First of all, I’m not a lawyer nor have I ever tried to play one smiley face I’ll leave first amendment arguments to others.
As far as our region goes, we are not made up of a number of mega wineries whatsoever. I’m really curious as to who you think controls the majority of the funds that are being collected in terms of their size? You are portraying a region as one led by billionaires making Wine, but I just don’t see that as being the case. Yes, there are a handful of people in our region that are quite wealthy, and yes, we do have a couple of branches of much larger, conglomerates wineries here. But, that is a drop in the bucket.
As far as all getting along, I really don’t see the problem here. People have the right to market themselves if they like. What the bid is providing for is basically conjunctive or collective marketing. And I don’t understand how anyone can have a problem with that seriously.
Thank you for keeping the discussion civil unlike other others that I’ve jumped in here from time to time.
There is also the First Amendment Right of Freedom of Association which necessarily includes the right not to associate. There is a long line of SCOTUS cases dealing with union shop agreements in collective bargaining agreements that require all employees to join the union within 30 days or be fired. The SCOTUS has held such clauses are invalid and violate the First Amendment Freedom of Association. SCOTUS also has held that a non-members’ dues can’t be used be used for political contributions to which the non-member objects. So, unions have a two-tier dues structure.
Again, not a lawyer . . . but BIDS have been around for a VERY long time and the SBC one is no different than others that have literally existed for decades at this point . . .
Hello again:blush: The Vintners and the BOS have refused to release the weighted voting even with no names just percentages claiming propriety rights. Release the vote and my point will be proved. And if not, I will apologize. Mr. Foley, according to Forbes, has a NET worth of $2B. He has three wineries with hundreds of acres in SBC. The owner of Jackson Family Wines has a NET worth of $2B according to Forbes. JFW owns three wineries in SBC again with extensive vineyards. Constellation, of which I have been a shareholder for 20+ years, bought Sea Smoke which has 200? acres and sells its wines for $100 +/- per bottle. According to their last Annual Report, Constellation had sales of $2B in wine. Mrs. Rusak, nee Wrigley, when she turned 35 inherited her share of the Wrigley fortune which was sold to Mars in 2008 for $23B. That is a lot of chewing gum. They own Santa Catalina Island. They own Florestal, a 34-acre estate on the bluffs of SB overlooking the Channel Islands. I was there for a political fund raiser it is spectacular. I could go on with Terlato who owns Sanford, Fess Parker a hotel plus 714acre ranch/vineyard in Los Olivos and Presqu’ile who last year bought 1,100 acres in the Santa Rita Hills. I think these folks can pay for the Vintners’ marketing rather than forcing the small wineries to tax their customers to do so. Cheers.
You and I know that just because you are wealthy does NOT mean you make and sell a lot of wine. The Rusacks don’t sell much these days as they have closed their tasting room entirely; Foley has just closed their Sta Rita Hills tasting room and is consolidating things at Firestone; Cambria has closed their tasting room and has consolidated tastings at the Brewer-Clifton tasting room in Los Olivos. And yes, Fess Parker does own their vineyard site - how many acres are planted to grapes and how many are used for cattle, etc? Terlato does own Sanford, a much smaller brand now compared to before; Again, just because a winery is owned by someone wealthy does not mean that the brand itself is large or economically successful.
And ‘these folks’ contribute greatly to our area by doing a lot of their own marketing themselves already, spending a lot of money not only to hype their own brands, but to hype the area as well.
And again, for the last time, no one is telling small wineries that they have to add this fee on their customers - they can eat it themselves as part of their marketing costs . . .
I didn’t mention the freedom of association argument because it seem less persuasive to me than the freedom of speech arguments based on goverment compelling wineries to fund an organization that will speak for them. As I understand the regulation, it doesn’t require the winery to join any organization but rather the remit a percentage of DTC sales in CA to the group. The Goldwater Institute argues that compels association, de facto, but that seems to me, at best, duplicative of the other argument.
Hello again. But you, the Vintners and the BOS are telling small wineries they have to join an organization they don’t want to be a member of and tax their customers 1% of their sales. Last month the BOS had a proposal to increase the county sales tax by 1% to close the $16M budget shortfall. They did polling which showed the citizens would vote down the tax. Were the winery consumers given a vote on the 1% tax-nope. That was decided by the 20 or so large wineries because of the weighted voting. Prove me wrong, release the weighted vote with percentages only.
According to the Wine Business Monthly, in 2025 the large wineries in SBC ranked by case sales in the US as follows: Jackson FW # 6-6M, Foley #14 -1.9M, Constellation #28 - 750K and Terlato #32 - 600K. It is not believable these folks can’t pay for their marketing.
