Save Rural Angwin is proposing to rewrite the Napa County General Plan in order to obstruct Pacific Union College’s proposed Eco-village.

This introduces into Napa Valley the specter of radical NIMBYism. In its most recent comments on the Napa County Draft General Plan, the SRA remarks take the idea of NIMBY — not in my backyard — to new heights, or new depths, depending on how you look at it. It represents something new, a kind of NIMBYism on steroids.

In its traditional form, NIMBYism tries to prevent developers from up-zoning private property to create new development rights where none exist.

In this new, pumped-up version, radical NIMBYism now seeks to turn back the clock, down-zoning private property to take away development rights, even where they have been around forever. This is at the heart of SRA’s plan for Angwin, a down-zoning of hundreds of acres of property belonging to PUC.

The SRA plan oozes with rhetoric supporting PUC. Yet, quietly, with a wry smile on its face, the group simply wants see the college fade away.

Judging by the language in its proposal, SRA wants to reclassify hundreds of acres of PUC land so that the college can do nothing with it, except sell it for grapes, which most Adventists do not want to do. Sure, under the SRA plan, the college will be allowed to build affordable housing on campus — how it will get the funds to do that is PUC’s problem. And oh, yes, Angwin Plaza can remain, never mind that the college can no longer afford to subsidize this perpetual money-loser.

 This is radical NIMBYism. PUC is in the business of educating young people; it has a pressing need to increase the scholarships it awards to students. Instead, SRA wants the college to use its limited funds to build low-cost housing and subsidize local businesses. It’s downright impossible, when you think about it. It’s also wildly unrealistic.

Ironically, Angwin would be devastated if the county adopted SRA’s plan.

For more than a hundred years, PUC has been the heart and soul of the community, as well as its major benefactor. It supports daycare, high-quality elementary and middle school education, public hiking trails and much more.

Students make up half the town’s population. According to PUC’s president, the SRA plan will put the college into a financial nosedive. What will become of Angwin if PUC is shuttered?

 Another irony is that PUC is not seeking to rezone anything. The land for the proposed Eco-village is already designated for housing, and has been for more than 30 years. It is SRA that wants to change the status quo, down-zoning PUC land to accommodate only those uses SRA deems appropriate. What ever happened to private property rights and the ability to plan for the future working within existing county zoning and land use regulation?

 Nearly 10 years ago, the Napa Valley Register wrote an editorial about another land use controversy in which it railed against “CAVE people,” citizens against virtually everything. Now it is radical NIMBYism. Not only will you not do anything in my backyard, says the radical NIMBYist, but I will down zone your backyard to make sure things stay just the way I like them. There is something scary about this mindset. Stop and think — after PUC, who’s next?

(Philpott lives in Angwin.)