlikely to be built in the short run and Production is one of the Three Ps of housing, that leaves Protections and Preservation that the City can act on to help benefit the 40% of City residents below 80% state MHI. Time to double down on protection and preservation to show you have your eyes on the civil rights prize and that Bay Area liberalism is not just about open space, UGBs, and green issues.
Specific asks
One: Don’t increase fees to access any Park programs typically used by lower-income residents.
Two: Santa Rosa has a housing crisis, one of the top mitigations is a streamlined permitting process to build more supply and meet RHNA; if you cut four Planning positions that will act to increase the cost of housing in the long run and contribute to failing 6th cycle RHNA goals.
Critique of budget priority survey
The City does not need to justify policy based on polls and surveys when the core needs are plain to see anyway, relative to core material interest groups. Leaders need to assess the issues, make calls and lead, not drink staff Kool Aid all the time. If staff is presenting a BAU capitalist economic view that leaves out class analysis with no municipal socialism options, we get a view that there are not two Santa Rosas.
The survey on five budget priorities IMO is suspect due to low polling, leading questions, and lack of participation by low-income residents. Poll returns were at 1.8% of the City’s population, not justifiably representative. Yes, we know core services are highly important,
don’t need a poll there.
An alternate take-home is that equally pressing household budget issues for 40% of City low- income residents has been left off the map in this study session. (Top low-income issues: high cost of housing, food, medical, insurance, transportation.) Only residents who otherwise are doing well financially would choose potholes, sidewalks, wildfire, and 911 as the top priorities.
Outreach response is skewed to the interests of wealthy city residents. How does the staff report address that?
What can the City do for the poorest? Work harder to make and get more affordable housing and affordable food, transit, medical, and insurance. More Grocery Outlets, less Olivers and Whole Foods. More tenant protections.
In tough times it would be nice to see the City more forcefully step up to the plate in defense of the 40% of City residents who live at below 80% state MHI. "We don't know where we're going but we have to stick together in case somebody gets there." Ken Kesey