Just to reiterate, I am not on the board and am not privy to that information - nor is it shared elsehwere in any other region IMHO. And no, wineries do not have to levy a fee on their customers - only if they choose to not pay it themselves.
As far as the numbers go with the wineries mentioned, they mean nothing as the majorirty of the sales of each and every one of these come mainly from regions outside of SBC, not SBC itself . . .
Hello Al. All wineries are required to pay the 1%. According to the Vintners’ Wine Business Improvement District FAQ : " All wineries in the district who pay into the Wine District become de facto voting members of the new winery association." page 9. If they were not “members of the new winery association” they would not be obligated to pay the 1%. Rumor has it that 61 SB wineries have not paid the 1%. Larry, can you confirm or deny this? I can’t distinguish this from the union shop agreement requiring employees to join the union within 30 days or be terminated. SCOTUS has held union shop clauses violate the First Amendment right of freedom of association and employees do not have to join the union to continue their employment.
As I’ve made it perfectly clear, I am not on the Board and am not privy to information like this. I do know of a handful that have been vocal about not paying - some of the same folks who were vocal about not wanting the BID to go forth - and my guess is that perhaps a good amount of those that you say have not paid may actually not still be in business. I guess time will tell
It is the County’s responsibility to enforce. The mechanism is the same one the County uses against any business that does not pay its sales tax liability, even though the 1% is not a tax. After the way Larry S. made me feel sorry for winery owners with a NET worth of $2B who are really not wealthy and need their customers to pay their marketing, I am sure Larry S. can also explain away this conundrum as well.
I think you intentionally keep glossing over the fact that these non wealthy folks do not need to pass along the BID fee to their customers. They can just scrape together the funds through a different means.
Thank you for your comment. Respectfully, that is a distinction without a difference. The 1% was not initially passed with a one person one vote. The weighted voting by sales means the top 20 wineries imposed it on the other 250+ wineries. The argument that this is ok because the large wineries will pay the most is false. It is not the large wineries money, the 1% is being paid by their customers. Why should the small wineries “scrape together the funds” to pay the marketing costs of the large wineries? You also ignore the fact that the large wineries marketing will have very little if any benefit for the small wineries. This is the reality. This is why the Family Winemakers was formed because the Wine Institute is dominated by the large wineries whose interests are different from the small wineries. It is also ironic that the Jackson Family Wines was one of the major proponents of forming the Family WM and they are now one of the large wineries forcing the small wineries to join an organization to which they don’t want to belong. You are also ignoring the clear unconstitutionality of the Board of Supervisors forcing folks to belong to an organization to which they don’t want to belong. If after a union election which the union won with a one person one vote ballot, the federal government can’t force workers to be union members, how can the BOS force the small wineries to be members of an association to which they don’t want to belong where the weighted voting pre-determined the result?
I am really curious how you know with certainty that those top 20 wineries, which represent an unknown percentage of total sales, actually did vote to approve the BID? Where is your proof on that?
Also, you still use the term “pay “ loosely. It is akin to who pays tariffs. Eventually the consumer but in your case, it is elective to specifically charge it to a consumer directly
He does not - nor can he. The small wineries benefit from larger wineries ‘exposlng’ our region to those who may never hear about us.
Reminds me of wine folks up in Paso who have nothing but ‘dislike’ for Daou yet don’t understnand that the millions they spend on marketing helps ALL of them . . .
The Vintners and the BOS have refused to release the weighted voting even with no names just percentages claiming propriety rights. Release the vote and my point will be proved. And if not, I will apologize. Mr. Foley, according to Forbes, has a NET worth of $2B. He has three wineries with hundreds of acres in SBC. The owner of Jackson Family Wines has a NET worth of $2B according to Forbes. JFW owns three wineries in SBC again with extensive vineyards. Constellation, of which I have been a shareholder for 20+ years, bought Sea Smoke which has 200? acres and sells its wines for $100 +/- per bottle. According to their last Annual Report, Constellation had sales of $2B in wine. Mrs. Rusak, nee Wrigley, when she turned 35 inherited her share of the Wrigley fortune which was sold to Mars in 2008 for $23B. That is a lot of chewing gum. 
They own Santa Catalina Island. They own Florestal, a 34-acre estate on the bluffs of SB overlooking the Channel Islands. I was there for a political fund raiser it is spectacular. I could go on with Terlato who owns Sanford, Fess Parker a hotel plus 714acre ranch/vineyard in Los Olivos and Presqu’ile who last year bought 1,100 acres in the Santa Rita Hills. I think these folks can pay for the Vintners’ marketing rather than forcing the small wineries to tax their customers to do so. Cheers.