" Yes, I can imagine an attorney from a county that should be the poster child for uncontrolled sprawl and ensuing congestion will sue his neighboring county to ensure these same conditions occur everywhere. Maybe he thinks he'll feel better killing time on his jam-packed roads if he knows all of us are doing the same thing? I think David Grabill's time might be better spent suing his own county for its intensely UNgreen, gotta-have-a-car mode of growth.
But let's say he and his Housing Advocates Group does sue over inane ABAG demands. Let the case go as far in the court appeals system as possible and decide once and for all whether ABAG's vision of accommodating endless numbers of people into forever is even legal, much less desirable.
And remember, ABAG will release yet another bombshell of county housing allocations in just six years. ABAG is a beast that simply cannot be fed enough and must be defanged. Otherwise, try a drive through Santa Rosa any time and any day for a great preview of the congestion looming in Napa's future. "

" Wait a minute!!!

Santa Rosa land use Lawyer from KNN's front man's, Nick Caston's, hometown where he serves as a "planner", threatens to seek to enforce a court order that expired in June of 2007? Sounds a day late, but probably not a dollar short!

What a publicity stunt!

How much you wanna bet Mr. Grabill, (or should I say Grab Bills), Santa Rosa Lawyer, is in the pocket of Napa Redevelopment Partners? I bet he's been paid handsomely for this legal farce.

Well, I guess if the facts aren't with ya and the law isn't with ya , all KNN has left is millions of dollars to fund silly publicity stunts in order to "scare us" into exceeding to their new city of skyscrapers on perfectly good Industrial lands, the only such lands in the county with both river and rail access.

KNN and Napa Redevelopment Partners, shame on you. You guys are little more than schoolyard bullies with a lot of daddy’s money.

Why don’t you cut the deception and expensive stunts and tell the voters of this county why they would want to sacrifice their quality of life and slow growth traditions to accommodate your grandiose plan for urban sprawl, traffic congestion and destruction of local industry, just for your profit.

I’m listening.

And as to the Napa Register’s attention grabbing headlines, I would at least ask you try to appear a little bit editorially unbiased. If this farce is a “cloud” then it’s one of those tropical clouds that blew over in June of 2007 when Mr. Grab Bills’ order expired. A better headline would be :

"KNN continues to threaten lawsuits"
"

" The DeHaro lawsuit was on behalf of Napa residents. If we are going to connection the city an attorney lives in as the basis for what measure N will do, it would mean a yes vote = Sacramento.

The supporters of Measure N continue to try and obfuscate the really issues by attacking the messenger and making up baseless conspiracy theories in which everyone on the planet who disagrees with them must have been paid off. Napa tax dollars would be better spent filling potholes and increasing our protection from floods. This is a sprawl inducing law that has no place being on the books. No on N!
"

" I have a question that I have not heard addressed, so any help would be appreciated. If Measure N passes, will the board of supervisors approve all projects that are less than 1% growth? And voters will approve all individual projects that are more than 1% growth? Or will the board approve all projects up until the 1% growth in that year is reached and then voters approve all projects after that? I hope the question is clear. For example, a developer want to put in a 10 unit dwelling somewhere. If it is the first of the year, before the 1% cap is met, supervisors will approve. If it is at the end of the year and the 1% cap has been met, will voters have to approve or he waits until next year? Or because his project is not more than 1% the supervisors still can approve his project. If the former is true, then if the supervisors approve a 0.99% size project early in the year, then everyone else with small projects is out of luck? "

" winemd

This is a really good question because it is highly relevant to our decision making process.

Measure N, as I understand (and I have read it) pretty much mimics the former Measure A, that governed our growth in the county (not cities) since year 1980. Measure A expired in 2000.

Measure N was brought to reinstate A because Supervisors threatened to completely blow the principles of Measure A away in order to approve the Napa Pipe Project for 3200 homes in seven story buildings. on Industrially zoned land. The Measure A limit was about 114 residential permits per year, so the Napa Pipe proposal took the lid off Napa County Historic Growth Caps.

Measure N works just like A did.

All projects are subject to normal permit process and must be approved by the Board of Supervisors, no matter how big or small.

However, if the Board approves a project, or desires to, where the growth limit for the year would be violated, the project is, (1) put into the next year or(2) submitted to a vote of local residence for approval for the year the growth cap would be violated.

