A Tale of Three Villages

A Parable About Making Tough Decisions

Let me tell you about three coastal villages that faced the same problem, and made very different choices. All were beautiful. All were proud of their history, charming downtowns, and loyal residents. All depended on visitors who filled their sidewalks on sunny weekends. And all had aging roads, outdated public buildings, rising costs, growing deferred maintenance and an economic model that was no longer working.

For years, leaders in each village did what seemed reasonable as costs outpaced revenues. They postponed projects, absorbed unfunded mandates, and tried to keep taxes modest after exhausting the easy options. They assured residents their village would remain just as it was.

No one wanted to overreact. No one wanted to be accused of changing character or eliminating popular services.

But the math did not care.

The First Two Villages

In the largest village, gaps grew faster than expected. When infrastructure failures became urgent, leaders declared a financial emergency. New taxes went on the ballot. Decisions were made with limited options and little leverage, and painful service cuts followed.

In the second village, leaders believed incremental adjustments would be enough. A fee here. A bond there. Another project deferred. It worked, until it didn't. As they watched their larger neighbor, they tried bringing in outside professionals, but residents resisted. Their emergency would arrive later.

The Third Village

The third, much smaller, village watched this unfold, and recognized it faced the same pension and maintenance pressures. Its residents loved their town and feared overbuilding even as their economy had shifted to a dependence on tourism. Instead of asking how to preserve things exactly as they were, they asked: What if protecting our village requires planning at the scale of the pressures we face?

They looked at what they already owned, public land and facilities. They looked at surface parking lots and saw housing, structured parking, and a revenue stream. They committed to projects addressing state housing requirements that could also fund infrastructure instead of burdening residents with costs and parking issues. They retained public control but partnered where expertise and capital were needed, structuring projects so developers who benefited from valuable public land also delivered new public facilities the village could not afford to build on its own.

It was not simple. It was not universally popular. But it was intentional. They chose to act while they still had options and could still write their own story.

The Choices Before Us

Financial emergencies do not appear suddenly. They follow years of deferred decisions. Deferred maintenance is not a spreadsheet entry. It is the pothole that grows, the roof that leaks, the building that no longer meets modern standards. By the time emergencies are declared, flexibility has narrowed.

Carmel is not in a financial emergency today. But we face many of the same pressures: huge deferred maintenance, pension liabilities, unfunded housing mandates, and heavy dependence on tourism, all while operating with limited tools as a General Law city.

The real choice is not whether change will happen. We are watching it unfold around us. The choice is whether we shape it deliberately, using the assets we possess, or wait until urgency shapes it for us.

The first two villages did not lose their character. They gradually lost leverage and options. The third understood that protecting character and quality of life requires courage before crisis.

We still have time. We still have assets. We have already started taking a hard look at our finances. With budget season approaching, let's make sure Carmel looks like the third village.

(Note: To hear a podcast generated from this column, go to cli.re/threevillages).

Dale Byrne, Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea

dbyrne@cbts.us