It’s certainly logistically possible for member wineries to send 1% (or whatever) of sales as dues to the Association. I don’t think it’s logistically possible for them get the county and cities to enact at BID levy based on whether or not they are in the association.
-Al
O.K. Fair enough.
Larry, anything wrong with this idea? (1% of sales) (asking you only because you seem to have de facto assumed the role of SBV spokesperson here)
Let me set the record straight on a couple of things - Mr. Pepe seems to want to ‘deflect’ rather than deal with realities here:
The Wine Bid was vetted by every local and regional trade association, including Visit Santa Barbara, Visit Santa Ynez Valley and plenty others. All were supportive of it and felt that it was ‘in line’ with their BIDS, which are all legal.
Civitas Advisors, the third party company that the Vintner’s Association partnered with to advise them through the process, has worked with a number of other BIDS, tourism districts and property districts and had no qualms about the ‘legality’ of this BID. Period. It’s legality has never been questioned - and Pepe bringing this up truly seems like a ‘deflection’. Here is a link to the different entities that they have and continue to work with:
Anyone that has ever met me, including on this board, knows how much I love and support the Santa Barbara Wine Community and work to ‘spread the word’ about the quality of the wines that we produce here, most often in the face of the anonymity our region has with most wine drinkers, including very knowledgable ones. There’s a reason that nearly every time a wine from the SBC region is mentioned on here, I jump on the thread to ‘spread the love’. When a variety like Syrah or Grenache or Mourvedre or Pinot or Sauvignon Blanc or Chardonnay or Pinot or . . . is mentioned on this board, and there are fantastic versions from the SBC region that should be given consideration, I am here to do so.
It’s a ‘challenging fight’ because I oftentimes feel like I am swimming upstream, and that stream is getting stronger against me whereas it is not as challenging for regions north of me - period.
This BID was an attempt and create a consistent revenue stream that would have benefited EVERY winery in SBC by establishing a truly professional Association that would be staffed in a similar manner to Paso, Sonoma, Willamette Valley, etc. Our Association has only two full time employees whereas Paso has 7 or 8, including 3 working on MARKETING for their region and a full time dedicated Government Relations staff member. We would have truly been able to raise the tide for all of us . . .
What we are now left with is a splintered group of wineries who seem to be myopic and don’t seem to understand the concept of ‘rising tides’ or working selflessly for a region that they are part of. This is not meant as ‘name calling’ whatsoever - just an observation that I’ve noticed over my nearly two decades of being a part of this community. Many in this group seem to want to criticize instead of coming up with revenue stream solutions; many seem to ask ‘what have you done for me lately’ instead of stepping up and being a part of the solution.
Now that the ‘dirty laundry’ has been aired, I’m hopeful that we can move on - and hopeful that the next threads dealing with Santa Barbara County are about the wonderful wines that we produce, the passionate winemakers that continue to push boundaries, and the great experiences people have when they visit the area.
Cheers.
Here’s the deal - at current, we are a members dues driven organization, and therefore all of the members contribute dues to help fund the Association. That is how we are currently funded - but it’s not enough to get us over the hump economically.
And the concept here is not to be ‘exclusive’ but ‘inclusive’ - period.
Cheers.
So, since you mentioned Civitas Advisors, what would be their cut from the deal? How much of the money (% / $) collected would stay in Santa Barbara, and how much would flow to Civitas/Sacramento? (I did not see that addressed in any of the linked prospectives.)
Here is the Civitas website.
None would flow to them at all - they are paid as advisors to set this up.
So, it sounds like the organization is having problems being self-sustaining. I suspect when a lever is pulled or pushed in one direction in an effort to get more members the result is some currently-existing members then want to leave — is that what’s happening?
I see you said “not exclusive, but rather inclusive”, but it sounds like what the SBV really wants is compulsory membership. It sounds like non-members simply aren’t in agreement with the SBV’s vision of how to accomplish its goals. Frustrating, for sure, but the alternative is to require membership. If the “splinter group” isn’t having success, and if the SBV isn’t having success, then — eventually — something has to give. You can’t make people be friends. You can’t force people to volunteer.
What SBC needs is support from its wineries - but there are many that don’t want to ‘support’ for various reasons, some of which are based on long standing trepidation.
Yep, one can’t ‘force’ anyone to be part of a member driven organization - but most other wine regions seem to accomplish this task year in and year out, oftentimes with higher dues then are charged here.
Here’s the thing - those that don’t seem to want to join really are not coming up with ways in which they would join and support the area as a whole. And many of us are waiting . . .but still need to keep doing what we do . . .
Cheers.
Stop waiting, lest ye be sucked into the chasm of apathy and indecision.
Good luck to you, and all wineries in your area, in finding a successful path forward. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Those who know me know it is very unlikely I will ever be accused of being apathetic . . .
Cheers
Ha! That I know quite well.
Hi Larry. Some facts you omitted. The Lompoc Tour BID refused to contribute to the Wine BID Feasibility Study.
So “all” were not supportive. This should have caused the Vintners to pause and find out why.
The Vintners membership numbers have been dropping the last three years from the 120s, to the 90s and now to the 70s. How you can call the 80+ wineries who refused to support the Wine BID a “splinter” when the Vintners only has 73 members is interesting logic.
Finally, if the Wine BID had no legal infirmities release the Wine BID Feasibility Study. Larry, the cover up is always worse than the crime. The Wine BID Feasibility Study will come out.
Stephen,
Spin this any way that you want - still waiting to see if you will offer up your vineyard to hold the Vintner’s Foundation event; still waiting to hear ANY ideas on revenue raising; still waiting to hear alternative plans of ANY kind.
And Explore Lompoc was very much in favor of the BID - period. Their leader Paul Patel, who also owns a number of hotels in the area, understood that it would drive traffic out that way - not sure where the disconnect is with the winery members there.
Last but not least, I have no idea about a ‘feasibility study’ but you might want to ask the Vintner’s Association directly for that. Have you? That would be a good place to start - not here on a wine board.
And it’s really a shame that the threat of a lawsuit brought this idea to a halt - a unsubstantiated lawsuit which basically states that the idea of ANY BID is illegal, which is unequivocally not true. But heck, I’m not a lawyer now, am I?
It would be great if you could spend your time actually doing positive beneficial things for our area rather than simply ‘disagreeing’ with what’s being done without a plan to change things.
Cheers.
And for the last time, if you have questions of the Vintner’s Association, please ask them directly instead of posting stuff on here - geez . . .
I will resist the tendency to return volley. have a good day.