A big-box
retailer was interested in the fairgrounds.
And the fair board was interested in moving to a bigger site on the
urban fringe. But there was uncertainty
about whether it was the right time and what steps should be taken.
My friend
knew that I was interested in planning issues, so asked me to a lunch where we
could discuss the options. We spent two
hours talking over ideas. My key point was
that there had to be a shared vision of what the fair wanted to be in five
years. If the board could agree on a
vision, then the steps between now and then became evident.
He took my
words to heart about a vision. He
returned to his office after lunch and submitted his resignation from the fair
board. His vision apparently didn’t put
him on the board in five years.
After all
these years, I remain puzzled by his action.
Not by his resignation. If he
truly didn’t see himself continuing on the board, it was a good decision to
step away. But it seems odd that he made
his resignation decision over lunch and didn’t bother to tell me. It’s probably a good thing that I didn’t
become a career counselor.
This story
comes to mind because the Sonoma Marin Fair Board is currently facing a similar
decision. As covered in the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat and the Petaluma Patch, the 50-year contract
between the Fair Board and the City of Petaluma will come to an end in
2023. A decade may seem a long time in
the future, but in the world of land use, it can pass quickly.
On one key
point, the Sonoma Marin situation is different that the situation described
above. The fairgrounds are over fifty
acres in size and the Fair Board isn’t looking for more elbow room. Instead, it’s is the City wondering if the
fairgrounds might not offer some elbow room for needed urban facilities such as
a convention center or a public market.
Thus far,
much of the conversation has been about how the lease can be modified and
extended to incorporate those uses, allowing the Fair and the City to share in
the proceeds. It’s a reasonable start
but it doesn’t go far enough.
Cities,
particularly as we adjust to the implications of peak oil, climate change, and
the StrongTowns theory about the economic sustainability of infrastructure,
will need density to remain successful. Density
of housing, density of retail, and density of businesses. And retaining facilities in core areas that are used only
during the annual fair doesn’t meet that standard.
I propose
that the functions of the fairgrounds that are used on a regular basis
throughout the year be retained where they are, likely in new structures. That those uses be supplemented with new uses
such as a convention center and a public market. And that the remainder of the fairgrounds be
completed with housing and other urban uses.
Meanwhile,
using the some of the sale price of the land, a new fairground, scaled for the
annual use, would be constructed on the urban fringe. I can see argument for any of the four
compass directions, but lean toward the north, perhaps along Stony Point Road.
The
redeveloped fairgrounds would have an economic vitality rivaling downtown. The
segment of East D Street that separates downtown from the fairgrounds would
become a transit friendly corridor, allowing easy access between downtown, the
SMART station, and the fairgrounds. The
neighborhood that currently lies on both sides of East D Street would become
the most desirable homes of the late 21st century.
It’ll take
time for new urbanism to occupy the fairgrounds. Petaluma is currently working toward adoption
of a new urbanism plan for the area adjoining the Petaluma SMART station. Some have estimated that 20 years will be
required for that plan to be fully implemented.
It’s possible that the fairgrounds could remain as they are until 2035.
So, if the City
and the Fair Board wish to negotiate a ten-year extension to the current lease
under which the status quo would be maintained, that seems reasonable. But at the same time, long-range planning for
the fairgrounds should be initiated. Including thinking about how the next Petaluma
General Plan can incorporate the fairground changes.
This proposal
doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to local agriculture. Nothing could be more wrong. I love that Petaluma is surrounded by
agricultural uses. I even enjoy the
occasional whiff of manure on the afternoon breeze because it signifies a
working agricultural community.
But the
agriculture of Sonoma County is fundamentally different that the agriculture of
Montana. The artisan cheeses, the fresh-to-table
organic vegetables, the wine tasting rooms.
Those agriculture uses exist because they are close to productive,
successful towns. And walkable, transit-friendly
density will be a key factor in the success of 21st century communities.
Moving the
fairgrounds to the edge of town and letting Petaluma add the urban areas it
needs to be a productive town in the coming years may be the best action that
we can take on behalf of local agriculture.
Now, if we
can just keep the Fair Board members from deciding that their personal visions
lay elsewhere and resigning in the midst of negotiations, we should be fine.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment