Vote Yes on Measure C and preserve our oak woodlands.

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Richard Niemann

"Corporate wineries and wealthy developers are opposing Measure C for their own profit. They are distorting the facts in their mailings and on their signs. They are hiring out-of-town people to canvas the neighborhoods to spread their selfish message. They have hired political consultants to manipulate the truth."

Read the entire letter here:

Time to vote YES on Measure C

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Geoff Nelson

Even though Napa has been a leader in sustainability, we all feel the negative effects of the explosive growth. As a wine grower for 30 years, I feel it’s time for Yes on C.

Read Geoff's entire letter here:

Reasons to vote 'yes' on Measure C

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Harry Price

There have been a lot of dire claims from Measure C’s opponents about the negative effects Measure C would have on Napa County, but I urge all Napa County voters to ask themselves a few simple questions with their ballots in their hands:

1. Does it make sense that saving trees would raise taxes?

2. Does it make sense that saving trees would increase local traffic?

3. Does it make sense that saving trees would destroy the beauty of our valley?

4. Does it make sense that saving trees from development would cause event centers to spring up?

If you agree with me that none of the above makes common sense, then join me in voting YES on Measure C.

Passage of Measure C won’t solve our environmental problems but will help: help save our oak woodlands; help create more oxygen for us to breathe; help provide food and shelter for wildlife; help reduce carbon dioxide to offset global warming; help to reduce sediment in our waterways and will help re-charge our water supply.

Any one of the above is reason to vote 'yes' on Measure C. Measure C will point us in the right direction. Join me in voting YES on Measure C.

Harry Price

Napa

Read Measure C carefully, then vote yes

Letter to the Editor - St. Helena Star by Michael Honig

As the 2017 Chair of the Napa Valley Vintners board of directors, I worked with other community members to develop what has become Measure C. I’m writing to encourage you to join me in voting yes on C.

There is a lot of noise out there right now as people take sides and disseminate various arguments regarding development of the Napa Valley. There are those who believe that the future of the Valley depends upon more growth and others who wish to limit growth.

In 1968, when the Agriculture Preserve was originally created, many people voted against their own economic self-interest to protect the land and limit its exploitation. We are facing another such decision and as a vintner and long-time resident I am deeply concerned that a no vote on Measure C will erode decades of important protection of our precious land.

Measure C will not stop agriculture and, in fact, only pertains to certain specific areas in the Agricultural Watershed. Currently there are thousands of acres that could be developed as well as thousands more that are already entitled to development but have not been developed. I’m concerned that inaccurate information is being circulated as both sides of the argument fight for a win.

I urge you to carefully read Measure C for yourselves and try to disregard the slanted and misleading arguments that are circulating. After understanding exactly what the measure will and will not do, I hope that you will also vote yes.

Michael Honig

Rutherford

Disregard the slanted and misleading arguments that are circulating.

Letter to the Editor - The Bohemian by Michael Honig

As the 2017 chair of the Napa Valley Vintners board of directors, I worked with other community members to develop what has become Measure C. I'm writing to encourage you to join me in voting yes on C.

There is a lot of noise out there right now as people take sides and disseminate various arguments regarding development of the Napa Valley. There are those who believe that the future of the valley depends upon more growth, and others who wish to limit growth.

In 1968, when the Agriculture Preserve was originally created, many people voted against their own economic self-interest to protect the land and limit its exploitation. We are facing another such decision, and as a vintner and longtime resident, I am deeply concerned that a no vote on Measure C will erode decades of important protection of our precious land.

Measure C will not stop agriculture and, in fact, only pertains to certain specific areas in the agricultural watershed. Currently, there are thousands of acres that could be developed, as well as thousands more that are already entitled to development but have not been developed. I'm concerned that inaccurate information is being circulated as both sides of the argument fight for a win.

I urge you to carefully read Measure C for yourselves and try to disregard the slanted and misleading arguments that are circulating. After understanding exactly what the measure will and will not do, I hope that you will also vote yes.

—Michael Honig

Rutherford

Here's what the courts said.

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Robert "Perl" Perlmutter

I am the attorney who represented supporters of Measure C in a recent lawsuit challenging false and misleading statements in the ballot arguments filed by Measure C’s opponents. I’m writing to clear up some misconceptions about the reason behind the Napa County Superior Court’s order directing that five of those statements be deleted from the opponents’ ballot arguments, and to explain the significance of these changes.

Because of the First Amendment, it is extremely rare for a court to order changes to official ballot arguments. Only in the unusual case where an argument contains statements that are objectively false and misleading can a court order a change. Even where there is a settlement, as in this situation, the court must first find that the statements to be changed are objectively false and misleading.

That is what happened here. Don’t take my word for it. Read the Court’s Order (on page 8) here: bit.ly/2HJiymL. In ordering these changes, the court recites that state law prohibits the court from making any changes to ballot arguments unless there is “clear and convincing proof that that the material in question is false [or] misleading.”

That is what the opponents agreed to, and that is what the court ordered. Indeed, it is only because the court sided with the Yes on C campaign about these statements that the opposition campaign was forced to cover all attorney’s fees related to this matter.

Some of Measure C’s opponents have tried to claim victory in this case because there was a settlement and because one of the six challenged statements was allowed to remain unchanged.

But the settlement required the opponents to change five of the six challenged statements because they were objectively false. The one remaining statement concerned the opponents’ opinion about the alleged effect of Measure C.

Such opinions, even if totally unfounded, are protected by the First Amendment and, therefore, immune from challenge. As the courts have explained, opinions about the effect of an initiative — as opposed to facts — are not subject to proof of their truth or falsity.

Still wondering who is right, and who won this lawsuit? You can read the court order and settlement for yourself at YesOnC.org.

Robert "Perl" Perlmutter

San Francisco

Don't be mislead by mailers.

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Yeoryios C. Apallas

"For several weeks now, the opposition to Measure C has spent a great deal of money spreading, what in my opinion is, materially misleading information about Measure C and its impacts on the watershed and the wine industry’s ability to plant vineyards into our precious agricultural watersheds.

Armed with a million-plus in wine and tourist industry dollars, the No On C folks have excoriated the provisions of Measure C and its proponents to the point of mass hysteria. This unrelenting attack on Measure C’s common sense-watershed protection has, in my opinion, brought out the darkest of forces in these industries that seek to continue their irresponsible and heretofore unchecked winery developments."

Read the entire letter here:

Brochure knocked my socks off

Letter to the Editor, Napa Valley Register, May 4, by Pamela Jackson

I received a slick brochure recently that knocked my socks off. Opponents of Measure C changed their ballot arguments in a Napa County Superior Court settlement due to objectively false statements, yet this brochure makes it sound as if they won the suit. They did not. They paid $54,000 for their misstatements. Furthermore, the Superior Court did not validate the effects of Measure C.

Here are the “No on C” ballot arguments which were removed per the lawsuit:

1. “Measure C will outlaw future farming in the Ag Watershed;” (Absolutely not true.)

2. “Restrictions from Measure C will prevent property owners from … adding to one’s home” (Actually Measure C exempts a 150 foot radius around houses, more than an acre and a half.)

3. “Please join … Napa County Supervisors and Mayors in Napa County, who all oppose Measure C.” (No, not all of them oppose Measure C.)

4. “Measure C will reverse these protections by allowing 795 acres of oak woodlands to be removed—" (In truth, the 795 acre exemption supports, not reverses, the current protection.)

The brochures that Measure C opponents are stuffing in our mailboxes are shady and misleading. Evidently, there is truth in advertising but not in politics. Profit-motive driven behavior that trumps truth seems to be a profound problem in our national soul lately and it is becoming a threat to our democracy.

But let’s hope we can at least address this in our own backyard. If government won’t limit the greed that leads to the continued slashing of our forests then the solution has to come from the people.

The flyer tells us how far some members in the industry will go. They will deceive -- and that doesn’t set well with me. We need to stand up against big money, stand up for clean and adequate water for our children. The Valley will continue to prosper but let us at least keep the oak trees on the hillsides that replenish our aquifer. Measure C is a visionary compromise of vineyard development and our community’s water needs.

I’ve got my socks back on now; please vote yes on C with me.

Pamela Jackson

Napa

"Mistruths" are part of well-worn strategy.

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Joyce Black Sears

"Prove them wrong. Don't be distracted. Protect our water for the benefit of everyone, including those corporate operations. Take back control of our Napa Valley. Vote yes on Measure C in June."

Read the entire letter here:

Don't believe the propaganda.

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by  Vincent Gewalt

"Measure C is about making sure our woodlands will not be deforested, our streams, our ground water will not be polluted by chemicals, and our habitat will be protected and corporations will be held accountable for any violations.

Please take the time to read both sides and not be misled by out-of-state propaganda in fooling us in believing they want to protect Napa. Vote yes on C."