|
Vote no on
Measure N
Measure N
Voters should reject Measure N, create consensus without an ill-informed rush to the ballot box and set a smart course for the county.
Share
Email
Print
CommentRelated
There is a sane way to make important land-use policy, and then there’s what’s going on in Napa County right now.
In our view, Measure N is flawed and lacks transparency. Voters should reject Measure N, create consensus without an ill-informed rush to the ballot box and set a smart course for the county. A better way is not far away.
In our view, Measure N is flawed and lacks transparency. Voters should reject Measure N, create consensus without an ill-informed rush to the ballot box and set a smart course for the county. A better way is not far away.
Some facts:
• Measure N would give voters the exclusive right to enforce the county’s existing 1 percent per year growth cap and 35-foot height limit on buildings. It would only govern developments in the unincorporated county, not within the cities.
• Measure N would give voters the exclusive right to enforce the county’s existing 1 percent per year growth cap and 35-foot height limit on buildings. It would only govern developments in the unincorporated county, not within the cities.
• The unincorporated county is, in fact, growing at a rate of less than 1 percent a year as things stand. According to a January report, the population in the unincorporated county grew by 372 people between 2000 and 2005, about .27 of one percent. The overall population of Napa County, including fast-growing American Canyon, was 1.5 percent over that period.
• Measure N was hastily and poorly drafted, and campaign manager Victor Ajlouny now proposes that, should it pass, a clean-up measure should be placed on the November ballot to “fix all the hiccups people are concerned about.” This is poor policy-making.
• Measure N was hastily and poorly drafted, and campaign manager Victor Ajlouny now proposes that, should it pass, a clean-up measure should be placed on the November ballot to “fix all the hiccups people are concerned about.” This is poor policy-making.
• Measure N was designed to stop the Napa Pipe project. Napa Redevelopment Partners proposes building seven-story buildings and 3,200 townhomes at the 152-acre Napa Pipe site, which is along the river just outside the city of Napa.
• The proposed Napa Papa project it is too huge and violates local land use principles by proposing substantial growth outside any of the five cities. But it is not about to break ground. It is undergoing studies. In addition, it will take a year or more to clean up the toxins in the soil at the site after 70 years of heavy metal manufacturing, work that has not yet begun.
• County and municipal elected leaders appear to have gotten religion after months of public pummeling, and are about to launch a regional planning effort that would consider Napa Pipe, the Angwin eco-village, the 150-acre Ghisletta site off Foster road, and more in setting the table for sustainable growth. If they are up to the task, they can set policy that covers the whole county, not just a sliver of land in the south county.
We have time to take a deep breath and formulate a rational policy.
Steps: Reject Measure N. Pull together Measure N proponents, citizens groups, environmental, agricultural and business leaders and draft a consensus policy unencumbered by legal and technical flaws or murky political origins. Re-establish priorities on building sites, building heights, voter oversight of major developments and more. A wiser, more comprehensive initiative could be on the ballot or before local leaders by November.
We can reject the rotten choice we are being offered between Napa Pipe and Measure N. We can so no to ham-handed policymaking and go about the hard work of building a sensible policy that will work for all. Vote no on Measure N.
• The proposed Napa Papa project it is too huge and violates local land use principles by proposing substantial growth outside any of the five cities. But it is not about to break ground. It is undergoing studies. In addition, it will take a year or more to clean up the toxins in the soil at the site after 70 years of heavy metal manufacturing, work that has not yet begun.
• County and municipal elected leaders appear to have gotten religion after months of public pummeling, and are about to launch a regional planning effort that would consider Napa Pipe, the Angwin eco-village, the 150-acre Ghisletta site off Foster road, and more in setting the table for sustainable growth. If they are up to the task, they can set policy that covers the whole county, not just a sliver of land in the south county.
We have time to take a deep breath and formulate a rational policy.
Steps: Reject Measure N. Pull together Measure N proponents, citizens groups, environmental, agricultural and business leaders and draft a consensus policy unencumbered by legal and technical flaws or murky political origins. Re-establish priorities on building sites, building heights, voter oversight of major developments and more. A wiser, more comprehensive initiative could be on the ballot or before local leaders by November.
We can reject the rotten choice we are being offered between Napa Pipe and Measure N. We can so no to ham-handed policymaking and go about the hard work of building a sensible policy that will work for all. Vote no on Measure N.
Join the conversation
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.
|
|
The Actual Truth wrote on May 11, 2008 9:55 AM:
The NVR has it right. No on N will enable the county to protect our natural resources and direct what growth we will have to areas that are already developed. "
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 11, 2008 10:42 AM:
Napa Register watering at the mouth at the thought of 3200 new subscribers?
Make no mistake, there is no time to bring another measure to give voters their voice before Napa Pipe gets approval from 3 of 5 Supervisors who are lame ducks because they have failed to act to protect our county from overdevelopment.
N is the only chance we have to Stop Napa Pipe. Big money politics will win over current leaders. Ed Henderson and Noreen Evans are card carrying KNN.
Sadly, even our local paper can be swayed by the promise of profit. How big an ad did KNN buy to come out in coming weeks anyway?
The Register staff says, even though we really couldn’t trust our political leaders before N, now, because of N we can trust them. So just get rid of the savior. Humm?
Give up our votes, because the Editors at the register think we are not sophisticated enough to vote on growth and have a meaningful say with teeth on growth policy. While J is good, N bad, although both do the same thing? They urge us to hand our votes over to these trusty politicians, sit down on the curb and shut up. Let these trusty professionals do their job, grab their power and make their profits. Who wants to hear from us?
No thanks, we must reject the Registers endorsement of the most dishonest political special interest ever before seen in Napa Valley, KNN, the political arm of Napa Redevelopment partners, the Developer of Napa Pipe and, now owner of our downtown Mervyns complex.
Yes on N to stop Napa Pipe, all the way!
"
napablogger wrote on May 11, 2008 10:44 AM:
For that to happen there is going to have to be citizen involvement or each unit of our government is going to do what it is in its best interest without regard to the others. "
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 11, 2008 11:04 AM:
To fight a Billion dollar Developer and a well funded political special interest that can't be trusted to so much as correctly list their supporters? Yeah, even I was one according to the letter I got from them.
Who gonna pay for another such measure battle to give voters back the vote? The Register Staff?
Or, Is the point to take the vote away on growth issues. Does the register think we should take the votes away from the electorate on Measure J too?
I'm surprised at the simplistic, if not foolish, plan the register proposes we follow to protect our county from runaway growth.
While we know we have never faced this issue of explosive growth in the county over the last 30 years since Measure A was enacted, we have never had a billion dollar Developer buying up our Valley.
Sorry, Register, We need protection Now, not hope someone like Marshall will be willing to give us a 2nd chance and suffer the over the top public, media, personal and political abuse a billion dollars can buy to influence and trick the political and community leaders, just so they can blow away local slow growth tradition by giving us a new, unneeded city.
Register, your plan is full of holes. It renders local residents and voters helpless.
A real bad idea!! But you are entitled to it!
"
BD4 wrote on May 11, 2008 11:09 AM:
Everyone is getting tired of your rhetoric. Same old stuff. Give it a break! Measure N is GOING DOWN, as it should based on the facts.
It seems as more and more people read the measure they are coming to the same conclusion. VOTE NO!
"
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 11, 2008 11:23 AM:
As a regular Register commentator your support comes as little suprise.
Nonetheless, You are either naive or just want to see our county experience all the explosive growth political leaders can approve until voters someday get their voice back. That’s because they will!
The good news is that all but one candidate for County Supervisor does support N and may, if elected do as you say you expect. Problem is, they may not win, and there is no guarantee any elected official will keep their campaign promises.
If they stray, the only check and balance we have is our vote. We need N to Pass to give our voices back to us.
You might believe you are not informed enough to vote on large development which would change policy, but I believe I am, and that I deserve the right to do so.
By the way, you might want to start explaining to your taxpayer group that they will next need to get rid of proposition 13 tax protection as well to allow us to price our elderly parents out of their homes so we can sell them to wealthier, younger, real estate moguls who will be able to meet the new tax burdens we will face after Napa Pipe is built on top of all that pollution.
Oh, I forgot, I guess your organization already supports getting rid of prop 13 tax protection too?
"
The Actual Truth wrote on May 11, 2008 12:14 PM:
starchbased wrote on May 11, 2008 12:39 PM:
Like everyone else involved the supervisors are looking out for their own self interest which more often than not is in conflict with my own self interest.
Let the voter decide when growth is needed. We can't trust the politicians.
Once they get in they never leave and only try to add to their power.
Vote Yes on N and put the voter in charge. "
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 11, 2008 12:58 PM:
Measure N is all about stopping Napa Pipe, and even you know it.
Make some sense. You have every right to support Napa Pipe if that is what your special interest's want. Problem is, you guys know that if you came straight up and did that, you’d never win. So, zing, twist, spin; Nothing to do with Napa Pipe. Like magic! Wha laa.
At this point in time, and although Measure N will help to control future mega proposals as well, Napa Pipe is the project that is in our face, now, with all its 3200 homes and 7 story skyscrapers. Oh yeah, I forgot, the kindly developer didn’t really mean it. He just proposed a ridiculously large project hoping it would be cut down to a foolishly large one, right? Yes on N is the only sure way to stop Napa Pipe, or at least make sure voters want Napa Pipe as finally approved?
So to the extent your going to try to say N is not about Napa Pipe, your comment is no more credible then KNN listing me as its supporter, or KNN telling us the Developer of Napa Pipe is spending over a million dollars, through KNN, to defeat N, because its not about this developer’s pet project. Nonsense!
Now, if you tell us the Developer of the proposed most gigantic real estate project in Napa County history is pouring a million dollars into its Slickspeach campaign because he loves us and wants to protect us from explosive growth and traffic congestion on highway 29; Well, how well do you think that might sell, Bd4 Explosive Growth?
Throw enough mud at the wall and some is bound to stick? Not about Napa Pipe? Good try!
"
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 11, 2008 1:17 PM:
(Name lifted from Whole Truth due to lack of imagination and originality)
You don't know me well. I'll be wherever I need be to do what I can to protect my valley from proposals like Napa Pipe and Foster Road!
I simply want to support a sound measure, which does, no more than J does for Ag land, but for the rest of the county not covered by J.
You know, Give us back our right to vote on critical growth policy in Napa County.
I promise I will not be swayed by any mean spirited, sarcastic blogger who has no real message or debate to offer (can't even come up with an original blog name) but, instead wants to speculate as to how committed I am to seeing responsible growth in my community.
So, we'll blog some more when you have something real to offer in the debate. No, really, it’s kind of a fun distraction from the important stuff, actually.
"
winemd wrote on May 11, 2008 2:17 PM:
kevin wrote on May 11, 2008 4:15 PM:
sickothis wrote on May 11, 2008 5:09 PM:
sickothis wrote on May 11, 2008 5:13 PM:
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 11, 2008 10:03 PM:
There are 7 story buildings now at Napa Pipe. That site has been Industrial since you were born. Good news is I can’t see those buildings from 29.
Taller buildings for Industry and Commerce might be needed to allow the goal of providing higher paid jobs. Residents understand the functional utility of such business structures. I have never heard them made an issue. But to stack residences seven stories high just to pad a greedy developer’s pockets creates an unprecedented density of residences in our county. Such a plan has no functional utility and is, in fact, completely unnecessary in our Valley.
Further, industry pays taxes beyond the cost of services it requires while residents need services, which cost significantly more than the tax revenue they generate. The higher you go the higher the cost to the rest of us taxpayers.
