NVR Logo
Napa Pipe supporters fire back
Mailer to voters takes shots at Responsible Growth Initiative
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Save and Share Share
A new group is declaring war against an initiative that would torpedo the 3,200-home Napa Pipe proposal, and the battlefield is your mailbox.

A group called Keep Napa Napa — funded in part by the Napa Pipe developers — is mailing Napa County residents a letter announcing its intentions to help defeat the Responsible Growth Initiative. That initiative is modeled after 1980’s Measure A , which created a 1 percent cap on residential growth in Napa County, but also contains restrictions on the height of future buildings.
In the three-page letter, ex-Napa mayor Ed Henderson, Vallerga’s President Ray Sercu, vintner Elaine Honig and grapegrowers Francis and Kathleen Mahoney, among others, sign a missive that accuses the backers of the Responsible Growth Initiative of staying in the shadows and trying to threaten Measure J agricultural protections.

“It is clear the measure has unintended impacts, or worse, is driven by deliberate ulterior motives,” the letter states. “This measure could lead to dense development and crowding within the city of Napa’s quiet residential neighborhoods, where it would cause the biggest problems. It could generate countywide impacts that would increase traffic. And, it could endanger our county’s long-standing policies for protecting open space, scenic hillsides and agricultural lands.”
Napa attorney James Marshall stepped forward in late November, saying he and a small group of locals are behind the Responsible Growth Initiative. Marshall said the Napa County Board of Supervisors sparked the move when they voted, 3-2, to send the Napa Pipe proposal through a public process of environmental review.

Marshall was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.
In an interview last month, Marshall said he and his colleagues were galvanized by the county’s green light for the early stages of study for Napa Pipe.

“I’ve never participated in any election or someone’s campaign,” Marshall said Nov. 28. “The more people I talked to about this proposal (Napa Pipe), I couldn’t find anybody who was in favor of it.”

Napa Redevelopment Partners proposes 3,200 townhomes, as well as restaurants, a condo/hotel, light industrial uses and a park-like riverfront on the 152 acre property south of town that is the historic site of Kaiser Steel. The property is outside Napa city limits, and so has drawn fire both for the scope of the development proposal and for questions about whether it is an appropriate use of the land.

The backers of Keep Napa Napa charge the public has no clue who is really behind the initiative.

“All we know right now is that nobody with a history of working on behalf of local communities and the environment is involved in this initiative,” the letter reads.

Henderson, Sercu, Honig and the Mahoneys are joined as signatories to the letter by Napa Dr. Marko Boder, Laurie Gordon, Ira Lee, and Kathleen Migliavacca.

Marshall said backers of the Responsible Growth Initiative include retired attorney Frank Worthington, Napa Valley College swim instructor Kathy Hague, Dan Sullivan and Steve Morgan. Political strategist Victor Ajlouny, who worked on Supervisor Harold Moskwite’s 2004 campaign, is also involved.

Marshall said he hired Republican signature-gathering juggernaut Arno Political Consultants for the signature drive, and top-flight Sacramento election law firm Bell, McAndrews, Hiltachk and Davidian to write the initiative. Bell, McAndrews represented Moskowite in the case arising from his close 2004 election victory over then-Supervisor Mike Rippey.

Keep Napa Napa was unabashed in revealing Napa Redevelopment Partners, the Napa Pipe developers, as part of its funding source.

“To defeat this hatched-up, backroom scheme — a scheme that takes a meat cleaver approach to planning for our future — we are working with local leaders and citizens,” the letter reads.
19 comment(s)

Concerned Citizen wrote on Dec 20, 2007 8:09 AM:

" Oh My God! Have these peoplle no shame? Outright, blatant lies and accusations just so they can continue to carpet the valley floor with more building! To suggest: "It is clear the measure has unintended impacts, or worse, is driven by deliberate ulterior motives,” the letter states. " is the most egregious, manipulative and outright dishonest piece of tripe I've read in a very long time. These people should all get into or return to politics; their motives and means are so inherently dishonest. To close this missive with: "“To defeat this hatched-up, backroom scheme — a scheme that takes a meat cleaver approach to planning for our future — we are working with local leaders and citizens,” the letter reads." is about as bad as it gets. How dare these people who are loaded w/vested interest be so completely incorrect in their description of those who are against sprawl and the ruination of our gorgeous valley. If there is a DOG, these folks are in deep doo doo. "

Skip M. wrote on Dec 20, 2007 8:56 AM:

" I must respectfully disagree with the “Keep Napa Napa” team. The Napa Pipe (Kaiser Steel) location has been industrial territory for generations. It was that industrial area that sustained many Napa citizens from the 1920s through the early present era. While the agricultural space is wonderful a choice will have to be made at some point whether Napa wants to preserve that space, or start building homes on it. It would seem that this effort is more about ensuring land owned by a certain segment not be the target of future imminent domain action. How much money has been spent on the as yet incomplete (and unproven) flood project? Given the Napa Pipe property rests in a natural flood plain, where is the wisdom of putting 3200 homes for the less affluent directly in harm’s way? A good alternative might be to use that space for new light industrial or high-tech businesses. Perhaps the city and county governments could develop the foresight to offer meaningful incentives to businesses so that they will come in and set up shop with some better than minimum wage jobs. I don’t have all the answers, but I am a student of history. It just seems that building homes on that particular land is an unwise move. "

napablogger wrote on Dec 20, 2007 9:32 AM:

