Sonoma infill and NIMBY checkmate

There are a number of things happening at once in Sonoma city planning. One, any change to an existing stasis will meet resistance by those who are effected. With growth and development this is a constant. Somebody building next to you and blocking the view is par for the course. In fact, your house blocked somebody else’s view in the past. Two, to keep open space and the special pastoral feel of Sonoma County overall (which is really nice and special), policies such as growth boundaries encourage infill and more centralized development. Hence two at-odds factors are driving local conflict: generic resistance to change at the level of one’s back yard and pressure for infill.  

In my opinion, infill is a good planning idea regardless of whether there is a growth boundary or not. But we have a growth boundary. One consequence of the growth boundary is that it puts an artificial limit on space, drives up property values and creates an exclusive enclave. Many in the enclave like the stasis yet the boundary itself makes it so infill is the only option for any development. Infill comes at a cost: the collective becomes more important than individual prerogative. One big sticking point: who decides what the collective really wants? Collectively based decisions by city planners, politicians, ballot initiatives, big money etc will be resisted by anyone seeing their interests infringed. Since we live in a society, some collective infringement has to happen. Unfortunately we have a winner take all system and collective progress is frequently achieved only over the sour grapes of the infringed losers. Yet, no group that participates in society with good faith can be infringed all the time, and if there will be any justice and equal access for developers, existing residents, businesses and the working class, somehow the exclusive enclave stasis of Sonoma has to be broken or managed differently. As I see it one solution is to enlarge the boundary.

Currently, if nothing can happen at the boundary and nothing can be done in town, this is nothing more than a NIMBY checkmate. Part of the problem in Sonoma IS the growth boundary. All development pressure, including housing, is focused on an increasingly smaller space with the Plaza as the center. Yet the municipality only represents 10,000 people inside an artificial line while the rest of the population with a stake in regional issues is disenfranchised. Buyers of new and old homes, renters, all have to pay inflated, airport type prices not only for housing but everything else as well, reflecting the exclusivity of the enclave. Different entities benefit from and see the exclusivity in different ways, residents get the nice neighborhoods, businesses get the tourists coming to appreciate the small town feel, the city gets big tax money from the inflated values, workers have a nice, affluent clientele. Ironically, big money is attracted to the exclusivity and preserving the boundary only makes it more attractive to forces that want to dilute it. Everybody seems to like Sonoma just fine, although for different reasons. The core problem now is that the cage is too small and the rats are getting antsy. Hence trouble with infill development decisions, by whatever controlling entity. 

Furthermore, the growth boundary also messes up fair infrastructure access at the edges of town.  Some have their wells undercut by vineyards and developments yet they can’t get city water. Some get city water along 8^th Street East and others don’t.  All these and the previously mentioned problems, like giving residents a voice to vote and elect their own representative (Mario Castillo for City Council!) could be solved by making Sonoma Valley one municipality, with central planning for the whole regional entity and a voice for all residents. The exclusive enclave is nice, yes, but it only seems to benefit the few, whoever they are.