Dear editor,
Measure O will be on the ballot in an upcoming election. It is not what it seems to be. There was a meeting to explain "O." After reviewing the actual document I have many reservations as to why is it really needed.
From the best information I have found, Napa has about 47,000 acres of timberland, and since 1990 there has been only 740 acres (1.6 percent) of that timber removed, with 248 acres of that in 1995. Napa is not a "logging/timber area." When was the last time you saw a logging truck in Napa? And at what frequency?
Our state regulations are in place with CDF Fire Protection in charge and doing a good job, why do we need more rules and regulations for the sake of change?
If Measure O passes anyone who cuts one tree within 1,000 feet of a residence can be fined $25,000. I was told, "Don't worry about it, the county wouldn't enforce it." But that would still be the law. Stream setbacks are not based on facts. The summary lists an exemption for fire safety but there is no mention of it in the text.
Of real interest is that a very large amount of those "for" Measure O and against 1.6 percent logging live in wooden houses with some wood furniture.
So let's get back to the drawing board and come up with some factual evidence, not hand waving, and "well that's what 'they' are doing." Let's develop a good plan based on objective evidence. That's why I will vote "NO" on Measure O.
George Henke
back