Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group

09/16/2025

The IT posted an article about our issue and the Wednesday evening council meeting.
We still ask folks to come to the meeting to speak, or just watch in support. Or send an email to publiccomment@sonomacity.org
It's going to be a difficult night...
I'll post the text of the article in comments, below for those who don't have a subscription - thanks

Some Sonoma residents believe SPARC, the only permitted cannabis dispensary in the city, has a monopoly on the local pot trade.

09/14/2025

The Time is NOW - September 17 City Council Meeting

Fellow SVCG Members and Friends,

After years of delays, broken promises, and backroom deals, we finally have our moment. The RFP for Sonoma's second dispensary will be discussed at the September 17 city council meeting.

This is it. This is our shot.

For too long, our community has been trapped in an artificial monopoly while neighboring cities enjoy competitive cannabis markets. For too long, medical patients have faced limited choices and inflated prices. For too long, the city council has kicked this can down the road with empty promises of "six months" or "next year."

We changed that. Our coordinated pressure campaign worked. The city manager committed to September action. But now we need to show up in force to make sure they follow through.

Why Your Voice Matters:

- Council members need to see this isn't just five policy committee members - it's a real community movement
- Every new voice makes it harder for them to dismiss us or delay further
- Medical patients, business owners, taxpayers, democracy advocates - we all have stake in fair competition
What We're Fighting For:
- Medical patients deserve backup access and competitive pricing
- Taxpayers deserve the additional revenue a second dispensary provides
- Entrepreneurs deserve fair market opportunities
- Citizens deserve transparent government that keeps its promises

The False Choice Must End:

Right now, Sonoma residents must choose between supporting questionable business practices or patronizing establishments tied to documented bigotry and violence. A second dispensary breaks this unacceptable dilemma.

September 17 - 6:00 PM - Sonoma City Council Chambers

If this is an issue that matters to you, and we think it does, please come speak for 2 minutes or less. Come witness history. Come show the council that Sonoma demands better.

We've invested years in this fight. Don't let it be decided without your voice in the room.

The council promised us action. It’s time to make sure they deliver.

If you plan to speak, contact me via Message, or reply here and we’ll connect so we can coordinate timing and avoid repetition.

If you'd prefer to email your support to the City Council, that's fine too and would be greatly appreciated. You could mention any of the talking points listed above in your email - just remember to remain civil, thanks. 🙂

As soon as possible, please, the meeting is Wednesday night.

Email: publiccomment@sonomacity.org

CC: citycouncil@sonomacity.org (if you CC, individual council members will also get a copy delivered to their personal in boxes)

09/13/2025

** IMPORTANT **

Hello SVCG Friends,

We are coming to a very important crossroad. This is our Letter to the Editor, just published in print and online on the Sonoma Index-Tribune / Sonomanews.com’s web site and its FB page.

The second dispensary is on the agenda for the Wednesday, September 17 City Council meeting. We can’t stress enough how important this meeting is and we’ll have more information in our next posts.

For your convenience, we print the letter here:

Wanted: Second Cannabis Dispensary in Sonoma

Editor: The Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group recently sent an email to the Sonoma City Council urging it to examine three critical factors that demonstrate both the fiscal opportunity and regulatory inconsistency of continued delays in releasing the RFP for a second dispensary.

Tax Revenue Impact

A second dispensary represents significant additional municipal revenue with minimal city investment. Based on current SPARC performance, a second operation could generate substantial excise taxes, sales taxes, and annual licensing fees. These funds directly support city services and infrastructure that benefit all residents. Delaying this revenue stream while facing ongoing municipal budget pressures makes little fiscal sense.

Regulatory Double Standard

Sonoma applies no numerical caps or market saturation analysis to restaurants, coffee shops, ice cream stores, gift shops, or any other retail businesses. The city does not evaluate whether a new restaurant might hurt existing establishments' profitability, nor does it delay business permits while studying "concentration levels" for bookstores or boutiques. This selective regulatory approach creates an unjustifiable double standard that treats cannabis businesses differently than every other legal commercial enterprise.

Negligible City Costs

The $10,000 application fee per dispensary applicant covers administrative costs associated with processing applications. The second dispensary process requires no additional city investment, staff expansion, or infrastructure development. The revenue potential far exceeds any administrative expenses, making this a fiscally responsible decision with immediate positive returns.

Conclusion

The economic benefits are clear, the regulatory precedent is established, and the costs are minimal. We respectfully request that you direct staff to immediately begin the RFP process for the second dispensary license, ending the artificial delays that benefit no one except the current monopoly holder.

Gil Latimer, Founder
Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group

08/25/2025

The final Comment of the evening to the Sonoma City Council was by Van Solkov, MA CTA. He offered a no nonsense critique of all the players, Erich Pearson, John Loe and the City Council and Staff. The gloves *have* to come off...
Speak with integrity, say what you mean. "When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to speak up. You have to say something; you have to do something." - John Lewis

08/22/2025

Took my turn. "This isn't just about business - it's about *trust*. The media coverage and community discussions have highlighted serious concerns about how the second dispensary was blocked. Campaign contributions, lobbying conflicts, and backroom influence have overshadowed what should be a straightforward policy decision."
One more public comment to post tomorrow...

08/21/2025

Perri Ellis Paniagua was the third member to speak at the city council meeting. She reminded the CC that the 33 wine tasting rooms around the Plaza were permitted with little issue, yet it has stalled the process for a second dispensary for 3 years. She also emphasized that all of the candidates who ran for the CC (Farrar-Rivas, Gurney and Wellander) in November of 2022 declared their support for a competitive dispensary. "We are being stonewalled...We are told we have to start from square one every time a new member is elected or a new City Manager comes to town...Stop kicking the can down the road."

08/20/2025

In this second installment of five, friend of SVCG, David Eichar, continues the thread, holding city council members accountable by quoting their statements that the city should revisit the second dispensary process in six months to a year. Those quotes were made nearly 2 1/2 years ago, folks. David then pointed out that through its inaction, the city has lost thousands of revenue dollars.
We ask all of you, should we not hold the city accountable?

08/18/2025

5 of us dusted off our old SVCG Playbook and added some new tricks before speaking to the City Council last night.

*We took advantage of a meeting agenda that had next to nothing on it, so that our public comments could take center stage.
*We quoted council members from a meeting that occurred over *two* years ago in which they stated they should revisit the RFP issue in "6 months to a year".
*We advised the council that we had recently met with the City Manager to request putting the RFP on a future agenda, but were rebuffed.
*We pointed out how Erich Pearson's financial excuse for blocking competition was irrelevant and that John Loe's dispensary must not be considered an alternative because he is a racist and has threatened customers with tasers and guns.

That's just for starters, much more was said, but here is Josette Brose-Eichar's opening salvo. Easy to watch, only 2 minutes.

We will post the other four member's comments, one per day, so not to overload ya'll with stuff to watch.

*Nothing* happens if people don't speak up for themselves, it's just that simple. So a million thanks to Josette Brose-Eichar, David Eichar, Perri Ellis Paniagua and Van Solkov for stepping into the breach!

Stay tuned, more to come...

07/15/2025

SPARC carries Glass House Products.

Plenty of righteous outrage over ICE’s raid on two major cultivation sites. But beyond the unwarranted, heavy-handed deployment of overweight, racist, masked bottom feeders, on another note we are also reminded of why many in the cannabis industry take issue with Glass House.

1. The raid on the farm also uncovered 10 minors, all of whom were undocumented...Glass House is “now under investigation for child labor violations,” Scott wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

2. The Department of Cannabis Control also issued a statement, “We encourage anyone with information about child labor or trafficking at any facility to immediately contact the Department.”
“Trafficking”. Let that sink in a minute. Especially child trafficking. Isn’t that what Jeffery Epstein was found guilty of?

3. Raid revives Glass House labor law issues regarding “systemic” employment law violations, including unrealistic work quotas that resulted in skipped meal breaks and unpaid overtime.

4. Glass House has also been accused of pushing product out the backdoor and into the black market.

Glass House is one of SPARC’s flagship vendors. I wonder why Erich Pearson and biz partner Amy Jenkins highlight Glass House products as some of their finest offerings? 🤔

I have a lot more to say on this subject in an upcoming post.

Authorities detained at least 10 workers at Glass House Brands cultivation sites in a raid that drew strong rebukes and a violent protest.

06/15/2025

I could smoke an entire joint of 30% THC and still think straighter than addle-brained 8647, whose mixed messages on cannabis defy reason... Yeah, kool, let's f**k over patients and their caregivers🤬

“This provision, which has been in place since 2014, protects patients, caregivers, and medical cannabis providers in the 39 states that have legalized medical access from federal interference or criminal prosecution,” the National Organization for the Reform of Ma*****na Laws (NORML) wrote in a statement. “Prior to the passage of this protection, federal prosecutors routinely took actions against patients and dispensaries in legal states.”

The White House budget request for 2026 omits language that has protected state-regulated medical cannabis operators from federal prosecution for more than decade.

05/20/2025

The Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, a prominent advocate for fair cannabis policy, today raises urgent concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest in the city's cannabis dispensary licensing process. Central to these concerns is the role of Amy Jenkins, a well-connected lobbyist and recently appointed member of the City of Sonoma Planning Commission.


SPARC Poseidon Asset Management, LLC

The Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, a prominent advocate for fair cannabis policy, today raises urgent concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest in th...

04/10/2025

A friend posted this short video I grabbed:

"This is the woman preventing a second Dispensary in the town of Sonoma and has part ownership of the one and only one! What a conflict of interest Ms. Amy O’Gorman Jenkins! How do you even get away with this tangled web of deceit?! 🤣"

Jenkins on Expanding Retail