Over the past few weeks, I have been asked to explain Measure A to some folks hearing about it for the first time. The explanation is actually quite simple. Measure A will help protect thousands of families who go unrepresented by their elected officials from having their property stolen through government overregulation. It will help protect the future tax base of Napa County which is continually being eroded by government confiscation of property rights. It will not change any current regulations and allows exemptions for needed health and safety or state-mandated regulations. Contrary to misrepresentations made by the opponents of the measure, Measure A protects the Ag Preserve, Measure J and the General Plan. There will be no cost to Napa County if the special interest groups and their salaried officials don't confiscate more property from targeted Napa families through never-ending, self-serving, new regulations.

Napa officials have stated if they take 95 percent of the value of a Napa family's property for some trumped-up public benefit that this family is owed nothing. This is how they get around the process of "eminent domain," which was originally about paying property owners for confiscating their property for roads, mass transit or some real public purpose.

What the opponents who stand to benefit if Measure A can be defeated seem to have in common is that they appear to condone the immoral theft of assets from targeted families in their own community. I have no doubt as to how these people would react if one of these targeted families had the political power to turn the tables by confiscating much of the value of "their" home or "their" bank account or "their" retirement fund.

Recently, a Sierra Club official called Napa families who own property "piggies" and protecting property rights a "truckload of slop." The rest of what was said was self-serving misrepresentations and not worth repeating, but his comments are mild compared to several others who have stated in public meetings that certain private property rights should be eliminated altogether. Additionally, there is a lot of talk about "our" Napa County lands from people who have not worked or sacrificed to actually own any of these targeted properties, but who feel justified in confiscating their neighbor's property value under the guise of some so-called public benefit. Who's the piggy?

In Sonoma County, they respect the constitutionally protected rights of their citizens and property owners. With public money, they "buy" various properties that are for sale if they want them for public use. Most lands they purchase are placed in public parks and, unlike Napa, everyone concerned wins. The property owner gets value for his property and the public gets more parkland. The political elite in Napa County, however, have found that they can confiscate property from targeted Napa families through incremental overregulation without paying a dime.

One of our supervisors is the head of the opposition of Measure A. He has stated that he has no problem with the taking of a hundred million dollars of property value from local families every year and feels justified in not paying these good folks a dime for their losses. However, when hundreds of millions of value are stolen from local families every year, they are not the only losers. Huge amounts of Napa's future tax base are lost forever. Next they want another tax increase to pay for services that would have already been paid for had they not needlessly overregulated so many properties, thus reducing the county's "potential" tax base.

Measure A's opponents' slick, expensive propaganda attempts to convince voters that if Measure A passes we will have to go without police or fire protection. We hear this bogus argument every time powerful groups fear their "gravy train" may be slowed. However, how we can afford to pay our part-time supervisors annual salaries that are nearly that of full-time judges plus lucrative, lifetime retirement benefits equaling hundreds of thousands of dollars each, but we can't afford fire protection?

Across the country, people are fed up with the government stealing private property for some self-perpetuating purpose or for the benefit of community elitists. Like Napa, government officials target property owners who go unrepresented by their elected officials or are not the political elite. This reminds me of the schoolyard bullies who steal the weaker kid's lunch money, knowing there is no one to protect him.

By voting yes on Measure A, the Land Stewards are trying to stand up to the bullies who are after much more than lunch money. I seem to remember one of the Ten Commandments being, "Thou shalt not steal!"

(Funk lives in Napa.)