" Dr. Osborn’s ventures into real estate promotion are interesting, to say the least. He fails to note that the 191 unit project that he does not like and wants to use to sully poor old Cronk IS PUC’s PROJECT. The 1500 acre easement he points to has never been seen or filed and its language and loopholes have yet to be exposed. It is just pie in the sky and may very well prove to be as much about conservation as PUC’s subdivision is about endowments. Neither PUC nor Triad give without getting. Osborn closes with a reference to “experts” to claim that Triad’s houses will have less people than the houses presently in Angwin: Experts no doubt on Triad’s payroll. Does the word disingenuous come to mind? "

" Richard Osborn’s tortured statistics indicate how desperate the college has become to get approval of its 380-unit subdivision.

220 units of the 380 WOULD be located on agricultural land in the heart of Angwin. The fact that this land is now raising alfalfa does not mean that it is not agricultural, or that it could not produce other crops. Put houses on that prime soil, and you’ve got loss of ag. land. Period. You can’t spin your way out of that one.

The bus transportation idea is still kooky, 380 more households on Howell Mountain will definitely increase traffic. And anyone who thinks they are going to give up their cars for buses is not living in the real world. The buses are not going to take a woman to work at a winery or a man to work in Napa, or Aunt Jenny to the Safeway with two shopping bags. And they certainly aren’t going to take students to the coffee shop or to the movie at night. Come on, Richard, get real.

Now, the college is trying to sweeten the project by saying it would put 1500 acres of other college land into permanent conservation easements. This is a great idea, but it really depends on how honest those easements will be. Read the small print, people.

Save Rural Angwin’s population increase of 43.5% is based on the federal census of households. That’s official. Osborn says, “experts report that the eco-village will increase the Angwin population by 20 percent to 23 percent. “ Who are his experts? He don't say, does he.

Triad/PUC has got to come up with something better than its plan for 380 more households masquerading as a so-called “eco-village.” Stay tuned. "

" Mr. Osborn, if there is such a need for affordable housing in Angwin then why are there so many very affordable homes, long on the market, in Angwin?

As you are aware, there is major road work being done this month on Deer Park Rd. with 30 minute delays both up and down the mountain. Why? Because there is no alternate detour road. I drove down Howell Mt. road this morning and realized why I've never taken it before; it is a steep, winding, one-lane, broken and patched, dangerous road. Useful only to the locals who live on it. So, what to do in an emergency if the one road artery is closed? Hunker down and burn?

Do your REALLY believe that residents in Angwin would take a shuttle to . . . whereever? Are you kidding me?? This is California! And I don't have to tell you that back in the day when Angwin had a larger population that the residents were all Adventist; they shopped, schooled, and churched in Angwin. They were not 2nd home owners, communters, or non-Adventists whose lives are lived elsewhere and who only sleep and vacation in Angwin.

You asked for and the community graciously agreed to the 191 units that you said you needed for workers and low income housing. Now you are telling a different story.

Mr. Osborn, you fool us not and your arguments make absolutely no sense.
I pray to God, truly, not to allow this money-grabing and dangerous real estate venture. Eco- building for large populations of people do not belong in an isolated, rural area where there are only low income retail and service jobs. "

" The main part of the PUC project will be on the open land you see when you drive into town. The rest is scattered back through the community. It is overall a small project and it will bring new and needed life to that area. It is beyond me why SRA is so virulently opposed to this, Angwin is a small college town and it will remain so, with a few more amenities and people.

Also, it is an opportunity to put a small amount of new housing somewhere besides south county, in the upper valley where there are a lot of jobs and housing is needed.

Finally, this is PUCs land and they have been zoned to develop it for decades. They were there before any of us, and they have some rights to use their land to build on. They have gone down from over a thousand units to below 400, and I don't think it is fair to them to go any further.

And we are talking about thousands and thousands of surrounding open space acres up there, with very very liittle traffic to begin with. This is such a huge over reaction it is mind boggling. "

" napablogger. you must not live in angwin. it took a half hour to get up the hill today and will for awhile. it was the same when 600 students went to a single meeting at the vet's home to protest for property rights even though some busses were used. an 8 minute wait for the light at the bottom of our hill.
another 40 % will crowd us even further. would you like a 40% increase in your town ? if 191 units go in there will be no eco about it? how interesting. i thought the college was putting on the face of environmentalism but it appears there is no intent to apply that philosophy to the 191 units. i'm still waiting for them to take back the returnable cans and bottles they sell ,where they are sold, instead of the airport. where's all that passion for sustainability ? will people who don't even make a slight attempt to make an easy change suddenly volunteer to do fieldwork and give up refridgeration in the home? the eco-village is a u.n. idea and according to them and all the eco-villages i've studied, such things as air conditioning are not sustainable. one author went to hundreds of such villages all over the world and only found 2 that he could actually commit to live in. some villages have united together in networks where the vegetarian ones cooperate with the meat eaters but both usually don't live together because of the need for harmony in such close quarters and decisions about the communal meal.you did know about the communal meals didn't you ? how about the process of getting a concensus of what foods to buy without voting all the time ? "

" I’m back. Gotta comment on another of Osborn’s strange statements. He disputes the federal census figures for Angwin and claims that the so-called eco-village “would bring the community’s declining population back up to roughly what it was in the 1970s.” Is he saying that Angwin had 380 more households in the 1970’s than now in 2008? At the Napa County average household size of 2.6 persons, the 380 more Triad/PUC households would be about 1,000 more people. Is he saying that Angwin’s population today is 1,000 fewer than in the 1970’s. We definitely had many larger families here, with many more kids in the schools. But 1,000 fewer people in Angwin today than in the 1970’s? I think not.

It’s the 43.5% increase in households that angers people, the loss of ag lands in the very heart of Angwin, the increased traffic up and down the hill, and the increased burden on our ambulance and fire department volunteers that bothers people. But the biggest problem is that the jobs aren’t here for a subdivision this size. This is not the place to put new housing for workers who will have to commute to Napa, Santa Rosa, and up and down the Valley.

Oh, I forgot! They will be able to ride electric buses. "

" I also headed down Deer Park Road this morning, (I saw one brave soul heading down Old Howell Mt. Rd...was that you reader?). The traffic quickly backed up Howell Mt. Road where it intersects with White Cottage (the direction I was heading from). Drivers were also backed up on White Cottage. I was quite surprised to see how quickly the backup happened.

The bottleneck is a reminder of the mess we would all be in if a catastrophic firestorm passed through these areas. We would be sitting ducks. Also consider all of the PUC students who would be added to the bottleneck situation if school was in session. Not a pretty picture. "

" To napablogger: You obviously don't live in Angwin or you would not have said, "It is overall a small project and it will bring new and needed life to that area." New and needed life??? Angwin residents live in this remote and rural mountain top area of Napa County because we like remote and rural. Which, by the way, is the historic and well documented reason that Ellen White founded the Adventist community in Angwin, in the first place!! She obviously wasn't a venture real-estate capitalist; but a realist.

Napablogger, your concept of needed housing in Napa Co. does not belong in a rural and remote mountain top with one road in and out, where the water table is low and new, outsider residents will be forced to communte down a mountain that cannot sustain over population. Please, don't even go there with the "shuttle" solution. People will ride that shuttle just like Napans ride that big, free, green bus. Not!

Angwin has caught the attention of developers because it has, of recent, become an assumed part of the Napa Valley. The only people who believe in this urbanized, mountain top development project are misled politition types and a few, poor, misled, low-income souls who have been bamboozled by people like you, Osborn and TRIAD to believe that they might actually afford a home in Angwin. Well, guess what? TRIAD is a developer; developers sell homes at the highest price the market will bear, save for a handfull of condos sold as "affordable," which means middle-class in the Napa Valley.

Development in Angwin is the most non-Eco idea imaginable. It is nothing but a greedy real-estate venture." "

" To napablogger: P.S.
There are and historically have been many homes for sale in Angwin that range from affordable, middle income, and high end. I would venture a bet that, per capita, there are more homes for sale in Angwin(including "affordable" homes), than anywhere else in Napa Co. (Any researchers out there)? So, please point out the shortage of homes to me and the workers who can afford even an "affordable" home who have not found one in Angwin, if desired. The only jobs in Angwin are retail and service jobs, all low income. Faculty and higher paid health workers who can afford or choose to afford a home here already have one. If they can't afford one now then they most certainly won't be able to afford an Eco home, sold by TRIAD, a real-estate developer.

Angwin asked for and has been approved for the 191 affordable homes for their workers. Now they change their story and want more. WHAT NEXT WILL THEY BE ASKING FOR? "

" Napablogger -

Just a few observations. You are right that the "main part of the PUC project will be on the open land you see when you drive into town. That is what is upsetting residents. You cannot imagine how 220 units here would wipe out that meadow and eliminate the rural setting which the community enjoys. And it may be "a small project" to you, but a project which produces a 43.5% increase in population is not "small" to us.

380 units is not a "small amount" of new housing, Napablogger.

Finally, your statement that "They have gone down from over a thousand units to below 400" is not as factual as you usually are. They started at 580 units and are now at 380. SRA is not opposing 191 units which is exactly at the midpoint of 0 and 380. So the communities compromise of 191 is right on target.

I think you are pretty much committed to the college, but we look for a bit more respect for the statistics. "

" Regarding the open land you see upon driving into town: filling that open land up with development takes away everything green except what you see on the steep hillsides. There is a fairly small percentage of usable, flat agricultural land up here. I continue hearing comments about how much land there is in Angwin (presumably to be built upon), but much of the area is steep and unusable for either development or agriculture.

NB, I am sorry that you have committed yourself to fighting for this development even though you do not live here. The traffic, water, and environmental problems will not belong to you. You will not be the one attempting to save the lives of family members and pets as a quickly approaching firestorm sweeps toward a mile long string of bottlenecked vehicles. You will not be the one who sees the frantic faces of college and grade school students passing by who have no transportation off the hill. You won't be the one offering them a ride either. In fact, if we increase our population up her too much more, we'll all be running for our lives.

Have you given one glimpsing thought to that possibility? The most recent studies on drought and climate change indicate we should restrict dense development in heavily wooded areas of California.

I'm always suspicious about the motives of those who are pro development in areas they do not live in. Perhaps you are fighting now, just for the sake of fighting; because you want to be right, or because you've made a promise to an old buddy or new friend? I wish I knew what the connection was so that I could make sense out of it. "