Editorial: In the Wake of Sonoma’s Measure B
In 2013, a special election was held to determine the fate of Measure B. That initiative was placed on the ballot by citizens hoping to mitigate the downsides of tourism on our quality of life by limiting the creation of any new large hotels until a citywide 80% annual occupancy rate was achieved. Measure B lost by only 124 votes, but appears to have foreshadowed today’s countywide groundswell seeking to rein in the explosion of tourist-oriented development and activity – expanding vineyards, proliferating winery-event centers and legal and illegal vacation rentals – that threaten the the quality-of-life for so many who live and work here.
A tsunami of tourism is upon us at the same time prolonged drought is speeding groundwater depletion and limiting water use. Sonoma Plaza’s streets are often blocked with tour buses and limos, and packed with event-goers; a wine tasting, party atmosphere prevails countywide, punctuated by the inebriated. Rents are inflated, as is the cost of homes and goods, while a vital workforce struggles to survive on persistently low wages. The annual hotel occupancy rate in the city of Sonoma is at 75% and rapidly approaching 80%, the very number declared “impossible” by Measure B’s opponents merely two years ago.
The negative aspects of tourism are basically ignored by both city and county government. County roads get worse while Transient Occupancy Tax is spent to lure even more tourists to drive on them. After Measure B, Sonoma’s City Council briefly established “balance city character” as one of its goals. However, a year later, the word “balance” was removed; apparently staff and council felt that quality-of-life and tourism are now “fair and balanced.”
A relentless pattern of growth is now playing out across many fronts: the Local Coastal Plan, huge proposed bottling facilities in areas of salt water intrusion into groundwater, and event centers popping up on quiet country roads. In various ways great and small, this pattern encourages or facilitates more, not less, tourism and wine-related development.
Measure B opponents made great effort to obfuscate the meaning of sustainability, preservation and protection. That same tactic is apparent in the wine industry’s so-called sustainability initiative and in the failure of the Climate Action 2020 plan; both fail to honestly account for the full carbon footprint of tourism and wine production. It’s no wonder many feel cynical and disillusioned about a future where money seems to trump common sense.
In the rush for profits, many in government and the business community are selling our future short. Rather than apply the growing tax revenue from tourist-related activities to affordable housing for working people, it’s spent to expand tourism marketing programs. Greed has not only confused our moral compass, but threatens cherished values as well. What’s worse, elected officials appear to lack the courage, ability and/or interest to initiate major policy changes needed to turn the tide of tourism toward true sustainability, for the benefit of all who live and work here.
Nothing much has changed since Measure B – not the issues, the players or their differing visions and hopes for the Valley’s future. Tourism’s positive revenues and negative consequences are growing while a looming sustainability tragedy – the likes of which Measure B hoped in part to mitigate – unfolds before our eyes.
Sun Editorial Board