This was never a problem under Measure A, and will not be a problem under N. That is, no problem for anyone except Developers trying to push through project they know the voters would not want, like Napa Pipe.
"

" The supervisors cave at the least legal threat. The voters will not! Vote yes on N and put some backbone in our county. "

" The Actual Truth

I love it!

You write:

"The supporters of Measure N continue to try and obfuscate the really issues by attacking the messenger and making up baseless conspiracy theories"

Despite the poor grammar, this statement defiles the deceptive name you have adopted, if not stolen from me. Not very original, and you do nothing to support the truth!

Obfuscation?

Lets discuss how defeating your grandiose project for 3200 homes in seven story buildings somehow fights Sprawl and traffic congestion. Humm!

Then lets discuss why some fabulously wealthy mega developer would fund a "slow growth" initiative, financing, in essence, the restrictions he will be subjected to and making his mega development subject to voter approval too, Humm!

Then lets move on to having your right hand man and spokes person file litigation against the founder of the opposition and then blab all over your web site:

"Claim filed against N committee" omitting that KNN, itself, actually filed the baseless claim as a publicity stunt.

How about the KNN claim that N will change the general plan? Where did you guys get this rubbish? The general plan has incorporated the 1% growth cap since 1980. (About 114 units in the county per year) Here I was pretty sure the Actual Truth was that KNN had to change the general plan to get 3200 permits?

Moving forward to today, Napa Redevelopment Partners, headed up by a Santa Rosa planner gets Santa Rosa attorney, David Get Bills, to threaten our county with litigation over a court order that Expired in 2007. Sound pretty thin? Just another KNN propaganda, publicity stunt.

Please think about adopting a screen name that will not be confused with mine, something original.

Obfuscation?

"

" Oh for Pete's sake -- read the Farm Bureau's press release on Measure N if you want to see why this Measure is a legal Trojan horse. Are you going to accuse them of being in NRDP's pocket too?

As the Farm Bureau points out, Measure N is not just about Napa Pipe. There are many other seroius, long-term issues at stake in this vote and I would have a lot more respect for you pro-N advocates if you would be truly "responsible" and at least acknowledge these issues.

Winemd, I don't know how all the mechanics work but I do want to keep repeating that the voting provisions under Measure N only regard housing. So if developers can't build housing, what do you think they will build? And where will the housing for those new jobs go?

Measure N just exacerbates our jobs/housing problem and pushes housing for County jobs onto open space in and around the cities of Napa & Am Can. What's so "responsible" about that? "

" One of the threads in the anti N campaign is the forever word. It appears frequently in their arguments. Forever, always in perpetuity they would have us believe that whatever attitude we express in the iniative process it will be written in stone, reminiscent of Moses.

There is only one quality of life that is forever, it certainly not the laws of men (or women my bad pc attitude). The very probability of any possible legal challenge negates what opponents of Measure N would have us believe is a legal dictum.

I would encourage Mr. Grabill to sue the county again whether or not Measure N passes. In deed he should threaten to sue since the brokered agreement has expired and the board of supervisors has not set in motion any plans to alleviate the original problem. In fact it is his duty or that of his clients to press forward against the county and its cities to force them to meet the needs of its less fortunate citizens. That is a separate issue from Measure N. Measure N’s goal is not to create affordable housing but to limit sprawl.

Forevermore has a poetic ring but it is itself a perpetuation of a falsehood. The limbo of what we will face should measure N fail will also be fertile ground for lawsuits. Measure J will soon follow and it will be interesting to see the forces lined up to support or oppose it.

The concern over affordable housing is a legitimate one as is the concern over sprawl. A 1% growth rate has been identified as a set general parameter for growth why has not a similar parameter for affordable housing been set? That might offer a measure for the public to ponder.
"

" lwright

I believe you are very wrong in your analysis. The Farm Bureau is not against or for N. They have apparently bought into the deception that who is rumored to stand behind a Measure is more important than the Measure itself.

N stops nothing. It merely gives voters, like yourself, a say with teeth, a say that cannot be ignored, on excessively large residential projects. Our vote!

Why would anyone vote to give up their right to vote on any very critical issue, no less their community’s growth policies?

I do agree that N does not give us a vote on non-residential developments. Historically, that has not been the big problem and residents have not felt the same need to institute this type of check and balance. It could happen and will certainly need to be addressed if it does.

If we develop higher paying jobs will we need to build more houses? More likely those who live here may be inclined to avoid their commutes to the bay area for work, burning gas at 4 bucks a gallon, and take those new jobs. Don't ya think?
"

"
You missed my whole point, WholeTruth. The Farm Bureau is concerned that Measure N will undermine existing growth control measures. Here's a direct quote from their press release:

"When Measure A was set to expire in 2000, the Farm Bureau supported its extension by ordinance,
meaning that the one percent growth rate remains in force as a local regulation enforced by the
Board of Supervisors. The Farm Bureau backed that shift of enforcement power from the electorate
to the Board of Supervisors to avoid a potential costly legal conflict which could have ultimately
undone growth control efforts in unincorporated Napa County.

"Measure N would revive this legal conflict and undermine the existing growth control policy. In
shifting the authority to modify the 1% Growth Management System from the Board of Supervisors
to Napa County voters, the initiative creates inconsistencies with state housing laws and subjects the
county to a potential lawsuit, penalties for violation of the court approved settlement of the DeHaro
lawsuit and various penalties for violation of State affordable housing laws." "

" The Whole Truth - You state "I do agree that N does not give us a vote on non-residential developments. Historically, that has not been the big problem and residents have not felt the same need to institute this type of check and balance. It could happen and will certainly need to be addressed if it does." So here's a big hole. Instead of housing we're looking at more mega-hotels?

Maybe historicallly this has not been a big problem, but I see it coming. It should be addressed now not later. Instead of homes we'll get mega-hotels! What a trade off...
"

" I have an idea.
Keep the 1% Growth Cap with NO EXCEPTIONS.......
RogalVille will only take just over 28 years to build!.
114 Units a year.......

Actually,
I have been sitting back and reading the articales,posts, threats and have this to offer
I have two children growing up here...
I don't want this project.....
I have to ask if this were approved, where are the kids going to go to school? If there is a Fire or MAJOR crime (There will be, as this is just a housing project) where will these services come from?
What about WATER?
Garbage Service?
WHAT ABOUT THE 4 LANE HIGHWAY in each direcion we will need to put in just to get OUT OF NAPA??
A question has been raised by a post, of "If not houses, then Mega Hotels?"

Bring the HOTELS, then maybe Napa will be SO inundated with hotels, we can't fill the rooms, and the cycle will downturn.
I would rather have MEGA hotels all over town with seasonal traffic, than a housing Project that will house the wine elite on the top floors and the section 8'ers on the bottom floor. This is what they say "a hood watin to happen".
Go look in Oakland or SF at the "projects". in 20 years Rogalville will be a "project" and people then will ask "What were the people in charge thinking?".

BUILD the schools (3200 units X child each (conservatively) = 3200 KIDS.... 600 kids in each elementary school = 5 elementary schools ALONE just for this development... 3 Middle Schools and 2 High Schools. a police station, 2 Fire Stations, a Hospital, 2 more LL complexes, parks, sports fields and on and on.
MAKE THESE OFF-SHORE TRUST FUNDERS PAY FOR IT ALL prior to approval.... "

" Iwright

You completely miss the point when you say:

"meaning that the one percent growth rate remains in force as a local regulation enforced by the
Board of Supervisors. The Farm Bureau backed that shift of enforcement power from the electorate
to the Board of Supervisors to avoid a potential costly legal conflict which could have ultimately
undone growth control efforts in unincorporated Napa County."

The threatened lawsuits are junk law, based on a court stipulation that expired in 2007(that’s last Year by the way). Its nothing but a KNN sponsored publicity stunt.

As to the Supervisors, they had no intention to protect us from Rogalville and made it clear that the plan for 3200 homes was in calm waters. Without our vote we are naked and will be stripped of our industry for houses we don't need, supposedly to comply with future state allocations of houses. The board will not protect us! So we really need to be able to vote. Don’t fret, the cost to defend frivolous lawsuits id dwarfed bt the cost to the county to provide all the services needed by 3200 new residents. We’ll save 500%.

If you are really interested search the Napa Register data base for "napa pipe" back to 2004 when Rogel bought this land, then tell me I'm wrong.

As to bd4, humm?

