Where does the anti-Napa Pipe crowd go from here?

Home » Opinion » Reader Forum

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Comment

By Register Online Staff

Reader Forum

With a number of votes left to be counted, Measure N appears headed towards defeat.

With this in mind, what do those who supported Measure N as a way to fend off the large Napa Pipe development do now?

Add your thoughts here.

57 comment(s)

boise1 wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:14 PM:

" With 8,000 votes still to be counted, there is still a chance that we who are concerned with over development will prevail.

It would be a shame for the "Keep Napa Napa" developers and out of town land speculators who confused the voters win with their mis-leading campaign. Let's hope the final outcome will eventually see that "Good will win over Evil." "

Cadence wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:20 PM:

" First off we need a leader.
I vote for The Whole Truth!
And nope, TWT's campaign to date hasn't cost a single nickel. "

ADark1 wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:26 PM:

" As I voted YES! I think its a shame...here's why:
1. I partially grew up in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Being an avid diver and spear - fisherman, I got a firsthand look at what rapid over - development did to the local environment.
2. Have we forgotton that this IS an agri - economy? Water WILL be at a premium. OUR rates WILL go up as the demand increases.
3. A new concise and clearness MUST be implemented in the wording of these measures. Furthermore a FULL disclosure is needed. I want to know whom is behind what on BOTH sides!
4. I say, resubmit a BETTER measure...we have five months!
The St. Thomas I grew up in is barely recognizable. It once was a truly a beautiful island. Now?, ...nothing more then a playground for the super - rich and parking space for their yachts, ( nothing against wealth ), but the locals are still doing without.
Take this from a lesson learned the hard way. Quick development without the six P's " prior Planning prevents P***poor performance! "

musikluvr wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:36 PM:

" About 10,000 votes were bought by the developer for a reported $1.4 Million. Whats it going to cost him for 1 or 2 more votes on the board of supervisors? "

mom2 wrote on Jun 4, 2008 2:47 PM:

" All of the Yes and No people need to go to the June 13th Napa Communities Growth Summit hosted by the NCTPA. This is a public meeting at Napa High from 8:30am to 3:45pm. Here you will have a chance to start the public process by learning about all the cities in Napa and their growth challenges. Then you can keep track of Napa Pipe and voice your concerns by using the public process. If an overwhelming number of people come forward with well thought out arguments...I'm not talking about the ranting that goes on here...then you have a good chance of stopping the development. Also, keep watch on the City Council of Napa because whatever happens at Napa Pipe it will have to be supported by the City. Instead of speaking up here on the blogs, get out and make a difference by voicing you opinion where it counts...right in the ears of the BOS and City Council - and in public. I go to the meetings and I speak up, when things don't make sense...think about it and consider doing more than just typing a few words in a blog. "

kevin wrote on Jun 4, 2008 3:14 PM:

" It's over. The voters have spoken and they obviously want 3200 homes at Napa Pipe. At least the NVR made a ton of money from KNN advertising... "

Teddy wrote on Jun 4, 2008 3:18 PM:

" Leave it to a Mom to get it right. The question was "Where do we go from here?" It didn't asked for more whining, which is what the forst four people did.

Answer: Get involved. There is a long public process before Napa Pipe will be voted on, and another initiative isn't out of the question either. Much can and should be done to change this ill though out project. "

TheWholeTruth wrote on Jun 4, 2008 3:46 PM:

" Thanks Cadence

I agree it may be a little early for Napa Redevelopment Partners to start gloating. While I don't know how to judge the uncounted ballots, its probably likely they won't change the vote result enough for N, but I am hearing about rumblings for a new initiative which may be much shorter and pointed only at Napa Pipe.

Hey, They asked us to take it a development at a time. Maybe we need to listen.

Also, with the vote this close after the developer flooded the market with dollar bills, these upcoming Supervisor run offs will be even more fun than N.

Naw, probably won't Have Marshall and the Fishy Fish to distract us. I understand the new measure may come from a more "established" local slow growth proponent.

You guys may need to think about helping to fund the next anti pipe measure though. No matter who brings it, Napa Pipe will have the deepest pockets.

Good luck to us all "

Native74 wrote on Jun 4, 2008 4:05 PM:

" I'm game for meeting and discussing the new measure if N for sure goes down in defeat. The 3 week vote certification window wouldn't happen to overlap with any deadlines for initiating a November measure now would it? I don't put anything up to chance with the sneaky County anymore!!!

I also can't be at next Friday's meeting, but will gladly volunteer my time for the next measure! I thought the Editors of NVR were also behind a revised measure from the article I read earlier on...pony up! "

ADark1 wrote on Jun 4, 2008 4:27 PM:

" Not that my "feathers" are being ruffled,
(sorry PPFlamingo) However, I do take some umbrage at the remark posted by Teddy:
"" Leave it to a Mom to get it right. The question was "Where do we go from here?" It didn't asked for more whining, which is what the forst four people did." ....Rereads my post.....uhhhhmm WHAT?

I do believe I gave an opinion NOT a whine BASED on FIRST - HAND experience. Secondly I also included a tenative at worst suggestion on what should be done! I respectfully ask, you FULLY read a post, before making blanketing statements , as YOU typed......"forst"!

.....Reaches for first sip of wine for the day.... "

cagirl wrote on Jun 4, 2008 5:24 PM:

" I'm done Napa--Bye, bye "

jasper wrote on Jun 4, 2008 7:51 PM:

" So we lost by 4%. And we got there against tremendous competition: First, the developer spend an outrageous amount of money to confuse thousands of voters. Second, we were opposed by all of the Board of Directors. Third, we were opposed by the Napa Valley Register and the St. Helena Star. So we fought against almost overwhelming odds and we did pretty damn good, people.

Where do we go from here? Measure J will be on the ballot in November. We have got our dander up and we will help make that one win. Yes, we will.

When hearings are held on Napa Pipe, we will be there, Yes, we will. And we will see that project chopped down to 1000 homes or less. And we will insist that 50% of them be affordable.

When hearings are held on the PUC/Triad so-called “eco-village,” we will be there, And we will not let a Seattle developer boost the population of that community by 43%

When any other hare-brained development comes up, we will say: “Are you bringing the water with you, Joe? Are you paying for the traffic signals? Are you donating the schools? “

Where do we go from here? We ain’t going away, that ‘s for sure. We got 48% of the vote against tremendous odds and next time we’ll win. And the time after that. Yes, we will. "

Paddy wrote on Jun 4, 2008 8:00 PM:

" For one thing the votes aren't all in and anything can still happen. No matter, it's time for the Napa Pipe opponents and the Ghisletta opponents and those that voted no on N only because the measure was unclear to come together and voice our desire to keep developers and their stooges from making the decisions about how much can be squeezed into the limited space that is developable without causing a strain on water, schools, traffic, clean air, infrastructure, etc.

I believe we'd become a great majority with a powerful voice. No matter how much money KNN and Napa Redevelopment threw at it we must be the ones to decide what is appropriate, not a few supes or clowncilmen. "

jwk wrote on Jun 5, 2008 7:03 AM:

" As Usual, We ARE so hoed here!! What the Heck is wrong with you people? DO you really want another East Bay type city?? And Where is the water gonna come from?? "

pk wrote on Jun 5, 2008 7:09 AM:

" If you do not want Napa Pipe, than other developments will have to be approved. This was a battle of location. Which communities are you going to destroy...Angwin? Foster Road? I say let it go forward at Napa Pipe or at the growth summit plan out exactly where it is going to go. No more of these study areas. We need leaders to actually plan where the state mandated growth will go, either at Napa Pipe or not. "

Paddy wrote on Jun 5, 2008 8:26 AM:

" The heck with state mandated growth. That's a concept that must be shut down. The one-size-fits-all methodology has been a disaster for CA. Just look at the education numbers.

I like to see the Napa Pipe battle become the litmus test for change. It's time to eliminate the developers from grossly influencing policy in the state. If litigation is the only way that is going to happen than this is a positive use of our legal system.

My guess is that there are tens of millions of Californians with the same frustration and Napa Pipe would make a perfect rallying point. I'm seeing a political cartoon of Arnold being hit over the head by the personification of Napa County holding a pipe. "

Native74 wrote on Jun 5, 2008 9:06 AM:

" Paddy - your comment was perfect! "

daveposner wrote on Jun 5, 2008 10:50 AM:

" I think it's important to realize that there are at least two components to the "anti napa pipe crowd." There's the anti-development period crowd that for example could be allied with the "anti Ghisletta development crowd," AKA "Foster Road Crowd" (to which I belong.) The other component, which includes GGG is OK in principle with development and in particular development on Ghisletta just not OK with development at Napa Pipe. It is disingenuous of the latter group to pretend to the former that they are completely aligned. It would be very useful if people would specify to which "crowd" they belong. In particular, Whole Truth, I would love to know where you sit. "

Bill wrote on Jun 5, 2008 11:24 AM:

" The first misconception to get past is that the state mandates growth. It does not. the developer will win again unless you think clearly and do not confuse the issue from the beginning. "

musikluvr wrote on Jun 5, 2008 11:39 AM:

" to Mom2: Good luck speaking to the NCTPA. They are the most out of touch group in this county. They are insensitive to the public and unreachable by the voters. They don't listen to anything other than "yes" on a new tax. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Jun 5, 2008 11:53 AM:

" Let 'em build it. After it's done and fully occupied there will be traffic crawling at a snail's pace between Kaiser Road and Imola. I'll be the one standing on the side of the road with the big sign that says TOLD YOU SO!!!!!

My questions still is: After a huge development project like Napa Pipe who will get blamed for the traffic nightmare? Anyone care to offer any names? My prediction is that the elected people who approve the project will blame us, the voters, for letting it happen. Bet ya dollars to doughnuts. "

jasper wrote on Jun 5, 2008 1:57 PM:

" Napa County has several basic problems which get us into these battles.

First, the state mandate numbers are not nearly as large as the pro-development people claim. We are getting a bit tired of seeing supervisors and merchants wringing their hands and saying they have no choice but to approve unwanted growth. Do the research. The figures for the next seven years are nowhere near what supervisors are holding over our heads.

Second, the pro-development guys are always shouting, “But we need these houses for our firemen, teachers, cops.”Then they present plans for just 15% to be affordable. Or they propose another new hotel for the upscale people, with no provision for the peasants who must make the beds. So the servant classes have to commute great distances – like down Jamison Canyon - Someday Napa County will catch up with the rest of the world and put housing and jobs together. Including enough affordable housing. In Angwin, for example, the proposed 380 new housing units would produce only 59 affordable. Does that make sense? And there are no jobs to speak of up there. Most of the 380 would have to travel for everything, and with gas prices there now at $4.36, those families will be put in a real bind. Makes no sense, people.

Third, our County planners do not do nearly enough "Planning." They see their role as approving projects, streamlining the process. Why did the County not have a plan for the Napa Pipe parcel, based on long-range needs - residential, commercial, industrial. Why do developers dictate the course of events? "

mom2 wrote on Jun 5, 2008 2:17 PM:

" to musikluvr: I'm scratching my head I guess, because the board of the NCTPA is respresentative of all of our cities. It has City Council members of each city and town in the County, plus BOS. So, I think this is the perfect place to start to be involved in the process whether you are for or against Napa Pipe or Ghisletta or any new development. The key is having your voice be heard. Your voice will be stronger in numbers, how many times have you or anyone on this blog stood up in a council meeting or board of supervisors and voiced your opinion and offered a solution or idea? On the contrary, you are listened to and if you can state a good case or example most times they act with your intentions in mind. I've seen it happen many times. What is disturbing is when there is no voice from opponents in the process. Or when one side is heavily represented and the only voice for the people in the audience is Michael Haley. One voice against many, and who do they listen to? The ones with the most voices! The thing is that you can affect change and the best way is in great numbers. "

TheWholeTruth wrote on Jun 5, 2008 11:58 PM:

" daveposner

Your point is very well taken. I am first and foremost slow growth. I am anti-large developer including Ghisletta, Napa Pipe or Boca. I don't want to see any of these locations mega developed, especially under the ruse of alleged need for "affordable housing". We "need" way less than the likes of Keep Napa Napa want you to believe.

I disagree that N would not have helped protect Foster Road. That was a developer lie employed to divide slow growth advocates. It worked!

