The City of Sonoma recently released a draft of its General Plan Economic Element for public review and comment. We’d like to add a few of our own.
A General Plan update is periodically required by the State of California, and the General Plan being updated by the city was approved in 2006, nearly twenty years ago. It includes multiple “elements,” of which the Economic Element is just one. To facilitate and manage the update process, a consultant has been hired at the cost of nearly a quarter-million dollars.
The Economic Element is central to the General Plan; unless the City of Sonoma can sustain a vibrant economy, the revenue it needs to serve the interests of the residents and visitors diminish, and along with that, the quality of life the community enjoys. The City of Sonoma is not a business but it still needs money, and like any government enterprise depends upon taxes, fees and grants to fund its activities.
A General Plan Economic Element looks to chart a sound financial course into the next 20 years. As we’ve noted in previous editorials, in today’s world, planning 20 years ahead is impractical; the changes wrought by technology are happening so quickly that planning even for five years is a guess, let alone what will happen next year. With the emergence of AI, all bets are off.
The current Draft Economic Element, however, does not even mention AI, or the many changes in where and how people work and shop. For example, it suggests the city encourage new retail businesses and build spaces for them, which ignores the fact that “brick and mortar” retail is struggling to survive against the likes of Amazon. It expresses the goal of bringing high paying jobs to the city, despite the growing trend of remote work. Sustaining Wine Country tourism is critical to our economic future, but changing drinking habits and climate change effects on grape growing are not mentioned. To achieve its goals, it recommends working with the Sonoma Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau, both of which are partially funded by the city itself. Frankly, we feel the goals and ways to achieve them in this draft are outdated. Economically, the world of 2025 is now completely different, but the Draft Economic Element reads like it’s still 1995.
First, we recommend that current economic changes and challenges be acknowledged; it is against this backdrop that any plans for the future must be made. If wine sales continue to diminish, for example, then other forms of agriculture should be supported. If tourism revenue is essential, then other ways to sustain it must be developed, like regular yearly festivals, periodic events and perhaps a bigger performance venue. Rather than focusing on creating more retail spaces, the city should concentrate on developing venues where people gather, for cultural, arts and sports events, for instance. If people are going to work remotely, then the city should invest in providing widespread, free, high-speed WiFi and developing ways to facilitate home businesses that generate fees.
The old economic order is dying, and it’s impossible to know precisely what the future holds. The city needs to bring together a group of forward-looking thought-leaders to help it chart a course. Among our residents are very successful people, experts in technology, health, finance, communication, and business. Now’s the time to bring them into the process.
While it is certainly right and proper to call out the obvious deficiencies, limitations and anachronistic thinking that is driving the current general plan, the larger question that needs to be addressed is why our city planning commission and city staff think this plan is even remotely fit for purpose. Some first order questions might include – Do we have the right people in the right positions? Does our city have adequate institutional knowledge to develop the kinds of plans we need? Have we become overly reliant on external consultants? Do our commissions and staff focus “checking the boxes” rather than developing a forward looking plan? No doubt there many other important and relevant issues to be addressed, but the one thing we can agree upon is that this plan as currently written is hopelessly dated and laughably inadequate.
All well and good to suggest bringing forward-looking thought-leaders to help Sonoma chart its future. How to reconcile that with another editorial’s suggestion that our current local government culture results in city electeds and staff viewing public opinion as a nuisance: “…it’s no wonder that those opinions are disregarded. Consequently, the people who live here and have a stake in the day-to-day life of the community are relegated to second class status in favor of outside consultants and paid staff.”?
See “The Government Echo Chamber”, Sun, May 30, 2025