New Solano hotel may go to ballot
Tuteur to sample signatures of union-inspired referendum
By KEVIN COURTNEY
Register Staff Writer
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.
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.
tired wrote on Jul 8, 2008 12:59 AM:
paddy wrote on Jul 8, 2008 6:01 AM:
musikluvr wrote on Jul 8, 2008 8:48 AM:
Dirty Napkin wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:17 AM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:26 AM:
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:
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:
If this petition was more widely distributed it would have received alot more signatures. "
jersey guy wrote on Jul 8, 2008 1:03 PM:
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:
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:
essare wrote on Jul 8, 2008 1:50 PM:
tired wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:37 PM:
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:
John Richards wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:25 PM:
Burts wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:47 PM:
Carol Whichard wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:48 PM:
PercussionQueen7 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:53 PM:
grape wrote on Jul 8, 2008 4:09 PM:
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:
justnana wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:08 PM:
tired wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:34 PM:
Paddy wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:24 PM:
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:
orangeplow wrote on Jul 9, 2008 8:49 AM:
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 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:
tired wrote on Jul 9, 2008 5:20 PM:
Paddy wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:01 AM:
vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 13, 2008 5:54 PM:
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. "