So you think because N doesn't cover commercial developments which have never been a problem when it does cover residential development which
has been a known issue since the 80s?

Lets think about this/ Nope, makes no sense.
"

" bornin74 - I am sure you must have missed the actual Napa Pipe application, otherwise you would not be repeating the propaganda of the pro housing only development group Get a Grip. A school has been offered to the school district and will be built at their discretion. Same with all the other public services. Additionally there is the connection to the bay trail and the park.

I do not know where you get the idea it is only a residential development. It has been well reported that there will be a mix of uses including commercial, housing and light industrial. Around a third of the site is in the airport zoning which means it will have to be commercial or light industrial as housing is not permitted. I wish people would stop lying about things they have not studied.

Additionally, Measure N has little to do with Napa Pipe. It is about making development of our ag and open space land easier. As the pro sprawl group Get a Grip on Growth moves forward with their development on the pasture lands around Foster road, Get a Grip is supporting Measure N because it will make the annexation of these agricultural lands easier in the long run.

A No vote on Measure N = stopping sprawl development. N stands for No!
"

" I have a better idea. The citizens of Napa County should file a counter suit based on the effects such legally forced growth has on our environment, our health and well being. Using the legal system to force growth is equivalent to cancer metastasis. For years I was fascinated with, and studied cancer growth; how it used trickery to get a foothold; how it pushed itself into other cells when their level of surveillance was down. Grabill is nothing but an agent of a type of cancer occurring outside of our bodies on a planet shaped much like a cell. Kindof scary isn't it.

Crowding affects the health and well being of a community. Can't we throw a lawsuit back in his face and show him that our guards are not down? If we allow this guy to gain a foothold it means our surveillance is down, rendering ourselves vulnerable to the next Grabill.

The fact that he opposes Measure N tells me that the he is threatened by it's ability to slow growth down. We must recognize, target, and eradicate the behavior of this growth machine and remove ourselves from being held hostage to AGAG and Grabill types.

And here's my message to them: Go ahead. Try to break our barriers down. Eventually some wise attorney will come along to throw it back in your face. And do you think we're stupid enough to buy into the workforce housing issue? Napa County cannot build houses that sell for $200,000 to $15 an hour wage earners. Who do you REALLY represent? It's not enough to take Sonoma County on. Now you are moving into adjoining territory.

Napa County should be working on a counter suit as we speak.



"

" Good grief, the guy already sued us and won. What are the chances that he will win again? Over the very same issues? The Yes on N proponents are really avoiding reality at this point.

I am late to this party so I don't know if anyone is reading still, but the "whole truth" winemd is that no one knows the answers to those questions. They will have to be worked out if N passes. "

" TheWholeTruth:

Obfuscate, Obfuscation

1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.

It is a real word.
"

" NB, what are we going to do? Let these types of lawsuit happy organizations hold us hostage? If the county is making more revenue from new hotels, why can't they use that money to deal with the lawsuits rather than surrendering to lawsuits and building more homes which the taxpayer ultimately pays for anyway? Let's say it costs several million to fight a lawsuit. Well, maybe the cost of housing (infrastructure, schools etc.) is substantially more than the cost of fighting a lawsuit. The only difference is that the cost is deferred. And perhaps that is the reason it's easier to just settle these lawsuits. No one in the county wants to look like the bad guy who dragged the county into a lengthy and expensive lawsuit.

If you give an inch with these attorneys, they stand ready to take a mile. I just feel that so much is dumped on the middle income taxpayer who doesn't always follow the trail and figure out why their taxes are high. I would like to know how Grabill from Santa Rosa won this case. Did the county put up a good fight?

And doesn't Grabill realize that pushing more housing does not solve the problem of the single mother, minority, or low income family? Land is too expensive in Napa County to generate housing which can be sold to people making $15 an hour. That issue can only be resolved with transportation solutions.

I suspect Grabill is an attorney for developers and is not terribly interested in single mothers.
"

" Vocal, the problem is not having the money to fight the law suit, the problem is we lost and will most likely lose again no matter how much money we are willing to spend. My impression is that this group is sueing under state affordable housing laws, which are a liberal invention. It's like the ADA disabilities act, you may not like it but it is the law.

This is what started the whole deal with Napa Pipe. The Sups are looking for a way to put some affordable housing in the county due to the law suit. Either they build some or they get one of the cities to take their housing. "