Letter to the Editor by Dave Loberg
It can be generally assumed that some voters are “impulse voters,” especially when confronted with complex propositions that require study to make an informed choice. And “impulse voters” tend, I believe, to more often vote “No.”
Prop C has considerable potential to attract “No” voters, and the campaigns have tended to simplify a complex issue with catch phrases and buzz words that are confusing, if not misleading. Recall that one of the original bases for proposing Proposition C was the Walt Ranch plan to destroy thousands of oaks to plant a vineyard between the valley and Berryessa.
I repeat, the owners of Walt Ranch planned to remove thousands of oaks to allow a vineyard in the oak woodlands, and not much could be done under existing law and regulation to prevent this disaster.
Advocates of No on Measure C want this reckless status quo to continue.
I want protection for oak woodlands and our water. I want Measure C. I fully expect that in the future, adding this protection for the oak woodlands and water will be as appreciated as the pioneering Ag Preserve is today.
Do not be an “impulse voter;" think about the consequences of thousands of oak trees being sacrificed for speculative vineyard projects.