Mr. Raskin knows full well that neither Sacramento nor Santa Rosa have been to blame for the lack of a dispensary in Sonoma. Anyone paying attention knows the fault lies with the Sonoma City Council. Ken Brown and I apprised Mr Raskin of this when we met with him some time ago. How quickly, and conveniently, we forget.
Innovation, tailored customer experiences, competitive pricing, broader selection of products…These are the benefits of competition, something that Erich Pearson and Amy O’Gorman Jenkins of sparc and the Sonoma City Council are bound and determined to deny the patients and citizens of the city of Sonoma.
“As customers return to brick-and-mortar stores after the COVID-19 pandemic, cannabis dispensary owners prepare to provide tailored customer experiences in settings that differ by far from the “trap” stores stereotypes of prohibition times.
The surge of online cannabis deliveries during the pandemic, in addition to price competition has driven cannabis entrepreneurs to compete for offering a broad selection of high-quality cannabis products and finding skillful budtenders that can build a strong community of customers around cannabis culture. In addition, store design and infrastructure remain key assets to differentiate businesses in a crowded market.”
In California, home to some of the most innovative dispensary chains, the Santa Rosa sector, in particular, has grown by being conveniently located along the Highway 101 corridor which helps local cannabis businesses reach beyond the city limits.
-Benzinga
Recently, one our our SVCG members said, “It is too bad our city council is “deaf” to the reality of how Pearson does business.”
My response? I don’t know how you get those who are deaf and dumb to hear and speak. It’s absolutely infuriating that not one of them, including Ms Lowe, has responded in any way to our last 4 emails to them. This is unacceptable. That they are busy people and shouldn’t be expected to respond to every little email is not an excuse. It is disrespectful. The message implicit in silence is “I choose to ignore you”.
One could try to make a case that it is we who are disrespectful, so why should we expect dialogue? If speaking truth to power, which is exactly what we’ve done, is considered discourteous, I’m not buying it. It’s so easy to feign aggrievement to help justify one’s refusal to engage the other.
Smiles and handshakes won’t get us what we want. Standing at the podium, hat in hand, murmuring “please” will not get us what patients deserve. One tactic in negotiation is trying to put yourself in the other’s shoes, but it’s difficult to conceive what it’s like to be deaf and dumb to this issue.
Though council members probably wouldn’t admit it aloud, some seem to be in the mindset of past members like David Cook and Gary Edwards, who were more worried about protecting “the jewel that is Sonoma” than looking after the health, safety and welfare of its own citizens. It is embarrassing and shameful and corrosive.
So, what kind of diplomacy, tact or artfulness cuts through an intractable wall of denial?
It seems we can only continue to point out to the city council that its continued blockage of a new RFP and denying Sonoma’s patients and consumers fair access to cannabis is unreasonable and unjustified.
But we need new ideas on how to do that. We do have a pretty good brain trust in this group and we are calling on you now, asking if you have any suggestions, big or small, on how to move the ball forward.
Thank you!
The Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group Policy Committee
