Fred Allebach
6/11/24
Public comment
Economics and demographics chapter
General Plan (GP) Existing Conditions Report (ECR)
Data
ESRI Business Analyst and other ESRI private data sources can’t be double checked or examined for what was left out; for a public study there needs to be public data sources. Otherwise the GP ECR faces a built-in lack of trust and confidence.
The ECR uses ESRI tapestry segments, life mode groups to breakdown local city and SV demographic groups. How do we know what groups may be left out? The use of private, pay data is not fair for a public document. More community of interest (“life mode groups”) data detail is available from other sources, with local indicators, for social sustainability and equity. For social tapestry, why is there no group for the lower-income working class? BIPOC? Why are they not in report? Nowhere, erased. Major oversight, especially on the city west side and in the unincorporated, contiguous Springs.
Recommended data sources and SV studies, these all sent by me before, with no traction
-SVUSD redistricting demographic studies, GenH studies, Los Cien Latino Scorecard, United Way Real Cost Burden, Sonoma Valley Collaborative, Hidden in Plain Sight, La Luz equity study, Hanna Fortulezas study, Catalyst Fund food scarcity study, State of Working Sonoma 2018, TCAC maps from the last five years showing trends. Also my own 2020 ACS Survey Block Group-level DAC and demographic studies.
By taking too general a view, the GP ECR whitewashes city east side/ west side inequities and inequities between an incorporated, elite tourist town and a poor, unincorporated low-income, contiguous workforce. Normative boilerplate is presented that fails to see actual, significant local demographic differences. The ECR takes a perspective that normalizes inequity; the status quo is presented in a stilted way and then is unquestioned. This ECR is analysis light, paints a Pollyanna picture of Sonoma and SV.
Data is suspect on many counts, inaccurate, lacks local calibration. For example the ECR says “more detailed population and demographic information can be seen in Housing Element (HE)”, but this HE info is only at a Tract level, which erased east/west side differences. The HE low-balled substantial local demographic variances and now the GP is “consistent” with that. This is a concertedly inaccurate view of local demographics.
Examples of inaccurate data method below
I find ECR conclusions suspect; any discerning critic or analyst can’t take this ECR hook, line and sinker given the level of data misrepresentations.
Food insecurity?
For example, the ECR says “that 0.3% of adults in the City of Sonoma are food insecure due to low income.” What about the Cathy Capriola study by Catalyst Fund that showed drastically different food insecurity results than this citation by DeNovo? This illustrates how the DeNovo existing conditions report is in many ways fundamentally out of touch with what is actually going on in SV.
The Catalyst Fund study says one in five SV residents, 8000 people, are food insecure. This cohort lives 200% below the poverty level. How is it that various local studies paint such a different picture of Sonoma Valley than does DeNovo and the city?
Well educated labor force?
The GP ECR says the “City has a well-educated labor force”, but since the GP method averages high and low educational attainment, averages east and west sides, this does not ipso facto make the labor force well educated. The east side drags education scores up.
Household and healthcare spending?
The ECR says city household spending is $37,000 annually? What planet are we on? How can this possibly be true? This is at Very Low and Low-income spending levels. The ECR says city residents spend $900 per year on healthcare? WRONG! If there are so many seniors, Medicare costs alone can be $5000 plus per year plus dental, vision, hearing. It seems that DeNovo, like with its initial HE assertion that Sonoma had no history or pattern of segregation, is out of touch with what exists on the ground here.
Average rent?
ECR cites an average rent that is too low, this rent can’t be found anywhere; wrong data. At least explore data sources that show the high prices everyone knows are here.
Lacking younger population?
The ECR mentions low population of under 18 and 18-36 age cohorts and overall low city household size. Why is this? The ECR does not say, and should say it is too expensive for young families to live in elite tourist town. Dysfunctional and inequitable demographic realities can’t just be listed and then act as if it is normal.
Areas around city are wealthier?
For example, the ECR says the “area around city has significantly higher MHI.” Wrong! Core Springs Census Tracts and Block Groups have significantly lower incomes than wealthy areas in the city and SV foothills areas. How can this be ignored?
Sustainability
GP/city needs to use formal Sustainability paradigm triple bottom line (TBL), full cost accounting framing. Where is economic and social sustainability? It’s not proper to use sustainability as a weasel word concept
-See my EJ Element chapter comments, it’s not proper to try and colipase all equity in environmental issues and EJ, this is a failure to see the world accurately.
An emphasis on sustainable tourism is called for that uses TBL, full cost accounting methods. City web pages on sustainability and sustainable tourism are heavily greenwashed and lack any sense of social and economic equity.
Failing to see and address local segregation
There is no mention of race and class segregation in the city or in SV. Real history is forgotten, almost like a grand conspiracy to say nothing about it.
RHNA inventory
The ECR says there are 564 potential 6th cycle RHNA units and assumes 2.05 persons per household. The ECR says if this potential was fulfilled it would be population increase of 1,156, “potentially more if affordable housing (AH) is built to meet state requirements is targeted to families.” This assumes that the city is set as a primarily single family-zoned entity. If the state requires AH for younger families, requires means you do it, not if you might do it.
General impression: the city seems content to be and become a low-density, wealthy senior haven, a 2nd home haven, an elite haven. The GP and ECR seem targeted to that general view.
The ECR says “AH developed under the HE will likely bring larger households into the community and diversify community’s demand for retail goods and services.” I’m sorry, but how much BS can we get here? What AH developed under the HE? Housing Opportunity Sites are constantly lost to market rate projects. High baseline costs that rich residents can pay make it so low-income residents can’t shop here or if they do, with a heavy cost burden. Local exclusivity, especially for retail is not adequately fleshed out, the ECR spins to hide disparities.
Wine-tourism-hospitality (WTH) combine
The ECR says that one in four SoCo jobs are in the WTH combine and that this is a multi-billion-dollar industry. What is not said is that there are lot of low wage jobs here, while the cream and gravy get skimmed off top. Benefits are not being shared appropriately; this is economically unsustainable.
GenH data says there are five low wage jobs in Sonoma for every lower income housing unit; let’s see this and other GenH housing research conclusions in the GP analysis.
Aging population
With an aging population there are more healthcare jobs but the cost of living (COL) is too high for providers to hire the needed workforce. The GP needs to open this up. High city and SV COL and high housing costs are preventing necessary workforce hires. This needs to be made clear in the ECR.
City budget
The ECR says property owners pay one fourth of the city budget, and the wine-tourism-hospitality combine pays 56% of city budget. It seems there is a quid pro quo to favor these two cohorts and that Sonoma is essentially a top-down syndicate to serve these cohort’s interests. Labor and renters are not seen as equal stakeholders and are not represented adequately. This is a hidden bias the GP plays into.
Low wage labor is nixed out of the demographic report even as it is the working class on whose backs the whole system rides.
In its GP ECR work DeNovo favors the syndicate that is paying them, why else such bias that fails to account for? The city serves wealthy clients and visitors; DeNovo serves the city, was not commissioned with an equity mandate but to get a GOP passed .
No comments:
Post a Comment