I don't look at this as the same thing at all. I think N, as with former A, was not designed to oversee official actions on industrial or commercial projects, so until someone has a reason to complain about the height of non-residential construction, and brings another measure, those trustworthy officials you guys think are doing such a great job can plan and approve those projects as responsibly as they want.
I was unaware Industrial or Commercial developments were bothering voters? These developments give back to the community in the form of tax revenues and higher paying jobs for local residents. Yes, sacrifice is sometimes necessary, but only if it’s really worth it. Napa Redeveloper's profits and the construction of so many unnecessary houses really don’t justify the burdens and lacks any real basic utility to current residents.
"
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 11, 2008 10:33 PM:
Good points.
I look at some of this a little different though. First N, like J doesn’t even try to cover all ills. Both however provide a valuable check and balance to official actions by giving county voters a say on the issues they cover. J covers the changing of zoning of Ag land and N covers residential growth in the entire county. An overlap of jurisdiction, which double protects Ag land from improper rezoning as well as over development of residences.
Without N the Non- Ag land in the county is bare, no voter protection. I doubt seriously you would want to see Ag land loose the protection of the voters and, instead, leave zoning up to be "collaborated upon" by a bunch of elected officials and an array of rich, powerful and well connected special interests. Your Ag preserve would not be safe for 24 hours.
So is it with the rest of the County. No vote, No protection and the special interests and big money developers take over. As valuable as Ag land is it is vastly more valuable to the mass housing developer. We simply become San Jose.
Now you might want to think about the fabulous wine industry they now have in San Jose.
Truth is, we must have both J and N if our future heritage as a destination wine and food area is to be secure. If we give our votes up to greedy real estate developers someday we will wish we had our industrial lands back to have any economy at all. No one will want to vacation in a land of wall-to-wall residential development.
When is the last time you planned a vacation to San Jose?
"
LMW wrote on May 12, 2008 6:39 AM:
NVR...on target.
Wholetruth...I am worried about you. I think you have your mind set on everything. It's great for folks to keep open mind on all. I am a KNN supporter and attended KNN gathering last week, I myself intend on keeping open mind on all here, although my concern is always about the environment and natural resources and we can participate in that as a citizen if we voice our opinions with a positive open minded note. You have a voice and we all here it loud and clear, imagine if you were open minded??? a greater voice, wish you voted No on N "
kbf wrote on May 12, 2008 6:53 AM:
Cadence wrote on May 12, 2008 7:07 AM:
Take a look at American Canyon (and you will have plenty of time to take a look as you wait behind one of the many new AC traffic signals!) The board was perfectly happy to let AC build and build right to its current grid-locked state as it absorbed some of those mandated numbers. Now American Canyon's about tapped out and there is every reason to believe the board will allow the same sorry state to occur in and abutting the city of Napa. For now, anyway.
After Napa's tapped out, then where? The county believes Napa Pipe will provide enough mandated housing for ten years. But ABAG will continue to assign bloated numbers to Napa County and ten years will pass. Where next?
Eventually housing pressures will strike Upvalley. By then the south county will easily have the voting majority and will be most impacted by the supervisors' wild home approvals. In ten years, when a Rogal-like developer presents an adorable proposal for 80 or so cunning townhomes built on a seemingly innocuous parcel upvalley, I would fully expect disgusted south county dwellers to approve any J variances required. That will be just the beginning.
YES on N, and let the legal wrangling begin. "
BD4 wrote on May 12, 2008 7:37 AM:
I don't want a a measure that is only about ONE project. If we are going to protect our open space, let's do it with a measure that makes sense.
Mr. Ajlouny even says a clean up measure should be placed on the November ballot. Why should I accept a measure now that has to be "cleaned up," in November.
I don't understand why you are so hell bent on this measure when it would be more prudent to draft a measure for a future ballot that that is better written.
I don't always agree with this paper (most of the time), but their points are right on and my thoughts exactly. There are too many BIG negatives about this ballot to get me to vote yes.
And, I would love to consider a future measure that is well written and concise. There is still time for this as the Register states. Napa Pipe has a long way to go before any decisions are made.
