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.

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.

Measure H proposes a half-cent "self-help" sales tax for repair and maintenance of local streets and roads; improvements to the Jamieson Canyon corridor, including widening and a center median barrier from Highway 29 to I-80; and safer routes to school and improved transit options. Napa Citizens for Safety and Congestion Relief - Yes on Measure H has compiled this list of answers to common questions.

Recent letters to the Register in opposition to Measure A have shown a wild, "throw everything and hope something sticks" mentality.

We must do something about our transportation needs and soon. We can all agree that for decades, we've had insufficient maintenance for city streets, county roads and that Highway 12, through Jamieson Canyon, is dangerous for commuters and other travelers. We're encouraged to enact Measure H, a seemingly simplistic solution to fix roads and reduce congestion.

I wanted to add my voice to those in opposition to the passage of Measure A. As the former planning director for the county, I inherited the strong foundation laid by Jim Hickey to enhance and preserve the agriculture and open space resources of the county. Working in conjunction with the board of supervisors and a group of dedicated staff professionals, a number of new laws were adopted which served to protect the land, our most precious resource, but also dramatically increased local property values. These laws were actively discussed at public hearings, reviewed for their environmental impacts, modified as needed to address issues raised at the public meetings and regularly reviewed as original circumstances changed. A good example of this democracy in action was the 1991 hillside regulations that were adopted following the recommendations of a broad-based technical panel, reviewed at numerous public hearings and later modified as we learned more about the how the regulations were affecting property owners and the public. Contrary to this democratic process, Measure A as a citizen's imitative can only be changed by a vote of the people even if, as many have written, it contains flaws which may warrant a revision.

Now that we are winding down into the final few days before the election, I thought it would be helpful to clarify a few continuing misconceptions about Measure A. For instance, a recent letter stated that things would have gone much differently in the recent dispute with the developers in Browns Valley if Measure A were in effect. Not true, the whole dispute would have been unaffected by Measure A because all the pertinent laws and permitting rules were put in place well before February of 2005, which is when Measure A takes effect.