NVR Logo
Housing agency hopes for all-time highs at farmworker camps
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Save and Share Share
The Napa Valley Housing Authority continued to somersault down the road of change Monday afternoon, as the board of directors launched a major well-drilling project and pondered future budgetary uncertainties.

The fast pace is just a sign of the times for a housing agency preparing to transfer its biggest responsibility — operation of the farmworker housing centers — to the county.
But the housing authority is not exactly washing its hands of all farmworker center business, at least not immediately.

On Monday the board of directors recommended the approval of the 2007-08 budget they helped draft for the farmworker centers, passing it along to the newly activated Napa County Housing Authority for final approval despite some unanswerable questions.
One concern raised by board members Bonnie Schoch and Brad Wagenknecht was that the budget’s predicted revenues may be overly optimistic, because the expected occupancy rates of the centers is higher than the actual rates.

The California Human Development Corporation — the non-profit agency that staffs and runs the centers — forecast figures based on 78 percent occupancy of the centers. That rate is higher than the centers have ever had historically. At the end of February, the centers were logging a 61 percent occupancy.
But leaders of the CHDC said they believe the centers will experience greater success this year because they are freshly remodeled and for the first time the CDHC is budgeting some money — about $5,000 — for marketing and advertising the farmworker housing.

The CHDC has also agreed to absorb half of the budget shortfall if the projected revenues prove to be too high.

“Although we questioned the occupancy and their budget is based on that, if they go out and advertise, it will be a great test to see if they can get that,” Schoch said.

Meanwhile, the board acknowledged that several variables affecting occupancy at the centers are out of their control.

Some believe the tightening of security along the U.S.-Mexico border is slowing the flow of laborers into California.

“The issue of the border is so volatile, we’re betting we can do it,” said Judith Tiller, who helps manage the River Ranch Farmworker Center, regarding the projected occupancy.

Board member John Dunbar questioned the prudence of shooting for higher occupancy in the same year that the housing authority would be raising the daily rent at the farmworker center a quarter to $11.75  — a price that includes three meals a day.

Luis Flores, a former farmworker who frequents the housing authority meetings to lobby on behalf of farmworkers, voiced intense opposition to the proposed 25 cent a night increase, questioning whether the board members could really fathom how much a quarter is worth to a farmworker.

Flores quoted a report that said 86 percent of the county’s farmworkers earn less than $16,000 for seven to 12 months of work.

“Tell me the last time one of you had to meet the needs of a home budget on less than $16,000, including taking care of yourself and your own rent on top of that,” Flores said.

Board member Harold Moskowite, who employs farmworkers for his vineyard, challenged Flores’ argument that a quarter increase in the farmworker lodging was too much.

“There’s such a thing as no free lunches. The farmworkers are getting three meals a day. I don’t think they have anything to complain about, I think it’s reasonable,” Moskowite said. “I hire them and a good worker doesn’t get less than $12 an hour.”

Despite qualms raised about the rent increase and projected farmworker center occupancy, the NVHA board gave the 2007-08 budget a unanimous thumbs up. Essentially the NVHA board approval is little more than a nod to the Napa County Housing Authority, the newly activated agency that will ultimately approve the budget and dealing with all farmworker operations for 2007-08.

The budget must be in place before county workers can go out and assess exactly how much each grower would be paying into a farmworker housing operation fund (CSA 4) should the growers vote to continue taxing themselves about $10 an acre a year for this cause.

The Napa County Housing Authority plans to approve a final budget in early May. Growers are scheduled to receive their ballots in late May or early June.

“If the CSA 4 doesn’t pass we won’t have any farmworker housing,” board member Gary Kraus said at one point during Monday’s meeting.

Meanwhile, NVHA has worked to gain grant money for work done last year at the Rutherford farmworker center.

For the NVHA to receive a $775,000 state grant for the Rutherford remodel, the land under the building first must be donated to the NVHA by the owner, Constellation Brands, Inc. But before the beverage corporation will donate the property, the company is requiring the NVHA to drill for its own water source rather than continuing to tap theirs.

Monday the NVHA board awarded a $58,000 well-drilling and building contract to the Napa County Public Works Department. The contract included a limit on how much the project could spill over budget — 25 percent of the original budget. The limit on change orders was a safety catch that was missing from both of the million-plus-dollar contracts for the Upvalley center renovations last year.
18 comment(s)

Shawna wrote on Apr 11, 2007 6:46 AM:

" To Luis. When the gas prices go up, or rent, or PG&E, cable, water, garbage it makes it harder for all of us farmworkers or not. I know of no where that I can get even 3 meal for $11.75 let alone a place to sleep too. This is a fat deal, It is only worth it for them to come here and work if they can make money. They should try living here full time and the right way it is no easier for us then it should be for them. NO MORE SPECIAL TREATMENT!! "

Appreciate Farmworkers wrote on Apr 11, 2007 9:57 AM:

" I truly appreciate and am fully aware of the hard work legal vineyard workers perform for the wineries of Napa Valley. Without question, the wine and tourism industry would not exist if their labor was not available. 99% of Napa's population would not accept vineyard work if it was offered to them. Having said that, it is ridiculous to say that 25 cents increase to stay at one of the labor camps ($11.75 a day that includes three meals a day) is too much of an increase. Anyone who claims to advocate for better living conditions for vineyard workers and opposes a 25 cent increase is truly doing them a disservice. If they choose not to spend the money on shelter and food - that's their decision. A $1.75 more a week for a roof, bed, showers, laundry facilities and three meals a day is not too much to ask when the County and cities of Napa face a million dollar shortfall providing these services. "

amazing wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:38 AM:

" What is amazing to be is that the hiring of farmworkers is illegal!! Yet right here in our paper we discuss housing for them and the tightness of our border.The growers need to be held accountable for this illegal practice. Immigration must turn a blind eye as well. It's incredible. "

Mark G. wrote on Apr 11, 2007 12:24 PM:

" not to mention the illegal way the city is handling taxpayer money. It is a disgrace and should be investigated. "

aw, Mark et.al., wrote on Apr 11, 2007 1:10 PM:

" Sssh - you're supposed to have forgotten about that measly $1.4 million by now! Please try to forget, please, please? And I believe the city's handling is beyond a disgrace. It is criminal. "

REPUBLICAN KID wrote on Apr 11, 2007 2:37 PM:

" 1.4 million Thats 20 new police cars 1 new fire truck. With and get this napa money left over to fill pot holes. Let's fire the city leaders and all of the sups. Next time we get to the voting both. "

Totally amazed!!! wrote on Apr 11, 2007 2:46 PM:

" I am dazed and confused over this entire subject ... why are taxpayers subsidizing farmworker housing? Why are they only paying $11.75 a day for three meals and sleeping accomodations? Who says others (read non Mexican, legal residents) are unwilling to work hard in vineyards, wineries or elsewhere? (this is a time worn cliche perpetrated by purveyors or deceit who benefit from the hiring of illegals). Why budget ANY funds from Napa Housing Authority towards ANY farmworker housing? How about fast food employees' housing? What about volunteers' housing? Let's consider entry level workers' subsidized housing....come on!!! stop the insanity. Stop the tax givaway! Napa, wake up and smell the coffee (that's right; coffee, not wine!) and open your collective minds. T his once beautiful region is being ruined and over run by users and abusers....wine moguls and illegals. Both equally disgusting! "

Easy wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:01 PM:

" No Problem! Just tax every dollar being sent south of the border at least 50%!!! Where in our state or fed constitution does it state that we're to provide the default welfare system for other countries! Tax every Western Union transfer at least 50% and split that up evenly between the Emergency rooms, ELD school programs, Subsidized housing, and of course ...the Border Patrol. "

It just doesn't ADD UP! wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:04 PM:

" I was reading this article and something, well alot of things, just don't sit right here: 1. $11.75 a day for 3 hots and a cot!. Laundry,showers,TV. Let's say 30% of this $11.75 is for rent : $3.53 per night! Then figure in the cost for 3 meals works out to be $2.74 per meal. Are you kidding me? 2. Luis Flores says that most workers (86%) earn roughly $16,000. for 7 to 12 months work. Well, if my math is right, that equates to $14.29 per/hr. That is more than ALOT of people make. On another note, Mr. Moskowite says he pays a good farmworker no less than $12/hr. Something doesn't sound right here either. These guys make ($14.29/hr) $114.32 a day, and ONLY have to spend a little over 10% of that for MEALS,&LODGING. Compare this to the average citizen who pays at least 30% of wages just for a roof over their head, and then food on top of that! "

Shawna wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:24 PM:

