What is the Fair Payment for Public Benefit Act? (Measure A)
It is a Napa County voter initiative that gives individual property owners suffering a decrease in property value caused by new Napa County land use restrictions the right to either: 1) fair compensation for their loss or 2) the right to have the new restrictions removed.
Why do we need it?
Under current law the County can enact land use restrictions with significant adverse impacts on property values, yet owe the impacted property owners nothing. Under current County policy, no legal “taking” has occurred and no payment is due as long as any economic value remains in an impacted property.
This policy is unfair. If land use restrictions are enacted to secure public benefits, then the cost of securing them should be shared by the public. The costs of securing public benefits should not be unfairly imposed on a few.
Will it threaten the Ag Preserve?
No. Measure J ensures that Ag zoning and minimum parcel sizes cannot be changed by anyone but the voters. Measure J can be renewed without triggering claims for compensation because Measure J is not a land use restriction, it is a restriction on the authority of the BOS. In addition, all renewals of existing laws are exempt from the Fair Payment for Public Benefit Act, and in any case, Measure J will be renewed by the voters, and all actions by the voters are also exempt from Measure A.
Will it destroy our rural quality of life?
No. Napa County already has strict protections for our rural quality of life. None of those protections can trigger any damage claims under this initiative.
Will it bankrupt the County?
No. This initiative does not increase the cost of any new land use restriction. It merely requires that the costs already inherent in new restrictions be recognized and allocated fairly. If the County administers the Act in good faith, no money need ever change hands. Ordinances can be crafted in ways to minimize economic damage, and in cases where damage occurs, the Act provides the County the flexibility to ease the offending restrictions or to enter into compromise solutions to alleviate the damage without costing the County a dime.
Will it generate a flood of lawsuits?
No. The high cost of litigation will discourage frivolous suits. Lawyers will not take these cases on a contingency basis because claim resolutions will probably not involve cash payments.
Will it encourage responsibility and fairness?
Yes. The Act ensures that as we continue to protect our county’s rural character, we will act responsibly to ensure that the means we employ to achieve our goals are fair and equitable, and not unfairly burdensome on a few.
Will it protect individual citizens?
Yes. It will help defend them from overly zealous environmental advocates who feel entitled to take without compensation what others have worked hard to acquire. It will help ensure that the value of our primary asset will not be confiscated or destroyed to serve some public goal unless we are fairly compensated.
Why do we need protection?
For the last 35 years, Napa County property owners have been at the mercy of the whims of our elected representatives. Properties have been down-zoned, long-standing commercial uses have been made non-conforming, huge minimum parcel sizes have been enacted, parcels under common ownership have been involuntarily combined, and building and planting restrictions have been added without any compensation to anyone. Families have been forced to sell their property when someone dies, because the property can no longer be divided among the heirs to settle the estate. Long time owners have been forbidden to add second or third homes to the family property to provide a place for their adult children and grandchildren to live. Property owners have been denied the right to sell part of their property to finance medical care or their retirement.
Although this initiative does not redress any of those wrongs, it provides us some protection from the burdens of new restrictions that might be proposed in the future, such as the recently overturned Stream Setback Ordinance.
Will it enrich speculators and developers?
No. It does not allow any new uses, does not encourage development, does not change any zoning, and does not repeal any land use restrictions. It merely provides solid Napa County citizens some long overdue protection from future regulations that might otherwise unfairly penalize them.
SUMMARY: The Fair Payment for Public Benefit Act:
- Does not change any existing land use regulations.
- Does not change any zoning
- Does not allow any new uses.
- Does not encourage development.
- Does not threaten Measures J and A.
- Does not threaten the Ag Preserve.
- Does not require compensation for existing land use restrictions.
- Is not retroactive beyond its filing date.
- Does not change the Board’s authority to enact new restrictions.
- Merely provides property owners some protection from new land use restrictions by requiring the Board to consider the costs of its actions and apportion those costs fairly.
- Where new restrictions cause compensable damage, the Act provides flexibility to ease restrictions on a case by case basis or to enter into compromise solutions without costing the County any money.
The Fair Payment for Public Benefit Act is fair and reasonable, and its provisions should have been part of County policy all along. Please support the ordinance that says we agree to be fair to all people. Please VOTE YES on Measure A.