NVR Logo
Old Napa vs. New Napa
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Save and Share Share
Ancient Hindu myths always characterized the Goddesses as both the source of all creation as well as destruction, and nowhere is that more evident than here in Napa. Napa is changing and for some it is proving to be a painful birth. In order to bring in the new some of the old has to be destroyed and carted off, literally.

But the kind of people who live here are changing as well, and that is perhaps the most painful part of the transition for many.
You can’t have creation without destruction and in that regard Ancient Wisdom is indeed wise. You can’t create a new city without destroying the old one, and therein lays the problem.

Part of the controversy that rages is being epitomized by recent positions our Mayor has taken over several issues, most recently the uses of the Borreo Building. It was turned over to Channel Properties for management but not without a No vote from Mayor Techel, who was concerned that there was not enough public access, i.e. there was not enough for locals.
We are sort of in a position of needing a "peace dividend", like Americans expected after the end of the Cold War. I would call it a "tourist dividend.”

It goes like this, if we are going to have to put up with all the new hotels, the conversion of downtown over to high end wine tasting rooms, restaurants, etc, and the attendant traffic and crowding, we expect a dividend for the locals. Yes, a taxpayers dividend, but a cultural dividend as well.
What that means is that the new Napa needs to have local serving business and cultural activities. Most places that have high tourist traffic manage it by separating out parts of the city, like San Francisco with Fisherman‚s Wharf, or Orlando with International Drive. That isn't going to work for Napa, It’s too small and the geography and the nature of the business doesn’t lend itself to that. The challenge is to find a way to make the new things we have coming attractive to the locals as well. We need to integrate local serving and tourist serving.

It will be tough, and if we can it may well be a first. But it is a worthy goal.

The further complicating issue is that the nature of who is local is gradually changing too.

The old Napa is a place of blue-collar workers and heavy industry. The new Napa is the exact opposite. Even with 1 percent growth, that means a lot of new people, about 13,000 over the next decade alone. 70% of the new people are expected to be retirees, which are generally more well heeled than the general population, and will need different sorts of services and businesses than a younger working class population.

What we have then is not only a changing business downtown, with more tourism, but we also have a local population that is changing demographically. Older, wealthier, fewer children. Like it or not, Napa is gentrifying.

It’s a scary thought, especially when put so bluntly. It is not what a lot of people here want. But the truth is that it is happening organically, and is not the result of a planned effort. That also means it is a powerful force and will not be redirected easily, even if we wanted to. For one thing, it would require massive building of housing to reduce housing costs.

Can we include local serving businesses downtown, and can we make the new tourist serving ones attractive to locals? I think we can, but I agree with the Mayor that more thought needs to be put into this.

The elements of being able to pull that off are starting to emerge, and the more consciously we try to make it that way, the better off we are going to be.

What we can keep from the old days though, besides the history and some of the older beautiful architecture that lends so much character, is the sense that Napa is for the locals and is a real place where people who live here, well, really live here.

Who the local people are will be different though, with different kinds of jobs and different needs. It’s not going to be ice skating rinks and pool halls, more likely art galleries and smaller live music venues. It also doesn’t mean we won‚t have some of the former, but the trend is clear. To do that, new businesses downtown need to bear that in mind, and we should support creative solutions to making this work.
43 comment(s)

Native74 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:11 AM:

" I agree and disagree with you napablogger.

Napa needs to be receptive to it's neighbor towns and what went right in their planning processes -- take their blinders off in essence. We should not be ashamed of the blue collar worker or industry that we came from. Look at Sonoma and Petaluma for example. Both are thriving with locals, industry AND tourists (boating, driving and trains!) embracing their heritage while moving forward. There are galleries for the young and old not to mention recreational activities through the roof (soccer, baseball, you name it)! There are community destinations and parks throughout the heart of the town and not just on the rural edges. Why not in Napa? We're lucky to even have Billco's after all these years!

I agree we're going through birthing pains and think many venues are on the right track, but we're still missing the collective, 'bring them ALL in' point. I have faith, but looking at the paper in the last 6 months has been depressing. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:22 PM:

" I am not ashamed of the blue collar at all, so I hope it didn't come across that way. But I see two imporant differences with Petaluma and Sonoma. One is that they are much bigger and have a lot more room to grow. We are at a near build out. Even at that though I think Santa Rosa, their largest city and I suppose in analogy comparable to Napa, is way overcrowded to me. Traffic there is a nightmare.

In Napa, I just don't know where we would put heavy industry, and if we did what difference it would make, even if we could attract it. A power plant? Another steel manufacturer? Won't happen right now.

Biotech, another Dey Labs? They hire high end scientific workers who would all want single family homes, and really don't hire much in the way of blue collar, their manufacturing workers are degreed scientific types.

I am still learning but as I see it we are adding warehousing and shipping in south county, but that has grown so much already, and it is all traffic and mostly related to wine. Beyond that I just don't know what else we could cram in here without regretting it. "

Native74 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:17 PM:

" napablogger -

Great article by the way. I forgot to mention that earlier.

Do you mean they are bigger in acreage or in people? If you mean the latter, the numbers in people are less than the City of Napa. However, Petaluma (the larger 50k+ people) seems close to build out without further annexation. Sonoma is infilling areas that were barren for sometime, but also seem to have slowed as well.

I was also contributing more to how each of their communities have kept their sense of place, still have what got them here today and are still a viable tourist attraction (the people talk and the local government listens - oh and acts!). Petaluma seems more comparable since they have a great downtown river basin (heavily used by recreation) and very near there's Shamrock still using freight trains and barges to ship materials as well as other businesses. It's awesome to see the mixed used and something I think we've lost in Napa. Not trying to bring up Napa Pipe, but that too could be lost if it goes to homes. We had so much in town at one time. I know the Tannery was definitely not a glamorous place (the coats were), but it was industry utilizing our riverfront and providing good paying local jobs.

I guess it's called getting involved and voicing ideas. Right? I know some people in Napa are tired and want help with these ideas while others just steam roll our opinions over (not good).

Time for the positive --- "the more consciously we try to make it that way, the better off we are going to be" was right on the mark! "

Paddy wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Gentrifying? That's not the changing Napa I'm seeing at all! Reading this article really took me by surprise. I'm not seeing "Older, wealthier, fewer children." In fact, just the opposite.

We're being inundated with service workers and their families cramming two and three families into each home and apartment. Read the Opinion pages this month.

If Napa were gentrifying I don't think there'd be nearly as much outrage and complaining. It's more like the serfication of Napa and, in general, all of California. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:12 PM:

" Paddy, I know what you mean. I see a street where I live with RV's parked on the lawn. I was surprised when I read that myself, and so is everyone I tell it to.

I get my info from government docs, given to the General Plan committee and NCTPA. It actually is starting to show up in the fewer number of kids in elementary schools. Eventually that will hit the high schools. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:24 PM:

" Native74, I meant in land area. Sonoma is four times as big as Napa County, there is a lot more room to spread out.

I go through there, actually fairly often but I don't really know much about the government and land policy. I do know that they have had an open space tax and have bought thousands of acres of land to preserve for open space.

Petaluma looks kind of old and funky to me. The smaller towns like Healdsburg and Guernville are a lot more interesting.

My fear with trying to attract industry is that we already have so many jobs that require commuters, any kind of industry is going to attract all kinds of people needing housing--that is the problem we have now. The growth that we get organically from the wine industry is more than we can handle.

Any major industry is going to spawn all kinds of feeder jobs, just like the wine industry, barrel manufacturing, warehousing, shipping, bottle manufacturing, etc, etc.

Tourism is a good industry, yes it tends to pay less in some jobs but it attracts younger workers most often, it doesn't pollute, it is interesting work and people enjoy it. And it does have a lot of higher paying jobs, just not as much as a Dey Labs would. And Dey Labs has a lot of trouble staying here because it is hard for them to attract workers. "

Bill wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:00 AM:

" Perhaps it is a problem of economic attitude. Napa could still have a “steel manufacturer” but the collusion of real estate interests finds housing property in Napa a more lucrative prospect. It is also easier to promote as significantly increasing the tax base with private property owners tied to their investment rather than a blue-collar worker tied to his job. The property owner is here even if he or she works elsewhere while the worker may live here but more than likely elsewhere.

When Oregon Steel Mills sold the property at Napa Pipe (a misnomer by the way) they insured that it would be to a group that would not seek to develop further any heavy industry even though it is an attractive facility for those endeavors. The dismantling process was an extra boon for Oregon Steel a smart company that did not want to leave behind a facility that would create future competition. What better way than a real estate holding company with deep pockets and no liability beyond the value of their original investment.

At least two opportunities to place “steel manufacturing” at this site were lost due to the attitude that it is as dying industry in the United States. Other opportunities have been successfully side tracked in the rush to gentrification.

If Napa is to become this community of well healed retirees and genteel wanabe farmers who will run their services for them repair their roads and bridges, fix their plumbing and electricity, empty their garbage bins, repair their vehicles, tend their yards and toy estates, clean their toilets, process their end product, baby sit their children and grand children, prepare and serve their food, do their laundry and provide the general labor or service necessary to survive as a viable community? "

Cadence wrote on Jun 13, 2008 1:53 PM:

" napablogger,
There is a 22 unit program at Solano Community College in biotechnology. It's supported by Genentech and I know of several program graduates who have moved directly into decent, well paid jobs at Genentech, and done so without a bachelor's degree.
These aren't warehouse or service jobs; they are challenging entry level positions in a dynamic company that will even pay for further education. But they are NOT filled by degreed scientific types.
They could be filled by the sons and daughters of Napa if such businesses existed here!
But in a blinders on, full speed ahead mode, both city and county of Napa continue to build tourist attractions and then deliver sanctimonious lectures on the need to house the tourism workers in crowded, subsidized housing. "

Bill wrote on Jun 13, 2008 2:16 PM:

" As an aside on planning documents and projections of the past: Napa closed middle schools and grade schools in the mistaken belief that the demographics would become static. No sooner had they done this than they had to return to the hard scramble to make up for this mistake in alternative types of education and crowd the remaining facilities. The two middle schools that currently serve the community are past their capacities and have been almost since the closing of Ridgeview. Grade schools almost immediately experienced growth in students after it was mistakenly accepted as dogma that the baby boomers had moved on to doting grandparents and there would be a decline in the need to serve school aged children. The revival of declining birthrate theories and the graying of Napa belie the fact that the service workers necessary to maintain the hotels, restaurants, hospices, hospitals and wine tasting rooms will need places to live and most likely bring the burden of more children.

Hopefully those forming policy will be a little more discerning in what they deduce from planning documents this time out. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 14, 2008 11:56 AM:

" Bill, the reasons we won't get heavy manufacturing are two. Land is too expensive and it is far easier to locate somewhere else, and the environmental regulations now are also prohibitive.

It is quite possible that these predictions will prove out not to be so. But this is the best information we have to plan with at present. Certainly twenty years from now, we could have a baby boom during that time which could change the whole formulation. But that does not appear to be where we are heading. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 14, 2008 12:02 PM:

" Cadence, the problem is that how many of these jobs are there at Genentech? Not that many I don't think.

And how many Genentechs could we really attract to Napa? When Genentech built its plant in Vacaville they were looking for cheap land. Their main headquarters are in South San Francisco, Napa would have been closer and more convenient to that location, with sterile manufacturer, Dey, that they could have probably stolen a few employees from. But the cost of the land was more important so they went to Vacaville.

We could get one pharmaceutical company to manufacture here perhaps, but they would want their research facility close by, otherwise they would just go to a place with cheaper land like North Carolina.

