1/9/03
Dear Napa County Supervisors:
If it is broke, do fix it. For many months now, various agencies, committees, and other people have been trying to apply this reversed form of the familiar old adage to the County's proposed Stream Setback Ordinance. But even a casual inspection only reveals that this ordinance is "broke" in so many ways that no amount of "fixing" can save it. It is flawed to its very core and you will never succeed in convincing the people that it is OK for the County to take control of thousands of acres of private property without due process of law or fair compensation. This proposal seeks to do just that. It is time to let go of this.
Sadly, during all the time this ordinance has been discussed, it has evolved into a bureaucratic morass of inequalities, arbitrary provisions, conflicting purposes, and endless complexities which would be a nightmare to administer. It would cost many people much time and money, and would engender much ill will and bad feeling among all concerned parties. It cannot be patched up no matter how much anybody tries. This patient is terminally ill and should be put out of its misery.
This clearly is not a good ordinance---it fails in too many ways. A good ordinance would: need no patching or special exemptions; apply to small and large parcels alike; apply to residential and agricultural property alike; not take private property without due process; not reduce property values; not reduce potential farm income; apply equally inside or outside city limits; be simple to interpret; apply to government and private property alike; and would not set neighbor against neighbor, as this ordinance might very well do. We are frankly at a loss to understand where the pressure to keep patching is coming from anymore. It looks like a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Some will surely say that too much effort has been invested in patching already to just let it all fall by the wayside now. Sadly, it is our opinion (an opinion shared by many other concerned citizens) that the failure of all this work to significantly reduce dissatisfaction and opposition is only further evidence that the whole proposal is based on an unworkable concept. Let it die a quiet death.
Happily, the cause can very probably be addressed by much simpler means. We urge the following 2-pronged approach:
1) First, you and your staff should thoroughly search out and review all existing ordinances, including the Riparian Cover Ordinance, as well as State Department of Fish and Game regulations, relating to riparian and waterway health. There may be federal, state, or city laws as well. You should then study the levels of enforcement which presently exist. We genuinely suspect much could be accomplished by simply stepping up enforcement of these existing laws.
2) Second, you should carefully evaluate the many suggestions made during the recent public hearings. The notion of formal training in responsible stewardship of the land comes quickly to mind. Perhaps this (and/or others) should be considered as possible SEPARATE ORDINANCES, as long as it can be shown that existing laws do not already adequately address those issues.
Sincerely,
David & Kathleen Kernberger
CC: Napa Valley Register & St. Helena Star