Odd uses of tax dollars | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Odd uses of tax dollars

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Comment

Dear editor, I don’t pretend to know the workings of county or city budgeting, but a couple of things struck me as odd recently. On the Aug. 13 front page of the Register I read an article that $1.65 million was being earmarked by the county to buy a wilderness area north of Lake Hennessey.

One point sixty-five million dollars! Some questions came to mind: Whose property is it? The article said “the original asking price was about $4.9 million” but the land was recently assessed at $3 million.

I decided to add up the figures given. According to the article, the park will cost $2,800,000 with an additional $500,000 for “improvements.” That’s $3,300,000. Wait a minute! Isn’t that more than the assessed value? Is that a bargain? Will some of the “improvements” be new paved roads to accommodate the small number of Napa residents who will drive their SUVs to the park?

Supervisor Moskowite was the only dissenting vote saying the money could be better spent paving roads in our county. I agree. When driving from Sonoma County to Napa County you know exactly where the county line is. It’s where the roads become filled with potholes and cracks, right next to the “Welcome to Napa County” sign.

The second interesting observation was the new foot bridge over Napa Creek at Clinton and Brown streets in Napa. What caught my attention, while walking on the street bridge sidewalk next to the foot bridge, was the fact that the foot bridge was no more than 30 to 40 feet from where I was walking. Thirty or 40 feet! How much time will it save to use the bridge instead of the existing sidewalk? Will the sidewalk go into disrepair, like so many sidewalks in our town, because no one uses it anymore because it will take 30 seconds longer to get from Pearl Street to Clinton? How much did this “bridge to nowhere” cost? Who is the contractor? Who OK’d the project?

My grandma used to tell me, “Always follow the money.” I may not know much about government spending, but I do know they’re using my money.

Kent Cohea / Napa

5 comment(s)

Barry Martin wrote on Aug 17, 2008 7:12 AM:

" I don't have information on the wilderness area question, but I can answer the pedestrian bridge query.

When the Napa Creek portion of the Flood Project is built, the area of the creek near Clinton and Brown will be terraced to carry more water in the flood event. The street and sidewalk will no longer cross the creek here. The existing bridge, and the street on top of it, will be removed. The new ped bridge will be the way to get across the creek. You will not see a ped bridge and a sidewalk 30 feet apart as you see now.

The ped bridge was installed in advance of the terracing work because there are a lot of telephone lines running under the existing bridge, and they all need to be relocated before that bridge can be removed.

I am always available to answer the questions of the curious at 258-7843 or bmartin at cityofnapa dot org. Also the "Traffic and Construction" page on our website at cityofnapa dot org will often contain information on projects around town. "

Todd Adams wrote on Aug 17, 2008 7:49 AM:

" The bridge to nowhere is part of the Flood Protection Project. The new pedestrian bridge you are referring to is the replacement for the old pedestrian bridge that was removed last year. The newer bridge will let flood waters pass through more easily. The sidewalk you are referring to that is parallel to the new pedestrian bridge over the creek will be removed when that bridge is taken out. When the flood project is complete, the new pedestrian bridge will be the only way to get across the creek between Main Street and Seminary. "

glenroy wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:13 AM:

" When it comes to local issues it’s hard to beat Barry’s insight….

On the Land purchase….it is foolish to spend any public money, after all like every other county we have a benefits crisis on the horizon. This is a nice piece of property, hard to find one that isn’t in this county, but it is not very accessible….and if it was then it would ruin the value of the land and destroy pristine nature of it all…..leave it be and/or whatever else don‘t let UC Davis anywhere near it. "

napablogger wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:41 AM:

" The money they are using for the park is money that was slated to go for Skyline, but the state won't sell Skyline.

The voters passed Measure I creating the Parks and Open Space District, with the priviso that a certain percentage of the latest TOT tax hike would go to parks. They are partly using that money as well.

Moskowite is correct, they could use the money for roads if they wanted to.

I support it because they are so far behind on roads, the amount of money for this park is a drop in the bucket. There is a commitment to the voters to set up some parks since the Parks initiative passed. We don't know what will happen to Skyline.

If the county owns it they can always sell it down the road and make money on it, and it is highly likely to be more valuable in the future.

It is a huge, beautiful wilderness area with a large house on it. I think it will become a nice park for Napans to use. "

markluce wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:18 PM:

" Regarding the Park acquisition, if this all comes together as planned, the County will use $783,312 already earmarked for parks from our hotel tax, $866,688 in Proposition 40 park bond funds, and a $1.65 million grant from the Costal Conservancy for this purchase, thus stretching the County dollar by a factor of 4.

The purchase is for 673 acres of open space extending north from City of Napa watershed lands at Lake Hennessey. The property would provide at least five miles of trails for hikers, equestrians and mountain bicyclists, as well as facilitate opening up several more miles of trails on the north side of Lake Hennessey. The acquisition is a critical step for implementing the Napa Crest Trail. First proposed in the County’s 1979 Park and Recreation Plan, the Napa Crest Trail is a concept for a recreational trail that circumnavigates the Napa Valley traveling through the hills surrounding the Valley.

I believe this is a very appropriate use of the hotel tax, consistent with the vision expressed when the tax was passed by the voters of Napa. "

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: