Yes, it certainly is an interesting topic and one that I’m sure everyone is glad that there was an open discussion going on about now.
There is no doubt that Collective marketing can be great assistance to every Wine region. The question is how one goes about doing it and funding it.
I also see that Sonoma just hired a new interim director. It’ll be interesting to see what she is able to do in terms of building consensus.
Cheers
I think there’s plenty of consensus right now (but not unanimity). 
Adam Lee
Clarice Wine Company
I understand what you are saying, but we can hopefully also agree that doing nothing about the current state of the wine industry in your county is not a positive thing, right?
Nobody is saying to do nothing. Thats a straw man.
Adam Lee
Clarice Wine Company
Not what I’m saying, my friend. You can look at all kinds of statistics, but they don’t necessarily tell you the true story. That was my point.
What’s the true story?
Adam Lee
Clarice Wine Company
I’m sorry, Amador County. Wine Heritage District.Same law as yours, and proposed Sonoma and proposed Lodi.
Same cast of characters: Civitas that gets rich, an existing nonprofit that gets rich, HDL collections that gets rich, the bigger businesses that determine the outcome, and the smaller businesses who have no say.
I’m sorry, I don’t know. But they can’t waive a fee without permission of the BOS.
Here is a disheartening “unclear on the concept” about an “owners’ association” regarding the Amador County Wine Heritage District:
Amador Vintners Association formed a corporation (owners’ association) called “Amador County Wine Heritage District, A California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation” with bylaws, articles of incorporation, and a board of directors.
Problem is : The district is formed by the County by resolution. It consists of a geographical area with boundaries. It includes specific assessed businesses to which activities/services are provided.
The owners’ association is a private nonprofit that contracts with the County to provided activities/services to the payors within the district.
The district cannot be a corporation.
I just received a copy of Amador County’s contract with HDL for collecting from the wine district and the terms are the same as that for the tourism district shown above.
Wine is not a Giffen good. Wine too is subject to basic economic principles of how pricing affects quantity demanded.
Lesson learned……too late.
Mods, please merge with:
I was in Lodi a few weeks ago and the same 1%‘tax’ is being proposed there.
I think they are more Veblen goods than Giffen goods. My AI friend told me:
Giffen and Veblen goods are both exceptions to the law of demand, where higher prices lead to increased demand, but they differ fundamentally: Veblen goods are luxury items whose higher price increases their desirability due to status signaling, while Giffen goods are essential, inferior staples, like potatoes for low-income families, whose demand rises with price because the income effect forces consumers to buy more of these necessities and less of other goods.
Thank you. I stand corrected.
Winery atty Brett Jolley made an important point at the 9/9 Lodi BOS meeting. Since businesses within agricultural zoning are exempt from assessment (SHC 36632), such businesses cannot be used to establish by petition 51% of budget. Excluding all businesses in Ag zoning, can the remaining businesses still reach the 51%?
Lodi has a chance to stop all these corrupt districts but a business owner only has 30 days from when the Resolution of Formation is adopted on 11/18 to challenge the assessment in court.
They are excluded from the numerator but included in the denominator?
Illegally. Nobody challenged it, right?