![New FB Cover](https://www.sonomavalleycannabisgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/New-FB-Cover.jpg)
Sonoma won’t have a second dispensary anytime soon. Why not?
Column by Friend Josette Brose-Eichar in the Sonoma Valley Sun:
Last month the Sonoma City Council addressed the issue of issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a second cannabis dispensary within city limits. The city’s cannabis ordinance was changed two years ago to allow another dispensary, its second. But at its April 19 meeting, the council declined to move forward. There will not be a second dispensary in Sonoma anytime soon.
For the past two years we have heard that dispensaries will be opening soon in the unincorporated areas of Sonoma Valley, so no need to move forward.
It turns out some or all of the council met with Eric Pearson, an owner of SPARC, the one permitted dispensary in the city of Sonoma since April of 2022, before the meeting. His perspective is what they listened to.
Mr. Pearson, of SPARC, stated during public comment, “If it’s not plainly obvious at this point, the proponents of a second dispensary here tonight are part of an organization that we competed with and defeated in a highly competitive process. Some of these folks have teamed up with a new out-of-town operator who lives in San Francisco and who is organizing and financing this continued quest for another location. Despite the attempt to make this look like a local grassroots effort of concerned citizens, it is not.”
As a member of the group he was referring to, the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, I can state that we have not teamed up with any dispensary operator, nor have we accepted any money from anyone. We are in fact a financially broke, grassroots organization that believes a second dispensary would be advantageous to Sonoma and consumers. We are not backing any specific operator for a second dispensary. The council did not question Mr. Pearson’s statement or ask where this information came from.
Employees of SPARC stated, during public comment at the City Council meeting, that they would order any product a customer asked for. Soon after SPARC first opened, I personally asked for a product, and was told that their policy did not allow for ordering this product but, if I wanted it they would order a case of it for me for $540. I declined. As it appeared their policy had changed, I sent an email asking them to order two of the product and let me know when I could come in and pick it up. On April 24, I received a response that they would order for me. Since then I have had emails and phone calls from SPARC management, that no, the policy has not changed. They do “special orders” when customers request a product they do not carry, but “special orders” require buying a case. The council was not given this information.
SPARC offered to give me a case of the product for free, because of all the confusion. However, we agreed that I would pay for and pick up two bottles of my product.
I also do not think Mr. Pearson was promised he would be the only dispensary in Sonoma “for some time” by a previous city council The city ordinance was changed in April, 2021 to allow a second dispensary, with the council at that time acknowledging the city could support and did need a second dispensary.
Mr. Pearson has been successful in assuring that he will not have any competition in the city of Sonoma. To me his influence over this council is a cause for concern.
Sonoma Valley Sun, May 7, 2023
![](https://www.sonomavalleycannabisgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Screenshot-2023-05-04-at-10-35-46-Dan-Hagopian.png)
Letter to the Editor: Cannabis concerns, April 28, 2023
EDITOR: Concerning “Sonoma City Council mulls a second dispensary,” (April 21 online), it looks like some or all of the council met with Erich Pearson of SPARC before the April 19 council meeting and his perspective is what they listened to.
In addition, Erich Pearson, an owner of SPARC, stated during public comment: “If it’s not plainly obvious at this point the proponents of a second dispensary here tonight are part of an organization that we competed with and defeated in a highly competitive process. Some of these folks have teamed up with a new out of town operator who lives in San Francisco and who is organizing and financing this continued quest for another location. Despite the attempt to make this look like a local grassroots effort of concerned citizens, it is not.”
I am a member of the group he referenced, the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, and I can state that we are not teamed up with any dispensary operator nor have we accepted any money from anyone. We are, in fact, a financially broke, grassroots organization that believes that a second dispensary would be advantageous to the city of Sonoma and consumers. We are not backing any specific operator for a second dispensary. The council did not question Mr. Pearson’s statement and did not ask the source of this information.
Employees of SPARC stated, during public comment at the city council meeting, that they would order any product a customer asked for. Soon after SPARC opened, I personally asked for a product, and was told that their policy did not allow for ordering this product but, if I wanted it they could order a case of it for me for $540. I declined. As it appears their policy changed, I sent an e-mail asking them to order two single items of the product. On April 24, I received a response that they will order it for me.
I also do not think Mr. Pearson was promised he would be the only dispensary in Sonoma “for some time” by a previous city council. In fact the city ordinance was changed in April 2021 to allow a second dispensary, with the council at that time acknowledging that the city could support a second dispensary. The next makeup of the council was on the fence and then allowed SPARC a year to see how they did. So far Mr. Pearson has been successful in assuring that he will not have any competition in the city of Sonoma.
To me his influence over this council is a cause for concern.
Josette Brose-Eichar
Boyes Hot Springs
CHASE HUNTER
INDEX-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 21, 2023
After discussing a second dispensary in city limits, the Sonoma City Council declined to take action on Wednesday, citing the threat of over saturating the emerging cannabis market amid industry struggles.
The Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, which has spent years advocating for marijuana access in city limits, said the city council has created a de facto monopoly, limited the options for consumers and helped prop up SPARC’s business.
“This is a free market society. If you can’t make it with two dispensaries, then maybe you have to find another location,” Gil Latimer, founder of the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group said. “There’s only one dispensary right now, that’s serving technically 40,000 people.”
Read more here…
Letter to the Index-Tribune editor, May 5, 2023
Several complaints about the council’s response to a second dispensary, plus pining for the “good old days.”
2 responses from our Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group regarding the city council’s mishandling of the 2nd dispensary issue and the accusations made against us by sparc CEO Erich Pearson.
Thanks to Perri Ellis Paniagua for her letter. 😀
My rejoinder to Pearson’s false allegations is on that page, as well
You can read them here…
Marijuana opinions
Letters to the Index-Tribune editor, July 1, 2022
EDITOR: The article of June 24, “CalFocus: Often-destructive pot now treated like any business,” is an alarming opinion piece that is sensationalistic and does not qualify as objective truth.
Your readership would have been better served had it been made aware of a much more balanced view that refers to the very same research cited by the author. “Marijuana May Not Lower Your IQ” (Scientific American, May 2020) reported that later, better structured studies, including one performed with the same data from the original research, found no relationship between marijuana use and falling IQ.
For publications that have covered the local cannabis industry in a relatively honest manner, the Sonoma Index-Tribune and North Bay Business Journal have done it a disservice by not performing their due diligence and green-lighting an unbalanced and deceptive piece written by a third-rate syndicated columnist of dubious intent. The decision to publish it seems unprincipled, and cynical at that, considering the advertising dollars involved.
Gil Latimer
Sonoma
Commentary: On cannabis, competition equals compassion
GIL LATIMER
FOR THE INDEX-TRIBUNE
November 11, 2021
The business of cannabis continues to be an issue in Sonoma. It shouldn’t be. After nearly five years of hard work by patients, advocates and the City Council, Sonoma now has an ordinance that permits two dispensary storefronts. However, in keeping with the issue’s history of being kicked down a rocky road, the process for permitting a second dispensary appears to be stalled by a mix of incredulity and less informed experiences of some local officials.
A certain amount of skepticism among city electeds and the community at large is understandable. However, we remind readers that Proposition 64 was supported by 62% of Sonoma voters, more than any of the other county’s cities, or the county itself.
There are several reasons why an additional dispensary contributes to the city and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens…
Sonoma City Council opens door to second walk-in dispensary
Valley Forum: Sonoma would support second dispensary
GIL LATIMER
SPECIAL TO THE INDEX-TRIBUNE
January 11, 2021
Recently, some council members expressed support to permit one additional walk-in dispensary with delivery service. We agree, and believe there are a number of reasons why this would be in the best interest of medical patients, adult consumers and the city.
Of course, there are arguments against allowing an additional dispensary in Sonoma…
Re-ignite dispensary process
Letters to the Editor, Nov. 13, 2020
Now that Measure Y has failed, it becomes even more vital that the Sonoma City Council find a way to quickly renew the currently stalled process for a local dispensary.
This could also be viewed as an opportunity to treat cannabis businesses like other legal businesses. Sonoma’s current RFP process is overly restrictive, expensive and time consuming. The city should provide a more streamlined process that will mitigate the current delay and bring a dispensary opening closer to the original timeline.
In addition, the city’s ordinance should be amended to permit at least one additional walk-in dispensary. No single business should be allowed to monopolize the market space. Competition is a healthy part of any industry. It results in better prices, more product choices, higher quality products and innovative services. Consumers deserve no less.
Gil Latimer
Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group
Dispensaries are inevitable
Letters to the Editor, Aug. 14 – 16, 2018
EDITOR: The Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group (SVCG) strongly condemns the malicious behavior of Jon Early toward Sonoma City Councilman David Cook (‘Bullseye Email Raises Alarm at City Hall,’ Aug. 7). We cannot stress more firmly that any level of threats or harassment of public officials or citizens is not only out of line, but ultimately counter-productive…
Cannabis decision ‘shameful and embarrassing’
Letters to the Editor, June 15 – 18, 2018
EDITOR: As a member of the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, I found the City Council’s recent decision to deny patients access to a local dispensary shameful and embarrassing.
Our group’s 250 members have advocated for a dispensary/delivery service within Sonoma for nearly a year. We’ve always offered assistance and information to the council as it worked to create a comprehensive cannabis ordinance.
Despite face-to-face discussions and the reams of material SVCG provided, and despite the town hall meetings that showed overwhelming support for a dispensary, the majority of the council continued to rely on ‘war on drugs’ perceptions and voted to severely limit the right to safe, local access to medical cannabis….
Cannabis users lobby Sonoma to ‘grow their own’
CHRISTIAN KALLEN
INDEX-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 28, 2018
“There are many misperceptions, fueled by old stigmas and fears, about cannabis,” said Gil Latimer. He’s a member of the ad hoc Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, whose members are hoping the council will reconsider its ordinance when it receives its second reading on Wednesday, May 30. “We aren’t talking about fields of cannabis plants waving in the wind here, but rather up to only six plants for personal use.”
Pipe dreams: Will Sonoma miss out on the marijuana boom?
By Jonah Raskin
Posted on February 23, 2018 by Sonoma Valley Sun
Sonoma cannabis activist Gil Latimer calls himself a realist and a skeptic. For the most part, he defends Sonoma when it comes to marijuana, though he has some gripes. “The city should have hammered out an ordinance six years ago,” Latimer told me. “Now, it has no choice but to follow the path it has chosen. Jon Early ought to know that.”
Not long ago, Latimer created the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, which has a Facebook presence and more than 100 private members. Latimer says he drives to Cotati, Sebastopol and Santa Rosa to buy cannabis that he uses it medicinally. The journey from Sonoma gets old fast.
Latimer allows that Sonoma is behind the times. A familiar face at city hall meetings, he has concluded that officials have wished that the whole issue of marijuana would just go away. Now, he’s willing to be patient and wait out the long, slow process that might or might not result in a cannabis ordinance. “We could have had one long ago, but Ken Brown recused himself from that crucial vote,” Latimer remembers…
Sonoma holding breath on cannabis
KATE WILLIAMS
INDEX-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
December 28, 2017
Gil Latimer, of the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, encourages the community to make its position on the issue known to the Council.
“For better or worse, the matter is now in your hands,” Latimer wrote in an email. “If you think that allowing a dispensary is the right thing to do, write them at citycouncil@sonomacity.org.”