" Do the math. It cost us at least 60 to 100 % more per day to live here. That is ONE (2adults,2kids)FAMILY. That is not including car insurance, gas, etc. You forgot to metion that they also get a auto shop with tools avail for them if they need to work on their car. That's nice, I have to go to a auto repair shop and oh my god PAY for service. What a grape place Napa is. "

Tom wrote on Apr 11, 2007 5:41 PM:

" "$5,000 — for marketing and advertising the farmworker housing" Are you kidding me? You built it, and they didn't come. Now you;re advertising to give away free housing and food. And yes, it is a "free" givaway when it cost more to provide than your customer is willing to pay. If you ran a private sector business the way our local government is run you'd be thrown in jail. "

Here's an idea! wrote on Apr 12, 2007 7:22 AM:

" Kill two birds with one stone - why can't the homeless stay in the farmworker camps???? Ther city is spending big bucks on fancy homeless shelters and programs while beds go begging at these camps. I am sure the cost to the city of a homeless overnight stay is more than $11.75. Just pay the money to the camps and be done with it. "

Shawna wrote on Apr 14, 2007 9:07 AM:

" Why don't we have a place that our young adults can get off on the right foot. Cheap rent because they only make minimum wage. What about the locals and all they do for the community. Our kids don't get any special deals when they are starting out, let along when they are in there 30's and 40's. Farmworkers or not yeah you can make more money here but, if you really live here it is still not enough. "

Struggling wrote on Apr 16, 2007 9:51 PM:

" There are so many struggling people in Napa. It must be very frustrating for them to hear people complain about such a deal. I wonder why farmworker housing isn't 100% funded by the farmworkers and their employers -- they are receiving 100% of the benefit. "

GoGary! wrote on Apr 17, 2007 1:19 PM:

" Gary Kraus. The smartest guy in Napa County has spoken: “If the CSA 4 doesn’t pass we won’t have any farmworker housing,” board member Gary Kraus said at one point during Monday’s meeting. Say halelleluja! Perhaps the farmers would be responsible for farmworker housing. Spell F-A-R-M worker. If County supported Farmworker Housing disappeared, farmers would have to house their own workers. What a concept! Perhaps the good old Board of Supervisors could save millions of taxpayers dollars and amend the General Plan to allow for farmers to house their own workers on their own land. Gary Kraus is a genius! Perhaps the Napa Housing Authority could give Kraus a raise with the millions of Napa City tax dollars they stole. "

Bean Counter wrote on Apr 17, 2007 2:26 PM:

" It says here that the Grape Growers tax themselves $10/acre. Assume 45,000 acres in vineyard x $10 = $450,000/yr. to support Farmworker Housing. Then, assume one acre of NVgrapes averages $3,000 ton x 4 tons/acre = gross income of $12,000/acre, conservatively. $10 tax is .00083% tax to insure they can pick their crops. If the Grapegrowers impose a $20/acre self-tax, all this Napa County and Napa City misappropriation of funds, shady land donation to the County, unnecessary million dollar renovations, blank checks to Napa County Public Works for well-drilling with 25% overrun protection, and California State Grants that we will never see . . . . . all of these self-inflicted issues would disappear if Grape Growers simply imposed a self-tax of $20 (.00166% tax) or $30(.0025% tax)/acre to subsidize their critical Farmworker Housing. Assume an average vineyard is 50 acres x $30/acre tax would total $1,500. Very affordable if their gross income is $600,000 on the same 50 acres and much cheaper than providing housing on their own farms. I guess I should be in politics (but I am too honest). "

Wrong! wrote on Apr 17, 2007 3:53 PM:

" Wrong! Bad math, Bean Counter. Based on 61% occupancy, the real cost to taxpayers is $2,317/day. Based on the NVHA suckcess goal of 78% occupancy (35 workers), the per day cost would be $2,133/day. Outrageous!!! Why am I paying for farm labor. I am not a farmer. Let farmers pay for their own employees and I will pay for mine. By the way, I also pay for farmworker’s medical, dental, and other social services while they reside in the subsidized housing for three months. Throw that in the mix and we are up to about $2,200/day. Wow! "

Rocco wrote on Apr 17, 2007 9:37 PM:

" That's it. When I just read that we're using $5000 in tax money to advertise that were giving away practically free laborer housing, well, then I knew it was over. Put a fork in us, we're done! "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy