NVR Logo
New Solano hotel may go to ballot
Tuteur to sample signatures of union-inspired referendum
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Save and Share Share
City of Napa voters may end up deciding the fate of the proposed Kimpton hotel on Solano Avenue at the November election.

A hotel workers’ union, Unite Here, submitted referendum petitions Thursday with 5,200 signatures.
If 3,630 of them belong to registered city voters, the Napa City Council would be obligated to kill the project, downsize it or put the fate of the 196-room hotel to a public vote.

Unite Here mounted a petition drive in June after the hotel developer, McCuen Properties of Sacramento, and the proposed operator, Kimpton Hotels of San Francisco, failed to sign a “neutrality agreement” promising not to fight union organizing of its workers.
The union, which has offices in San Francisco, hired a company to gather the petition signatures at local shopping centers, while aligning itself with some neighbors who feared the hotel’s traffic and noise impacts.

Several council members accused the union of “strong-arm tactics” and “playing hardball.”
A developer representative said the Kimpton was willing to negotiate a neutrality agreement, but not on such short notice.

Union officials say they are fighting for the rights of workers to earn strong wages in Napa’s growing hospitality industry.

City Clerk Sara Cox said the union turned in more than the necessary number of signatures required to force a referendum, but it is unknown how many are valid. The law requires 10 percent of registered voters, who numbered more than 36,000 at the June primary, to sign the referendum petition.

The city will hire the county elections office to verify the signatures, Cox said Monday. Many people sign petitions believing they are registered voters, but are not, she said. Others think they live in the city, but do not.

Rather than attempt to verify all 5,200 signatures, John Tuteur, the county registrar of voters, intends to sample 500 signatures. That will cost the city about $1,000, he said.

The law gives his office 30 working days to verify signatures, but this could be done much sooner using the sampling technique, he said.

The council meets on July 15, but this may be too soon for it to receive the referendum petitions, Cox said. The next council meeting is Aug. 5.

The city would have to decide to put the Kimpton to voters by Aug. 9 if the referendum is to qualify for the November election, Tuteur said. Otherwise, the city might have to set the matter for a special election, he said.

Napa City Attorney Michael Barrett said the petitions appeared at first blush to meet the procedural requirements for a referendum election. His office will further analyze whether the Kimpton project meets other state requirements, he said.

Union spokesman Owen Li reported Monday that the union had been able to gather more than 5,000 signatures in just a few weeks’ time.

“Based on conversations with Napa voters in the course of gathering signatures, it is clear that many Napa residents are concerned about issues related to the rapid growth of the hotel industry in the city,” he said.

The union wants hotels to pay a “living wage” of $15 to $17 per hour so that workers can afford to live in Napa and afford health insurance.

Both the Kimpton, which the council approved on a 3-2 vote on June 3, and the proposed Ritz-Carlton hotel, which comes before the council on July 15, are high-end brands that can afford to pay good wages, Li said in an earlier interview.

Local attorney Kevin Teague, representing McCuen and Kimpton, said his clients “plan to defend the city’s approval of the project and the two years of process we went through.”

  Kimpton officials have pledged to pay higher than average wages, while hiring locally and offering training, he said.

“I think it’s unfortunate this process is being used by the union. It has the potential to take away good jobs for the people of Napa,” Teague said.

The Kimpton is proposed for the southwest corner of Solano Avenue and Wine Country Avenue. The property is now occupied by the 115-room Chateau hotel which would be torn down.

As a condition of approval, the developer would have to build a right-turn lane on Wine Country at Solano and contribute money toward a traffic light, which would be installed in coming years.

The developer estimated that the project would produce $1.3 million in annual bed tax revenue for the city.
29 comment(s)

tired wrote on Jul 8, 2008 12:59 AM:

" I'm not sure what makes me happier - that this is going to the ballot or that the Register wrote a fair article! Finally, the elites in this city are getting a wake-up call. In November, at the same time that voters finally get a voice in runaway hotel development (where are these workers going to be housed!?!?) we'll also be able to clean house on the council. There's three councilmembers up for re-election - let's watch very closely what they do on the Ritz! More poor immigrants or middle class jobs? How are they going to deal with traffic? People at the Planning Commission hearing said the traffic study doesn't even account for where workers will park or how many are commuting! Why do we need all these hotels? Just because we can build them doesn't mean we should! There are enough already! We're going to be swimming in money when the Westin opens, more hotels and we're not the same city anymore! Instead of more hotels, let's control our spending! Better yet, use the money for our roads! And again, how many hotels do we need? How much extra money do we need? The extra money is going to make the city council want to build even more! We need to draw a line now! "

paddy wrote on Jul 8, 2008 6:01 AM:

" Well, this was a bad idea. But if the least intrusive of projects is able to outrage so many voters just think how easy it will be to shut down the really horrible projects like Napa Pipe and Ghisletta Ranch. "

musikluvr wrote on Jul 8, 2008 8:48 AM:

" This is the American Way to solve issues - take them to the ballot and let people vote and decide. And, this is exactly what Measure N would have given us in the County unincorporated area - The right to vote on the projects, but anti-Americans rejected Measure N. "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:17 AM:

" I vote NO on the new hotel! "

napablogger wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:26 AM:

" The government already provides for a way to unionize, and it is the height of unfairness to put this one small hotel on the line for phony reasons like this. If we start running the government this way it will be even more of a disaster than it already is.

Why not vote on every state project too? We can hand the voters a list of every sidewalk repair, every street repair, every light fixture, then give them a list of whether the contracts include union help or not, etc, etc. We can turn voting into a thousand page manual every three months. That will be a real efficient system that gets things done, right?

This is dirty politics by the unions, and we ought to vote it down on that basis alone. If we start going down this path we will drive business out of town. "

abouttime wrote on Jul 8, 2008 10:34 AM:

" This is a good project. A new and better hotel in a great hotel location replacing one that was a mess. Plus we get the benefit of street and infrastructure improvements.

We should not vote on every project. We live in a representative democracy. This is what the founding father intended. They did not trust the people to decide on every issue and neither do I.

These unions are thugs and economic terrorists. They lied to people to get signatures and they know nothing about this project. "

ECHO wrote on Jul 8, 2008 10:48 AM:

" WHERE DO I SIGN?

If this petition was more widely distributed it would have received alot more signatures. "

jersey guy wrote on Jul 8, 2008 1:03 PM:

" We need to realize that the city's revenues only come from sales and TOT(transient occupancy tax-hotel taxes) and not from property or any other taxes. So roads cannot be fixed without increased revenue and hotels are another way to get get revenue. There has been inflation in everything related to road construction due to increases in oil, concrete, and steel prices, so the city needs more revenue to fix the roads than they budgeted for.
So if we are against more hotels because of more traffic etc, than we should shut up about fixing the roads and accept them the way they are- I don't want to hear about using the money better- the money just is not there.
On the other hand, all the union was asking for was a neutrality agreement to not interfere with union organizing. It takes about 1 minute to say yes, so Kimpton's claim that there was not enough time to negotiate is ridiculous. "

tovagliolo wrote on Jul 8, 2008 1:10 PM:

" since this new hotel is replacing one that is already there and they are going to provide improvements to a corner that obviously needs it, i don't see what all the fuss is about.

i think this town gets petition crazy at times, and i'm tired of all the whacked out pushy petition people at Bel Aire Plaza that won't take no for an answer when they push their clipboards at you. "

td2192 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 1:26 PM:

" I signed a petition in from of Lucky Market that I thought was for the hotel. I guess that is what happens if you don't read petitions closely. A think a new hotel is a good idea, especially if they pay reasonabley well. "

essare wrote on Jul 8, 2008 1:50 PM:

" I knew there was something fishy about the people collecting signatures for this. I told them I wanted to sign a petition IN FAVOR of a project that removes a dilapidated eyesore and creates a well run business. If you've ever stayed at a kimpton hotel, you know they are very well kept and highly regarded. Build it as soon as possible! This town is in need of some sprucing up! "

tired wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:37 PM:

" It wasn't just people collecting signatures at supermarkets, I know for a fact that people were collecting in their workplaces. I have a hard time believing anyone would sign these petitions thinking it was in favor of a new hotel - the people at the supermarkets said the same thing to everyone who walked by - something about responsible growth and the hotel being in a residential neighborhood.

napablogger: of course we shouldn't do this on every project, but the reason we have these laws is to give leaders a wake-up call now and then, and to have recourse when our voices aren't heard.

jerseyguy: I hear what you're saying re: taxes, but that doesn't mean we can ignore residents who have to live with the hotel in their neighborhood. Isn't the hotel tax based on the number of rooms? The hotel could've had the same number of rooms without the event center, rooftop bar and all the other stuff that will cause all the problems. What are you going to do when they do this in your neighborhood? "

misssean wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:03 PM:

" This article is so much more than just about the unions. It is about the residents that live in close proximity to the Chateau. The Union had the manpower to help get the signatures but many of the home owners were also involved. I know a lot about the Kimpton I went to the planning & counsel meetings and this was a very emotional issue. Some of the homeowners have already moved out of the neighborhood because they thought that this was a lost cause. This will affect the neighborhood right behind the hotel it shares a wall with the Chateau as well as with the new proposed Kimpton. The Kimpton Hotel is a hotel that will only be catering to out of town guests. The Kimpton employees have already told us that they will be bringing in tourists from SF and because of the parking restraints many of them will be coming in buses & limos. Another thing that has not been discussed is that most of the management staff will be coming from out of town and the hotel will be highering mostly starter/low income positions for Napa Residents. Many of the people of Napa do not realize that the Kimpton will have valet parking only - with an underground garage with a car elevator system to try and accommodate more vehicles. The Kimpton also wants to put a rooftop lounge on the top of the hotel facing highway 29 and upvalley. It has also been mentioned through the media that this has been a project that has been in the works for 2 years-whats funny about that is I live less than 300feet from the Chateau and have only known about this project for the last 4months. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:25 PM:

" Many people seem to be overlooking the fact that this new hotel is replacing an existing hotel. Yes, it will be bigger, but what better place for a hotel than on Solano, close to the highway? It is not for us to decide if there are already enough hotel rooms in this city. That's up to the marketplace. "

Burts wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:47 PM:

" So the union wanted a "neutrality agreement" from Kimpton - but isn't that just another name for a one-way ticket to unionization. The hotel would givr up its right to object to the union, but would the union give up its right to speak to the employees? "

Carol Whichard wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:48 PM:

" The signature collection by the Union is not Union "thuggery". Nor is it an effort to have the people of Napa vote on this hotel project. Rather, it is an attempt to force the employer to pay a living wage for its employees working in Napa. If the living wage is determined to be between $15 and $17 per hour, then the Kimpton should pay that wage. It won't cut into their bloated profits. Try making a living and raising a family on $15-$17 dollars anywhere, much less Napa. The City Council should call Kimpton on the question of neutrality. What's to fear? "

PercussionQueen7 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:53 PM:

" Hear, hear, tovagliolo! I wonder if I need to start wearing a t-shirt that says "No Soliciting" when I go shopping. If I wanted to sign your petition or support your cause, I would have sought it out on my own. I just want to go get my groceries, not be harassed! "

grape wrote on Jul 8, 2008 4:09 PM:

" Carol Whichard you said " The signature collection by the Union is not Union "thuggery".

I disagree. I was asked to sign the petition outside Raley's and they lied to me and told me the problem with the hotel was that it was going to be built right next to a school. Lies and thuggery. I'm glad I refused to sign it. "

jersey guy wrote on Jul 8, 2008 4:18 PM:

" Burts: When employers talk to their employees about unionization it is usually in the form of a threat of job losses(firing) if the union wins. A neutrality agreement just means that the employer will not interfere with organizing with the hiring of union busters. It does not mean that they can't give their side of the story and workers can vote the union down if they choose. "

justnana wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:08 PM:

" Why is it ok for ANYONE to collect signatures by mis-stating the purpose of the initiative. I was approached outside TJ's and declined to take the bait, just because I won't sign anything like this that I haven't read completely, and I didn't have time that day. If I had gone with what I was told to make my decision I would be very upset today. "

tired wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:34 PM:

" grape: the hotel IS near a school - it's a few blocks from Justin Siena - when people pick up or drop off their kids, many of them will be driving through that Wine Country and Solano intersection where the hotel is going to be! That intersection is dangerous enough already! "

Paddy wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:24 PM:

" I can't believe the number of stories that were told to passers-by in order to get their signature. Mine was regarding the light pollution that would be caused by the top-'o-Kimpton restaurant. Nothing was ever said about union organizers wanting to stonewall a hotel that is replacing a hotel already in place.

This may be the only positive building opportunity I've heard in Napa in more than a year. I'm sorry for those living nearby, it stinks. Take your neighbor's lead and move once the housing market turns around again, which it will.

Be creative. Rent rooms to new employees and you have the option of fleecing them or giving them a great deal. This is a setback, as the Ritz will be seen as a setback for those of us living in Alta Heights. Would you prefer 200 low income housing units instead?

One battle at a time in order to win the war. "

jwk wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:43 PM:

" Geez, The people shouldn't decide what to vote for?? Let me Guess, Words from a Demoncrat?? WHy let the people vote on anything then??Who are we? Thank God if this goes to a vote. We are "Hoteled out". Remodel the existing place. We have an abundance of rooms already and we NEVER seem to get any of the infastructure improvements promised. Let's Shut down the Ritz too. Where can we sign for that to be voted on? Even though they're building a new Bridge for Them and Copia!! "

orangeplow wrote on Jul 9, 2008 8:49 AM:

" I keep saying it.
To ALL Napans: PLEASE stop the gentrification of your town. Take pride in the rough-hewn, old school, blue-collar feel of your town. It's a real community, not a provincial hamlet full of retired CEOs (Yountville, St. Helena). Projects like this and, to be sure, the Ritz are turning Napa into another Aspen. I loathe the day when I'll be surrounded by nothing but wealthy tourists in "vacation mode" who feel self entiltled and lack awarness or respect for locals and the local lifestyle. "

steph wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:14 AM:

" I'd read about the signature-gatherers here in the NVR literally minutes before being solicited in front of Target in Bel Air, and being properly warned, I refused to sign.

I want to know how an ugly hotel is better than a beautiful hotel. That's a nice neighborhood with an awful eyesore on the corner.

That said, I'll vote "yes" on the hotel and "no" to the extortionist unions. I happen to like tourists. I find them to be happy and friendly and interesting, and also I like when they leave their money here. I like living in a beautiful town--a valley FULL of beautiful towns. I ate breakfast with my husband at Gillwoods the other day, and marveled at the fact that we were on vacation with all the other tourists, right in our own back yard. I'm proud when people come from out of town to visit me in Napa--and I live in a famously blue-collar neighborhood.

"Living wages" don't work. Some people need to read more about "living wages" and a little thing called "inflation." Sorry, but not all people can afford to live in Napa. Which is terrible, because I always wanted to live in Belvedere.

Oh, well, Napa is nice. "

musikluvr wrote on Jul 9, 2008 12:56 PM:

" I'm amazed that people expect to be told what an initiative is all about by a signature gatherer. They're paid for each signature and will tell you anything. Why don't you read what you're signing before you sign it? This is what is wrong with America today. People have become so careless of our freedoms and expect to be pampered in every situation. People don't take responsibility for their actions then try to blame someone else. "

tired wrote on Jul 9, 2008 5:20 PM:

" I don't understand a lot of these comments. When a clipboard person talks about the hotel's impacts, they're not lying - they're voicing real issues! If you actually talk to them, they talk about the low wages issue and if you just ask them or talk to them long enough, they tell you the union is putting manpower into this. When candidates run for office, should they mention who they took campaign money from before every event they speak at? The clipboard people have about 5 seconds of time, they're not going to write an essay. It's too bad the Register has done such a bad job framing this referendum - I really don't know why they're so against the hotel union. "

Paddy wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:01 AM:

" tired - The point is many of us heard different stories. I for one never heard about this being about union issues living wages. It was presented to me as a concern over the restaurant at the top of the hotel. It's clear to me that others were told different things. I was very familiar with the hotel having watched the discussion at the city council meeting. None of that was presented as why they wanted me to sign the petition. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 13, 2008 5:54 PM:

" I agree with Carol Whichard. The issue should be about living wages.

Some people fail to recognize that money flow is sometimes muddy. We have difficulty following the trail because it's not clear.

Yes it's true. Hotels bring revenue to Napa. The city is provided revenue for infrastructure maintenance and upgrade. Less burden on taxpayers right?

Wrong. when a city/county is top heavy in an industry that fails to pay a living wage, those people who cannot afford to support themselves burden society in other ways. For example, a person paid low wages is often hired for fewer than 40 hours per week. Part time status reduces benefits. They are often without health insurance.

The city might benefit from increased hotel revenue but these low wage workers tax our system through social services. And you can hardly blame them for taking advantage of such resources.

These employees may also be commuting from elsewhere and increasing infrastructure maintenance costs. Taxpayers pay the bill. Low wage employees are probably not purchasing very many good within Napa County and so we do not benefit from their contribution toward sales taxes. It's a burden from almost every direction except from that of the hospitality industry.

It's a shift of burden. Our elected and hired officials either do not follow the trail or they don't want you to think about it. So, ask yourselves, would you rather have outright tax increases to cover the costs of infrastructure maintenance without the increase in hospitality industry or would you rather inadvertently pay for it in ways that are not so obvious? People who are not paid living wages end out costing you at least as much as the revenues gained from the low wage hospitality industry. "

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