I guess my view is that why fight the flow? The wine industry is here and generates huge income, go with what the Good Lord gave you and try to make it work seems like the shortest path to success to me. "

Bill wrote on Jun 14, 2008 2:57 PM:

" NB: Those are excuses, land is always expensive. The idea that so called heavy industry is environmentally unsound is a sound bite used to frighten people.

Steel fabrication is not necessarily unsound environmentally nor is many others types of processes, be careful lest you become an enviro-wacko suggesting that industry today or in the future will be polluting. The argument is approaching the not in my backyard proportion.

There are many industries who would love to locate here for the local expertise and education of the population. We all don’t have to be bartenders, waiters and field hands. "

Cadence wrote on Jun 14, 2008 5:06 PM:

" nb,
I believe Vacaville actively recruited Genentech. No way of knowing who might move here without recruitment efforts and other than throwing down the welcome mat for hotel and home builders, I don't see evidence of any recruitment.
The local community college is more concerned about having a state of the art television lab, isn't it? I don't know about you, but I personally am on speaking terms with quite a few more Genentech types than tv/radio broadcasters. For heaven's sake, Napa's a smaller television market than the area served by Solano Community College!
But say you're correct and it's all about land cost. It would seem more cost-effective to me to subsidize the cost of land for a good employer than to make some one time fee money from a not so good employer but then have to subsidize its employees forever. "

Bill wrote on Jun 14, 2008 11:49 PM:

" Napa's T.V. proram trains the people that do the technical work of T.V. not the talking heads. Hint: they are blue collar jobs. "

Cadence wrote on Jun 15, 2008 2:56 PM:

" I see, Bill. Then my next question has to be how many broadcasting stations are there around here, or is this training for workers who will then have to kommute to work in their chosen field? And if so, why is NVC involved in producing kommuters - I thought the objective was to NOT kommute? "

daveposner wrote on Jun 15, 2008 6:54 PM:

" Cadence and anyone else,

I married into Napa and I'm relatively new but I was talking to my inlaws who have lived here 60 years who told me that this push to make Napa a tourist spot (beyond a day of wine "tasting") has been going on for a long time with little success. What is different that will cause this to succeed now? When I think about it, beyond wine tasting which for most people gets old pretty fast (and is misery for kids) what is there actually to do here for tourists? What would attract me from SF or Berkeley or the beaches or the Sierras or LA or anywhere else with more obvious attractions? The Napa planner seemed to believe we might become an art haven be didn't explain exactly how that was going to happen. Is this just a pipe dream? I hope so. "

Bill wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:09 AM:

" The picture being painted is one of Napa as a new Carmel. A hyped cross between an art & Mecca and just us down home farmers and worker bees without the natural beauty. It’s a bad economic mix. Napa Valley College also offers a welding and machine shop course and as N.B. has pointed out these are trades that he thinks will no longer be relevant to the new Napa. Not all people who live here will find work here nor will all people who work here find homes here.

Not all the nurses turned out by NVC will work here nor will many of the engineers’ scientists, technicians or professionals that NVC will eventually foster. The salient point is to foster those economic interests that will create opportunities for these students. Lucas films has managed to locate in San Rafael and Marin largely because it is attractive to many creative types found in northern California. Again, worker bees for industries akin to light&magic find surroundings in the Napa valley attractive and may already be here as are the workers for heavier industries.

There are many technical jobs skilled people perform in all types of employment that are not readily clear when thinking that a person trained in skills such as a TV technician. All civil engineers do not wind up as surveyors or drafting at an autocad station.

Lab technicians play an important role in industries like Genentech and the wine industry. The challenge is to create that mix which allows us to go forward as a community and a sustainable society. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:19 AM:

" Dave and all: I am not sure what you mean by the wine and tourist industry not being a success, it is a world class success of monumental proportions, that is why we have this "problem" if we do. Tourists are coming here in droves, too many, they complain there are not enough hotel rooms.

I can't imagine the public supporting giving tax money or breaks to attract businesses here when we can't even handle or have the land for what we already have.

The public hates the "give aways" that they claim we are already doing to developers and corporations, not that we really are, we aren't, we are charging them up the wazoo for the privilege of building here.

And Bill, it is not me saying there is land cost or environmental issues, those are the issues that are just there according to the people who would have to locate here.

The fact is that the wine industry is here, it is a huge success and that is not likely to change unless wine suddenly fell out of favor with the public. It is going in the opposite direction.

Napa is small and there is not a whole lot of room here for much else. Napa is a world class wine place and that is not going to change, and why would we want it to, really? "

Cadence wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:24 AM:

" I guess I can't buy into the whole "sustainable society" thing as long as population grows exponentially. Ultimately there cannot be enough resources to go around. In the meantime, I do think comm colleges should reflect the jobs needed in the college's locale. If this is to be regional, not more local, then frevvins sake, let's build roads and lots of them. I know, that's the new sales tax on the ballot. Transit needs roads too! "

daveposner wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:48 AM:

" Bill,

I completely agree that it's a bad economic mix. I'm just wondering whether a tourist industry like the one NB imagines is even viable. Napa as Carmel doesn't seem very plausible to me. (Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love Napa and would never trade living here for living in Carmel -- but for a vacation that's a different thing.) "

daveposner wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:45 PM:

" NB,

I certainly never said the wine industry is not a success! But you don't need to come to Napa to buy or even taste our wine. If you come here you can go look at fermentation tanks and listen to some clown tell you how wonderful the Oak barrels are but how interesting is that? I was questioning whether Napa's Tourist business was a success. Do you have stats to support your claim? What do they do when they're here that isn't much better down in SF? When I go downtown I certainly don't see crowds of tourists running around like you do in Carmel or SF. Where are all these tourists? "

Bill wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:44 PM:

" NB some times you miss the point completely, and like others deliberately chose to obfuscate. Look closely at the stratified society you advocate and see how it plays into the no more room except for the well healed and their servants.

Unless you can put a stopper on the womb of human reproduction we are going to grow. How we grow is the issue. Cheerleading for a single industry is correct for a public relations specialist or an advertising agent but you claim to have an interest in governance. Yes the City of Napa and the County actively promote the wine industry at the expense of local taxpayer and that industry is not charged up the wazoo for that service. That is a legitimate function of governance. What governance should be performing is an economic diversification that you appear to deny, even exclude from the debate.

There is nothing wrong with tourism but it has its limits there is nothing wrong with vineyards but they have their limits. The agricultural diversification has narrowed dramatically to the players whose cash crop and financial backing is the most lucrative.

The new Napa is not an agricultural community but a factory for the new world class wine purveyors and evidently no one had better oppose that orchestra or they will be run over. It is all too obvious that your vision includes only those viewing the Napa Valley as a world class play ground and that may well be the reality of the future a vanilla upper crust society toped with that flavored magnanimous politeness the wealthy are able to put on and take off like socks.
A condescending community with no soul. "

Bill wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:58 PM:

" Cadence, what kind of community do you see? Community colleges prepare people for a wider life and greater opportunities. Should we be training farm workers, maids, line cooks, bartenders and waiters or business managers and entrepreneurs, mechanics and technicians of all kinds, health professionals and engineers, language and visual arts personnel, plus all the varied possibilities that a liberal education offers. We are not an ingrown set of cousins here but part of a wider scheme. "

daveposner wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:43 PM:

" There are multiple discussions here. I think that NB's "New Napa" is a myth. What worries me is that it seems to be accepted by the movers and shakers and planners and so we'll squander assets preparing for what will never be. (Remember the Trower tower!) I also think most kids will go where the better jobs are which for most will mean heading south. I don't see why that's a problem. I believe the college is a service that should provide whatever its clients want whether or not there are local jobs in the field (or any jobs at all.) "

Bill wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:58 PM:

" Dave, Viable tourism is possible it is only the extent and the exclusion that it can exemplify. If you are familiar with the Napa Valley you will know that local Calistogans complain that the can not go "down town" on the weekend and when they do go virtually nothing serves them.

I'll go one community further and point to the once small community of Mill Valley that at one time had a quaint town center that actually served its local members. It is still a nice place but few of the working children graduating from the local high school remain there even should they go on to greater things.

Life does change but we should look hard at what we want. "

NVGal wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:39 PM:

" I think trying to get a consensus of what the locals want is part of the problem. The recent arguing over fair themes, Alston Park and Napa Pipe have me thinking that we are not ever going to fight off the big guns of commercial development with our pitch forks if they are always aimed at each other. I think NB assessment of where Napa is heading is spot on. Waiting in the wings are Rogel, Rudd, Alioto, big money, big commercial and residential ideas all waiting for the flood of tourism to begin. There is so much money out there that Napa will become what the dollars will want it to be.

Napa’s blue collar history isn’t a strong enough identity to stop this from happening. The general plan has always been tilted on the side of tourism, that was the lowest hanging fruit for Napa once Mare Island and Napa Pipe closed. There wasn’t enough creativity and vision for Napa to become anything but what it is going to be – feeding off the bottom of a world class wine industry.
I refuse to be bitter, and I am not going to sit around and reminisce about the old clock tower days. I am moving on. I have met a lot of nice tourists lately, they seem to love our yucky Napa River, enjoy our wines and our restaurants and seem to have a heck of a good time. So I say, pour me a nice glass of Napa Cab, if you can’t beat them, join them. "

Bill wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:59 PM:

" Could NVGal be right? Should we just roll over and accept what some one has laid out as destiny? Become the stoic and not rail against the coming of the night? Call me a stubborn curmudgeon but the idea of a predestined future denies choice and I will not accept that I should not affect the next moment because someone has decided for me. The choice may be limited and so maybe any effect I hope for but I will not go gentle into that good night.

I do not accept that the concepts are to great or complicated to cope with, that would be an excuse to do nothing allowing victory of ideas that need to be challenged. Any thing worthwhile is difficult.

Community identity prefabricated along a narrow economic spectrum of the masters of industry and their servants is not one I will readily surrender to. The term blue collar in modern descriptions includes a much broader range than that congered of the stiff who only works with his hands and back. It could almost be said to apply to almost anyone who is non professional in the formal sense, not a business owner or upper management and works for an hourly wage. "

Cadence wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:25 PM:

" Well heck, Bill, took me 20 minutes to reply and my post was eaten by the l/1 goblin.
I'll do another soon! But I'm a worker bee and I only have a few 20 minute bits of time per evening and mine are gone.
moderator, is there any chance of stopping the l/1 havoc? It's happened to me and lots of others and there is no need.
CAPITALIZE the L!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or drop it entirely. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:52 PM:

" NVGal, you got it right, you said it apparently better than I did. Tourism and the wine industry is the low hanging fruit, grapes to be exact, for Napa. And my next thought is, is it worth fighting it? I have no problem living in a town that is supported by biotech or hell even a nuclear power plant. But that is not what is here, and is that so bad?

NVGal, the only thing I disagree with you about is we are not feeding off the bottom of the wine industry--we are the top, tippy top. Do you not realize that? We are the envy of the world. THat is what amazes me about people around here. Dont you ever travel to another state and have people express envy that you get to live here?

Plus, don't look now but tourism is already going full throttle. We are already one of the biggest tourist attractions in the world. Have you not noticed? Are you guys in Chicago somewhere?

Bill, I see that you want something else and that is fine with me. Go for it. I just don't think it is going to happen for some of the reasons I am describing. It is not that I am trying to make it this way, I am just saying that industry does not WANT to come here, not the kind you want. In fact, they left here. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:03 PM:

" Dave, I guess what I am honestly confused about is how you are defining success.

To me we are already a totally successful tourist destination, I don't know how much more we can stand in fact. Yountville over the last five years has gradually become a town that is almost a fake town, a movie prop that is erected to entertain tourists and they don't even appear to realize it.

I used to go into Yountville every day, now there is no parking and Bouchon has a line out the door, you can't even get a coffee there without waiting in a long line, even at 3 in the afternoon.

