Napa Pipe homes a boost to economy?
By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer
November 19th, 2009
October 25th, 2009
October 5th, 2009
September 27th, 2009
September 23rd, 2009
September 18th, 2009
September 9th, 2009
November 27th, 2009
November 25th, 2009
The controversial Napa Pipe development proposed for south Napa County would create thousands of jobs and pour billions of dollars into the local economy, according to a report commissioned by Napa Pipe developers.
A fiscal impact report prepared by Economics Research Associates projects that the Napa Pipe project would bring $2.1 billion to Napa County and create 1,300 permanent jobs.
Between 2010 and 2020, Napa Pipe developers would spend approximately $1 billion on construction, according to the report, resulting in a $1.6 billion boost to Napa County’s economy in direct and indirect impacts. During the same time period, new residents and employees at Napa Pipe would generate a reported $440 million, bringing the total benefit to Napa County to $2.12 billion, according to the report.
During the 11-year anticipated build-out period, Napa Pipe would create 1,200 jobs annually, the report states.
When the project is completed in 2020, the report states, ongoing expenditures from new employees and new residents at Napa Pipe would add $92 million annually to the Napa County economy and result in 1,300 permanent jobs.
The report assumes that the Napa Pipe development would include industries that would both bring in new money from outside of Napa County and encourage the circulation of existing money in the county. For example, the report points out, the proposed condominium hotel would attract visitors who may not otherwise have chosen to stay in Napa County. The report estimates that Napa Pipe would bring in about 53,000 tourists a year once the hotel is built in 2013.
The report does not address whether or not the Napa Pipe hotel would siphon away money from the other hotels proposed for Napa County, a concern that some critics of the project have expressed.
The majority of the jobs immediately created by the Napa Pipe project would be in construction, according to the report. During the final year of the pre-construction period, it is expected that Napa Pipe would create 180 jobs a year.
In 2014 — at the end of the first of three proposed construction phases — the report projects Napa Pipe would create 1,350 new jobs, mostly in construction. The number of new jobs would jump to nearly 2,200 by the end of the third phase in 2020, according to the report, with far more jobs coming from the commercial development of the property.
Eve Kahn, chairwoman of the group Get A Grip On Growth, which opposes the Napa Pipe project, is skeptical of the report’s results, though she acknowledges she has not reviewed the report itself.
“In general,” Kahn said, “homes do not cover the cost. If you build housing, it almost never covers the cost of services” provided by government agencies, such as police, fire and schools.
However, a previous report from 2008 maintained that the Napa Pipe project would have no negative impact on the local governments responsible for providing services to its residents.
The new study is one of several as the environmental impact report is prepared for the controversial project, the largest of its kind in the history of the county. If approved, the mixed-use development on the site of the former Napa Pipe and Kaiser Steel operations would feature 2,580 townhomes, a hotel, restaurants, office space and light industrial use.
The environmental study is expected to go before the Napa County Board of Supervisors later this year. County officials have been interested in the project because it would help the county reach affordable housing goals for years to come. Officials from the city of Napa oppose the project, which is just outside city limits.
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.
napablogger wrote on Apr 27, 2009 12:33 AM:
The idea that development costs more in services to the government is an old saw that does not include tax revenue after it is built. That many consumers will generate tremendous sales tax revenue from local businesses much of which will go to local governments in part.
If you don't believe me take a look at American Canyon. Wal Mart wouldn't build until AmCan had built enough housing to support it, which they did, and now the City is reaping the benefits of all those tax dollars. But you have to have the population base to support the businesses.
I was thinking about the foolishness of turning down the Lake Luciana project even though 70% of the neighbors wanted it, just in the name of no growth gone wild.
That project if it were already built would have generated at least a million a year in property taxes for the schools alone. Think the schools could have used an extra million in Napa this year?
If Napa becomes the County of No just like the Republicans in Congress then we are also going to become the county of NO money, no tax collections, and no way to serve the large health and human services needs we have here, among other things.
Do we really want to go down that road? because we are dangerously close. When we start talking about not letting someone build houses on ten plus acre sites because someone likes to walk their dog there we are really going over the edge. "
GET REAL wrote on Apr 27, 2009 6:31 AM:
If you build it they willl come... "
mominapa wrote on Apr 27, 2009 7:40 AM:
jefferson wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:18 AM:
notpc wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:25 AM:
napadad wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:29 AM:
and was told, and I quote "we dont like people coming on the property taking pictures because we dont know where the pictures will end up". I dont really know what that means, or where a photograph of a property that has been photographed for decades could "end up" but this is indicative of the developers transparency (in my opinion) or lack of it. I do know there are no quarentees that Napa county companies will get the bids for construction and on a job this big there will be heavy hitters bidding. Or that local business will be able to or want to take a chance on this project when the doors open. And then there are the 1300 permanent jobs, no job seekers from vallejo, benecia, fairfield, vacaville or sonoma will fill any of those jobs. How many of the construction companies on the riverfront project are napa companies? "
4gnapan wrote on Apr 27, 2009 9:38 AM:
Napa Pipe is going to make one entity money, and it wont be the locals.
Do we really need another "Silverado" here? "
howiseeit wrote on Apr 27, 2009 10:24 AM:
Those are the roads a lot of us take when we have to go east during busy traffic hours for Jameson Canyon Road. The additional population in the Napa Pipe project will make it impossible to get through the south county.
Many people think there are too many accidents on Jameson Canyon Road. Just wait until traffic doubles or triples on the roads I mentioned above.
I don't see how the development of the Napa Pipe property for homes can be a long term and sustainable win-win for anyone other than the developers. "
mykdgirl54 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:05 AM:
manxkat wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:28 AM:
109823 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:28 AM:
bennyd wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:43 AM:
littlered56 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:47 AM:
I do not think bids should be given based on where bidders live. If an out of town contractor has the abilitey for bonding and is low bid so be it. Why would you give a job to a person because of where he lives and not to the best qualified. I assume anyone hired would move closer to their job. I suspect the homes will have a hefty property tax coming into Napa County. It sure may help in the long run of things. "
Paddy wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:52 AM:
Mr. Rogal spent far too much on this property and is determined to stick it to the city and county to recoup his bad investment. I'm sick of the Napa Register providing him with free access for his propaganda push. Do they believe the residents of Napa are so ignorant that we'd fall for this baseless arguement? "
reason-ator wrote on Apr 27, 2009 12:38 PM:
I predicted we'd start hearing these kind of sales pitches, but it took longer than I thought it would.
Obviously, I'm convinced by this expected step in the bargaining and compromise process.
This whole process is so transparent it would be hilarious if it wasn't going to end up so sadly.
Just remember to vote out all those that we can who leave us with the mess. "
littlered56 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 1:25 PM:
Welcome to the 21st century. . "
epicuria wrote on Apr 27, 2009 1:54 PM:
Keith Rogel did not overpay for the reuse he envisioned. We'll see if his foresight is practical and can be implemented. I believe it is and will be built in due time, with those who want to turn back the clock continuing to offer nothing but lamentations. "
Sickothis wrote on Apr 27, 2009 4:43 PM:
Published: April 27, 2009
The unsold inventory index for existing, single-family detached homes in March was 5 months, less than half the 12.2 months for the same period a year ago, according to a report Monday from the California Association of Realtors.
http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/04/27/daily2.html?surround=etf "
crymeariver wrote on Apr 27, 2009 7:17 PM:
But while we are at it, count me in as a buyer at Napa pipe. I would love to smell the sweet stench of the napa river, and the nearby sewage plant. I would enjoy that healthy, uncontaminated soil and I look foward to that gusty wind. Napa Pipe = my dream location to live.
(nothing but sarcasm_ "
rico wrote on Apr 27, 2009 7:27 PM:
sotto voce wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:01 PM:
It is extremely affordable, but would you live there? REO's sell for less than $175.
Don't we ever learn? "
LMW wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:28 PM:
vocal-de-local wrote on Apr 27, 2009 10:14 PM:
We need more population growth in order to create more tax dollars, but then after awhile, we've exhausted them, so we must further expand our population to gain more tax dollars etc etc? Where does it stop?
Your type of thinking leads to places resembling Mexico City. I have never in my life interacted with anyone who was so pro growth. "
littlered56 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 10:40 PM:
The point I was trying to make about Westwood is people just do not support subdivision in Napa.I think people fear their property will devalue if there is more comptention on the ..But I think this might turn out to really work and make a good tax base for the county..I sure hope so.
I wonder what the good people of Napa are doing to rech out to the kids in /westwood. Here in St Paul they have started a police cadette program. the little asian kids look so cute they are very short but they are trying wish there was something like it for Westwoodkids
Market, "
Paddy wrote on Apr 27, 2009 10:53 PM:
What insanity has gripped those in this populace who want to live in this planned quagmire? Or is it that you demand cheap labor and believe this to be your personal hamlet for exploited labor?
For those of you who can't wait to live is such a sardinesque community there are many opportunities in Southern California and real estate is going dirt cheap. Enjoy yourselves! "
reason-ator wrote on Apr 28, 2009 12:17 AM:
As a matter of fact, some of them sound as if they could write sales brochures. What a coincidence.
To me, it's a simple as this - if Mr. Rogal wants to spend the money to build two interchanges on the highways his profit-center is going to sit in the middle of, and add at least one extra lane on those highways for at least four or five miles in each direction BEFORE he starts to build his project ( because the tens of thousands of workers his economic studies are projecting will need the roadways expanded just to get to work, won't they ? Let alone the trucks for the millions of yards of dirt.... ), then I wouldn't object to the mess.
But somehow, I don't think he wants to do that for us. We're not as important to him as he is. He will only do the minimum that is required of him. All his efforts are in the selling of the project to us and the government who he needs to convince to take the responsibility for the mess. "
epicuria wrote on Apr 30, 2009 12:15 AM:
Epi "
Paddy wrote on May 7, 2009 9:58 AM:
The 18th century menatality that massive development can occur without negatively impacting the surrounding communities quality of life (or, incredibly, somehow making it better) need to read the newspapers of communities who have overbuilt. Why in the world would we sign up for those nightmares? When do we finally say 'enough!'? I think that day is here. "