Dear NVLSA Members,
As we rapidly approach what could be the last Board of Supervisors hearing on The Stream Setback Ordinance, we need to plan for the possibility that the SSO will be passed in roughly its current form.
For some reason the Supervisors and County Staff remain persistent their refusal to answer our most basic of questions regarding map preparations, financial impact studies, and complete notification to potentially affected property owners. We have argued every step of the way the issues of science, fairness, takings, and nearly every other aspect of this cruel hoax, but something is VERY WRONG with the county's relentless desire to suppress and deny public disclosure of the likely effects of the SSO.
While it may be important to target for defeat, any supervisors that vote to pass an ordinance that would be so destructive to the livelihoods and security of our membership, that effort will primarily serve only to prevent future damage.
I am recommending and submitting to our membership for your consideration what I believe is the next logical step in this fight. If the SSO is passed in its current form we should immediately launch a referendum to block it from becoming effective and send the question to the voters at the next scheduled election (March 2004).
My professional experience has mainly involved statewide initiatives or county measures. I have not run a county referendum so I am consulting with others regarding the mechanics and timing of executing this tactic. I have spoken with Bill and Mike Arno of Arno Political Consultants (APC). I have worked with Bill and Mike on other projects and in my opinion they are THE experts in qualifying initiatives and referendums in California. They have assured me that this project is very manageable. I am still waiting for a few details and more specific pricing, but in a nutshell here is how it works:
IMMEDIATELY upon passage of an ordinance we need to get a complete copy of the ordinance. We will have only 30 days to submit 5000+ signatures, on petitions that have strict specifications, to the Board of Supervisors. As a practical matter, we will need to hire a signature-gathering firm to handle the bulk of the signatures.
This is a high stress 24/7 "beat the clock" activity that must swing into action the moment the ordinance is approved. During the first week there will be a delay in actually collecting signatures until the petitions are printed. Mike Arno told me that generally, if an ordinance is passed on a Tuesday, they are collecting signatures by the next weekend (4-5 days), but preparation must begin well prior to that date.
Signature gathering continues until the required number of valid signatures are obtained. In our case the number is based on 10% of the number of voters that voted in the last election for Governor in Napa County. That number is around 3500. For planning purposes we have rounded to 5000 to allow for invalid signatures.
Once the signatures are submitted to the Board of Supervisors, the Board will have two options. They can either entirely repeal the ordinance or submit it to the voters at the next scheduled election. If the ordinance is "referred" (most likely outcome) to the voters, the ordinance is not allowed to take effect unless it is approved by the voters.
The advantage of having an issue "referred" to the voters is that we will be going for a NO vote (a NO vote means you are voting AGAINST the ordinance). In the world of ballot measures of any type, a NO vote is the easiest to get. A yes vote is usually an uphill battle. If the issue is confusing (as this is), the voters will usually respond with a NO vote. It is for that reason that we would have a much higher chance of success with a referendum (NO vote) than a repeal initiative (YES vote).
I am guessing at this point until I get more specific pricing, but I assume that this project will cost us somewhere in the range of $20,000 to $30,000. That's a lot of money, but considering the economic damage that this ordinance would inflict (far in excess of a billion dollars), it's a negligibly small number. I know in my own personal case I am looking at damage in excess of $200,000. Many of us will be so badly injured that the larger threat of the Malan initiative almost becomes moot.
Please give this proposal your consideration and send me (do not use 'reply all') your thoughts and comments ASAP. If it looks like this is the direction that our membership wishes to proceed I will be working with George and all others willing to help out in the planning and fundraising necessary to accomplish this goal. This is not something we will have the time to discuss AFTER the fact. Preplanning is essential. With any luck the SSO may die or be heavily modified so that we can turn our attention to fighting the Malan initiative, but in case it is not, we must be ready. Therefore, I need your response by Tuesday, February 11.
Best regards,
Mike Rodrigues
back