Development issues always bring conflict among community
stakeholders. Tensions manifest along a usual ideological spectrum. How will
growth and the economy be managed? What kind of place do people want town to
be? What principles are guiding us into the future?
In my opinion the large hotel growth management initiative
is a local proxy battle for Main Street vs. Wall Street. The initiative
represents a pushback by some citizens against unbridled tourism and unchecked
market inertia. The hotel issue becomes a version of the partisan regulate/ not
regulate national debate. The current hotel project was simply a tipping point
to request some voter input into Sonoma’s future direction. Some Sonomans don’t
want to live in an all out wine tourist trap; that’s not the future they want.
That’s pretty simple to understand, pretty clear.
It’s also clear the Chamber of Commerce is a Republican
dominated outfit with predictable views that don’t often stray from the party
line. (It’s not that these guys don’t have anything reasonable to say, but that
they seem so bloody inflexible about it all; probably the same criticism they
would level at their ideological adversaries.)
As a Main Street sympathizer let me uncock my narrative at
you: I see leaving the market unregulated as like letting foxes run the
henhouse. If I was a Wall Street guy I might say, let the King be the King,
power is supposed to be concentrated at the top, that’s how it’s been since the
beginning of civilization. But how many insider cheating scandals and burst
bubbles do we need as evidence for some type of rational oversight of the
market and the kings? The American Revolution was to overthrow aristocratic
rule and replace that with a meritocracy of the merchant classes. Unfortunately
those who rose to the top in this new meritocracy morphed into a new
aristocracy, with the Republican Party fighting for the interests of the top
1%.
We already see what pure inertia has done to Sonoma, tipped
it to an elite tourist destination where goods, services and housing are not
affordable to middle and working class locals. To some, the owners, landlords etc.,
it’s all good, to workers and residents not centering their lives on wine
tourists, the developments are questionable.
A majority of Sonomans have preferred a more managed,
balanced approach to growth, this is proven by three recent initiative elections.
And for good or ill, all locals have watched a creeping normalcy of viticulture
turn into a rapid rise of a wine tourism/ foodie economy. Most eggs have gone
into this basket. And the fact is that Sonoma is growing just fine with
multiple growth moderation initiatives already in place. What is lacking in
paradise here?!
Sonoma has an attractive fusion of agriculture and tourism. Having
a Mediterranean climate is an inescapable fate that is upon us. This is where high-end wine grapes grow well.
And hence the issue of character, do we want to be like Yountville? Is that the
change we want? Yountville has no character, it’s all new, all like Disneyland.
All this initiative does is put a proposition to vote, that Sonoma should put
some brakes on all out tourist development. That’s the basic issue. Change is
inevitable, yes. The issue is, who gets to have the primary say about the pace
and scale of change?
If the market is left in charge we’ll get Healdsburg,
Yountville, Napa Valley and the very charms that make Sonoma attractive will be
destroyed. It will be parable of King Midas all over again: be careful what you
ask for. Sonoma is half way there anyway with all the tasting, tasting, tasting
everywhere in every possible space, might as well throw in marijuana and beer
tasting as well. Anyone see an opportunity for professional designated drivers?
Fancy that, an economy entirely based on high-end intoxication. How sustainable
is that?
The current initiative is just the tip of the iceberg of a
host of issues that many citizens are dissatisfied with concerning the
direction Sonoma is taking as a place to live. Growth for growth’s sake,
conspicuous consumption, these are things that the liberal North Bay/
California sensibility sees as unsustainable
in the long run. And it is this view that is up against traditional growth,
Chamber of Commerce oriented economics. Quality of life is measured by more
than money.
My primary objection to the current hotel project is that
the associated auto and pedestrian traffic would cause terminal gridlock in an
already overcrowded area. This area already has the lowest traffic rating
possible. This is a common-sense, no brainer. The PA factor of a 59-room hotel
off the Plaza is scary. It is difficult to get through there already. If there
is a growth boundary, the scale of development has to be toned down inside that
boundary or else it’s too much for too small a space. What it is about that
space that is attracting so many people gets ruined if over-commercialized;
it’s not just one hotel; it’s the potential Yountvillization of Sonoma that is
at stake.
And let’s say the hotel goes in as planned, what is to
prevent it from being flipped for massive profit to a large faceless national
chain? Is the hotel a Trojan Horse for real estate speculation and the most
egregious type of chain and formula business that most would prefer nowhere
near the Plaza? Sure change is inevitable but along the way it is reasonable to
expect that citizens would have some say about it. Change is legitimately more
than market inertia.
As long as Sonoma stays hot tourist-wise, until that bubble
pops, the pressure will be on to manage and control development outcomes. What
many people want is managed growth, controlled growth. This is not no growth. How about balanced growth so
some eggs go somewhere besides wine centered tourism?
Everyone here thinks they are doing good and standing for
what is right. Yet any practical middle ground seems far, far away, that’s the
times we live in. Everyone is hypnotized by their primary, partisan (partial)
assumptions. And no matter how vehemently we spout our narratives, that itself doesn’t
make proof of correctness; vilification alone does not prove the best argument
in a debate. Just like dogs on the Montini trail, somebody will win, somebody
lose and life will go on. I’m hoping to keep my eyes clear enough to not burn
bridges in the meantime. But when dealing with faith-based arguments, there is
nothing else left to be said other than who can say it louder and more
persistently, and that is just plain stupid.
What would an alternative narrative say?
-That focusing on economic growth is not bad per se, it’s
smart.
-Having people with the means to invest is reality, not an
evil scheme by the 1%.
-People who are all about business and money are just
citizens like everyone else, a particular part of the job/ socio-econ equation.
-Success stems from hard work, risk and sacrifice, not
government regulation of outcomes. In a meritocracy, people have to be free to
earn and work their earned merit.
- Mercantile activities are a strong thread in human history
-If someone owns private property, who are people who don’t own
it to say what they can do, especially if the activity is totally legal?
In the end the practical aspect of having too much traffic
for too small a space is what I am against. All these people talking about tax
revenue etc, what about the PA factor of not being able to even navigate the
area that everybody wants to get to? A 59 room hotel is crazy for the Sonoma
Plaza; it’s already over the top, to dense and crowded. A new hotel will, by making too much traffic and pedestrian volune, ruin any sense of what is attracting people in the first place
No comments:
Post a Comment