Tourists go to wineries and restaurants, and they drive around and look at the hills and vineyards. That is what they do.

My point is that Napa will be more successful if we integrate the things for tourists with things for locals--the things for tourists are here and are not going anywhere. The hard part is integrating the locals.

Tourists will actually have a better experience if they feel that they are blending in with the local scene. It is a lot more interesting for me when I travel to feel that I am doing that. "

Bill wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:10 PM:

" NB. Industry just did not leave they were forced out. I could outline a systematic effort especially involving Napa Pipe, Oregon Steel, and Napa Redevelopment Partners but I will save that for another day.

What I find strange is the willingness to promote low wage jobs at the expense of quality and well compensated work. Certainly tourism and wine production will be a great part of Napa’s Future and there are a few well paid situations but its blatant promotion at the expense of seeing a broader picture appears the height of shortsightedness.

The growth of these industries is not news and you certainly are not exploring new ground by persistently presenting them as the only course to follow. Indeed your support is rather typical of the “Johnny come lately” attitude so many see as the persona of the Napa Valley. Even your cohort has referred to Napa as a west coast Aspen.

I know I am just too plebian for the new wave but I will not be going away soon and I will not roll over on the topic of a broader economic mix. Congratulations on your good fortune in landing a hundred acres of grapes, you have acquired an envious position, use it well. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:30 AM:

" I would have to agree with Bill....what industry there was around Napa had the welcome mate pulled from under them when the Redevelopment Agency crowd fixed downtown and became looking for other things to fix. "

NVGal wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:09 PM:

" NB – ha ha, I don’t live in Chicago. You are talking about the glossy picture books of the “Napa Valley”, I am talking real Napa. Yes, it is beautiful, yes it is a nice place to live, but real Napa could have been more than this well heeled wealthy, plastic paradise. There is nothing unique about real new Napa. When the only sparkle comes from a 5 star hotel, let me hit my snooze alarm. Galleries? Snooze. Another 4 star restaurant, Snooze, snooze. Real old Napa had nothing to do with the “World famous wine region, Napa Valley”. Old Napa could have sunk into the sea and the “Glossy Napa Valley” would still be there. No one would have missed her. New Napa is becoming a world class copy cat tourist trap, only with pricier catechizes.

Bill is correct, it is soulless. As plastic and fake as Las Vegas is, it still has a heart, and a soul.

It’s not that I don’t see the beauty here, or appreciate what is to come, or that I am completely unhappy. I am just disappointed. I always wanted old Napa to change. I had high hopes for old Napa too, but new Napa is just a groupie among the rock stars.

We’re doomed.

Please pass the Chardonnay. "

NVGal wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:11 PM:

" Dave, I agree, the town of Napa has attracted more dust than tourists in the last 2 decades. Many things contributed to this, but mainly the economy – the dot com bust and 9/11 slowed old Napa down. Downtown Napa has always be prone to floods, so now that the flood project is near completion, it attracts new business. It has just taken new Napa time to solidify itself as a world class tourist trap, I mean a beautiful haven for all to enjoy.

Welcome to new Napa. "

Lee wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:09 PM:

" I've not said anything for a long time about this but maybe I finally should. I've been here since 1978. My husband grew up here. I remember one of the first things I said when we first moved here was, is it nothing but wine grapes here? I grew up on a farm back east. I always remember that adage; don't put all you eggs in one basket. My husband said oh there used to be many other crops here, like vegetables and fruit trees, lemons, peaches, apricots, and yes prunes. But he says they pulled them all out and put in grapes. My parents, after they retired came to visit one fall. They had travelled in alot of states and being farmers to begin with, they enjoyed seeing all the many different crops grown in different places. We took them for a ride around "our beautiful valley". By the time we got to Calistoga, they were both bored. My Dad asked one question, do you have nothing here but wine grapes? I said ya. He said how boring. Your garden in your back yard has more to offer. The reason the old adage said "don't put all you eggs in one basket" was because if something wiped out these grapes, the economy here would be at the bottom. Think about it. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Lee, the problem is that something already wiped out all the rest of the crops, except maybe beef cattle. We were a cattle ranch and just cut down six of the old walnut trees, still have six or so. There is no way you can make money on them, certainly not compared to wine grapes.

Maybe that appeals to your aesthetic senses, but who is going to pay for it? "

Lee wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:14 PM:

" NB; Aesthetics have nothing to do with what I said. There was no disease of plants or animals that wiped out the previous crops or cattle. They were wiped out by "man". The people who wanted to grow wine grapes decided they could get richer with wine.That is probably true. There were also very few hotels, motels, or B&B's when I first got out here. The same thing that wiped out the wine grapes growing in the southern central valley could also happen here. So far this valley has been lucky because the grassey winged sharp-shooter moves slowly and usually moves from field to field that are in close proximetry with each other. That's what I'm talking about. I believe it takes 3 to 5 years for wine grape vines to be ready to produce a sufficient crop. This valley is right now set up for a perfect wipe out disaster, but don't take my word for it. But planting the same crop acre after acre with no breaks is poor farming practice. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:40 PM:

" So we ought to forget about manufacturing and farming. Instead, we all ought to become bartenders, waiters, maids, gardeners or geriatric nurses. Sounds like heaven. "

steph wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:44 PM:

" Lee--that's some good old farm wisdom. Something tells me there's something very prescient about your caution, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." There very well may come a day when the valley and the one to the West of us suffers greatly as a result of our singular economy. And then the vineyard operators and land owners will look at each other and wonder what the heck happened. Remember Enron? And the age-old advice, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket"? For those who didn't take heed--we all learned from their mistakes, didn't we? Ah, well, who's the first to blink? I do see more emphasis on olives, maybe some lavender, but a little agricultural diversity might be smart before a homogenous disaster drifts through the back-to-back vineyards. Mark Lee's words.... "

109823 wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:44 PM:

" I can remeber when there was thirteen wineries in this valley and now over 400? It use to be that a grocery store had maybe half a shelf for wine, now it's two aisles or more. I would be curious as to how many acres of land are now devoted to grapes and lastly who's drinking all the wine or is it just being stored everywhere? When this industry collapses it'll be devastating. "

Native74 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:40 AM:

" I'm cracking up. Now that NB and Lee opened up another topic...the prices of food has gone up so drastically many are reverting back to the age old practice of bringing their own food to the table. I have planted fruit trees galore in the past couple of years. The veggies are year round, but the other was something not many do anymore in this valley. I remember prunes and pears being viable back in the day... Oh well, as I munch on my fresh farm eggs (range birds), fruit from the tree and maybe some grass raised beef, I'll think about the store dependent types. Of course I always share the extras. And for the first time in 8 years I work in an environment where many others do the same.

There is life beyond Napa's ostrich hole. I just hope many people can bring it back and help the others see their way out of it. :)

Too bad the dairies probably won't come back to town. The last one I recall sold out in 1987 to Mondavi, but who could resist $20,000/acre? He should have waited... "

Lee wrote on Jun 22, 2008 2:42 PM:

" Thank you all of you for finally getting the gist of my argument. I was trying to point out in another way the same as many of you have already mentioned. Bill and Cadence particularly have argued well. If Napa's entire economy is positioned around wine and tourism we become extremely vulnerable to just a few mishaps. One being the destruction of the grape vines and now with the prices of gas; do I need to give many more hints. You know when things get "bad", and I appreciate Native74's comments, people don't survive on wine. They need food, and other much more necessary items. It seems to me that not only have the people who make these decisions put all their eggs in one basket with what is being grown in this valuable agricultural area but they are also asking all of us to accept that putting all of our eggs into one economic basket as well. "

misfit wrote on Jun 22, 2008 5:47 PM:

" Uh Kevin...Don't you realize that those "No bid" contracts given to American oil companies in Iraq "Yesterday" were intended all along. You act like this was some sort of epiphany. "

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:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy