Dear editor,

We are learning more and more about Measure I. It is becoming clear that the "I" in this well-intentioned initiative could very well stand for "incomplete."

First, there is the problem with the funding of the new entity and its stated goals. As Mark Twain might have said of the lacking money, "It's twice tainted: t'aint’ yours and it t'aint’ mine."

The only major funding source is an unknown percentage of the newly raised Napa county hotel tax. This is money raised by an industry in a county which, up until last year, has virtually never re-invested it in tourism marketing.

Napa County is perhaps the only tourism destination in California that doesn't believe in setting aside Transient Occupancy Tax collected to promote, market and safeguard its vital visitor niche.

The next t'aint is the promise of government grants and funding. If the flood control project has taught us anything about the promise of government funding, it should be that it is elusive at best and non-existent at worst.

This leaves us with us with the nagging questions of just where the necessary bucks to buy, funds to facilitate and operating capital to run the newly "opened space" will come from.

Unfortunately, we all secretly know that answer: you and I.

That's not all bad. We should be willing to tax ourselves for a Parks Department in Napa County. But that's not the question before us. Measure I is before us. In fact, Measure I is before itself. The more we hear and read, the more it seems that Measure I is as "open" as the space it is meant to protect. There is no plan to adequately provide the funding wherewithal. There are no specific lands which have been designated that we will be magically given access to. There is no plan which has been developed by our elected officials, approved by the people and properly prioritized by the communities it will serve. There is just an open promise to provide access and protect Napa Valley. Insist that our elected supervisors fulfill these promises in the only way they will actually be achieved, in the "open."

Starting with a commitment of the monies available to an actual Napa County Parks and Recreation Department, the supervisors then need to lead their communities to identifying priorities. They need to put their efforts in putting an honest question before the voters: Do you value access to open space in Napa County and a series of parks and recreational facilities enough to pay for it? The people will answer by a two-thirds majority if they do. My belief is that Measure I just doesn't "measure up" to the task. As Supervisor Bill Dodd said, "We can do a lot better than this." I agree. After all I've learned during the campaign, I'll be voting "no" on Measure I.

Jim Beazley

Napa