Jan. 30, 2003
Dear Supervisors Mike Rippey, Brad Wagenknecht, Diane Dillon, Bill Dodd, and Mark Luce:
I receive several messages each day similar to the one below. I don't intend to inundate you with email by forwarding you them all, but so you will understand what your constituents are experiencing, and how they are reacting, I must send you at least one now and then. The message below was selected to help clear up an apparent misunderstanding.
Your reaction to the tremendous outpouring at the public hearings has been to seek some level of exemption for residential uses. Although that gesture is at least an indication that you wish to relieve some of the pain for some of the affected people, I can't help but wonder if perhaps you have misunderstood our message. NVLSA does not represent just residential property owners, and has never represented itself as such a representative. NVLSA represents rural property owners. Rural living is inherently a mix of residential and agricultural use. The two uses cannot be separated, so when you single out a few of our members for relief while ignoring the pleas of the rest, we cannot feel that you have been responsive to our needs.
The vast majority of the speakers at the public hearings have called upon you to reject the Stream Setback Ordinance. I have not heard them calling just for a residential exemption. Their call is clear and overwhelming for you to reject the ordinance entirely. Hundreds of your constituents have felt it important to take time from their livelihoods and their families to sit through hours and days of your meetings in order to be certain that you understand clearly what you must do as their elected representatives. I know of no way to state this more clearly or more emphatically. Your constituents want you to reject the Stream Setback Ordinance. Anything less than that is simply unresponsive and unacceptable.
There may be a time when people feel differently. Perhaps when the full impact of the ordinance is mapped and understood, when the goals for the ordinance are clearly stated, when specific scientifically supportable action plans to achieve those goals are developed, and when a method for measuring the effectiveness of those action plans and a system for recognizing the progress made toward achieving those goals are well defined, people may be convinced that some measure of regulation is necessary and desirable. But until someone makes a far better case than has been made so far, the rural property owners of Napa County have a message they will keep on delivering until they know you have received it: Vote NO on the Stream Setback Ordinance.
Sincerely, George Bachich. NVLSA chairman
----- Original Message -----
From: Erna Stevenson
To: Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance
Sent:Thursday, January 30, 200311:02 AM
Subject: Supervisors Meeting
George,
I also want to add our appreciation to you for all the hard work you have done so far. Your presentation Tuesday was excellent.
Yesterday morning we once again questioned the economic impact to property owners and the County. I recited the story about one of my board members who recently was called to remap a parcel in Gordon Valley that had gone into an estate. Of the three beneficiaries, two wanted to plant grapes and one to have property remain in open space. Before the remapping, the parcel was appraised at almost $8 million. After the remapping, taking into consideration all the regulations on the books and the Proposed SSO, the property is now assessed at under $3 million. John Tuteur and two County staff persons also did their assessment, and agreed it should be reassessed. That is a huge impact. Yesterday, when County staff was asked how many parcels were affected, they did not know how many parcels were affected, but later said they thought the number is around 9,000 out of a total of 14,000. Even with a 10% cap, that is a huge taking of land. Obviously, Luce did some math before the end of the hearings. But the other three Supervisors refuse to look at it.
It is indeed a sad state of affairs when three Supervisors close their eyes to the very significant financial impact this Ordinance will have to property owners and the County. John Tuteur came to our last board meeting and we asked if he knew how many parcels would be affected and what would happen to the affected parcels as the owners would certainly want relief property tax wise. John said he thought there were about 5,500 parcels and they would all have to be looked at and be adjusted. One would think that at the very least, the people are entitled to know what the "true" cost of this Ordinance is and how much they really lose, before Supervisors make such a monumental decision. With the poor state of the economy in Sacramento and Counties facing having to absorb more social services costs, it seems that the County can ill afford to lose any tax base and is taking a position that will hurt the majority of the County's tax payers and the County. But then, it's easy to make such a drastic decision if you are not affected. Luce is to be commended for having the courage to stand alone against something that is so wrong.
Erna Stevenson
SNBE
back