N couldn't have stopped an annexation, but like affordable housing, that wasn't needed or a given either. In fact I'm convinced it was N that awoke the sleeping dragon and got people in the city communicating dissatisfaction with the Foster Road Plan to the city council getting them to back out, at least for the moment.

I felt we had to send a strong message to mega developers now focused on our valley; N was a start. It would have sent the message. Instead, we have sent up the smoke signal to all developers that we are vulnerable and divided. This was the wrong message.

Had N passed, the job would have not been done, but I honestly believe if we could united we could will all these battles.

I’m sorry we disagreed and could not send these Keep Napa Napa developer moguls the message that we can’t be divided and manipulated, but that is not what happened.

I for one, however, believe this is not over and all of our concerns need to be addressed and developers confronted, even if it must be one project at a time.

Please know I support your fight as much as I oppose Napa Pipe. That’s saying a lot! "

TheWholeTruth wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:12 AM:

" daveposner

Sorry, could not finish in 300.

Also wanted to say I blame my own complacency as well. I admit the 1000 home Ghisletta project didn't have my attention quickly enough. I hadn't realized how close to annexation you guys were. I now kick myself for not getting involved sooner.

It took the publicity surrounding Measure N to wake me up to start involving myself to fight to get my voice back. We need our votes back but we need to protect each other. Not good enough to just protect one neighborhood, we need to do what we can to stop mass development county wide. "

daveposner wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:20 AM:

" Whole Truth,

Thanks for the response. I couldn't ask for more! We should be allied.

Dave "

101napa4gen wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:24 PM:

" daveposner and The Whole Truth!!!

I don't belong to any group but am concerned about Napa. I read the articles and DON'T understand all the issues... but ... please join forces and TELL the electd offcials what the VOTERS of Napa really want!!! Please get together ASAP and save OUR Valley @!$$!%#@#

I will vote YES on ALL measures they support and if possible include the Farm Bureau "

smart growther wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:14 PM:

" The November election campaigning is just around the corner. Have your voice heard at the Growth Summit next week. Then get started and get the Slow Growth BOS candidates elected. Changing the dynamics and the voting block at the Board is key to our future. "

Word wrote on Jun 7, 2008 12:20 AM:

" The voting results will surely embolden the developer and some members of the Board of Supervisors. Eyes should fall directly on Bill Dodd. Dodd faced no opponent whatsoever in this election season. It will be interesting to see if he becomes the main booster for large scale development of the site. "

nwnapan wrote on Jun 7, 2008 8:58 AM:

" 1. No one bought my vote.
2. All the solutions being presented here were viable solutions prior to Measure N's defeat. And they still are. If those of you who are so vehemently opposed to Napa Pipe had gotten involved in the initial phases of the planning Measure N might have never reared it's ugly head. Try being part of the process instead of raging against it. That's exactly what you should be doing now.
3. For those of you who state you are fed up with Napa and leaving for "greener" pastures, good luck. The one thing Napa has going for it is it's reputation. Without that Napa Valley would have been paved over long ago and there would have been nothing you could have done about it. Even the "rich and famous" enjoy serene settings like Napa. Constellation, Diageo, Fosters, and the like have billions invested in this valley and they'll protect their investments.
4. Napa Pipe is already developed. It's cement and steel. That is the most clear and present danger Napa faces is private land owners selling their land for development purposes. Yes, these are long time Napa residents selling out their neighbors for money. It's not out of town developers. It's locals selling out their own. "

freeport56 wrote on Jun 7, 2008 10:51 AM:

" The issues is not the Napa Pipe or the Ghisletta property. it is the state mandated housing distribution. That is the law we should change. The real issue at hand is not housing, but water.

California has never built enough water reserves to handle it's emense growtrh (in the 80's as much as 6000 an hour moved here). Without water, we will all be bathing out of buckets. I for one do not want to do that.

Start an initiative to change the state law, density in not a good thing. "

daveposner wrote on Jun 7, 2008 5:45 PM:

" This is probably too much to hope for but wouldn't it be nice if this growth meeting (which I will make every effort to attend in spite of the fact that I have to work for a living and Friday is a work day Mom) could be an opportunity for a reasoned objective discussion without all the demonizing and flaming, of what the actual requirements, needs, and desires for development are and conversely what the available options are for satisfying those requirements with an analysis of costs and benefits of each? I know this is not easy because we each have different views of costs and benefits etc. but I think there's enough of a consensus that we want to preserve the magnificence and quality of life of this valley as much as possible that we could develop a plan with which most people are not completely unhappy -- a modest goal! "

TheWholeTruth wrote on Jun 9, 2008 8:03 AM:

" Well, I certainly look differently at Napa Pipe than those that think just because it's developed, changing its use to feed the developer happy political big wigs whose retirement plans will make millions off our loss of industry, is a hunky dory idea.

This thinking is just the product of ill conceived so called "redevelopment". Just another word for the residential developer's right to be rich beyond our wildest imagination act.

When you look at a proper investment portfolio, what will you see? I'll tell you, diversity!

If we cover our one remaining piece of industrial land with residential growth, we will kill diversity and loose the ability to easily develop high paying green industrial jobs for residents. No other site in Napa has similar industrial backbone. Rail and river access. Already polluted and in need of remediation to the extent possible.

Lose Napa Pipe as an industrial jewel and we destroy diversity in our valley. We play out the rest of our deck missing a couple of aces.

Why? Because a wealthy, politically connected developer uses the "a" word? Affordable housing? This is a joke and a ruse. We can comply with ABAG requirements without destroying our industrial jackpot. We need to fight unnecessary housing allocations which do not maintain our community's character.

Let us be honest. Napa Redevelopment Partners bought our industrial land and kicked out all the industry knocking on our door to provide decent better paying jobs. It did so because the land is cheaper. Ok, I say a landowner has every right to develop its lands, but if your buy industrial lands, you should expect to develop industry, not housing. One should expect to increase jobs, not population.

Return Napa Pipe to Industry, New green Industry! "

daveposner wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:17 AM:

" Whole Truth,

I'm certainly no expert but I find it difficult to imagine what would motivate "industry" to locate in Napa. The cost of living (including the lack of affordable housing!) would seem to make manufacturing out of the question. We don't have the labor force or critical mass to support technology companies. We're not a financial center? We may not like it but it seems like agg (mainly wine) and tourism are all we've really got to offer. Am I missing something? Of course this is *not* an argument for developing residential housing as it implies there will be no jobs to support the residents.
With the cost of gasoline and the lack of mass transit Napa also doesn't make sense as a bedroom community (God Forbid!) I think the real argument is that there really isn't any good reason for Napa to grow at all and as you say the pressure from ABAG can be handled easily without major new developments. I hope this "summit" will explain where all this "growth" pressure is coming from -- it doesn't seem rational. "

chunk wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:12 AM:

" They suk it up and realize it's a bad idea. We don't need more homes in Napa. It's already overpopulated as it is. Just look how many cars are on the road and how bad traffic is compared to 10-15 years ago. Ridiculous. "

someguyinnapa wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:30 AM:

" I personally would love to see the Napa Pipe development turn into something that we can all use. A ferry terminal and a train depot; basketball courts and raquetball courts and public land usage. Let's move our fairgrounds over there; then the Mexi-rodeo doesn't annoy anyone. Why do we need to increase our population? Install a sweet solar field like what the college has and then turn the whole thing into something that is for the locals that the tourists would also enjoy.

I will try to make the meeting... but I work grave-yard shift right now, so... I could end up being the guy snoring in the corner. "

TheWholeTruth wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:38 PM:

" Hi Dave

I understand your point, but Napa and Vallejo supported this industrial site for a century and I think would again. The industry that tried to get in was just out dollared by NRP who paid a premium for the land because they had plans for a higher, quicker dollar through residential development.

I lived here when Kaiser steel and Mare Island were in full swing. It was a healthy self-contained economic time.

Not that I'm looking for that kind of industry today, but I could see Napa Pipe as more of a Silicon Valley industrial community. Not many sites left in the State with both Rail and River access, which if properly developed could be shared with public transportation hubs, maybe even some community sports fields.

This is a better idea than more houses stacked 7 stories high, that we don't need which will certainly just create more commuters.

Just my thought. "

daveposner wrote on Jun 13, 2008 11:24 AM:

" I think economics are at the crux of everything we're dealing with. Whether or not WT is right that there are possibilities for real jobs it seems clear to me that our leaders see Tourism as the only viable possibility for economic growth and that's what they're pushing. Tourism creates a demand for lts of low paid workers who need to live somewhere and hence we need high density developments to support it. It is the worst kind of economic growth but for some reason growth no matter what is considered a good thing. (Could it be that it provides employment leaders?) "

bornin74 wrote on Jun 13, 2008 1:17 PM:

" Where does the Anti-Napa Pipe Crowd GO........

Well in 10 yeasr far from here.... IF you can get OUT of town in less than a day or two......

I am HUGE ANTI-GROWTH, Family has been her for decades, sadly to say for probably only one more decade.....

I am in the Anti Napa Pipe, Anti Ghisletta, Anti Growth I will be in Hawaii, on the island of Maui....... come look me up when you feel like getting away from Orange County North!!! "

John Richards wrote on Jun 13, 2008 1:38 PM:

" After all the absentee ballots are counted, the N results will probably be even tighter than they are now. I don't think a 51-49 voters split will embolden developers or pro-growth members of the Board of Supervisors. A more moderate version of N would surely win. "

daveposner wrote on Jun 14, 2008 12:10 PM:

" I feel bad about what happened with N. If we could have had some input and ensured that it addressed the concerns of those of us within the SOI of the city we could have had an unstoppable coalition and won. We indeed were deceived about the actual abag numbers which in fact are quite minimal. Can we try again? "

4gnapan wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:38 PM:

" What really surprises me is the number of people who I talk to who thought a No on N vote was a vote Against Napa Pipe... ::shakes head:: I guess it shouldn't, though.

It is sad , after 4 generations here, to contemplate leaving. "

BILL wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:39 PM:

" It appears that what passes for deception and lets blame it on ABAG on one day becomes incompetence on another.

Those who were misled by the ABAG argument fell right into Napa Redevelopment Partners trap. They still insist on bad mouthing local people who have been active and concerned for a longer period than many of the the opposers have either been alive or most certainly much longer than the opposers have lived in Napa.

The attempt ot make nice and crow over the recent defeat of measure N for all its flaws will not lead to constructive advocacy to stop these grandiose plans.

Untill the community realizes that Napa Redevelopment has tentacles reaching into the most hidden and deep pockets with an agenda that serves a hidden few there are very few people to trust.

Some posters here are trying to gloss over and deny that the real threat is Napa Redevelopment Partners. they would prefer to ignore this and offer a false hand of cooperation but are not to be trusted. "

daveposner wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:36 PM:

" " Bill,

[I posted this originally for the put growth on the front burner letter but you seem to have moved over here.]

I'm not interested in a flame war with you but look what you're doing. Someone who opposed N is reaching out to say maybe we can form an alliance and you've decided to reject that out of hand. The fact is that a lot of people who are against growth voted against N because they thought that it was a plot to force development elsewhere. Do you not believe that? I'm sure the people in GGG are wonderful citizens but (1) GGG fully supported the annexation and development of the Ghisletta property and (2) GGG was one of the primary supporters of N. That lent weight to the Ghisletta plot theory. Those people voted against N. If they had voted for N it would have passed. I would be perfectly happy to support a new measure that prevented both Napa Pipe and Ghisletta. That's a solid offer. No subterfuge about it. Would you support it? If so let's work together to make it happen. If not I can only assume you prefer whining and sarcasm to actually accomplishing something. " "

Bill wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:29 PM:

" Dave you actively and deliberately pushed the Ghisletta subterfuge to the detriment of the very people you proposed to help. On one thread you propose to make nice but on another you begin by gloating. The ABAG argument was another subterfuge bought by the anti campaign. Is there any wonder why the hand of friendship is to be mistrusted?

Even now I see no remorse in your words for allying your self with Napa Development partners. They have almost single handedly defeated a flawed measure that would have addressed both concerns. Make no mistake it was the tremendous influx of money that decided this election not the activism of citizens. Perhaps the authors of “N” were inept but your references to incompetence hardly appear as an authentic gesture to proceed upon.

The skin I had in this game can not be retrieved it was lost prior to “N” and “N” would not make me whole. Its not me you need to convince but GGG and many others. "

daveposner wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:25 PM:

" Bill,

You seem to have misinterpreted my previous posts. I'm dead serious about this. I want to take measure N and get the same lawyers who drafted it to add language to protect Ghisletta from annexation (maybe requiring a vote of the county to approve or whatever.) It couldn't be more than 10 or 20 grand. I'll guarantee it myself. We'll then arrange for a mass petition signing on July 4 with everyone who supported N and all the rest of the antigrowth crowd it will be a cinch. Then we submit and watch the fun begin. What say you? "

ADark1 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:55 AM:

" I'd LOVE to meet BOTH of you two prior posters personally. That being said, I believe I can honestly state that Napans ( most of them) felt "Hoodwinked" in the way measure N went down..Is there ANY way possible this can be redone as a ballot measure and satisfy BOTH sides. Not having 10 - 20 grand to throw around on a "pet" project makes me more amiable to having a BETTER Measure written on Measure N as well as
stopping the Ghisletta or working on a compromise. NOT all of us can agree all the time,.however, we can agree to disagree and work from there. I sincerely believe a compromise is MUCH better then watching Napa go down in flames. I hope you BOTH go to Bloggermania as that's where I'll be.

P.S. I WONT put my personal info and resume online..Understand this..I organized low income housing tenants and froze over 20 million dollars in HUD funds due to a certain city I resided in doing what was call "controlled deterioration" If you are sincere in having Napa grow RESPONSIBLY, put down the egos, and lets put our heads together.

Bill?, Dave?,I sincerely mean that. So you BOTH can put up or SHUTUP! That is...If you TRULY have the BEST interests of Napa in mind!

John "

ADark1 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:39 AM:

" NOW , that I have your attention ( hopefully) What do you say to BOTH dropping egos, BOTH stop the pi####g match, and get on with the business of RESPONSIBLE Napa growth? I am SURE compromises could be made as opposed to having things shoved down our throats due to one or another of you having a bruised ego. Napa cannot and SHOULD NOT wait on the two of you to mend fences.

Ask yourself this...Do you REALLY care about Napa responsible growth? If so, are you WILLING to work on a liveable Compromise? You'd BOTH be bigger and better men for it!

Seeing as MOST of my clients aren't in this town, I have nothing to lose and EVERYTHING to gain as a Napan who actually cares about this town.

Bill?, Dave?, THINK carefully about the legacy you'd like to leave Napa. Is it going to be one of bitterness and mistrust? Is THAT something you could be "PROUD" of?

Posturing in the papers and on a blog are MEANINGLESS!. Either sit...or get off the pot! Hopefully, you get my drift.

I would like to believe neither of you want to see Napa go the way of Vallejo or other cities.
I would hope not... my offer still stands.. Your call... "

daveposner wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:41 AM:

" Adark1,

Where do you see my "ego" entering in this discussion? If it did, I apologize for that lapse and will remove it immediately. Neither am I Pxxxxxsing. As far as I can see, all I did was make a proposal to have an initiative drafted (whose payment I would guarantee) that would prevent Napa Pipe development and protect the Ghisletta property from annexation. All I'm asking is to hear from those who supported N whether they would support such a measure? What's egotistical about that? "

daveposner wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:16 AM:

" ADark,

Also I don't think there's a need for a "compromise." Bill is completely right that as I fessed up in a previous post I had believed that the ABAG requirements would force development of either Napa Pipe or Ghisletta and therefore passing N would force development of Ghisletta. It appears that I was wrong ("incompetent" if you will!) So there doesn't seem to be any reason we can't prevent both developments. (I personally don't have any "skin" in the Napa Pipe issue but I'm happy to support those who do if I can protect Ghisletta.) "

daveposner wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:33 AM:

" I'm concerned that the last sentence in my last post may have been confusing. I mean that I'm happy to support those *opposing* the Napa Pipe development as I don't think it's needed. "

Bill wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:54 AM:

" I have followed the posts quite carefully and find it amazing that it is still a single issue either Ghisletta or Napa Pipe. Where is the effort to approach the issues of affordable housing? It is still a not in my backyard mind set yet it is the crux of future development. There will be future development it is the size and scope that must be addressed.

I think Mr. Posner should look at his own words and decide if he wishes to reach out for an overall attempt at going forward or is he more interested in bashing GGG, the very people he must include. Indeed what group of anti campaigners wishes now to join in forming a new initiative? Certainly not the principal backer, Napa Redevelopment Partners.

Where are Assembly Woman Evans and the rest of the group? Everyone has folded their tent but I am certain Napa Redevelopment Partners has not, yet Mr. Posner thinks we should all just get along. Just who is posturing?

Touchy feely feel good is just not me. I am not the one to be reached out to but convinced that there is a genuine plan to address these issues. A viable community plan with real concern for the direction of Napa not a project specific iniative. Rather focus on the inclusion of affordable housing in all new projects without the candy offered developers of extra cash in their pockets. Address infill with in city limits with affordable choices and realize that all areas are on the table that includes Silverado country club and the special dispensation the county gives to build single family residences on large plots of land protected by the ag-preserve. "

daveposner wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:58 AM:

" One last thing Adark, you say you want a "better measure". That's great. Go ahead and post your ideas here. We can draft the requirements of th measure as a group which can include all interested parties. That way we can be confident of having something that will pass before submitting it. It would also take the discussion away from personalities and focus on a concrete goal. My requirement is that the initiative should prevent annexation of Ghisletta. What requirements do others have? (Also I'll retract my offer to pay for the drafting if people so that it doesn't come across as *my* measure. We'll all contribute and make it *our* measure.) Everything will be in the open and vetted and nobody can claim it was done by a cabal. "

daveposner wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:10 PM:

" (Sorry) I have one more suggestion. I think we all agree that WholeTruth is a good guy (or whatever gender he or she is.) Cadence suggested previously WholeTruth as a leader. I propose that he lead this effort. "

Bill wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:19 PM:

" It is still the not in my back yard mind set that appears to drive many posters. Any initiative will need to include an affordable housing element. From my point of view and my ego any new initiative that does not address the housing needs of all of Napa is worthless chaff protecting the I have mine crowd the devil with anyone else. Any such selfish and self-serving initiative will encounter my opposition.

Napa Pipe will be developed along some lines. I prefer to see it as a possible job generator along the lines of light industry technology etc. with limited mixed use, that is my bias.

If any one here is serious you are already behind you had better reach out to Jim Marshall and or GGG perhaps anyone sympathetic on the board of supervisors or the city council. You are right in the middle of supervisorial races and a general election plus measure J will pull most attention and there is no real time to put together a new initiative. Start shaking the local candidates and those not running to come up with something and let it grow out of that.

It is affordable housing that will and should drive any process. "

ADark1 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:43 PM:

" I do agree and I apologize if I offended any of you.. Now for the work at hand....PLEASE keep us posted and I'll do whatever I can to contribute so ALL of us and our children will inherit a Napa we can all be proud of. "

TheWholeTruth wrote on Jun 23, 2008 1:00 PM:

" I feel strongly that all of our thoughts and feelings are quite valid. Whether or not some feel duped in the N debate doesn't mean we are not smart, concerned and care about our community.

Many of the bloggers are talking of trust; an important concept. Trust in one another is what a million and a half developer dollars was allowed to destroy. Money, the media, the dirty politics. The idiotic focus on "mysterious backers" as if who was behind the measure was more important than what it said. "Flawed", it wasn't, long and confusing it was. All-inclusive it wasn't, but I'm not sure it could have been.

We must get together, we must stop Napa Pipe and we must stop the Ghisletta plan as well. This will likely require cooperation, trust and more than one measure.

Don't fool yourselves, the money and political power behind these developments are more overwhelming that any of us normal folk can imagine.

For 30 years Napa has provided the needed affordable housing without turning to Bay Area style developments. Napa Protected itself from developer politics by way of measure A for 20 years, but its gone now. N may or may not be history, but more must be done. Napa Valley protected itself from the Redevelopment Partners of the past, but is now juicy pickens for developers.

Please lets not make any more mistakes, keep developers at bay. Easy money for them means loss of our way of life in this valley.

I think a coalition against all mega development is the way; the only way to beat Napa ReDevelopment Partners or Ghisletta. But who has the reasources to fight such formidable foes? "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: