Observations in development
No one should presume to offer advice to financially savvy, highly successful, wheeling-and-dealing developer/investors, particularly without being generously compensated.
But after an entertaining Planning Commission study session regarding the re-titled FSE Project (formerly, The Cloisters), having witnessed such entertainment in the past, and with more such entertainment scheduled for other projects, perhaps a few observations (not advice, mind you) might help developers to avoid unduly upsetting City residents in the name of profit. These observations are free, and worth every penny:
- Audience matters. Some developers think their audience is planning commission professionals. However, in small, politically active Sonoma it is the entire populace, including all the friends, acquaintances and neighbors to whom Planning Commissioners will have to justify their decisions, face-to-face, over coffee at Peet’s. The default expression on 50 percent of those faces is often “No.”
- Developers who listen only to rich friends who think like them are adventurous. Project ideas pre-screened with the 99 percent at Sonoma Market, Steiner’s Bar, the dog-park, etc., might encounter less public headwind.
- Candor is critical. In a town of highly-educated residents, many of whom have made Wall Street fortunes trading in bulls**t futures, any departure from candor to hype a proposal can ignite a public blowback capable of stopping the Manhattan Project dead in its tracks. Resist temptation to hype: e.g., For many in Sonoma, a multi-story, 49-room hotel with 112-seat café and elevator parking is not a ‘cozy inn.’
- Mention the project’s tax revenue potential only if asked. But know that it is a trick question, intended to flush out inflated projections that will be slashed to ribbons by a math-savvy public, turning the project’s study session into an autopsy (See # 3).
- For many if not most residents, Quality of Life is the sina qua non of desirable projects, General Plan be damned. Will it be charming/ugly, boost/destroy property values, generate traffic, create affordable housing, be noisy/quiet, remove trees, ‘respect our small town heritage,’ etc.? Project profitability is a Quality of Life issue for the developer, but no one else.
- References to boosting tourism are toxic. The Chamber of Commerce loves tourists but residents, gridlocked in traffic and awash in tasting rooms, who’ve paid a fortune to live in Small Town Charm but now can’t find a seat at Starbucks, struggle against the urge to run them down in the crosswalks.
- Unless prepared to post a bond guaranteeing a specific number of jobs paying five times the minimum wage, touting a project’s job-creation potential guarantees an argument. Sonoma is well-stocked with jobs that don’t pay workers enough to live here.
- Parking waiver requests are dimly regarded. If a project adds a single car to on-street parking, especially in crowded residential neighborhoods, that car should be heavily insured.
- Traffic studies from developer consultants showing little or no project traffic impacts are presumed to be an attempt at humor (see # 3).
- Project titles can send dog-whistle messages to the public. For example: “The Cloisters” = Gated Community For Rich People. “Affordable Housing” = Shacks for Poor People. “Workforce Housing” = Sonoma Family Values.
These observations — printed out and carefully folded in quarters, then eighths or sixteenths — could come in handy at the next study session if placed under the short leg of your folding chair.
One thought on “Observations in development”
Comments are closed.
Measure B should have passed; actually it probably did pass. Who knows what fraud lurks behind the voting tally. This project in mention would not be an issue.
Maybe Mr. D. A. is having regreats.