" I don't know about that Concerned Citizen. I went down and got a copy from the elections office and it looked like most of it was copied from some old information from somewhere wholesale, the rest written on the back of a napkin in a restaurant. There are huge mark throughs sections, the thing is about 25 pages long and rewrites a lot of the general plan, and is going to have a lot more impact than just on Napa Pipe. I think it needs to be closely looked at. Plus it is kind of disgusting that someone would be so hidden about this. Why are they hiding? I think this whole thing needs to have a very close look taken at it before we just put it into place. "

Paddy wrote on Dec 20, 2007 9:32 AM:

" How ironic that this (gag) "Keep Napa Napa" gang are also heavily invested in Napa Pipe development. Ed Henderson leading the way. I used to respect Ed but he's obviously selling out Napa for his own gain. In truth they should change their name to "Make Napa Vallejo" and parade through town on tractors, backhoes and dump trucks. Please take those flyers from your mailbox and send them all to Ed Henderson with your opinions. He used to listen. "

Gunga Ga Lunga wrote on Dec 20, 2007 10:20 AM:

" It is indeed "creative logic" to presume the addition of 3200 homes will keep Napa "Napa". "

bennyd wrote on Dec 20, 2007 10:25 AM:

" I've learned to evaluate all aspects in a debate to make a decision. I don't get flustered with rhetoric from both sides. I will be watching for the group that puts a priority on mass transportation infrastructure. The Napa Pipe development is the right place for a hub. I attended the presentation and was impressed with the possibilities. I wanted to hear more of vision including the use of the Napa River to alleviate automobile traffic. The opinions that we will loose our agricultural base is false. We need to realize that the agriculture provides a product. Our wine region needs a way for the visitors to buy those products in a less impactful way on our environment. "

napagirl76 wrote on Dec 20, 2007 1:51 PM:

" i dont understand how anyone can support this project that loves napa. building this many homes well change napa forever. has anyone figured out where these familys will send their kids to school? or the traffic impact on local highways, you dont need a costly study to tell you that traffic well increase, or the flooding in the area, let me guess napa well pay for more flood control. My family, friends along with co workers and i in no way support the napa project. "

cathyodom wrote on Dec 20, 2007 2:38 PM:

" Paddy: You're right, it does sound like good old Mayor Ed is selling out. But, it is also suspicious that this other group "Responsible Growth Initiative" doesn't come forth and say who they are... The whole plan, all these houses, not making me feel very warm and cosy. "

KCK wrote on Dec 20, 2007 4:20 PM:

" Anyone and I mean anyone who thinks Napa Pipe, Ghisletta or any of the other developments is good for Napa, should move out. Please move out. Developers only have one common goal; BUILD and BUILD more. I am officially becoming an active person who is going to start fighting any more develpoments in Napa or Napa County. I will spend the rest of my time typing my letter to the editor explaining my positions. "

Demo Cracy wrote on Dec 20, 2007 4:41 PM:

" Ok, then let's shut the door to Napa County and keep out all newcomers. Oops, that may be illegal. So what! My dad worked for Kaiser 50 years ago. The old mill down in Fontana is mostly homes now. When Kaiser built it in the 40s it was a pig farm. Now we have swamp to Pipe Mill to condos. Some call that progress. Some call it ugly. People gotta live somewhere... "

bimgroup wrote on Dec 20, 2007 7:58 PM:

" Let's see, Ed Henderson, Ray Sercu, Kathy Migliavaca, all investors in the Napa Pipe project. Self serving in the end. Follow the money folks. It's not hard to do.... "

HowzaAboutSomeFacts wrote on Dec 20, 2007 11:16 PM:

" To "bimgroup" - we all know Mayor Henderson is part of the Napa Pipe project - he's made no secret of that. But Mr. Sercu and Mrs. Migliavacca? You think they are secret real estate investors on the side, hiding their True Identities? What a ridiculous comment. Why would you make such an assertion, and in such a nasty tone? If you are certain of that, by all means, why don't you have the newspaper call them up and verify it. And Dr. Bodor, and Ms. Elaine Honig, too? It is really irritating when people just want to throw mud on any person who tries to speak up. There is nothing secretive about the Napa Pipe proposal - like it or not - if you want to talk "follow the money" why don't you ask the people spending a fortune buying signatures? And "Concerned Citizen" writes about "carpeting the valley floor" Who is talking about carpeting the valley floor? I thought the whole point of building housing on an already-paved industrial site was exactly so the valley floor, or the hillsides, or the infill neighborhoods don't have to get "carpeted". "

Skip M. wrote on Dec 21, 2007 12:16 AM:

