Dec 10 talk
There is an old adage: When you take a problem and turn it over to politicians, all you do is politicize the problem. This proposed ordinance has become about as politicized as an issue can get. This process has decayed to the point that the protection of the Napa River is now only a flimsy pretense to keep moving forward.
The fact that private donations needed to be raised and spent by both the Board of Realtors and the Napa Valley Land Stewards, simply to attempt to NOTIFY the citizens of this ordinance, speaks volumes about the motives and intentions of the county.
Yesterday, George Bachich and I met with county staff representing the NVLSA in an effort to get some clarification on many of the questions raised during these hearings.
We have been asked repeatedly not to criticize staff. It has been made clear that they are under the immediate direction and control of the Board of Supervisors, so please keep that in mind. I would like to summarize for the record and for those citizens present some of the key items discussed at yesterday's meeting:
The first issue raised was that of potential "takings". Supervisor Luce had the courage to at least put that issue on the table at the December 3 hearing.
The response? Once again was that they feel there is NOT a takings issue. I asked if Supervisor Luce's suggestion was being dealt with. The response to that was that it was kicked over to county counsel for future consideration. In my opinion that was code for "Give it up!"
In echoing the concern of many people that have spoken at these meetings we once again requested a map of the affected areas be prepared, so landowners could get an idea if they would be impacted by the setback ordinance.
The response was that they might be able to put together a map but not in time for a vote. They also advised us that to create an accurate map would require an expensive and long term study. We were told that many landowners might falsely be led to believe that they were NOT effected.
AS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS AND COMMON DECENCY WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE EFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE A METHOD OF DETERMINING IF THEY WILL BE EFFECTED.
There is a huge amount of confusion among landowners on stream classification. We were told by staff that for a MINIMUM of about $500 to $600 we could hire someone to determine if we are on a class 2 or class 3 stream.
THIS IS NOT A FEE FOR WAIVER OR EXEMPTION - THIS IS SIMPLY TO FIND OUT WHAT KIND IF STREAM YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE.
Our request for at least a simple analysis of financial impact to landowners and Napa County was rejected. I guess the position of the Board is that there will be no financial impact. Apparently, "That's their story and they're sticking to it.
Much has been made of the plan to adopt an interim ordinance and then rework it over the next few years. Those that have been seduced by promised EXEMPTIONS by the Supervisors are in my opinion nothing less than pawns in a "divide and conquer" technique. These so-called EXEMPTIONS are easily revoked, and in my opinion will be.
The staff freely admitted that as part of the "improving" of the ordinance, stream setbacks would NOT be reduced. As a practical legal matter this ordinance can only really move in one direction. And that direction will be MORE restrictive.
In an effort to buy support, exemptions have been liberally drafted and handed out to Industry, Agriculture, and Homeowners, not to mention the fact that the Cities of Napa, St Helena, Calistoga, and American Canyon are off the hook. Who's left, other than those of us fighting this land grab out of principle or out and out mistrust of the ultimate motives of the County?
We had a brief discussion about whether the original problem of excess silt in the river may not ACTUALLY be a concern based upon the Stillwater Sciences study. The response to that was that this has become A MUCH LARGER ISSUE THAN THAT! There's an understatement.
It really is sad that we have come to this point, but I would like to share with you one final question and response from the meeting yesterday. I will leave it up to everyone in this room to make their own decision about how straightforwardly and honestly we as citizens have been treated in this process.
My simple question was this: Was there a political component to your decision to include the agricultural exemptions? The answer was clear and simple. The answer was, "No".
If there is anything I have stated here that any member of the board finds inaccurate or any statements by staff that they would like to distance themselves from, please feel free to comment at this time.
Mike Rodrigues
back