Dear editor,

When one gives to a land trust organization an easement over their land for preservation purposes, this is a forfeiture of a portion of one's bundle of rights to that property and one expects to receive in exchange substantial income tax deductions and perhaps other tax advantages such as lower property taxes.

But, when that same bundle of rights is taken away through government regulatory takings for public benefit, the county says it owes the landowner nothing in return! To add insult to injury, unlike a land trust dedication, the property owner can't pick and choose which rights or portion of their property they're going to lose because the abusive nature of regulatory takings puts zero value on the property owner's bundle of rights. Is that fair? Is that just? Seems to me if there is value in one arrangement for pubic benefit there should be value in the other?

With Measure A, "all" property and homes will be recognized as having value and the confiscation of this value must be properly considered when new land use restrictions and regulatory takings are contemplated by our county leaders. Many wealthy grape growers and landowners have for years received preferential treatment via their land trust donations ,whereas most others property owners have had to forfeit their land uses with not even a thank you in exchange for their losses.

I favor setting a good example for our youth by saying it isn't right to take from others without paying for what they want to take.

The Supreme Court says protection of our property rights needs to be done at a local level, and based on the past 35 years of property rights erosion in Napa County through regulatory takings, Measure A is both long over due and the right thing to do.

It is time we act to protect what little is left of Napa County families’ property rights and the county's future tax base by voting yes on Measure A.

Fred Chopping

Napa