Reminder: All politics is local

Livermore, the last Bay Area city before the Central Valley, has been my home for almost three decades. I love it. Founded by ranchers, the city is still surrounded by grasslands, now intermixed with wineries. Livermore is home to two national research labs. We even have our own element: Livermorium. We have fountains where children play, farmers’ markets, tech maker spaces, an active performing community and an annual rodeo. Sounds idyllic, right?

But Livermore is also a poster child for Bay Area housing development problems.

The median home price is $750,000, with property taxes to match. People working in Livermore often buy homes in the Central Valley and join commuters clogging Interstate-580. Not so idyllic.

Some time ago, the city acquired 8.2 acres of land in the heart of Livermore. Much was reserved for workforce housing, but the remainder could be used for the common good. The land should be the jewel of the city center; today, it is a parking lot.

Over the past several years, the city has attempted to develop a plan for the parcel. In fall 2017, the city reached out through multiple methods and venues to gather citizen feedback on how the land should be developed. Those meetings produced interesting results.

Members of different groups — ranchers and scientists, winegrowers and performing arts representatives, teachers and business owners, and members of the interfaith community — began talking with each other. Together they developed a vision that met everyone’s needs. The City Council agreed and directed staff to turn the vision into a plan.

Ranchers would have a longpromised park and statue honoring their role in Livermore’s history. A boutique hotel would serve visitors to the wineries. There would be space for a science center and experimental theater. An apartment complex would provide workforce housing for teachers, first responders and others with similar incomes. It was a remarkable collaboration that could serve as a model for other cities. Or so one would think. The outreach process collected input from around 2,000 people, using multiple methods and venues in an attempt to reach all groups. Despite great effort, the process was only partially successful: the majority of respondents were longtime residents who were older, whiter and wealthier than the population as a whole. This group represents only about 10 percent of Livermore’s population and has markedly different priorities from those of the other 90 percent.

For example, that group placed housing as the lowest priority, parking as the highest priority. Yet many of these longtime residents purchased their homes in the 1960s and ’70s for well under $100,000. I was taught that it is the responsibility of elders to build for future generations; this group learned a different lesson.

The plans the city put forward take into account the concerns of the 10 percent, but also those of the 90 percent: They include both housing and ample parking. And yet, every time the city responds, the group representing the minority finds another reason to complain.

The City Council discusses the issue on Monday. Before then, there is the work to do: gathering signatures, education, and contacting city officials to show support. Next Monday, we expect the City Council to vote for Livermore’s future. And I hope Livermore’s example can demonstrate what happens when diverse groups cooperate for the benefit of all.