" This article was supposed to be posted Monday but for reasons beyond our control has been posted today.

Since then under great protest the County has agreed to study the issue more and set up a stakeholders group to vet the new ordinance.

I do not think we are out of the woods yet on this one, though. "

" Glad to hear the county has agreed to further study.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by your comment that rich folks "don't deserve to have rights." Care to elaborate? "

" Fire Mike, I am being sarcastic, I am trying to say how it feels to me to constantly have my right to use my property regulated away from me by other people.

One of the things you hear from people is, well, they are rich so so what? So what if they have to spend a lot of money and years of time on nonsense regulations just to use what is theirs to begin with.

I was particularly thinking of the women in Yountville who protested the Nord property who have second homes there. "

" Michael writes: "This is a threat to every property owner in Napa County"...

No it's not. This is about the Ag Preserve Michael. It's easy to ignore that fact when you have an ulterior motive. "

" Michael writes: "Property is only worth what you can do with it, and not being able to use it the way that the law legally has spelled out for some time amounts to stealing someone’s money, same difference"....

That property is, per acre, some of the most valuable property in the world not on the CA coastline. It's value is primarily due to it's viticultural nature. It's time to realize you don't live in the 19th century and come to grips with the fact that elimination of agricultural property is a very short-sighted venture and needs to be stopped.

If Nord wants to build six homes sell that property buy 6 lots build 6 homes invest the rest and let his children see what a smart man he is. "

" Only in this case it appears that one wealthy weekender has stuck the needle in the wannabe gentry’s balloon. Raising the issue of just when does the idyllic country life conflict with the real world of it’s mine to do with as I wish. The tempest is principally the concern of one set of wealth’s perceived ownership of a vineyard view and another’s wish to fix up the family legacy.

Ever notice the self-interest here? It is not exactly the altruism of developing ones property for the benefit of the community rather ability to pass wealth from one restricted set to another.

Anyone clamoring for affordable housing on these lot lines? Rather it is two sides of the same set of I’ve got mine greed. I see some real crocodile tears here. If your vineyards are worth more in housing then the wine industry losses a few gallons of Cabernet no big deal, the country life is preserved for the set that maintains the ability to own it.

Its merely one set of property Barons quibbling with another. "

" Every parcel on the ag preserve has the right to build a house on it. People have to live somewhere.

It is part of the ag preserve and an important part.

You all have no idea what people's situations are. They could be on the verge of bankruptcy for all you know.

I think the elimination of agricultural property in Napa would be a mistake, but we have to do it according to the rules that we have set down.

Just to say that the elimination of agricultural property in general is a mistake is not true. Right now in the central valley they are stupidly growing things like rice which is water intensive, there is not enough water in California to grow all the crops that are planted and we are losing the aquifer.

Its interesting, some of you have such hostility to "rich" agriculture interests, but the policies you promote play right into the hands of only allowing the super rich to even live here.

If you can't keep your development rights, and you have to sell your property, and you can never divide it into smaller segments to sell, then you have to sell the whole thing.

If you have to sell the whole thing, the only entities that can afford to buy it are corporations and mega wealthy.

Families that have lived here a long time get squeezed out, which is what is happening, eventually none of you will afford to live here due to policies you yourselves are backing out of resentment to the rich, how ironic. "

" I agree 100% with you, Michael.

I am appalled that those with second homes built on former ag lands feel that their neighbors must preserve their views--as if they have any right to say what happens on his property within the law that existed when he bought that land.
Mr. Nord is not asking for an unreasonable accomodation of his rights. Density on his property will still be extremely low, even if each parcel has a new home on it.
And, yes, the irony of no-growth activists vs. "affordable housing" activists, many of whom claim to be one in the same is also breathtaking.

I've questioned your stats on Napa Pipe in the past, but not because I am opposed to development in general as many Napans seem to be, but just to keep the discussion honest.

Never underestimate the power of class-baiting, anyway. I do think Bill has it right on this one. The rest of us can sit back and watch, but I'm compelled, I guess, to back the rights of a man who has worked the earth on his own property for years and years over the belief of rights of a woman who drives in from time to time to enjoy his labor and expense. Something about that just gets under my skin. "

" Thanks Steph, I appreciate it. I think most people here are actually oblivious to what is really going on, but how would you know unless someone told you. And it is the kind of thing people don't talk about. Their money, but not every grower is mindlessly rich by any means at all.

It is an assumption that six houses will even be built there, and even at that it may be decades before they do. Nord has six grandchildren, maybe he just wanted to leave each of them a parcel.

The problem with the housing regulations around here is what we end up with, 70 to 100 mansions a year with zero houses below that. All the regs are keeping that in place. Is that what we want? Because that is what we are getting. "

" It is interesting that the no growth special interests are avoiding this blog. That in its self is cause for concern. Blogger is right, this fight is not over and the special interests are laying low so that they start the stakeholder group meetings and muster more support to eventially put an end to more property owners rights, These people want to own your property without buying it. It is nothing more than class envy and "hate the rich" but many land owners are not rich and purchased or inherited decades ago. Blogger is so right aboubt the consequences of beating down these families, you will get what you deserve if you do it. Good character requires fairness. "

" You people? NB hasn’t your writing and arguing experience taught you the incivility of referring to people in broad generalizing categories? Oh well what fun huh?

Mr. Nord has every right to exercise his property prerogatives especially because he was here before the formulation of the ag-preserve and has his ability to subdivide certain portions of his property grandfathered in if I read the drift of what has happened. He is after all looking out for his own self interest. He has also known for forty years what his options were. I will have a much different opinion when you subdivide your acreage.

Frankly I don’t care what anyone’s personal stress might be that is a lamentable imaginative invention. Wishing to pass on their wealth has more to do with aristocracy than land use rights. If there is a sudden death in the family or one is struck by cancer and must sell the family homestead that might garner more sympathy but because capital is held in land (a loose interpretation admittedly) and that there are limitations placed on the use of that capital does not create a reason for sympathy or injustice. Hans Kornnel and many others found out what it was like to be land poor.

The effort to turn the argument on class struggle is merely more illumination of gentry on gentry Babbitry than anyone's right to dispose of their property as they wish. "

" delphi, great comment and I absolutely agree. I am actually starting to wonder why we even need this stakeholder group. This system is not broken, why are we even trying to fix it? "

" Bill, in this case we have to keep it general or it will be blocked by the comment patrol, and for good reason.

You are still calling it subdividing. No new parcels are created so it is not subdividing.

But rearranging parcels can be the difference between bankruptcy, selling out or remain solvent. If someone were facing that, which I suspect as the real estate market now unfolds, are you saying that that is imaginary stress? If so you have never been in that position. "

" Hey, my miscue. Put a castle on every 25 acres, what’s the problem? Right next to a couple of wind machines preferably.

Add some quarters for the household servants and some out buildings for the field help.

You are right it is not about a new subdivision. I do relish the "I've got mine crowd" when their pectorals get tweeked. The rest of us largely don't care about the rights of Valley vineyard vistas or the possible reasons a land poor speculator might have to his personal fortune. There is still such a thing as moral hazard or does that only apply to working types foolish enough to desire an ever-smaller piece of dreamland.

You are the one suggesting a full panoply of reasons for Mr. Nord’s actions. His reasons or intent are his and his alone and not the concern of the rest of us. His property rights are our concern in so much as he is properly assured in maintaining them and that one right does not truly trump another generating wider harm or violate what we all hold in common. "

" Bill, it's probably a good philosophy to not worry about other people's stress, imaginary or otherwise, but don't support arbitrary laws or expensive and meddlesome lawsuits that hamstring others from taking care of their own finances, or from managing their own family property. Let people manage their own stress; we don't need or want confiscatory regulation that removes options and rights from land owners. "

" delphi--
Yes, maybe we should pass laws that eliminate the right to own second homes. Second homes waste resources and encourage development creep on pristine lands. Nobody needs a second home. What an outrage that anyone should have a second home to drive (!) to. While we're at it, let's limit square footage per inhabitant, too, because excess square footage causes waste and excess use of precious natural resources both in building materials and in climate control.

Careful what you wish for.

Except the Sierra Club elite execs never seem to abide by their own principles. So how does that work, anyway? "

" Steph, I'll assume you jumped on the first post and didn't catch the last post.

NB is worried about people’s personal reasons for wanting to manipulate their property rights and that is just not germane to the issue.

The ag-perserve is all about limiting the use of personal property. Guess what, all that personal freedom to do as I wish with what I believe is mine is really bull. It is always a matter of who gets to limit use and to for what means any thing is used, your body or your property and the struggle is always about the me and never about the whole. It’s housed in such words as society, culture, mores, rights, community, norms and the list goes on. Liberty is not about personal ownership or property and what we can do with our toys and how we can control them from the grave, it’s about being.

Uh,oh see now, I went all existentialist again. "

" steph
I'm confused. Are you attacking my support for local land owners? I never attacked the Yountville residents for being second home owners, nor would I do that.
Actually, there is a movement by the special interests to limit the square footage of houses people can build in rural areas of the county. Do you think this is right?I'm glad you brought this topic up. Land owners rights are all about fairness. "

" No, delphi, I'm strenuously agreeing with you.
:)

I'm pointing out the irony that the second-home owners display when they claim to be all about protecting land.
I liked what you said about "getting what you deserve" if you attack the land owners.
But my favorite line of yours is when you correctly point out that some want to own others' land without buying it.

I'm just agreeing with you--maybe going a step too far. I was actually a little concerned you might think I was arguing against you--sorry if I was ambiguous. "

" If Nord is doing this due to financial hardship he should sell his property for the tens of millions that it's worth and buy six or eight lots for his kids.

It's ridiculous to defend someone's right to develop some of the richest agricultural land in the world. Once this land is gone it's not coming back.

It's time to stop defending the 18th century mentality that agricultural land is cheap and can be done with as one pleases. It's not cheap. It's a very finite resource and becomes more and more so with each passing day. "

" The question, Paddy, Is whose resource is it and who exercises rights and restrictions over it? "

" The way I see it, the land is Nord's to own and operate in order to make as much money as he possibly can in an agricultural endeavor. However, the resource itself cannot be divided or modified in any way that impacts the ability of this landowner or future landowners to utilize the resource for agricultural purposes.

In fact, I'd like to see some financial benefits given to these land stewards in the event they are unable to realize a sustainable profit for reasons defined by the Ag Preserve. "

" As we continue chipping away at all of our agricultural lands, where do we plan to grow all of the necessary food to feed the increasing numbers of people arriving in California?

And when energy costs become prohibitively expensive, who will we choose to blame for the increased costs of transporting food from elsewhere?

When the land that once grew agricultural products is then covered by asphalt roofs, concrete driveways, patios and swimming pools, we can never again revert it back to it's food producing potential, short of a revolution.

It's ironic isn't it? We put more people on the land that should have been preserved to feed them.

According to a study titled "Food, Land, and the U.S. Economy" by Cornell University's David Pimentel, an estimated one acre of land is lost for every person added to the U.S. population. It takes 1.2 acres of farmland to sustain our present dietary standards. With the current population projections, by 2050, farmland availability will be reduced to .6 acres per person. Our dependency on other countries as a source of food (similar to our dependency for energy) will increase costs considerably and create an environment of dependency and hostility that's going to hurt us greatly. Every bit of chipping away leads us closer to this scenario.

We are not immune from it. There are other factors to consider as well, such as climatic changes on agricultural production, further reducing availability. Preserving agricultural lands is a much bigger issue than grapes, wealth preservation and adjoining property owners desires to maintain a scenic view. "