Who remembers the "urgency ordinance," just three years ago, banning activities within 150 feet of any stream? Wendy Wallin ("Measure A interferes with greater good," May 23) sure doesn't. Maybe she parachuted in, without pausing to consider anti-A Supervisor Mark Luce's plan to seek voter approval only when the Supervisors grab over $100 million of value (Our View editorial, May 18). Ms. Wallin can be first in line to give up 10 percent of her property value, and the Register editorial staff second -- to surrender 10 percent of yours. Advocating this goofball idea, as more reasonable than Measure A, is fine if you first tithe your own property to public good or private redistribution.

Anyway, back to the "urgency ordinance" and subsequent taking on April 8, 2003, of around 53,000 acres' land-use rights from around 9,000 parcel owners. The supervisors took away all these rights, offered not a penny, and signed their names to the law.

Instantly, all 9,000 parcels were compromised in value, ask any local Realtor. To further humor Ms. Wallin, my neighbors, Fred and Gilda Swiderski, lost around $450,000, nearly half the pre-stream setback ordinance appraisal, off what they ultimately had to accept, for their home. Land Stewards fought the unfairness and forced the stream setback ordinance vote, which a huge majority of urban and rural voters rejected. Too late for the elderly Swiderskis to benefit, but those who didn't sell may recover. Voting yes on Measure A will guard everyone from shifty staff, who tried a sneaky second attempt on our homes.

Voting yes on Measure A will not halt new regulation, nor alter old regulations. Voting yes on Measure A will signal an important change of behavior, which our public officials failed to process, when the stream setback ordinance was defeated. Voting yes on Measure A adds strength to every county vote, no matter where you live. County voters have been the best legislators in 16 years of Measure J decisions, separating Suscol Ridge fiction from Pumpkin Patch facts. Reliance on voters is a cherished principle of American society. But it threatens advocates of regulatory theft, like well-paid consultants, Jones & Stokes, who constantly hunger for more easy cash.

During the stream setback ordinance hearings, we Land Stewards repeatedly asked how the county could afford Jones & Stokes' exorbitant fees for fluff that paled next to sound science available for free in the public domain. Supervisor Dodd assured us then, all needs were being met. That was then. Now he and Supervisor Dillon wail about $27 million unfunded road project dollars and only $1.5 million left to spend. Oh, woe.

Please compare the UC Davis publication, posted under Healthy Forests and Rivers, at www.landstewards.org, with "research" produced by Jones & Stokes, if you can find anything other than funding demands on the county's Web site. Sadly, it's too bogus to post. Ten million dollars for trash.

We could have better roads now. Rather than rage over the $10 million waste, simply consider why you would side with supervisors, who think it's OK to grab $100 million more from you and your neighbors, without asking. What criminal wouldn't think that's a sweet deal? Jones & Stokes are blowing the anti-A horn and salivating in anticipation.

Please vote yes on A to give voters more say in how our homes and businesses are valued. Please vote yes to restrain consultants who want your rights to be regulated away, then linked to user-fee schemes allowing you to buy them back. Please vote yes to change our own behavior, ever so slightly, so the supervisors and public officials will start to change theirs. Please vote yes on Measures A and Z (the read and understand act, opposed predictably by public officials opposed to reading and understanding). Both measures are brought to your ballot, by the 1,100-strong, essentially good Land Stewards of Napa Valley.

(Schulz lives in Napa.)