Lake Luciana vote was a mistake
By MICHAEL HALEY
October 28th, 2009
September 23rd, 2009
August 31st, 2009
August 20th, 2009
The vote against the Lake Luciana project today flies in the face of County rules for acceptable uses in the open space area of the agricultural watershed, and was a mistake.
As a member of the most recent General Plan Steering Committee, I can tell you that allowing golf courses was clearly the intention of the steering committee. Now, we are not following our own rules.
In order to justify turning down this clearly legal use, Diane Dillon went so far as to say that the findings for recreation did not include socializing, and since people would be socializing at the golf club, she rejected it. That was her main reason.
Carol Kunze of the Sierra Club said that the golf course would be located far from urban centers among her reasons to turn it down.
I cannot take this reasoning seriously. If that were true then we also could not have recreation at Lake Berryessa, or planned trail hikes. Unless we ban talking on the hikes, that is, and move Berryessa close to an urban center.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that with the election of Keith Caldwell to the Board of Supervisors there is a plan to stop any uses of land in the county besides grape growing. The Board of Supervisors now has three solid votes to carry out this plan and this appears to be happening.
I think it is a mistake. No one wants to see any more development in the valley than necessary, myself included, but we do need some other development. We do need opportunities for recreation, and we do need housing for non multi millionaires. Soon, we are going to need the money too. We put these needs into policy when we do General Plans, then promptly ignore them.
Besides not being fair to property owners who spend a lot of time and money that ends up wasted, we are also not meeting many of our own needs. I think that some recreation and some affordable and other housing can co exist with grape vines, to make Napa a better place.
We are entering a time of economic hardship, and more development means jobs for workers and revenue for the government. When completed, Lake Luciana’s property taxes alone would have meant big money for the schools, with few if any added students.
The wine industry appears to be at the beginning of a significant turning point. At a recent wine symposium it was noted that the nature of wine marketing is shifting and that lower priced wines are the growing segment. Americans are turning to thrift, and it is quite possible that the days of high end wine sales could be diminished for some time.
What that means is that winery profits will fall, and grape growers will get lower prices for their grapes. I am already preparing for my income as a grape grower to go down, because it is going to go down. In this environment, no one is going to plant 250 acres in grapes at Lake Luciana, there is no way to make money, even if it is technically feasible.
This is going to affect Napa profoundly. We are going to need to stimulate the economy for both employment and to maintain government revenues.
A few well chosen projects could give back many benefits without hurting the Ag Preserve. Zero development besides grape vines is an extreme position that should be rejected.
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.
4gnapan wrote on Jun 6, 2009 10:06 AM:
There's a perfectly fine golf course right "next door". Is it making money?.. Is it generating property taxes for Pope Valley?.. or is it just being used as leverage to promote yet more deveopment in the area?
Does the valley really need another mecca for the very rich and foolish? Look at Silverado CC, a fine example of what happens when this sort of thing gets it start "oh, it wont be huge, and it wont sprawl.. " .. uh huh.. one can see the new developments from just about anywhere in the valley, as the cancer of ugly, monstrous homes sprawls up the hillside.
oh, I guess thats why they need the new one in Pope, because its getting crowded at Silverado... "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 6, 2009 10:42 AM:
Most developments cost OUR government more than it takes in with new taxes.
Developers always underestimate the impact of their development ideas since they won't be paying for those things.
I'm glad to see a halt in developments inside the Ag Preserve and the owners should sell their land if they don't want to live within this community and its' rules.
It's interesting to hear the whining about the coming financial bad times coming from the well-to-do, many of whom made big bucks during that past two decades while incomes were stagnant for the rest of us. NOW, they want to tell us about jobs.
The truth is that the kind of jobs they are talking about are the ones that do not lift people out of the poverty engendered by the MINE-MINE-MINE brigade.
~Ruff "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 10, 2009 7:26 AM:
None of them commiserating with you about the poor downtrodden golf course developers.
Evidently, the supervisors vote was not a mistake that riled up NVR readers.
Most people are HAPPY to see the 'Ag Preserve Preserved' using methods you don't approve of.
~Ruff "
TAXPAYER wrote on Jun 11, 2009 11:55 AM:
ProAngwinConTriad wrote on Jun 12, 2009 4:04 PM:
Golf is not what it once was. On September 1, 2006, U.S. News and World Report called it the “Tiger effect.” Where golf had boomed in the early Tiger years, reality was catching up. By 2005 there was a decline of courses. This has continued. In 2008 new courses were 20% of the heyday. According to EARTH GOLF 12/8/2008, rounds of golf have dropped substantially with course closures in lockstep. Public courses in at least two states are contemplating closure to stop their drain. Davis Love III was quoted in the same article. He had “planned for a slowdown not a meltdown.” I have a friend with a golf course near Sacramento. He tells me that at least 5 courses have closed within a 20-mile radius in the last 6 months. One of these, Grizzly Ranch, reportedly absorbed $20 million in investor’s money.
The Aetna/Luciana angels may have had their wings singed they may be lucky. Of course, the issue before the Supervisors was the General Plan, not economics. While they were right on the General Plan, (It is memorialized in a written document, not Haley's brain cells.) the benefits of nipping something so unsuitable are great. The fiscal and emotional stress on the community and County had this project circled the drain would have been extraordinary.
It is unfortunate that the equally mismatched Triad project did not receive as sublime a benediction. "
mom2 wrote on Jun 13, 2009 9:19 AM:
Word wrote on Jun 14, 2009 10:36 AM:
Haley's persistant press for using agricultural land for urban job development is the worn-out, near-sighted perspective that's led to some of the most over-crowded, resource depleted, economically disadvantaged communities in the state. Napa County's agricultural and open space lands are its lifeblood and should be protected for the long-term. "
thoughtank wrote on Jun 15, 2009 2:25 AM:
Thanks to the three supervisors (Diane Dillon, Brad Wagenknect and Keith Caldwell) for their courageous votes!
The other two supervisors, Mark Luce and Bill Dodd, always vote a pro-development ticket. They represent their wealthy corporate development interests, not the people of Napa county. "