" To HowzAboutSomeFacts: I am making no accusation of investment interests. People must live somewhere, and people need to make money. I will even agree that wealthy people need the continued ability to make money since they are the ones that in turn hire and pay others down the line. However, the Kaiser Steel / Napa Pipe site has a long history of industrial use, and much of that was during a time when concerns about things like lead were not big issue. I would expect you are going to find a great deal of soil contamination on that site. Add to that the point that this is flood territory. It would seem that building homes and putting families on that land is simply asking for much more serious problems in coming years. But, perhaps you won’t mind if your children and grandchildren suffer developmental problems resulting from environmental contamination. This is why I make the point the some sort of light industrial or other commercial use of that land would be much more appropriate. I have personally met some of the people supporting this venture, and believe them to be decent people. But I really think this is an issue that should be considered extremely carefully, taking all possible long term consequences into consideration. As for infill development, that is going to happen regardless of the fate of the Napa Pipe land. "

MichelleG wrote on Dec 21, 2007 10:42 AM:

" To "bimgroup", I always find it amusing when people like you readily toss barbs at other people that are willing to publicly support an initiative they believe in, instead of hiding behind an alias on a community blog. It’s much easier to hide and throw stones than it is to stand up in a public forum and speak your mind isn’t it? I happen to know personally that Kathy Migliavacca has no financial stake in the Napa Pipe project. I also know that whether or not you are in support of the project or against it, opinions are always taken more seriously from those that face the fire head on, and research the facts thoroughly before making false assumptions while hiding amongst the safety of a pseudonym. "

Epicuria wrote on Dec 21, 2007 7:42 PM:

" To: Skip and others concerned about the condition of the site and the potential negative impacts on the community All the issues your raise will be thoroughly examined during the environmental assessment phases. No need to jump to conclusions. Mitigation measures have turned many contaminated sites around the world into pristine areas. Let the experts do their thing so the decision makers can do theirs. Epi "

JMB wrote on Dec 25, 2007 9:42 PM:

" I am totally against the Napa Pipe development. You think there's secrecy now? There was 2 years ago when my husband worked there and suddenly had to stop work to give tours to the EPA and community groups. Imagine our surprise to crack open the Register to discover it had been sold and within days he was let go. It's practically impossible to live and get a job in Napa. The people who will occupy the old site will probably work in Santa Rosa, Fairfield, SF, or Sacramento just so they can say they live in Napa. This idea is so wrong. I've been to the Napa Pipe site. Keep it industrial, there's nothing to see there. "

Skip M. wrote on Dec 27, 2007 8:17 AM:

" I have been in contact with one of the people from the “Keep Napa, Napa” group. And while we are of opposite views on this matter, my friend shared with me some of her thoughts and information regarding the “Napa Pipe” proposal. It would appear that the EPA tour JMB speaks of was a precursory study to the buyout of that property. The report generated is said to be quite thick and the “Keep Napa, Napa” group acknowledges that the cleanup task will be substantial. I am reluctant to share too much of the information I have gotten at this early stage because I do not want to close that line of communication. And communication is the key. I no longer live in Napa because of the lack of career building jobs there. So I am absolutely with JMB on this point as well. The Napa community must be more forward thinking if the children of this area are to remain. A life of minimum wage subsistence is no life (in my way of thinking). And if family is important to a person, two hour commutes just don’t work. Napa, as a community, must be more friendly to industries besides wine and tourism. I will be the first to tell you that I would rather see vineyards than a swath of industrial facilities. But there must be a common ground that can be reached where a balance of industrial and agriculture can be found. I urge those posting in this forum to get to council meetings and other related events and play an active role. Participating in forums is good. It gets ideas flowing. But you need to be physically involved as well. "

Green Cookie Monster wrote on Jan 3, 2008 11:32 AM:

" Katie Migliavacca? She's like 21. What does she have to do with this? "

environmentalist7 wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:33 PM:

" In 1995, it was possible to drive from Napa to San Francisco or Lake Tahoe on a Friday afternoon without hitting substantial traffic. These days, if you try to leave town anytime after 3 pm, forget it, you will be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic in Jamieson Canyon or American Canyon and lately even on the way to Sonoma. More and more people that work in Napa are living in Fairfield or Vacaville or Vallejo. If these people lived in condominiums or homes on the Napa Pipe location, there would up to 3000 fewer cars clogging the roads leaving Napa. Some of those people could ride bicycles along the proposed bike trail into downtown Napa or to Trancas Street. Shorter commutes or commutes that use alternative transportation reduce the number of cars on the highways and reduce pollution. Furthermore, the opportunity to ride a bicycle to work provides the benefit of health, weight-loss, and saving time that would otherwise be wasted on a treadmill. Keith Rogal, who bought Napa Pipe, indicates that these homes would come with the provision that people who work in Napa would get first dibs at purchasing them. This provision would apply for resale of the property as well. An added benefit is that this industrial property gets cleaned up and instead there will be a nice place to live, kayak, play soccer, ride a bike, sit in an outdoor cafe and do a bunch of things after work during the time one would otherwise be sitting in grid-lock on the way to a home in Vacaville or wherever. As for Skip M's comment on high-tech, this can continue near the airport and the workers can bicycle from there to Napa Pipe. "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy