Adams Street, the Surplus Land Act, and How We Move Forward Together

Some residents have asked for a clear explanation of what the Surplus Land Act does, why I voted to begin the process, and how I approach decisions of this scale. What follows is a straightforward look at the facts, the governance norms that guide us, and my perspective on the path ahead for St. Helena. I am speaking for myself only, not for the entire council.

Surplus Land Act: What It Does and Doesn’t Do

There has been a lot of discussion about the Council’s vote to start the Surplus Land Act process for Adams Street. To keep things clear: beginning the SLA does not approve a project, authorize a sale, rezone land, or lock the city into any outcome. It does not affect the library, the Robert Louis Stevenson Museum, or the 15 acres of protected open space along the river. Those remain exactly as they are.

Starting the SLA simply triggers the legal steps state law requires if a city wants to keep every option available. If no affordable housing developer responds, the process ends. If one does, the City goes through the required negotiation period. Only after that period ends can the city evaluate any other options. That is all the SLA initiates at this stage.

Some residents worry that starting the SLA may lead to long-term consequences. The concern is understandable, but under state law the process itself commits the city to nothing. It creates space to evaluate ideas openly if, and only if, they materialize. If “long-term consequences” is shorthand for concern that a preferred outcome may not prevail once actual proposals are evaluated side by side, that is not a flaw in the process. It’s a concern that one argument may not win out in the public debate.

How We Make Decisions as a Council

Understanding the SLA also means understanding the norms we follow in city governance. We follow the law as written, and we deliberate in public. To maintain trust and avoid confusion, councilmembers generally speak for themselves in open session and avoid describing or interpreting colleagues’ views outside that setting, especially when issues were discussed in closed session. It’s also important that internal conversations aren’t described publicly in ways that create unintended impressions or suggest positions that haven’t been stated in open session.

No councilmember is responsible for defending a colleague’s policy views, but clarifying major inaccuracies helps ensure residents are not reacting to claims that were never stated, implied, or decided. When routine steps are framed in ways that imply a direction or consensus that didn’t exist, it can leave residents with an inaccurate picture of what actually happened and make productive discussion harder.

A Better Public Conversation Helps Us All

The recent community debate shows how strongly people care about Adams Street. Most of the feedback has been constructive. Some online conversations have blended facts with speculation or personal accusations. That tends to obscure the real issues rather than clarify them. Strong arguments stand on solid information and clear reasoning, not on questioning people’s motives or the legitimacy of their public comments¹.

The way we engage with each other matters. Respectful dialogue encourages participation and helps the Council evaluate real tradeoffs grounded in data, law, and long-term planning. Discourse that relies on personal attacks or unfounded claims discourages participation, polarizes residents, and makes it harder for the community to work through challenges constructively. Small towns like ours rely on close personal relationships and shared social capital for civic cooperation, so we cannot take for granted the importance of social cohesion and mutual respect.

Why Trust Is at the Center of This Debate

It would be disingenuous to suggest that every concern raised about the SLA is really about the SLA itself. As I touched on during open session, a great deal of what’s at the core is trust—or the lack of it. Some residents have lived through two decades of turnover, delays, reversals, and strained relationships between councils and staff. They remember when the city did not communicate well, or when processes felt opaque, or when projects stalled. From that perspective, skepticism isn’t irrational. It’s the result of years when expectations weren’t met and confidence eroded.

There is a difference between acknowledging that history and allowing it to prevent the city from doing the work it is responsible for. Every major step in this process will come back to the public. If the city avoided action out of fear that a future council might make a different decision, we would be unable to move forward on anything significant. That dynamic has contributed to the situation the city faces now.

Rebuilding trust requires consistency. Following the law, making decisions in public, correcting the record when needed, and explaining major steps clearly.  It means acknowledging when we fall short. Not everyone will regain trust at the same pace, and that is understandable. What matters is showing the work, acknowledging concerns, and keeping the community engaged.

The 2020 advisory vote is part of that context. It reflected the community’s views at a moment when St. Helena’s financial outlook and long-term stability were actively debated, with many residents accepting the belief the city was on solid financial footing. Since then, two major changes have reshaped the collective outlook. First, our financial realities became undeniable: the 2023–24 fiscal analyses, followed by the S&P outlook downgrade, confirmed structural challenges that now require a different level of scrutiny and planning. Second, the city has experienced a significant demographic shift² during the same period. None of this diminishes the importance of the 2020 advisory vote, but it does mean that decisions today must be based on the conditions we face now, not the assumptions many reasonably held five years ago. Advisory votes are designed to guide future decisions, not bind future residents or future councils as new facts and circumstances emerge.

My Approach to Decisions

Different viewpoints on the Council are normal, and so are different viewpoints in the community. A split vote doesn’t mean some members cared more or thought more deeply than others. Everyone reviewed the same material, listened to the same comments, and weighed the same long-term considerations. Now that all councilmembers have spoken publicly*, residents can decide for themselves how persuasive each argument was and hear from each councilmember in their own words.

When I ran for council, I committed to giving people the news as it is—good or bad. I committed to engaging openly in the digital public square and being transparent about how I arrive at decisions. I wrote about the specifics of what I would tackle and what I stood for and reviewing those commitments now, I’m pleased that the focus remains consistent & the information contained in my blogs and policy positions have thus far aged well. I didn’t campaign on predetermined personnel actions or outcomes for any property. What I did promise was to evaluate each issue with data, law, and long-term consequences in mind. I know some supporters are disappointed with positions I’ve taken. That’s part of public service. If you’re one of them, I hope you’ll reach out and talk with me directly. Support can and should be issue by issue. I don’t expect anyone to agree with every decision I make, but I do want you to understand the process and principles I apply when I make them.

Where We Are Headed

The broader truth is that St. Helena is entering one of the most pivotal stretches in its modern history. We’ve kicked major decisions down the road for decades. The can has run out of road. We are at a point where the wrong combination of choices could lead to a hard landing for the city both financially and operationally. Your local government is working to avoid that outcome by taking a careful, data-driven approach aimed at navigating a soft landing. That means not freezing our options, not governing by speculation, and not letting comfort with the familiar override the reality of our challenges.

As for my own position, I am not wedded to any specific outcome for Adams Street or any other city property. What I am committed to is a proper road of inquiry; one that evaluates all of our properties, all of our options, and the full range of needs facing St. Helena. I believe we need more workforce housing. I am open to mixed-use concepts that could include a range of civic and revenue-generating components. Whether a hotel is appropriate will depend entirely on future proposals, financial realities, and community benefit. I am open to keeping portions of land for civic use if that proves to be the most responsible long-term decision. I am open to possibilities and wedded to none of them. My vote will be driven by the data, my principles, and genuine public engagement: not by pressure, speculation, or predetermined narratives.

We’re in a complicated moment, and none of this is easy. I’m committed to working through it carefully, transparently, and in collaboration with our committees, council, staff, and the public.

¹At the Nov. 18 meeting, 173 written comments supported starting the SLA process and 24 opposed it.

²Nancy Dervin, who originally gathered the 500 signatures for the ballot measure is no longer Saint Helena resident

*Council Deliberations start at the 1:45 mark