The election code requires that an independent analysis of ballot initiatives be commissioned to better inform voters and the Board of Supervisors on the impact of the measure. There are law firms that do these kinds of analyses, and it is the duty of the county to select a competent and unbiased firm and provide sufficient time to complete the task. Instead, the County chose a firm that promotes its service to developers in Napa and had agency in keeping the initiative off the ballot in the previous year. The directions to the firm were biased or the Board of Supervisors is inclined to accept a biased, non-compliant with the Election Code section 9111 requirement, and inflammatory report as 'objective'.
It's not
Sierra Club has endorsed a ballot initiative to improve protections for Napa County’s watershed and oak woodlands. Voters will face the initiative in June, and, if passed, it will be a historic, precedent-setting measure that will set a limit on how many acres of oak woodlands can be permanently removed.
This analysis also found that even the headwaters of rivers are very impacted from human activities, mostly due to development along the surrounding land for headwaters. More than a third of headwaters were impacted.
Headwaters are the source of clean drinking water for many Americans. So that has a very direct impact on the health of communities, and if headwaters start out damaged, diverted or polluted, it literally all goes downhill from there.
For Dunn and those in favor, Measure C is about fulfilling the legacy of the Ag Preserve: taking a stand to keep Napa bucolic. No one understands this better than Winiarski, the founder of Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars, who actively campaigned for the Ag Preserve in 1968 and is now campaigning for Measure C.
"“It was easier in 1968 to think about agriculture as a favorable alternative to housing development,” Winiarski says. “But agriculture at its current rate is unsustainable, because the resources of this valley are not endlessly exploitable.
“Agriculture is the highest and best use,” he continues, “only if it’s qualified.”"
On Friday, April 6th, the Napa County Superior Court ordered that five objectively false and misleading statements from Measure C opponents’ official ballot arguments be removed from the ballot pamphlet and replaced.
Per state law, the court can only approve changes to ballot arguments that have been shown to be objectively false and misleading.
The Napa County Superior Court today ordered that five objectively false and misleading statements in Measure C opponents’ official ballot arguments be removed from the ballot pamphlet and replaced with modified language, and for Measure C opponents to pay legal bills for YES on C.
“Voters deserve to know the truth about Measure C, and I felt I had to take a stand against the misinformation being pushed out by the No on C campaign,” said Napa County resident and grape grower Yeoryios C. Apallas, who filed the lawsuits that led to the court order. “These misleading ballot arguments were signed by public officials like Supervisors Belia Ramos and Alfredo Pedroza and Planning Commissioner Jeri Gill. Because of the court’s order, taxpayers will not be forced to pay for the distribution of false statements that the Measure C’s opponents were attempting to pass off as factual.”
Our first priority at YES on C is helping voters understand the benefits this measure will bring to all of Napa County - residents, businesses, and agriculture alike by protecting our water now and into the future.
Unfortunately, our opponents are attempting to confuse and deceive the voters of Napa County rather than have an honest conversation about the merits of Measure C. (You have probably already seen some of their misleading statements on large signs around the Valley.)
Napa County Registrar of Voters John Tuteur is named as the respondent in the lawsuit, with the five signers of the ballot argument in question listed as Real Parties in Interest. Belia Ramos, Manuel Rios, David R. Whitmer, Jeri Hansen-Gill and Phillip Blake signed the ballot argument against Measure C, which includes at least four misleading and untrue statements.
In his recent letter to the editor, Mr. Stuart Smith expressed his views on Measure C, the Oak Woodland Initiative. He wrote the initiative discriminates against “an entire group of stakeholders” and “is anti-agriculture in a right-to-farm county.” He accuses Measure C supporters of trying to seize the watershed rights of others, so they can have more water themselves.
The plaintiff, Yeoryios C. Apallas, a resident and grower in the Oak Knoll District, disputed statements filed with Tuteur’s office that Measure C, once enacted, “will outlaw future farming in the Ag Watershed;” will open “the door to event centers;” and “will prevent property owners from adding to one’s home.”
It will not open the door to the opening of event centers, increase traffic on Highway 29 or prevent property owners from adding on to their property if Measure passes, Apallas said in his complaint
Property rights are not absolute and never have been. The principal constraint on what you can do is what harm that activity might visit upon your neighbors. If what you do on your land harms the value of others’ property or causes them harm, then you can’t do it. The logic and reason are simple to appreciate, and it protects us all.
We have an exciting opportunity this June to protect and even restore a resource that has been eroded through prioritizing the short-term self interests of a few while sacrificing the long term interests of all.
Paid for by Yes on C, Watershed & Oak Woodland Protection Committee. Committee major funding from Andy Beckstoffer.
Copyright © 2018 Yes on C, Watershed & Oak Woodland Protection Committee