New plan unveiled for Napa Pipe | Napa Valley Register

Napa Pipe developers plan to knock at least 600 homes off of their initial plan for the mixed-use development in south Napa County.

Once proposed as a 3,200-townhome development, the second version of the Napa Pipe project features “not more than 2,580 units,” according to a notice issued Friday that signals the beginning of an environmental review of the project.

“Over the course of many months I’ve had the opportunity to talk with and more importantly listen to the residents of Napa through the more than 90 community meetings we have hosted and participated in so far,” developer Keith Rogal of Napa Redevelopment Partners wrote in an e-mail. “After hearing the questions and comments from elected officials, civic leaders and community members we’ve significantly adjusted our plan to reflect the input we received.”

The first Napa Pipe proposal was under fire from the start, with critics voicing concern over potential traffic congestion, strains on Napa city services and residential development in unincorporated county land.

“The proponent of this project has done what I think many people thought he needed to do, which is start modifying the project,” Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman said.

The new proposal features high-density residential development on the northern two-thirds of the 152-acre site, including retail and open space. Plans for the southern part of the site include commercial and industrial uses, such as warehouses, offices and a condominium hotel.

The development would be built over a matter of 10 years, starting no earlier than 2011 and completed around 2020 or 2022.

Though the new plan features fewer homes than originally proposed, Rogal said the development of 2,580 units would still allow the county to meet its affordable housing requirements from the state. Twenty percent — or up to 516 units — would be deed-restricted as affordable housing. The remaining homes would be made available first to local workers and Napa County residents, an idea proposed last year by Napa County Supervisor Mark Luce.

Plans for light industrial development on the Napa Pipe site have also been scaled back by about 70 percent. The southern 50 acres of the site were originally set aside for development similar to that of the neighboring Napa Corporate Park. Under the new design, the area is for “local small business artisan/light industry workers” and may also include wineries and other wine-related businesses.

The new plan also features the addition of a 150-room retirement center and a 150-suite hotel with meeting spaces and a spa. Community facilities include a transit center, nature center, boat house, fire and sheriff station, café and theater.

Twenty acres are set aside “for different land use options yet to come,” Rogal said, “including the possibility of accommodating a relocated Napa County Agricultural Fair on some portion of our site.”

Rogal said the plan “reflects a central theme that we heard over and over: make it a plan for us, a place where we/our kids/the people working in our schools and hospitals could live; make it a place where we can enjoy the Napa River and the natural landscape and parks and trails around it; make it a place that reflects the green goals of this community.”

The notice of preparation, in which these details are outlined, signals the beginning of an in-depth environmental review of the project. Members of the public can provide written comments to the county through Feb. 2 about what they would like to see included in the environmental review. The Napa County Planning Commission will hold a hearing to discuss the notice of preparation on Jan. 21.

Rogal has said the environmental review could take anywhere from six to 18 months to complete. Gitelman said she is aiming for summer 2009.

A copy of the notice of preparation, with details about the proposal, is available online at www.co.napa.ca.us under the Planning Department’s page. It is also available from the county, 253-4417.

77 comment(s)

paranoidinthetrees wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:09 AM:

" The only thing missing is a hospital and cemetery. This development could be a self-contained city that would have no impact outside its own borders and no reason for residents to leave once they're there. Utopia is knocking! "

kbf wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:26 AM:

" No No No, Mr. Rogal still dosen't get it, we don't want houses of that magnitude. He wants to build for light industrial, look around Napa and see all the empty offices and warehouses. And like we need another hotel. I can remember as a kid the comments were Napa has a bar on every corner, now it will be a hotel on every corner. I still say no no no. "

ao1982 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:07 AM:

" The world will end in 2012. So we will never see what it means to be "affordable housing." Most of us know that will never exist in Napa Co. I doubt Keith is really after giving Napan's a place to live. He is after the big bucks, which he will never see. Look at the condo's in downtown, no buyers yet. Smart move Keith! (thumbs up to you dummy). Sweet, first one to post a comment. "

napagirl76 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:36 AM:

" Keith were are the kids going to school? you still have not addressed that. Napa's schools are already over flowing and with budget issues school bus routes have been cut way back. Are you going to pay to have them bussed? are you going to pay for my gas and the rest of us who well have to sit in increased traffic because of your project? You have NOT listened to a word that any local has said. You have no desire to make napa a better place, you just want the biggest profit. "

NapaCitizen wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:15 AM:

" Self contained community, yea right. Like that will ever happen in California! Napans aren't buying the affordable housing argument and can see even 2500 is a bad idea. We voted down 1500 in the 80's and this project will still be subject to a measure J vote before it can be built. Listen to the universe Mr Rogal, there is no market for your development. "

Project707 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:05 AM:

" 2,500 instead of 3,500 - What a joke. Why can't Rogal find another town to terrorize? Why is he so fixed on ruining our town and not moving on to another easier town to take advantage of that maybe he grew up in? "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:53 AM:

" Is "Utopia" a combination of "You took all the money and left us with the mess" combined with "Copia" ?

I'd prefer a steel plant. That way, the area could contribute more to the world than just traffic and developer's profits. "

make napa better wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:53 PM:

" Of course this happens when we move to Vallejo cause we can't afford to live in Napa. Maybe in 5 years when we can afford to move back they'll have us? "

109823 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:32 PM:

" ao1982, I missed the memo on the new deadline. Hopefully Rogal buys into it and nixes the plans. I'm surprised, after all the flac, he didn't up the number to 4000 homes that would make more sense. "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:27 PM:

" Watching Rogal's tactics will hopefully open the Planning Commision's eyes.

$omehow, I $u$pect that they're back room partner$ in all of thi$ attempted maniulation of the public, though. I'm afraid we're going to end up with American Canyon disease, where possible tax revenue trumps the will of the people and due course.

It sickens me. How can you impeach or recall officials that are not elected ?

I think we should petition to make the whole area a park. Rogo can go row his houses somewhere else. I think he can afford it, and their tactics show me that I would prefer someone reputable and honest do business here. I mean, when you have these temporary business such as Napa Development 'Partners'" that will disband when the last check has been cashed, they're practically granted immunity from the start.

We deserve better. And we won't get it. Nowadays, in this economy, our government will be too $tarry-eyed. "

Paddy wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:40 PM:

" Very crafty. This is the old bait and switch: blow us away with the insanity of 3200 townhomes and then try to look like the good guy reducing it to "only" 2580 units. Give us all a break.

No matter how you want to look at it this is thousands of additional cars on the roads and thousands of kids you're not building new schools for. Infrastructure does not exist for this development and will not for decades to come.

