Actually, we will compromise, if that will lead to the decision that is best for everyone. Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance members are not inflexible people. The truth is, we will gladly yield to compelling evidence, sound reasoning, and common sense. We believe that every idea should stand or fall on its merits, and we are eager to examine the merits of any issue, and to enter into discussion with anyone, anytime, about the merits. All of our letters to the editor, letters to the supervisors, and presentations at the public hearings have been on the merits. Many of us have asked the supervisors and their staff in person and in writing to please articulate their arguments in favor of the SSO, so that we may examine them and respond, so that the issues can be debated on their merits.
But no one has taken us up on it. Planning staff and their consultants have brushed aside our legitimate questions about their "science". The Ag groups and the Supervisors have consistently retreated to their political reasons for passing the ordinance. No one seems willing to engage in the kind of discussion of the issues that could lead to the decision that is best for everyone.
In a recent editorial, the Napa Valley Register seemed to be demanding that we compromise our position just for the sake of compromise, without offering any logical reason why we should change our position. What the Register meant, when it naively demanded that we compromise, is that we should enter into "positional bargaining" rather than a rational discussion of the merits. But positional bargaining is an inefficient process that leads to unwise decisions. It is merely a form of haggling that has nothing to do with the issues, and does nothing to address the underlying problems.
NVLSA does not wish to compromise in this particular way. However, we remain ready to engage in discussions of the issues on their merits, and to work cooperatively to arrive at the decision that is best for everyone.