" The answer goes both ways: the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (and obviously whoever talked to Hector) insisted that the urban bubble was a separate issue from the ecovillage project (and this was enforced at public hearings), yet they also conceded at the end of the last hearing that the two issues were inextricably linked. I personally know individuals who support the urban bubble but not the ecovillage, and who signed the petition supporting the urban bubble but would not sign a petition supporting the ecovillage. Of course it's always best to read and understand the text of a petition before signing it. "

" Do you support the notion that government should encourage, or even mandate, the development of affordable housing? Have you ever voted to support a measure supporting this notion? If your answer is "yes" then you have no standing to oppose the Angwin development. Government mandates quotas on each County for the development of a specifc number of units each year that fall into "affordable housing" categories. If a County fails to meet these quotas the State witholds certain funds from that County. Angwin is a part of Napa County and benefits from funds the County receives from the State. To date, American Canyon and Napa have shouldered the burden of development. Well guess what, Angwin, you get to pitch in too. The other choice is we can abandon this notion that government should be mandating development of so called affordable housing. But you can't have it both ways. "

" Mikeb - Apples and oranges, I'll tell you why. I support affordable housing but I do not support a large development in Angwin. Nor would I support one up on top of Spring Mt. or Mt. St.Helena. 1)Traffic and school impact is not a part of the plan and will be shouldered by the taxpayers not the land owners or the developers. 2) No water; the entire upper valley area is near crises with water shortages (in Angwin folks pay $200.00 mo. for water). That is only a sample of a long list of reasons why your perspective is uninformed. Drive up-valley anytime time of day and ask yourself why any sane person would build commuter housing (remember, the 191 houses for PUC and hospital workers has already been approved). Build housing developments and shopping centers where there are roads that can handle increased commercial and residential traffic and only when the issue of schools is a part of the plan. "

" The very objective of the twisted, wordy, redundant, confusing and lengthy petition text relating to this issue is to mislead and shadow the actual facts. For you to suggest, PUC Prof, that Of course it's always best to read and understand the text of a petition before signing it. " is misleading. Of course, one should be fully knowledgable about that which he signs but, we all know, most don't have the time to read every miniscule sentence and, therefore, rely on the person passing the petition, who is entrusted to tell the truth and nothing but. BUT, we ALSO know, that is not always the case, is it? For example, in representing their 'case,' it was cleverly swept under the carpet until forced into the light of day this belated fact: (and I quote) The answer goes both ways: the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (and obviously whoever talked to Hector) insisted that the urban bubble was a separate issue from the ecovillage project (and this was enforced at public hearings), yet they also conceded at the end of the last hearing that the two issues were inextricably linked. The same game; the same name....deceit! "

" Reader, many of us at PUC share your concerns. I suspect many supporters of the ecovillage project (including myself) were pleased to see the number of homes reduced. We don't want a LARGE development! The details of the plan presented at the meetings thus far were by necessity superficial (more details are available in a presentation of the project posted on the Napa County Government website). The issues of greatest concern (such as traffic and water) require detailed study by professionals who have far more expertise than most (if not all) of us who live or work in Angwin (I'm certainly not an expert), and they will be addressed in an environmental impact report. I'm not privy to the details, but I believe the report is to be prepared by an independent environmental consulting firm contracted by Triad (anybody know who?). Apparently another public hearing concerning the environmental impact report is scheduled for the 15th of this month, so it will be interesting to hear what is discussed. "

" If somebody has the text of the petition it would be good to post it here so we can all judge for ourselves whether it was deceptive. "

" Prof. " ... an independent consulting firm contracted by TRIAD" ??? Ok, that sounds more like "potentially biased" consulting firm to me. SRA folks out there, if this is true we need to hire a firm of our own to do an environmental impact report. I'm there; and I will donate dollars, as I know many other will as well. "

" Reader, environmental consulting firms are relatively neutral and impartial. Their dough comes from developers, of course (we wouldn't expect tax payers to pay for their services), but they're sensitive to criticisms from the opponents of development. Integrity and transparency are the trademarks of a successful environmental consulting firm. This is going to be a long, drawn-out process and we'll all have ample opportunity to review the EIR. It will be filled with complex statistics and jargon, but I think all of us, including the board of supervisors, will be intelligent enough to detect bias in the conclusions. Nevertheless, a second opinion would be interesting. Rather than repeating the same quantitative studies which would be quite costly, I think your money would be better spent if you hired a firm to independently review and critique the conclusions of the EIR. "

" Hector, I admire the fact that you are willing to expose the tactics of those who support the development; their attempts to deceive a population of people whom they merely categorize as blind followers. So many times I have been asked to sign petitions in public places which support Indian casino projects and other business adventures which on the surface appear to be quite the opposite of what they truly are; wolves in sheep's clothing. The Angwin community needs to be extra vigilant in the days to come; read the fine print; resist signing anything without knowledge of the entirety. When ANYONE asks you to sign a petition or document, resist an impulsive tendency to sign (especially if you have been pressured by a group to take certain actions). Simply say that you need to think about it for a few days before making a decision. I always use the "three day rule" before making important decisions. The future of this community, regardless of which side you stand on, depends on conscious awareness of motives. "