Let's REALLY keep Napa, Napa. "

Keith Rogal wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:39 PM:

" Some bloggers have stated that no provisions have been made for school-age kids. Actually, that's not correct. We've been in close contact with the School District since the beginning of our planning, and have publicly stated all along our willingness to accommodate a school as part of the project, if the Superintendent and their planners feel it's called for. They're performing a study, and we have been awaiting their direction.

Regarding "new cars" on the road, it's easy to forget there are 21,000 cars every single morning coming IN to Napa County for work, and 34,000 of Napa's jobs (about half) are within four miles of Napa Pipe. The traffic in the County is bad and getting worse, and experts point out it is basically the result of two things: growing commuter workforce (because the basic Napa single-family house is too big and expensive for many of these people) and the development of sprawl, single-family subdivisions, where residents MUST use their car every time they want to do anything at all.

The proposal for Napa Pipe, at present, is to create a neighborhood, right in the middle of this jobs center, to design it so the type of housing makes it more affordable to young people, the commuting workforce, and empty-nesters; and to do so in way which makes walking, rather than using the car for everything, a viable option. Many Napans think that is a good idea, and prefer that much of our future housing be in this one 154-acre neighborhood, rather than jammed into existing infill neighborhoods or on open space lands. In the months ahead, through the planning review process, we will all be able to weigh this idea, against other alternatives "

Baraki wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:49 PM:

" I've been mostly ignoring the Napa Pipe issue -- despite living nearby -- in the hopes that reasonable people would think of something reasonable to do with the space.

Wow was I wrong! "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:36 PM:

" Mr. Rogal,

Rather than accomodate a new school, why not just build one.

While it's easy to forget about all the cars you basically said nothing about with a whole bunch of words, I don't remember you saying you're going to sell these houses so cheap that these people you're going to relocate ( that are still going to be driving on our already crowded roads that are within 4 miles of your subdivision ) will be able to afford.

And it's easy to see that your proposal, at present, is easily manipulated through the planning process, and I get the feeling that this process will not include not having the opportunity to not have the lack of inability to unhide none of the things that you are unwilling to undisturb the lack of undistortion of the type that we observed in the tactics that you have not unshown us already.

Of course, I believe every distortion you are trying to push over on us in the perfectly clear manners that you have demonstrated in the past. And yet, I still get the feeling that you want to do is selfishly take the money and run and leave us with a mess to suffer with.

As time goes on, I trust you less and less. If you really want what's best for us, build some low dollar, low-income housing, and buy some trains to shuttle workers up and down the valley.

I doubt that's not going to not have a lack of interest on your part. "

napa4change wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:01 PM:

" I think that Mr. Rogal's plan is incredibly innovative and forward thinking. This type of development built around transit, giving people alternative methods of transportation, along with self serving retail and amenities, is exactly the type of development needed for the future. There is A LOT of evidence showing the benefits of high density developments. It is actually encouraged for future development all across the nation, in order to handle growth. I don't think Mr. Rogal came up with this development plan out of no where, just to make a buck - he could have easily done that with a gated, waterfront, luxury home community. But that's clearly not what we need. Talk about increasing traffic...

Contrary to what many of you believe, or want to believe, Napa is going to continue to grow. We have to, in some smart way, support this growth. The only options we have for new housing locations are our rolling green hills, shoving new developments into YOUR neighborhoods (which will never happen because most of you NIMBYS are not willing to share) or an already paved eye sore, where the industrial business is dead. There are many studies supporting the redevelopment of brownfields. "

napa4change wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:14 PM:

" Why don't you all attend one of Rogal's tours and express your feelings there, rather than hiding behind your fake names and casting stones? He stands right there, in front of the crowd, willing to answer and hear all questions and concerns. I have attended one, to educate myself and get all of the facts straight before blogging on here and looking like an idiot. Ah hem... "

Keith Rogal wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:16 PM:

" There is a website for the Napa Pipe project proposal, at www.aHomeforNapans.com It has more information about the ideas which have shaped the plan, and also a place to give comments, concerns, and suggestions. I'd be grateful if anyone who is interested in the topic take a few minutes to look through the site, consider signing up for a tour (we'll be starting up with more in a month or so), and most importantly, share your thoughts with us. "

NapaCitizen wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:25 PM:

" Mr Rogal, Pipe dreams. What have you been smokin in that Napa Pipe?

Let us build all this down here or the big bad developers are going to cram it into your neighborhoods.... whatever.

Its time Napa County and BAQMD start counting single ridership car trips for the resorts and hotels, and wineries. Requiring trip reductions is the answer for reducing traffic.

Constructing this size of anything in the valley is just plain wrong. "

danny wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:55 PM:

" Reason-ator, you think the area should be a park? Come on...let's be real.

Can we look at this potential development as an opportunity, rather than rail against it from the get-go? I think Mr. Rogal (from his comments here) seems open to input. Go take the tour and let him know what you think. "

eyeamme wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:07 PM:

" reason-ator wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:53 AM:
" Is "Utopia" a combination of "You took all the money and left us with the mess" combined with "Copia" ?

This is brilliant! "

Paddy wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:31 PM:

" napa4change - your Orange County status quo philosophy is antiquated and dangerous. We don't want tens-of-thousands more inhabitants. We don't have the water or infrastructure or geographic perspective to support it. Look at Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Move there if you want smog, traffic, shootings, gangs and everything that comes with squeezing too many people into a finite space.

These building norms are killing CA. Look to states that have water and can support the infrastructure. For that matter look to states that want your ideas of "progress". "

epicuria wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:24 AM:

" If the infrastructure can support uses for an area now lying fallow the project should proceed. The Rogel vision is extraordinarily exciting, unless, of course, you are Joe Sixpack who will never get innovation. Here's an opportunity to develop a land plan not only to provide housing for Napans, but accommodate modest growth that then supports our commercial and cultural entitities, e.g., the Napa Valley Opera House.

Let's hope that those who want to role the clock back are in a small but noisy minority. "

manxkat wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:26 AM:

" What about schools? Why is the developer refusing to provide for them? Why are the superintendent of NCOE and the NVUSD mute? "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:37 AM:

" You know, it's really difficult to have a discussion when the NVR moderates the discussion to support their point of view.

Once you count on an entity that relies on advertising revenue to moderate a discussion, the temptation is too irrestistable for them to censor what they want to give the impression that the public is in favot of their revenue providers project.

So I'll say this- I am eagerly looking forward to having our government steamroll us into the park-like setting of sitting in the 4 mile radius of Napa Pipe that ALREADY contains our most congested roads and adding 5000-10,000 more cars in there. Yeah, that's the park-like atmosphere I imagined and evidently we must all support.

Not a gold mine sold to the highest bidder that wants to do the most damage in the name of personal greed. "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:08 AM:

" So I decided to check out these tours. I can't find a schedule. They are able to take a bunch of personal information, of course. But I'm not comfortable giving that info to an organization that has, in my view, conducted themselves so far in a manner that I don't feel that I can trust with my personal info.

napa4change, you think the 'Keep Napa Napa Measure N' campaign was being up front and honest ? I personally feel like I still have snake-oil all over myself whenever I think about the deceptions that were employed back then.

Mr. Rogal's tactics so far are way too transparent for me to take seriously. I'm surprized intelligent people that are un-biased are buying in to it. Again, to me, it's him selling tax revenue to the Planners, with retirement homes thrown in. What's next ? A home for abused children and a cancer research center ? Get serious. Don't forget the train to the ferry.......

I'm waiting for a tour schedule. My schedule is different than normal people's, and I have a lot of doctor's visits scheduled. If they ever print a schedule, and I can go, I'll be the guy limping as far as I can on this convenient walking tour.

I'm sorry that I sound like a-hem or an idiot, even though I've repeatedly been assured that my IQ is higher than 99 out of 100 people. "

epicuria wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:46 AM:

" Paddy,

It seems to me that those of you who want to obstruct, obstruct obstruct should be the ones to move say up to Humboldt County where you can enjoy a simpler way of life. Let those of use who embrace change enjoy the progress without all your whining.

Onwards and upwards,

Epi "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:46 AM:

" If you want change, move to LA.

You can embrace change without victimizing those of us who have ALREADY seen Napa change way too much, usually for the worst.

Somehow, I expect we'll start to hear from some people paid to blog about how we should emrace the coming traffic nightmares. Since we can't count on our almost bankrupt state to pay for traffic improvements for a few decades, how about we get Mr. Rogal's company to pay for our LA-style freeway flyovers that we can drive onward and upward on ?

Yeah, that's not gonna happen. Money's tied up in manipulative publicity campaigns and all that entails. "

obijoekanobi wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:55 PM:

" This all sounds like the company store. Work for the company and get company homes and paay them back for rent. Buy at the company store and it all comes out of your paycheck. Get stuck working for the company all your life and still owe the company when you die and they just move someone else in to take your place. "

Baffled Blogger wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:41 PM:

" I’ve been watching this Napa Pipe matter for a long time. Seems as though the paper has done a good job reporting and clarifying, but there’s also a little “club” of bloggers who just complain instead of trying to help with Napa’s housing for workers, for its affordable housing, and its housing for the young Napa folks who would like to stay here but can’t afford it.

Someone like NapaGirl76 doesn’t like the traffic. But most of the heavy traffic clogging the highways is people coming to their jobs in Napa from someplace else --- because there’s no housing for them in Napa. Here’s a place for them, right smack in the middle of the heaviest concentration of jobs in the entire County. "

Baffled Blogger wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:21 PM:

" And Napa Citizen doesn’t believe there’s an affordable housing problem, even though both California and federal law require a percentage of housing be affordable by their standards. If the feds and the state don’t get what they mandate Napa County will have plenty of problems. But of course if there is a little space between Napa Citizen’ home and his next door neighbor an affordable house could be slipped in there. Is that better?

Reason-ator would prefer a steel plant. Perhaps she is right. Employment for a thousand or probably more steel workers would, of course, require worker housing. This would add thousands more commuters, plus tremendous numbers of trucks on the highways to bring in and take out raw goods and finished products. Again, though, perhaps a few more houses could be squeezed into your neighborhood. And, by the way, the possibility of the steel industry coming to Napa, or anywhere else in the USA, is pretty unlikely.

Parinoidithetrees, I really got a good laugh out of your comments. Not mean and nasty, not accusing anyone of anything, just indicating politely and humorously that you aren’t on board. That scores well with me. "

jen_94558 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 4:12 PM:

" Napa Pipe has been open to public discussion and input and has listened to the entire community. The plans are open to public viewing and the public has had ample opportunities to take site tours and share their ideas and thoughts.
Napa Pipe has been willing to engage in an open and honest discussion with members of the public. As you can see, they are willing to be flexible with their plans and reduce the number of homes on the site. Unfortunately, for a small portion of the population, it will never be enough. "

MGD09 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 4:29 PM:

" It’s amazing to see people already knocking this scaled back plan without any knowledge about the plan whatsoever. If you have attended a site tour, attended the meetings or read the reports, you understand the vision and thinking behind Napa Pipe and how it fits into our community. We can either be open to new ways and new thinking or say no to everything and continue down the path of traffic gridlock, homes that are not affordable to the average family and a community that is not sustainable. I for one am ready for new ideas and new ways of looking at ways to creating a sustainable community. "

higherground54 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:09 PM:

" For every one of the 8 or 9 individuals who seem to repetitively bash this visionary Napa pipe development plan, there will be a several hundred who will be blessing it when it finally comes to fruition. These will be the people who can affordably live in a beautiful area near their work (thereby DECREASING their curent impact on Napa traffic, by the way). And these will be the people living in Napa right now, who will discover, to their delight, a wonderful new option for recreational activities right in the community. Rogal has the highest imaginable aesthetic awareness, combined with more integrity and environmental commitment than you would dream of in a developer. All you nay-sayers, RELAX! "

Keith Rogal wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:15 PM:

" Dear Mr. or Ms. Reason-ator: the tours are starting up in a few weeks - we stopped for the holidays. The personal information that would be necessary is pretty limited. Your name and preferred mode of contact: email or phone. We can only have a limited number of people on each tour (a maximum of 50) and so we make reservations by name, so people don't show up and then we can't accommodate them. "

manxkat wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:11 PM:

" Mr. Rogal gratuituously offers maybe one school, yet his development will house enough kids to fill 5 elementary schools, 2 middle schools and 2 high schools.
Its just like the failed planning when AmCan quadrupled its population - they forgot schools and Napans had to agree to the Measure G school bond for 30 years to pay for a high school for AmCan. Will we pay for schools for Napa Pipe too? "

keepinitreal wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:49 PM:

" Manxhat, I am curious where you come up with the numbers for the schools. I can't fathom that 2600 units (most of them not single family homes, right?) could create the need for that many schools. Where are you coming up with these numbers? "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:40 AM:

" Thanks, Mr Rogal. I appreciate that. But quite frankly, the tactics displayed during the election make me very uneasy giving any of my personal information away to such a group. Hopefully, you'll print a schedule that accomodates drop-ins. I would love a tour.

I stopped on my way to work ( I have to commute to Oakland because there are no jobs in my profession in Napa ) today by the Crusher Guy and looked at the Napa Pipe area. I can't imagine 2500 houses being crammed in there, let alone 3200. But while I was pondering that, I noticed that the area looks different. I truly don't know why.

And then I started to think. Here we are, an area that wants more jobs that are more than above minimum wage that requires people to drive from out of town because minimum wage requires them to commute to Napa. And here we have a perfect light industrial area with all the necessary infrastructure in place. An area that would need MUCH less cleaning up than it would take to put a residential area in. And then I started to think totally differently than the sales literature on Napa Pipe's web-site. We could reduce traffic by having jobs at Napa Pipe for already-situated Napa citizens to go to instead of having to drive out of the county where the higher paying jobs are, instead of piling a bunch of houses into a small area under the pretense that all those people are going to be able to afford those houses with their Napa minimum wage jobs.

Does that make sense, even if it doesn't make money for an out-of-town developer who has to pretend to have our best interest in mind ? "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:51 AM:

" For all the hundreds of Napans who are uneasy with this wonderful scaled-back visionary plan we have been blessed with, there will be 8 or 9 who will be blessing it when it truly comes to fruition......

Ooh, look, I can fabricate internet distortion fantasy diversion, too !

Meanwhile, I'm sceptical that we will end up with the Italian hillside village and the canoes paddling out past the lovely Napa River Promenade that the web-site fantasizes, but can't promise us. But they DO seem to be selling us bridges and swampland, and some people seem to be buying. You'd think that nobody had offered to sell them a bridge or offer them swampland before.

What a bunch af suckers to fall for the obvious cliches !

Wanna buy a bridge ? I've got swampland to sell you. Cheaper than Keep Napa Napa, whatever that means.......

Wake UP, people ! How obvious can they be ? "

TheWholeTruth wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:50 AM:

" You would have to do a lot more than take me on a guided tour and buy me a bottle of wine to get me to agree that a new city on 29 in Napa Valley is anything but a multi million dollar out of town development interest’s scheme to make massive profits by snapping up cheap land zoned for production, manufacturing and better paying jobs, and snowing the population into believing we really need this to provide affordable homes in the middle of the worse recession in decades, where the current homeowners can't get a decent price for the homes they already own and bank foreclosures flood the market.

Face it; we can't handle the traffic of 2800 new homes. 60 mil toward a "flyover" that may never be fully funded is a drop in the bucket toward the real cost of road improvements needed to actually make a dent in commuter traffic, not to mention who gets to come up with the rest of the cost; us, the taxpayer.

This is a bad plan, bad for Napa Valley and completely unnecessary.

Napa, a center for 34,000 jobs? Then why do so many of us not in the service or hospitality industries have to commute to the bay area? How do we justify using the very last significant piece of land in the county suited for industry, you know the actual production of a product other than wine, for housing for bay area retirees instead? Isn’t balance and diversity important?

I’m convinced that those that think Napa Pipe, via Napa Redevelopment Partners, is a good idea, only think so because they have a financial interest in the project. "

Paddy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:09 AM:

" epicuria - we are not "a small but noisy minority". Our voting record over the past 20 years proves that. And you're comments about what you consider innovation would go over really great in Orange County.

Those of us who actually have a vision for what CA must do to survive it's future will continue to push for sanity into the 22nd century. Your 18th century concept of progress is outdated and stale. "

5th generation napan wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:03 PM:

" Mr Keith Rogal, please explain to me in your own words, Why you and your group are so dead set AGAINST utilizing this property for a factory location providing napa with "real paying jobs".
Right now there are around 400 homes for sale in Napa. And you are going to build affordable "homes, not apartments/condos/townhomes, for under 200,000 dollars for "hospitality" workers to afford? Yah right!
So why in your own words you want to destroy a potential money making site for napa and replace it with something that will, in the long term only benifit YOUR GROUP. So please enlighten me. "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:39 PM:

" TheWholeTruth wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:50 AM: I’m convinced that those that think Napa Pipe, via Napa Redevelopment Partners, is a good idea, only think so because they have a financial interest in the project. "

You would think that would be obvious to everyone, since it's glaringly obvious to me. But thanks for pointing out that people will naturally butter their own bread. Thank you.

Or more succinctly for those that are more gullible than you and I - "DUH !!" "

mgd09 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:54 PM:

" 5th generation napan - why don't you ask Keith Rogal in person at a tour? SO many of you sit on here and moan and complain, which is easy to do behind your fake names. Why don't you do something about it and actually attend a tour and tell them how you feel?? This blog gets you no where.

It gets really old hearing the SAME complaints from the SAME handful of people, every single blog. "

redtail wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:30 PM:

" For all of the naysayers--please enlighten us all as to where in your opinion all of the housing should be located that is MANDATED for the county and city and why you believe those options are better for us all than the logical Napa Pipe location. It is easy to be critical but a whole lot more difficult to come up with constructive alternatives. Wanna bet your recommendation won't include anything next to where you live? "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:19 PM:

" No NEW houses are mandated by anyone.

But there are so many smoke screens being deplyed, we'll just hide them behind some of the spare smoke screens. "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:52 PM:

" mgd09 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:54 PM:

" ........ SO many of you sit on here and moan and complain, which is easy to do behind your fake names......."

So, mgd09, is 0 your middle name or is 09 your last name ?

And are all the Napa Pipe supporters that blog here using the same name that they gave Mr. Rogal to put on their W-2s ? "

mgd09 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:10 AM:

" Ohhh Reason-ator. Why so angry all of the time? Smile! Life's not that bad. "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:13 AM:

" mgd,

C'mon now, I was TRYING to be funny. At least, I thought I was. I'm sorry it came off sounding angry.

I have a dry sense of humour that probably doesn't come off well in print most of the time.

Plus, when things turn out poorly, as I believe things often do in the de-evolution of the town I've lived in for a zillion years, I've learned you just have to appreciate the humour in everything. Especially when I knew it was going to turn out poorly way ahead of time.

Which is what I'm afraid is gonna happen with the opportunity we have with the Kaiser Steel area. We've got a great opportunity that's gonna be squandered by an outsider's greed who wants nothing but to succeed in pulling the wool over our eyes and slipping away with the profits and telling us we should be happy because he pulled cashmere over our eyes instead of some plain old dirty wool.

Bridges and swampland are being sold to us as an opportunity for someone to make a bunch of money and leave us holding the dirty bag that's left. And people think that's great.

It probably is for the profiteers who aren't going to have to live with the mess after the money's gone. "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:17 PM:

" Something has been bothering me recently, and I think it needs to be said.

I've seen people who come around here more and more and say that they are tired of certain people voicing their opinions. Over and over.

It is, in my opinion, at best a poorly disguised effort to try and discourage any voicing of opinions that they don't agree with.

These are discussion forums, where we are supposed to discuss issues. If people want to have one-sided discussions, they are free to start their own blogs where people can only state one side of an issue. If they don't want to hear the other side of an issue, they are free to not read these forums, or not read the comments of "the same people" that they complain about, since you'd think it would be pretty easy to not do something that they are tired of doing.

I 'voice' my opinions because this is a vehicle to express my opinions in a place where un-elected and elected government leaders and puppets can theoretically read them. In an era where our government has more and more leaders that we are powerless to vote for or against, the ballot box is insufficient, and it can be important for some people to know that they are not alone in their feelings to make them les apprehensive to also lend a voice to one side or another.

If you want to live in a place where only shared opinions are allowed to be voiced, there are countries with dictators who are in need of more vocal followers. For the time being, we are still allowed to voice our opinions in this country. Please do not try to change that.

< rant off > "

Keith Rogal wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:48 AM:

" Dear Mr or Ms. Reason-ator: who is the "out-of-town developer" you keep talking about? For what its worth, I live in Napa and have for a decade (not long, I'll admit, but I would have thought long enough to get past the "out-of-town" stigma). So, while you seem eager to impugn my integrity, character and intellect, albeit without ever meeting me face-to-face, and this forum provides an excellent opportunity to do so - please just amend your remarks to acknowledge that there are people who live and work right here in Napa, and I'm one of them, who have a different view of what is best for that property ... and, no, they aren't being paid to have that opinion! Many, many people, whom I'm see on our tours, and meet every day at the Boon Fly, at Gilwoods, at the ABC (you see, I get hungry reading all these blogs) just think that it would be good to have a different kind of neighborhood - oops, I'll stop myself and won't use any of my usual adjectives, or even any nouns beyond that to describe it, since every single one seems to produce more sarcasm, which you mean, I'm sure, with well-intentioned humor but sort of shuts down the dialogue. So, I'll stop here, and suggest that you consider, one-day, checking your well-earned, worldly-wise cynicism at the door, and pay me a visit on a site tour at Napa Pipe, a public meeting at the County, or over coffee at the Boon Fly. But I'll warn you: having an open-mind can be dangerous. You never know when you might find yourself agreeing with someone you were determined to dislike. "

Baffled Blogger wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:15 AM:

" TheWholeTruth should definitely be censured for his misuse of the word, but of more importance is his complete unwillingness to accept what is happening in his beautiful area.

1. He needs to realize that the population is growing. The kids grow up and have families of their own. The only way to keep the population the same size is to either stop having babies, or else make these growing families move out of Napa.

2. He also needs to realize that the government has established Affordable Housing requirements all over this great country of ours. So if the population grows, more lower cost housing is required by law, and Mr. Truth hasn’t offered any space in his neighborhood yet.

3. Finally, he should stop complaining and accusing everyone of dishonesty and greed; he needs to start making helpful suggestions about solving housing issues without building on ag lands, and without shoveling all those commuters into existing neighborhoods. Nobody yet has said that they would be welcome there. "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:01 AM:

" Mr. Rogal,

I apologize for not knowing where you live. Or how long or often you live here.

As one who can remember when there was so little traffic that there was not a overpass at First Street and 29, my perspective is that I've been slowly and continually been bombarded with projects that slowly add more traffic and am resistant to adding more.

As one who can remember driving out Browns Valley Road and viewing the idyllic scene of cattle grazing alongside the road and prune orchards alongside the roadway, I am not one who feels that more houses is an enhancement, even if people who make money off of them view them as beautiful. And I also hate the politic$ that developer$ bring to the $cene.

As one who has been sceptical of all the glowingly anticipated projects such as Copia, I've come to trust my judgements that epicuria wants to criticize. And as one who has walked in the area behind the cemetery down by Kaiser Steel and been deep in mud up to the tops of my boots, I stand by my characterization of the area as swampland. And as one who cannot defend myself against the blatantly false characterizations made against me in 300 words, I don't like the 300 word limits.

Print a schedule of your tours, and I will attend one if they are convenient for me. I have an odd schedule due to my schedule.

I am nearly always the one who plays devil's advocate when I am around or in discussions that seem to be overly opinonated in one direction.And why does NVR software claim both 300 and 312 words ?waresayboth300and312words? "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:59 AM:

" Some thoughts:

I sat over the Kaiser Steel area and tried to envision a grid of 50 homes by 50 homes. I could barely envision 50 homes along the length. I sure couldn't envision them along the width.

As one subdivision is accepted, More along the same corridor can also soon be allowed. Empty space will be seen as opportunities by developers. Flooding that area is a bad precedent.

We constantly bemoan the lack of decent-paying jobs in the area. While the construction jobs of fattening the cash cow at Napa Pipe will soon disappear, there is a lot of coprorate park area in the corporate park area that could and should be easily expanded in my mind if we must blight the area with more structures. Large buildings already inhabit the area and little cookie-cutter house-shapes will clash aesthetically.

I sense that there are alot of compulsive shoppers here who can't see salesmen-type tactics, especially when they are very good.

And I got used to being criticized when I tried to tell people that the Clock Tower was a bad idea. I'm used to it. Have been for a long time. I have come to trust my instincts, and that trust very seldom fails me.

But being mis-represented and having assumptions made about my character that is unrelated to my profession are a different matter. I am decent enough to apologize when I am wrong. Even if I suspect I may not be.

So I apologize to Mr. Rogal, his local development company, and all of his local developers who only want what's best for us.

I also apologize for prople who can't interpret my sense of humour.

Why can't the NVR software count words correctly ? "

Paddy wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:45 PM:

" reason-ator - Nicely said. There are many, perhaps most, who believe just as you do. The personal attacks come from those with an antiquated philosophy that CA is for sale to the highest bidder and they can do as they please. The rules must change in the 21st century or there will be nothing left well before the 22nd century.

Mr. Rogal apparently wasn't in the county when we voted on the Wild Horse Ranch development. The residents of Napa have voted over and over and over again for slow and responsible growth and thousands of new dwellings is not what we want or need. "

epicuria wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:16 PM:

" I still think those longing for the good old days of cow pastures should vote with their feet and move to such (boring) areas. Others can choose to live in more urban areas if they want the amenities that come with higher density. Let those of us who welcome the 21st century and a more cosmopolitan Napa combining both lifestyles get on with more improvements that come with modest levels of planned growth.

It should be noted, too, that except for the commute congestion caused in American Canyon by those who don't live here, our traffic is benign compared to other communities in the Bay Area (though, admitedly, not compared to Napa's prune orchard days) .

The Napa Pipe project, because it is proposed by a man of vision and sensitivity to impacts, will add so much to our city, as he did with the Carneros Inn, which like the Napa Pipe land, was a previously blighted area. The obstructionists, on the other hand, are content to keep on whinging and moaning.

Epi.

P.S. I am just another resident living in a limited income senior's building with no ties to Napa Redevelopment Partners and no interest in pining for the past. "

Paddy wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:07 PM:

" epi - if you're so miserable here with us Joe Sixpacks in Hicksville why in the world would you stay here? Why did you move here? If you were raised here you must be one miserable old lady having to have put up with so many years of horrible agriculture.

I, on the other hand, LOVE IT HERE!!! I'd like to continue to LOVE IT HERE! So, quit the "whinging". "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:05 AM:

" I feel if people want to live in a cosmopolitan area they should move to a cosmopolitan area instead of ruining a treasured area with hillsides that aren't covered with houses and asphalt. You can't undo sprawl once you realize it was a mistake.

A few years ago, my family had 3 vehicles rear-ended in a year's time all within a 2 mile radius in this benign traffic that some people are so fond of and anxious to add cars and trucks to. I commute to Oakland every day. I know traffic of all kinds.

I suppose if I was stuck in a senior's building on a limited income, I wouldn't be too concerned about the future I was going to stick younger people with. I'd be looking for more immediate relief that is promised to be behind the smokescreen of a company anxious to capitalize on the public that they have deceived such as they have in such desirable urban sprawls that they have enhanced with concrete and stucco in the past while making a bunch of money and leaving the sprawl-lovers with headaches.

I know this sounds horrible, but I more than likely was here before most of the people who feel that this area is their's to ruin. I know that's selfish. But darn it, it is NOT right that profit-motivated entities can come in and ruin people's homes just because they have ruined other areas and accumulated tons of ill-gotten money that gives them the power to continue doing so.

Once the floodgates open at Napa Pipe, precedent will be set. Who will stop the housing sprawl if free reign is assumed ?

But that's just me. Evidently my wishes are not important, as some people have insinuated. "

epicuria wrote on Jan 9, 2009 10:05 AM:

" Reason-hater:

You can't seem to post on this subject without engaging in utter exaggeration.

Napa, against the sentiments of the good old boys and girls, has become cosmopolitan. It's far more interesting than when I first arrived 20 years ago. It has so much more to offer than the Buttercup, Genoa deli, Red Rock barbecue, a bowling alley, oh, and all the cows.

Now we have Wesla Whitfield singing at Silo's, the Jarvis Conservatory showing films and opera from Italy, the Napa Valley Opera House, Bounty Hunter, Ubuntu- yoga studio and the best vegetarian restaurant in the Bay Area, Le Toque in the new Westin Verasa, Oxbow marketplace--plus Di Rosa Preserve, Lincoln Theater and the Napa Valley Museum. All folded into one the most beautiful tableaus Mother Nature can provide. And all because we had limited growth in the Valley.

Since the hillsides are protected as is the Ag Preserve, it will only get better if those who pine for the past would stop their moaning. Fat chance.

The Napa Pipe plan is the very embodiment of anti-sprawl.

That your family members got rear ended is of course is a complete non-sequiter. It has to do with the drivers involved.

Your insult about my living situation is another non sequitur. Like others, I see NP as providing housing for my two offspring.

You're right about one thing. "I was here first" does sound horrible. "It's mine don't touch it" reflects the myopic selfishness of the obstructionists.

It's profit that has supported the amenities I mentioned above. And it's controlled growth that has made Napa a much better place to live. "

napagirl76 wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:44 AM:

" Keith- How do we know you well only sale these homes to napa residents and people who work in napa? how do we know that they won't be sold to people looking for a second home in the napa valley or people who work in a different county that well require them to drive the highways daily. You can't promise us that by any means.
If no schools are built there then that means either the schools well have to pay for busses or that parents who may work a 1/2 mile from there home at napa pipe well not only have to drive their child to school but then turn around and drive back towards south napa county (meaning more cars on the highway at peak times). And you can't expect NVUSD to pay to have schools built when they are cutting jobs and funding to our classrooms. If your really are looking to make this a great place then YOU would pay to have the schools built at napa pipe not only to cut down on traffic but to keep napa's schools from becoming more over crowned then they are. "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:48 AM:

" I don't know why people seem so anxious to believe that things such as the General Plan and Agricultural Preserve are going to protect us from the influxes of people that we seem to think are the elixir to cure our financial ills.

We have more and more agencies being concocted by governments that seem to fall to lobbies and below board
bidding for posts of power nowadays, and fewer and fewer choices being given to us by businesses that swallow up other business to drive out competition. Obviously, streamrolls choices and non-elcted politicians that may have gotten their power by offering more money to the apponter should casue us to think that things like the AgPreserve and General Plan are tenuous.

But if you trust your government to ignore money and embrace the will of the people and ignore the power of big business, notice things like-

Ma Bell has pretty much bought back all of her monopoly.

The Bay Bridge keeps costing more and more to cross. Nobody voted for the gazillion dollar boondogle that is the new bridge. We were promised the original bridge would be freeuntil it was paid for. Until it was paid for and government saw the opportunity to harvest more money.

So we have a government that breaks its promises and agreements to take in more money. How much do you think it will cost to build a bunch of multi-million homes on our hillsides other than some trips to Hawaii for politicians put in place be developers with elaborate plans. How much do you think it will cost these all-powerful companies to put a politician in place to grant them the ordinances they desire ?

Wanna buy a swamp or a bridge ? "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:36 PM:

" Epidural,

I'm sorry my responses keep disappearing.

I'm sorry if you don't understand that 3 crashes in stop-and-go traffic aren't obvious enough to you to make you realize that MORE cosmopolitan traffic isn't desirable.

And I'm sorry that I'm whining about the topic at hand while you're only whining about whining.

As our media outlets consolidate and condense, the media has more and more power to shape opinion to the wishes of the highest bidder. It goes beyong censoring posts on blogs. It illustrates how, as more and more wealthy people move into an area, they take over the decision-making to suit their own needs. To many of the players in today's world, they claim residence in several areas that they strive to shape to their fancy.

There are plenty of places to add a zillion houses without notice. But once we ruin Napa to fit the whims of the people who are rich enough to isolate themselves from the hades they've created, it can't be undone.

We're already getting more and more of the wonderful virtues of cosmopolity such as crime, gangs, and disappearing wildlands.

And you want more ? "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:11 PM:

" epicuria, you're right, my comment about your living situation was very poorly-worded, and I apologize. I have to back-up and re-type too often in these blogs, both because of my neural disease and the NVR's archaic software that tells me that I have 300 words and 312 words, both at the same time. And of course, my stupid keyboard that does what I tell it to.

All I was trying to say is that I myself don't think about how decisions I make are going to impact me fifty years down the road, so I can understand you having the same tendency to be short-sighted unless triggered to think a little deeper into the future.

My children have been fortunate enough to stumble into opportunities to continue to live here, and I fear my grandchildren won't have a wonderful place like Napa to raise their own kids. Even if they stay here and it looks like San Jose.

Do NOT trust your politicians and media to ignore pressures to throw us under the bus in order to further their careers and glom onto more taxable income. While you have noticed how bad the traffic is in American Canyon. keep in mind it was a nice place when it was Rio del Mar. Before it got American Canyon disease and ended up like even you admit that it is. We're at the same peril.

I'm surprized it's not more obvious to you.

We don't need to create the need for more Starbuck's.

And I apologize for my poorly-worded portrayal of you living situation and assessment of your look into the future. "

Paddy wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:24 PM:

" napagirl76 - You are making an excellent point when you write: " Keith- How do we know you well only sale these homes to napa residents and people who work in napa? how do we know that they won't be sold to people looking for a second home in the napa valley or people who work in a different county that well require them to drive the highways daily."

All of the above can and will occur because you can't dictate that the owner MUST work at a low paying job in Napa County.

Even if you could, I'm not sure that elitists like epicureall could really stand all the Joe Sixpacks moving in. She can't stand those already here. "

mgd09 wrote on Jan 9, 2009 4:44 PM:

" I can't believe people are still blogging (arguing) on this article. I think you guys should just meet in person and arm wrestle it out. "

109823 wrote on Jan 9, 2009 5:28 PM:

" On 1/4/09 Mr. Rogal mentions single family homes and single family subdivision. I think it's obvious that he isn't aware of the living conditions in the Napa Valley. "

cpslowine wrote on Jan 9, 2009 10:52 PM:

" I am all for an arm wrestle too! All of this arguing is ridiculous. Get over the fact that Napa is growing. For that matter all of California is growing. Why should Napa be excluded? Are that elitist or old fashioned? Even if CA was not growing at the rate that it is, this development would still be awesome. I wish that we could tear down Downtown Napa and rebuild with the Keith's vision for Napa Pipe. Downtown is out dated, out priced and down right boring.

I can't wait for the Napa Pipe development to be built. I will be the first to buy a home there because I want a better place to live.

Too bad that Woolworth's soda bar closed because all of you complainers no longer have a place to gather. "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 10, 2009 12:15 AM:

" I stand corrected.

I want more than 3200 houses at Napa Pipe. I think we should plow the vineyards over and plant wall-to-wall condos. I think all roads should only be one lane. I think everybody should just haand over a check to any developer who wants one. Of course, I want more cars. I thi k we should bus more gangs in and set them up with no-rent apartments, and offer them assault rifles, knives, and all the alcohol they can drink and all the ammo and meth that they can shoot as move-in bonuses. I think we can bring back smudge pots so we don't have to look at the hills, unless we all decide we want to cover them with houses.

See, I want what you want.

We can forget the past and we can send our young men and women overseas to invade thankless countries who will try and blow up our fine young people. And hopefully, when we forget our past triumphs, we can forget that that reason-hater gal was ever against all the great improvements he argued against.

Did I forget anything ? Oh, yeah, we need a few Walmarts, and some centers for wine and food.

It'll be paradise. It'll be vibrant and a great place to raise kids.

I hope. I hope. I really have seen what everyone else wants to welcome with open arms and wallets. We can be almost as terrific as LA.

What was I thinking ? Thanks for sharing your visions of what I almost tried to keep us from becoming.

It'll be great, won't it ? I can hardly wait.

We'll be a world class tourist avoidance. "

rogers wrote on Jan 10, 2009 9:44 PM:

" I agree with resonator here. I lived in Orange Co. and hated it. Yes, it offered a great deal of diversity in distraction but took hours to get to it because of population and cars. I came here because it was very different from those stifling environs.

Mr. Rogal has a long way to go to build trust in this community after the dirty campaign he and the “Keep Napa Napa” group pulled on our citizens.

I suspect Rogal’s real plan was probably for 2500-2900 homes. So they attempt 3200 knowing that if people buy it, they come out richer than they expected. On the other hand, they look honorable and willing to compromise if they fall back to what they really want.

The city and county need to review many possibilities for the use of that land, not the first project that comes along that a development group wants.

When will Napa get its head out of the sand and begin to fight with other counties who are tired of state mandated building? The state's formula for mandated low-cost housing is not what is necessarily best for this town or county. As long as it assumes it has no choice in the matter, we are at the mercy of large profit-driven corporations. "

rogers wrote on Jan 10, 2009 9:47 PM:

" cpslowine wrote “I wish that we could tear down Downtown Napa and rebuild with Keith's vision for Napa Pipe.”

That was the bad philosophy of the 60’s and 70’s when towns/cities throughout California began tearing down their old downtowns and replacing them with modern structures that reeked of sameness. Remember the lovely architecture of the clock tower in downtown Napa - gone.

Vallejo and Fairfield lost much of their history and identity as did Napa during those times. Today their downtowns are less unique and not so nice. The current attempt to rebuild Napa with an eye to the past reflects the intent to honor the history that makes this town unique. That is more attractive to residents and tourists than this project.

I do enjoy the new building along the downtown waterfront and our new bridges. But these are modest increases compared to 3,000 homes. Convert this valley to endless strip malls and collections of residences piled on top of one another turns us into another Walnut Creek or Concord. That’s not progress, just more of the same. "

reason-ator wrote on Jan 11, 2009 12:39 AM:

" One thing I'm trying to remember- was/is Mr. Rogal also involved with the funny games that were involved with the area around Hwy 12/121/Old Sonoma Road area where they took over the old unattractive RV storage area on the north side of the highway and made that a development of pricey cabins ( the name escapes me right now ) and 'resort' area.

I wish I could remember exactly what went on there, but I do remember it smelled suspicious, and I remember thinking it was so bad that the County would be wise never to get involved with that group again. They were very good at a weird bait-and-switch and other hocus-pocus stuff, and the methods just left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

While it is definitely an improvement over what it replaced, it looks awkward.

Does anyone remember the shenanigans that went on ? Can anyone refresh my memory ? Was Mr. Rogal involved in that mess ?

Perhaps Mr. Rogal can help me remember if he was associated with that project. Hopefully I'm mistaken. If so, I apologize to Mr. Rogal. But if I'm not mistaken, then I'm just that much more uneasy about trusting the group that wants to develop the Napa Pipe area. It would be a big mistake to get involved in those kind of deceptions again. Granted, the group was very good about being deceptive. And for that, I give them their proper due.

Geez, you'd think someone as cynical as I would be able to remember that situation, but I guess I sorta figured we'd never be so foolish to get involved with those people again...... "

Baffled Blogger wrote on Jan 11, 2009 2:12 PM:

" I suspect, Ms. kbf, that perhaps it is you who still don’t get it. Traffic is bad because there are too many people working in Napa who cannot live in Napa. If you take a good look you will see that a huge number of those jobs are within about three miles of Napa Pipe. Let some of those workers live nearby and some of the traffic disappears. Further, from what I learned on a Napa Pipe tour, there will be local marketing, shopping, dining, and entertainment at Napa Pipe, so people living there will not have to get into cars and go into the city for every minor need.

And to fmmt47 let me point out the obvious: Heavy industry of the type you wish for requires lots and lots of workers, and huge amounts of heavy industrial trucking, AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, requires housing for the thousands of new workers. Whether they are skilled or unskilled they still need a roof overhead. No housing near the jobs means more commuter traffic on the highway. That traffic, incidentally, would be IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE since today’s commuters would still be coming to work every morning.

ADDITIONAL NOTE OF IMPORTANCE: When Napa Pipe pulled out not one industrial company expressed the slightest interest in relocating to Napa. "

Baffled Blogger wrote on Jan 11, 2009 7:32 PM:

" Sickothis: Not sure what "worked great" for Pennsylvania. I lived there a
long time and industry simply left the state, first moving south, then in
more recent years moving to overseas. Examples of success were very few. The
steel industry was destroyed; this affected the coal mining industry; the
huge shoe manufacturing industry packed up and left for other continents.
They are not coming back unless workers in other countries get wages to
match ours, or until workers in this country are forced to match their lower
wages. [Heaven forbid].

glenroy: nuclear power plant? Think Shippensburg, Pennsylvania! Bet you
would not have wanted to live near that modest little meltdown.
kbf The government has a formula which sets the prices for "Affordable
Housing." It is not determined by a developer. This developer has already
offered an amount of affordable housing which is roughly double the required amount. "

Baffled Blogger wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:51 AM:

" fmmt: You point out that Napa Pipe was a pipe mill, and a steel fabrication
plant. That company closed up shop in Napa, sold the property, and they are
not coming back. It is hard to imagine that any other heavy industry will
want to come into what has now been proven a failed manufacturing location.

TO EVERYONE: I keep reading the same arguments or wishes that the past will
come back to Napa. It isn't going to happen. We need to think about how to
make things work for Napa's future, not dwell on what it was like in 1965.
HOW ABOUT EACH OF US TRYING TO COME UP WITH ONE GOOD AND WORKABLE IDEA. THEN
WE CAN DEBATE AND DISCUSS ON THESE PAGES HOW TO MAKE SOME OR ALL OF THEM
WORK! "

5TH GENERATION NAPAN wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:20 PM:

" Baffled Blogger lets get the facts straight. Napa pipe was going to be closed and sold by the Oregon parent company that wanted to move its operation closer to home. But the employees were going to buy it and continue the operation fitting in a world wide nitch gas pipe market that was profitable. But the Napa pipe group with the County supervisors BLOCKED this and the company move to (unwillingly) to Fairfield! You want to read about dirty pool, this whole venue stinks.
And for you people living here the last 20 years and are bored out of your mind. That means you got here in the 1980's, after redevelopement messed up this town royally. To bad you didn't see it here in the 1960's. A beautiful historic town (with buildings other cities would give there eye teeth for) with many many diverse stores to shop for everything. Maybe this wasn't Gothlem City, but it was a good family town where you could raise your kids, they could afford to buy homes here, because there were GOOD jobs here and it was a great town to live and be raised in. Too bad people don't know what a GOOD TOWN means now a days. Guess we have to have Ten regional shopping malls here with 5000 minimum wage jobs to be a good town.
The one premimum thing I miss in this town? The helpful and caring attitude people had for each other on an everyday basis. But i guess that came from the fact people that could live comfortably and enjoy life and not be strapped with living on the ragged edge of life trying to make ends meet. "

moldloft wrote on Jan 12, 2009 3:10 PM:

" I remember when they's nothin but turkeys and prunes on at that land and all the kid's is happy and running about. Then the south had to go and mess it all up with they slavery and grand draggon. I wish those real good days could come back again with nothin but turkeys and train whistles and no barge manafaturer. Now they got the oil that bubbles up and the ponds that burn. I blame that old Enron. "

Steve Orndorf wrote on Jan 13, 2009 3:17 PM:

" 5TH GENERATION NAPAN--As the person responsible for coordinating the sale of the property on behalf of Oregon Steel Mills, I can assure you that OSM's only interest was maximizing its income through accepting the highest qualified bid received on the parcel that was for sale. There was no offer by any group of ex-employees for the entire parcel as advertised. To suggest that some sort of conspiracy existed between OSM and the county board of supervisors to block anything is ludicrous. The development proposed by Keith Rogal and his partners should be considered based solely on its merits without the introduction of spurious, sensationalized, and self-serving allegations. "

5th generation napan wrote on Jan 23, 2009 8:28 AM:

" Mr. Steve Orndorf, please accept my appologies for my miss statement. I in no way infered there was a "conspiracy". I am glad you set the record straight that it was strictly a "maximizing of its income" for "Oregon Steel Mills" to shut down a profitable "nitch market manufacturing facility" and move it back to the parent location. I guess everyone wants to "protect" their "local" employment for the people that live by them. I guess OREGON Steel Mill is no exception. So i guess the quotes in the Napa Register were miss interperted when they stated the employees went to fairfield or suisun to continue a form of the company. Money is money and it seems eveyone wants to protect their own. Again i am sorry for the miss quote. I still believe this is the perfect site for manufacturing, creating high pay blue collar jobs! Self-Serving, ya I guess, I'd love to live and WORK by home with a high paying job that creates something, but I see I'm the only one that beleives this. So sorry I might have "sensationalized" Mr Rogal's plan. My appologies "

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: