Sonoma Makeover revisited

April 17, 2019 by Fred Allebach

In its March issue, Valley of the Moon Magazine asked the following people how they would make Sonoma over, if they were local King or Queen:

Richard Dale: Wants an ecotopia.

Katherine Fulton: We need one lower valley, regional government; need integrated solutions; more city/ county leadership and cooperation.

Steve Kyle: Calls city council Luddites; incorporate to one valley government; pro-infill; points out green checkmate, (can’t push UGB, can’t get anything done inside); sees problems with CEQA process used to stall projects.

Juan Hernandez: Airbnb takes up 350 entire Springs houses; housing prices inflated; lack of housing supply negatively effects Latinos.

Suzanne Brangham: Isn’t Sonoma great!

Jim Levy: Sonoma needs a strategic plan, but how do we get consensus with so many zero-sum games going on? Critical of city leadership.

Whitney Evans: Calls for affordable housing, cites Hidden in Plain Sight study; backs Sustainable Sonoma, calls for higher minimum wage; sees trouble of haves and have nots; calls out NIMBYs.

Bob Gardner: Non-profits are efficacious, government is not; doesn’t like bureaucracy and regulations or people who go to city council meetings; wants to see Plaza projects move along, and affordable housing built next to rich, liberal NIMBYs; get some more Republicans in here.  

Anya Ushakova-Crain: Frames challenges and solutions in a New Age terms.

Marcelo Defreitas: Change is inevitable, let’s deal with it thoughtfully; integration of cultures is not happening very fast.

Roger Rhoten: Wants the best for everybody, and the theater.

Steve Page: Wants a cooperative community dialogue; accuses current council of being extreme anti-business; calls for balance while baiting the other side as a vocal minority; contrasts “common sense” with citizens who participate in public process.

Will Shonbrun: Has a Democratic socialism agenda.

Steve Ledson: Not a fan of government nor of current land use process; likes free market and few regulations and controls; wants to see bigger picture of long-term planning; sees housing through a supply and demand lens; contrasts what he sees as positive and negative approaches.

We have in this group, pro-free market developers and business guys who seem to not like the current city council, nor people who have appealed projects. Then we have a few feel-good types who aren’t too political. We’ve got some thoughtful policy people; some social justice advocates; free market advocates, and planning advocates from different political flavors. I see a split. The liberal city council who came in on the anti-Trump tidal wave are vilified by conservatives. People feel the need for constructive local dialogue, and to get out of silos, but there are hard feelings, and bombs still being thrown. I see polarization, and a schism between conservatives and liberals, a class schism between the super wealthy and those of lesser means, and a split on how the economy works best, and differing takes on what the consequences of “change” are, and who is in charge of “change”, and a lingering bad feeling about the recent Planning Commission shakeup, which ironically, was precipitated by pro-business conservatives.

Suggestion. Let’s see all these folks at city council and commission meetings to air out their grievances in person. If we want win-win, if we’re not in the room talking to people we disagree with, we’re not getting anywhere. Why don’t big muckety mucks come and mix it up in public? C’mon down. Try it, you’ll like it.

If we still want zero-sum, everyone stay in their bubbles and never mix or get to know other folks. I know eight of these 14 people, and have worked with and for them. Once you have a relationship, it’s harder to disrespect people, even if your politics are different.