Lawsuits in A

threaten county

Dear editor,

The Land Stewards Alliance are using deception to win a "yes" vote on Measure A. Their signs and their publicity imply that a property owner currently is not compensated if the government takes their property. This is not true. The U.S. Constitution, itself, makes it unlawful to take a person's property without adequate compensation. Even in the Sample Ballot, their argument in favor of Measure A states that "if the Board of Supervisors takes our propertyŠshouldn't we be compensated?"

Measure A, if it passes, requires funds from the county's General Fund to be paid to any property owner when that property owner feels that there has been a decrease in value of his county property due to new or revised restrictions. The property owner, no matter how unreasonable, decides how much his loss is and attempts to get the board of supervisors to agree. If no agreement is reached within 100 days, then the property owner shall have the right to have the decrease in value established by a court. It is easy to visualize the many frivolous lawsuits that will arise, if this measure passes. Even if there is no decrease in property value for imposed land use restrictions, it is estimated that the county's administration cost will be between $385,000 and $620,000 per year. In addition, the litigation cost will be between $550,000 to $720,000. These are funds coming from the county's fund that is used for such services as law and justice and public safety.

By threatening a lawsuit every time a new or revised restriction is made, our land-use protections will gradually fade away. Compare Napa County to other California counties. Our approach has definitely worked, so vote "yes" on Measure A and keep our county going in the right direction.

Linda Price

Napa