Don't be so short sighted.
"
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 12, 2008 7:47 AM:
Thanks for your concern, but I'm clearly as open minded as you are. The difference is that you want to see 3200 new homes in 7 story buildings at Napa Pipe, and I don't.
You want us to give our votes away and grant proxies to the real estate moguls, their politically connected friends and their highly paid biased consultants, and I don't.
You trust the local Supervisors to "colaborate" with the cities and come up with a growth plan unchecked by our votes, and I don't thing that is a good idea based upon their history of power grabbing and one upsmanship.
Your comfortable sitting on the sidelines and letting them do what they want with our Valley, and I want to have my vouce heard.
Its really nice you worry about me, but it may be time you worry about yourself as, given your position, you are the lamb led to slaughter by a political machine that is run by more money than either of us can imaging and well connected polititions whose carriers thrive on the special interest money which supports their campaigns.
While your heartfelt concern for me is sweet and I'll take whatever love and friendship is offered to me, I'm right on this one for all that want to make a future in the Napa I grew up in. I don't ever want to see the Keep Napa Napa vision go unchecked as the name is as much of a lie as their vision for Napa's future.
Yes on N!
"
Cadence wrote on May 12, 2008 8:14 AM:
I believe Whole Truth is absolutely correct.
Yes on N. "
BD4 wrote on May 12, 2008 8:53 AM:
I think with all the contoversy surrounding this measure and the passion the community has (at least here) about slow growth they will take heed or risk their political futures.
All's I'm saying is give me something I can get behind and live with.....Measure N is not it!
"
LMW wrote on May 12, 2008 10:52 AM:
I only see what others don't want to see...my concerns out there, well they are for all, in the long run. You keep that voice up, just soften it. "
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 12, 2008 12:08 PM:
Forgive me, I never said you didn't care. I feel your being fooled at all those KNN wine tastings.
3200 homes was not my vision, it started with your beloved real estate speculator, Napa Redevelopment Partners, when they cut down their original fanciful plan from 4800 homes, right 4800, to 3200.
Please understand, Napa county has experienced traditional residential growth in the unincorporated areas of less than 114 per year, sometimes way less.
3200 3000, 2800, 2000 or 1000 new residences in one single new development does not Keep Napa Napa, at least not the Napa I grew up in. So, yes, I’m alarmed and deeply concerned something is quite amiss here.
Anyone who thinks we should add homes to our community in the thousands to pad real estate speculators profits is certainly not thinking about the same Napa I choose to live in. So, I will be stronger, not softer in my concern.
After all, it’s your KNN side that warns us to beware of unnecessary litigation then has one of its cronies file litigation against the supporters of N. Do these tactics make you proud to be a part of this group?
With big money KNN bullies like this on your side of the issue, those who support a collective vote of the electorate to keep politicians and big money, bully developers in check will not be able to be soft.
Having said this, I understand there are many faces to the debate and you are entitled to yours. Depending on the number of flags on your care meter for keeping Napa’s heritage as a slow growth community, You should consider how you can help if you have No vote to cast on the growth issue.
"
Paddy wrote on May 12, 2008 1:29 PM:
Once that disaster is averted we can focus on stopping Ghisletta and all other insane proposals to turn Napa into another Brentwood (read Sunday's SF Chronicle article on that Contra Costa county debacle). "
realitybites wrote on May 12, 2008 2:07 PM:
Talk about a "rotten choice" - who decided to call their pro-growth private interest group - "Keep Napa Napa"? When you start by trying to deceive the voters into believing your something your not - you loose all credibility. "
winemd wrote on May 12, 2008 3:22 PM:
LMW wrote on May 12, 2008 5:47 PM:
Got it, all. I consider myself a friend of KNN. I also do not agree with Rogal on all at NP.
Care meter, has many flags.
I will keep open mind on all your comments and don't worry about me being fooled. I don't go to KNN tastings, just the last one.
"
momdoc wrote on May 12, 2008 6:19 PM:
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 13, 2008 8:35 AM:
My care meter has many flags as well.
I guess we really need to shut out all the special interest propaganda and look at Measure N for what it does for us.
I think all it really does is give the collective voters of Napa a vote on Residential development in excess of our 30-year-old growth limit.
Whether we become informed enough to be trusted with that power is certainly another issue.
History dictates that voters are 100% at voting against massive growth. Although I believe most of the projects, which have made it to a vote of the people in Napa County, have fallen on Ag preserve and, thus, measure J, all of those have been stopped by voters.
Now we face Napa Pipe. Measure A has expired and although the growth limits remain in the law, since measure a is gone, 3 of 5 politicians hold all the power. We are 100% at their mercy.
We need also remember, although Napa Redevelopment Partners has refused to disclose their limited partners, we know from the lawsuits that followed Carneros Inn that the partners then included Nancy Pelosi, Gavron Newsom and the Getty family, just to name a few.
Nick Caston, the political brain behind KNN, is Noreen Evans' aid, "on loan" from her political camp in Santa Rosa.
The Napa Register usually stands with the Democratic Party.
While I have no beef with Democrats, and vote mostly democrat, the all-star democratic line up behind KNN is really nothing more than a political entourage of Napa Redevelopment Partners. All NRP wants is to develop Napa Pipe in the most profitable way they can. More houses, more profit.
Basically, if N fails politicians will not protect us.
"
LMW wrote on May 13, 2008 9:23 AM:
I am familiar with key players for Napa Pipe. I am from SF as well. You know that saying be careful for what you ask for? I see that, studies are not done. Owners have responsibilities, all must remember that.
Again, all your comments, I will keep in that open mind, I would like for all to use more often.
Although we are on different sides, I will remain close on that sideline I mentioned and thanks for voices that reach very far, such as yourself, that have great weight whether all agree or not...
I will give you the benefit of the doubt because of my open mind, and seek the care meters in my friends...
L~ "
lmiller wrote on May 14, 2008 10:01 PM:
As to N. "the whole truth" says, what's wrong with more commercial, they bring jobs? Well think one more step. Where are the people who get those jobs going to live? Oh, right, affordable housing. But we don't have it, and since we can't build it in the county, let's jam the city with more McMansions! It's like you've never driven in Napa before.
I am not absolutely opposed to growth as long as it's done smartly. Until the city can shape up and fix our traffic problems/school problems, we should not allow one more house to go in. It's that simple. We have to get motivated enough to stop it.
However, a generic bill that is poorly written and does not address the main problem and will in fact cause more pressure on the city to build is counter productive, and not smart (unless you're Ghisletta, then it makes perfect sense). The N people are just as big of crooks as the KNN people, they all have an agenda! Don't fall for it. "
realitybites wrote on May 15, 2008 10:59 AM:
Measure N simply give me a vote and sends a message to the politicians. It's the only available alternative right now to insure that 3200 more homes don't get put in at Napa Pipe - WITHOUT A VOTE. "
LMW wrote on May 15, 2008 1:08 PM:
NO on N
todays uncertainty should leave us to keep open options. "
John Richards wrote on May 15, 2008 6:37 PM:
Let's take advantage of it. "
John Richards wrote on May 15, 2008 6:53 PM:
Beta Napan wrote on May 16, 2008 6:06 PM:
All the voters at my house agree: We are totally against N. Why? Because we are tired of being yelled at by bloggers who think we're too stupid to elect responsible government representatives who can do the jobs we pay them for. Also, we don't like the secrecy. Who are these Measure N people, and why don't they want their names known? Finally, a ballot measure crafted to stop one specific development proposal that hasn't even been studied, let alone modified through the public process, just seems like a very desperate measure. It's a proposal. Can't we at least talk about it? This measure seems like a pre-emptive poke at something that threatens someone else's development idea down the road. We'd rather see the public process unfold with full accountability than be suckered into voting for this very suspicious measure. "