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.
Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Kathy Felch.
"The initiative process is a healthy one and must be used when our government does not provide for the public good. Our local government’s lack of respect for welfare of the citizens of this county has led in large part to the emergence of these two initiatives."
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."
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.
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
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
Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register, by Measure C proponents Mike Hackett and Jim Wilson
The Napa Valley Register’s recent editorial had a lot of good things to say about Measure C, and for good reason ("The measures on the June Ballot," April 29). Napa County’s water security is in jeopardy and protecting our oak woodlands would go a long way toward improving the situation.
As stated in the editorial, it’s time to “take a hard look at the current regulations protecting the streams and trees in the hills surrounding the valley.” The facts are clear that, “Those forests and streams feed the Napa River and recharge the reservoirs and aquifers that supply the cities and vineyards on the Valley floor. Those trees are not just scenic treasures, but also a line of defense against the looming menace of climate change.”
We agree that we must act proactively to protect Napa County’s water supply, just as we protected the land best suited to farming by establishing the Ag Preserve in 1968. As the editorial noted, “we should not wait until there is a tree-clearing gold rush in our back country, or until our aquifers begin to fail, before protecting the national treasure that is Napa County.”
Where we part ways with the newspaper is in its faith that our Board of Supervisors will improve protections for our watershed lands. Experience proves that the only way to increase protections of our watershed lands is through a citizens’ initiative.
Everyone in the county has known that this initiative was coming for at least three years. We first gathered signatures to place a very similar measure on the 2016 ballot. After signatures were gathered, county counsel identified a legal procedural flaw at the 11th hour, forcing our team to collect a new set of signatures to qualify for the current ballot. That means proponents successfully collected more than 6,000 signatures twice in support of this measure in the past few years.
Once signatures were gathered, the Board of Supervisors had a chance to adopt the measure outright. But did they choose to do so? No. Because the corporate wine industry enjoys an outsized influence over our elected officials.
People who have been tracking the journey of Measure C know, that after we failed to get this initiative onto the 2016 ballot, we worked with leaders from the Napa Valley Vintners to develop the initiative that is now before you. (The NVV has since caved to pressure from some of its largest members, many of which are large corporations without local roots.)
NVV’s leaders knew Measure C was coming. Rather than wait and see what it would include, they actively collaborated to shape the details of the measure. That 795-acre cap for oak woodland clearing in the Ag Watershed for agricultural purposes? NVV suggested that number as a reasonable compromise.
NVV was so involved in drafting this measure, they paid for more than half of the legal bills associated with putting it together. Their leaders had private meetings with every supervisor and our team to introduce the new initiative and ask for support from each of them.
In private, we had firm commitments from at least three of the supervisors that they would support Measure C. All of them made clear that they were supportive because wine industry leaders provided the cover they needed. It was a natural: super-influential wine industry group representing over 500 vintners, aligned in a compromise agreement to save our water supply and oak woodlands into the future. One supervisor even signaled the board would likely adopt the measure outright once signatures were collected and suggested the county have a party to celebrate its adoption in conjunction with 50th anniversary celebrations for the Ag Preserve.
We remember these details clearly because we took detailed contemporaneous notes at and after all of these meetings.
When the major wine industry groups later opted to oppose the initiative, our elected officials lost their nerve. They realized they would have to risk alienating major campaign contributors by taking a stand that might upset a handful of extremely rich and powerful wine industry interests. Rather than take that risk, they caved.
So, Napa County voters should understand why we’re not going to wait and see if our elected officials will take the urgent action needed to protect Napa County’s water supplies. We already know they won’t.
Climate change is not waiting for the supervisors to wake up to the reality of what another harsh and extended drought would mean for our water supplies. Farmers – including grapegrowers – are not waiting for the new regulations to cut down oaks as quickly as possible from our Ag Watershed.
To borrow a phrase from another urgent movement of our era, Time’s Up: The time to protect local water supplies is now, and the citizens can make it happen. Yes on C.
Mike Hackett and Jim Wilson
Proponents of Measure C
4
CAPE TOWN (Reuters) - The worst drought in living memory has hit vineyards in South Africa’s Western Cape hard, reducing grape harvests and adding to pressure on the region’s centuries-old wine industry, officials said on Tuesday.
Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Barbara Pahre
I was shocked to find my name on a political campaign endorsement "wrap around" advertisement in the Sunday Napa Valley Register and listed as publicly endorsing No on C. That was an error and a major political misstep. How does that happen?
To the best of my knowledge, I have never given permission for my name to be used in a public endorsement advertisement for either Yes or No on C.
Please correct that error and do not allow that list to be published until my name is gone, as I have never given either the Yes or No on C campaign permission to use my name publicly.
Barbara Pahre
Napa
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
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
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