" SRA argued that the eco-village proposal contradicts the principles of "smart growth" because homes should be closer to jobs, and new home owners would be commuting millions of miles per year to their jobs in Napa and Santa Rosa, spending more than 2 dollars on gas for every dollar saved by energy-efficient technology in the new homes. However, somebody on the panel pointed out that PUC has 300 employees and St. Helena Hospital has 900 employees, and that a disproportionate amount of homes would be purchased by their employees. If so, that sounds like "smart growth" to me--new homes near jobs. Furthermore, there are many of us who daily commute long distances through Angwin or Highway 29 who would be keenly interested in moving closer to our jobs--if only affordable housing were available. "

" I'm puzzled by why Angwin resident John Tully warned the audience that "PUC’s plan was just the beginning of a land grab." Wasn't PUC in Angwin long before any current Angwin residents, many of whom live on land formerly owned by PUC? And isn't PUC selling rather than "grabbing" land? And I'm puzzled by why he thinks a liberal arts college that specializes in higher education should suddenly try to expand its expertise into agriculture and compete with local vineyard owners. Teaching is one thing; growing grapes for wine is quite another. Maybe it's better for PUC to stick with education and vintners to stick with their grapes. "

" PUC and Triad have never presented any evidence to support the claim that homes in the proposed development would be purchased by PUC or SHHS employees. SHHS has been laying off people. A number of SHHS-owned houses, including those on the corner of the north end of Sanitarium and Deer Park road, are vacant. The PUC administration admits that 90% of their staff already lives in the immediate area. If their employees who live outside of Angwin wanted to be here, they would be. One might also note the admission by Mostert that the "affordable housing", as we already know, can't be reserved for PUC and SHHS employees. So, there's no reason to believe that new market rate housing would attract employees who already chose not to live in the available market-rate housing Angwin. "

" Does Watchdog really expect to be believed when saying that out of over 1,000 people employed by PUC and St. Helena Hospital, none will buy a home in the Eco-Village? "

" PUC has earned our respect. Go forward! "

" It's very likely that many of those 1000 employees already own homes. And what makes you so certain that these homes will be affordable to this particular population? But more importantly, these houses cannot be selected for just PUC/hospital employees. It's against the law. ANYONE can get in line to purchase the affordable homes. Of course they will have to qualify for them. Angwin WILL end out with people from all over the county purchasing these homes and it will not be restricted to just hospital/college employees. I guarantee it. A huge lawsuit against the county/PUC could materialize if the ratio of applicants chosen for purchase of the affordable homes were employees of these religious run institutions. It might even border on separation of church and state. No favoritism allowed here. This does not seem to be getting through to some of you posting here. "

" Anyone can get in line to RENT the affordable homes is what you mean, right? They're rental units. "

" Hey Watchdog, wasn't Angwin selected by Napa County a few years ago for development of new affordable housing? The government of California recognizes the need for Napa County to provide more affordable housing. The government of Napa County begrudgingly recognizes the need for Napa County to provide more affordable housing. PUC/Triad recognizes the need for more affordable housing; they would probably raise much more money for their endowment if they built and sold mansions instead, but their plan includes affordable homes based on the county's policies. Whether you like it or not, affordable homes are coming to Napa County and the county has targeted your community--assuming you actually live in Angwin (for all I know you may live in Seattle). The state even has anti-NIMBY laws you might want to check out, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't stop expressing your views. Good luck, dear. "

" For either RENT or PURCHASE, PUC cannot discriminate against people because they are NOT employed by these religious institutions. This community cannot legally ask people if they are Christian before hiring them at the local schools either. Same principal. They cannot go into the local public school and insist that they live by the SDA religious principals. They cannot ask on a job application if they will give tithe to the church (which is basically a way of inquiring about religious status). And truthfully, they cannot legally insist on Sunday rather than Saturday mail delivery. We've been tolerant up here on this hill. But enough is enough. Neither rent nor home purchase can be selectively designated for a particular group of people; especially given the fact that they are employed by a religious institution. And, from what I understand, there will be affordable housing mixed in with the regular housing which is 'for sale'. How many of those units will be for sale I really do not know. There's absolutely no way that these units can be designated specifically for PUC/hospital employees though. Asssuming there is a line to stand in, such employees cannot legally take cuts or have preferential treatment with their applications. And BTW 'tired commuter': the reason PUC is throwing in affordable housing is because the county will speed up the process and have more flexibility for the rest of the development. I'm not saying that PUC doesn't care about affordable housing, but it does give them an advantage with the county. "

" You need to differentiate between housing built on lands retained by PUC for PUC employees and built by PUC from those built by Triad on land they purchase from PUC. PUC has every right to discriminate in who it hires and the conditions under which those individuals are hired. It also has the right to sell or rent homes or apartments on its own lands as compared to those publicly sold by Triad on lands no longer owned by PUC. Since PUC moved to Angwin in 1909 it has built, rented, and sold homes to its own employees since it is a private college and these are private lands. You need to differentiate between these two. "

" 191 open to every color, religion, job duty, sexual preference, age!!!!!!! Welcome to the world!!!!! PUC can not(wink, wink) make affordable housing any more available to one group over another. Save Rural Angwin supports the 191 units of PUC/Napa County agreeded upon units!!!! "

" If homes on PUC lands fulfill the county affordable housing quota, it's doubtful they can legally be sold to any one particular group. It's the same principal as an apartment complex where someone owns the real estate, either the land and/or the structure, and neither the party who leases or owns the land can selectively rent or sell to one specific group. To do so would be discriminating against others who do not belong to that group. Since these particular groups are religious in nature, the matter becomes even stickier. If a person has a room in their own home they want to rent out, it's easier to discriminate because the situation is much more subtle. However, when you're talking about 200 units, intentions become loud and clear. You also state that "PUC has every right to discriminate in who it hires and the conditions under which those individuals are hired". Are you absolutely certain about this? From what I understand, an organization cannot discriminate based on creed. Creed is both what you believe in and what you don't believe in. They are reversals of the same concept. Just because the practice of religious institutions hiring based on a particular creed occurs regularly, it doesn't translate to 'legal'. And the length of time of an institution conducting business does not provide exemptions to creed or housing discrimination. Perhaps the practice was legal in 1909 but it's not something that can be grandfathered in. PUC must abide by present day laws. Technically speaking, preventing mail delivery on Saturday because a postal office is leasing space on SDA lands comes very close to a separation of church and state issue. BTW, where is the post office going to be located? "

" PUC didn't ask for 191 units. PUC was interested in building additional affordable housing for its employees because it's become increasingly difficult to attract and retain employees largely because of housing. St. Helena Hospital and other service related industries in the Valley have the same problem with enough housing for its employees. It's getting harder for new public school teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and other public servants to live where they work which is not healthy for any community. The County to get out of its legal problems of not having enough affordable housing and was losing millions of dollars in government assistance assigned 191 units long before Triad was ever involved with PUC. The housing on PUC's lands is only for its employees--it's not on the open market. For example, PUC has a lot of married student housing for rent only available to its own students. PUC has housing only available for its employees. Since all PUC's fulltime employees are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in accord with church policy, it follows that the housing which is only available for employees will be filled with church members. Yes. All religious colleges can inquire about the church membership and beliefs of employees -- it's clearly established in the law of the nation. These are also noted in federal and state codes when money comes for student tuition assistance such as CalGrant, Pell Grant, Perkins Loans, Stafford Loans, etc. which goes directly to the student which is considered student assistance and not college assistance. Where the law becomes more difficult tne Supreme Court has been shifting some over the last decade is in regard to receipt of government funds to build classrooms that have a religious purpose compared to those with a more neutral purpose. The California State Supreme Court recently ruled that religious colleges could receive tax exempt state bonds but under certain conditions none of which involved the right of a college to discriminate in its hiring practices. PUC got tax exempt bonds for its cogeneration plant from Colorado because that state does not have restrictions on who can get tax exempt bonds like California does. The law shifts some depending on the philosophy of the courts but has been steadfast in upholding the right of a religious college for employee discrimination unless the college has been making too many exceptions to its rules. In that case, the courts look at general practice in some of their interpretations. I'm wondering if "to discrmination" has any proposed solutions to the lack of housing for public servants or PUC employees who don't make enough money to pay $500-600,000 for a house. As you play this out over the next decade with PUC's very only faculty/staff retiring in accelerating numbers, what is your solution for having enough housing for purchase to make PUC an attractive place to move either for well estbalished faculty on other campuses or for new faculty with young families and high graduate school debt? Should colleges not even try to find solutions in high cost areas and close? How about hour time workers who can be found in large areas with millions of residents but are more difficult to find to staff a cafeteria, physical plant, public safety, custodial, etc.? Should St. Helena Hospital close if it can't find affordable housing for the doctors, nurses, and other medical professions needed to run a quality hospital? Let's get beyond this negative finger pointing to try and score points and try to find real solutions. "

" You sound quite knowledgeable and I appreciate your feedback. I do welcome affordable housing in Angwin. My adult child had to leave the area because #1 we are not Adventist and PUC wouldn't hire my child at the college even though my child was highly qualified for a particular job. #2 my child moved to a larger area where more jobs were available and housing costs were less. The reality is that this is an expensive area to live in, but so is San Francisco. However wages are typically higher in expensive areas to compensate for a higher cost of living. Another reality is that businesses in Napa need to pay their employees more just to attract them to work in the area. I'm sorry to hear that PUC is unwilling or unable to do that for it's employees. But regarding housing, yes an attempt should be made to make such affordable housing available to ANYONE who qaulifies, not just PUC employees. And personally speaking, I think it's fairly un-Christian to be selective and discriminative toward people who do not share your faith. It's one thing to offer housing for rent for the purpose of student and employee housing, to only SDA employees I suppose. It's quite another to take the only affordable housing offered in Napa County for a particular period of time and allow ONLY PUC/hospital Adventists to purchase such real estate. Think about this. These 200 units are NOT going to be built somewhere else and made available to other Napa County residents. The units are basically taken out of the affordable housing pool so that just SDA employees can have them? Doesn't seem right does it? There are other people, besides Adventists living in the Upper Valley area who might want to purchase these affordable homes. I'm also not convinced that these 200 affordable units are strictly for rent either. I was told that the affordable housing for sale was going to be mixed in with the other housing and you wouldn't even be able to tell from the outside which houses were affordable. It would be nice if PUC/Triad would level with us about what percent of the affordable housing is for sale and what percent is for rent. It sound like you are suggesting that if the affordable housing is on PUC lands, it can be either rented or sold to only Adventists? "

" You need to differentiate between affordable housing on land to be purchased by Triad which will be available to anyone wanting to purchase or rent including afordable houses as defined by government standards from houses that PUC has to build to meet the needs of recruiting new employees for a rapidly aging employee work force. From what I gather, you feel the county or local city jurisdictions and non-profit organizations such as PUC should simply raise salaries to meet the housing needs in addition to having a few affordable houses. Of course, how does a developer make a project work on a financial basis if they only provide affordable housing? I don't think it's possible so that's the reason for needing to blend the two with higher priced homes basically subsidizing the cost of affordable housing. Do you have any other solutions to this county-wide problem? The problem is also severe for St. Helena Hospital. Employees working at Queen of the Valley Hospital in Napa have more options because they work near areas that are more reasonable with a wider variety of housing in contrast to the St. Helena area where the median price of a home last year was $1.2 million. This is a problem for the U.S. in general in high costs areas but in most of these areas these institutions are located in big urban areas where one can find more rental units. What ends up happening is that potential employees who want to own a home and have the option of moving to lower cost areas simply do that. Another area with a similar problem is Silicon Valley forcing Stanford University to prepare creative housing solutions including subsidized housing and other creative programs which is what PUC is trying to accomplish in its desire to have employees living where they work. The advantage of a community where professors and staff members live near their students is tremendous. At the present time, almost all of the academic departments at PUC have professors and a President who frequently have their students over for meals and social fellowship which is an incredible advantage of a small college in terms of the long term positive impact on students forming their values and seeing families function beyond the classroom. "

" I do not oppose any of the proposed affordable housing. I should make it clear that I am not employed in the wine industry. I'm wondering if the Adventist issue with alcohol is an obstacle for turning the rest of the land into vineyards. I think we should have some dialogue about this matter. Certainly leasing or selling to vineyards would be equally or more lucrative than the full development. This would support the construction of the 200 affordable units and help raise money for an endowment. It's almost as though PUC is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are restricted by the SDA's fear that supporting vineyard growth is against their principals and yet the community does not want any development. What's going to give? I'm not Adventist but my family dated back to the later 1800's with the religion and were here within ten years of Ellen White. They undoubtedly had connections to her as I've read some of our family history. I heard that she was not as restrictive as some Adventists portray her. She had some flexibility. If EGW knew that a glass of wine per day could prevent alzheimers later in life do you think she might have viewed it in a different light? Yes it's true that many people are irresponsible with alcohol. But people also take medications to keep them alive. I doubt Ellen White would have rejected the idea of life saving medications. Green tea is extraordinarly healthy as well. Do you think she would have been inflexible about tea with our modern knowledge that it can prevent cancer? With any substance, moderation is key. If people are foolish enough to take too much of a particular medication, herbal remedy or addictive substance, it's thier personal responsibility. And from what I've read about Ellen White, she wanted people to take personal responsibility for their health. Think about it: the body is the vessel of God but the hand that feeds it is usually your own! She was one of the first people to both embrace and question the authority of the medical establishment. But she wasn't as rigid as people made her out to be. EGW wasn't a stone. The SDA religion could have evolved to be such an incredible religion if they had been more flexible with the principals of EGW and if so much division didn't exist between old and new. Just my opinion ouf course. Anyway, it would be nice if PUC would level with the public on this matter and admit that you do not welcome vineyards, even though they would be an economic asset, because the Adventists fear they will be condoning alcohol consumption. Keep in mind that PUC students who drive to Angwin view vineyards along the way. If they are going to consume alcohol, that's what they've chosen to do. It's their personal responsibility. Show them images of diseased livers from over consumption rather than just saying 'no'. Let them know that good 'health' is the best 'high' there is and that even substance abusers are trying to get to that place even though the the road they travel is taking them in the wrong direction. Teach them that you cannot get close to anything unless health is optimum because any kind of sickness, of either mind or body, will turn a person too far inward. Teach them personal responsibility and don't hold yourself personally responsible as an institution when they blow it. "

" The PUC Board has sold land to vintners David Abreu and Randy Dunn. Six years ago they put Mill Valley up for sale with the presumed buyer being a vintner but no acceptable offers were received. The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes in the abstinence from drinking all alcoholic beverages even in moderation which will always be one of the rules of the school for its students and employees. I believe that's an area in which Ellen White would have had little flexibility. So how can PUC sell land to vintners as compared to leasing? The church has always sold land to whoever offers the highest price unless it might be for a casino. This is different than taking a monthly check for leasing land for vineyards while at the same time disciplining a student for drinking the product coming from a monthly check. We have billionaire vintners in the Napa Valley. What if one of those, to keep Angwin just the same as it is in perpetuity, were to over-pay to purchase some property and thus establish a substantial endowment that would ensure PUC's future? What if they were also to pay a huge price for the commercial areas and set up more attractive businesses that would help bring more students to PUC more accustomed to having more businesses close by? "

" No, no, no, please NO MORE VINEYARDS! Vineyard owners can be proud of their economic achievements, but can they truly be proud of their environmental impact? Thousands of acres of chaparral, woodland and forest have been cleared, often beside water courses and on steep slopes, to promote the growth of just ONE SPECIES while all other species--especially weeds and insect "pests"--are vigorously exterminated. Furthermore, pesticides leach into the aquifers and soils erode from the hillsides and clog streams and rivers. Vineyard owners can slap themselves on their backs all they want for precluding urban sprawl and preserving open space, but by doing so they have created biological deserts out of a once lush and biologically diverse valley. Please, NO MORE VINEYARDS!!! "

" I do appreciate you standing your ground on the SDA/alcohol issue and also your honesty. However, I doubt EGW would have liked Triad's development either. I disagree that fixing the commercial areas will help attract more students. The types of businesses, such as a coffee shop and deli which could serve weekenders traveling to Berryessa, would need to be open on Saturdays in order to prevent a commercial vacancy. Meat will undoubtedly be sold in the deli. EGW didn't like the idea of meat or coffee either. I'm guessing that most any business wanting to lease the store will also want to be open on Saturdays and offer meat, cigarettes, and alcohol. Good luck finding a commercial tenant who is willing to lease this property with such contingencies. These commercial properties have the same potential to come and go just like those of the past who couldn't quite make it in this small community with such rigid rules. Eventually these units will probably be turned into residential rental units, just like the units proposed to be on top of them, with the exception of the grocery store, assuming SDA's want to manage it. In order to attract students, it will require more than a sprucing up of the downtown area. Check out Touro University in Vallejo and see how they have narrowed their curriculum down to a few high demand majors. Just an idea for PUC to think about. Also, PUC's unwillingness to bring non SDA's into thier employment has stifled the instution in my opinion. And once again, PUC students DO drink alcohol. For some of them, the very taboo nature entices them into it. Cultures which allow moderation of alcohol at the table from an early age have a smaller rate of alcoholism. This is because children have been exposed to moderation. If parents restrict alcohol but they are workaholics, the child can still grow up and transfer that particular mode of 'non moderation' into substance abuse. Because moderation around alcohol has never been modeled, some of these kids don't know where the boundaries are. I've seen it. Preventing the sight of vineyards or alcohol on store shelves is not going to stop PUC students from drinking. "

" PUC is selling the land on which the commercial ventures will be located to Triad with no restrictions on hours or items to be sold. Having more attractive businesses with a wider variety of offerings will be more appealing to students who feel very isolated in this rural area, especially if they do not own automobiles. "

" You're right, preventing the sight of vineyards or alcohol on store shelves is not going to stop PUC students from drinking, but in case you were unaware the STATE OF CALIFORNIA outlawed drinking alcohol until the age of 21. If the state recognizes the potential harm of alcohol to young people, why shouldn't PUC? I have no problem with moderation, but what percentage of alcohol drinkers NEVER abuse alcohol? "

" I think you are perfectly aware that I was not suggesting that underage people consume alcohol (although the legality of allowing an underage child to drink in a restaurant as long as a parent gives permission varies from state to state). I was discussing the culture of wine consumption in other countries. And from what I've seen here, the laws do not appear to have any promising effect on discouraging underage drinking. You are right, however, that most people who drink alcohol tend to over consume at times. This is a problem and if it's modeled in front of kids, they WILL grow up to copy the behavior. "