" Craig, please let me make corrections to your letter.
1. The majority of the Angwin community has not found common ground with TRIAD/PUC. We have rejected their latest twist on the development, which did not reduce the number of homes.
2. SAR has not rejected growth in Angwin, we approve the 191 units,which are approved but not yet built. Why, if they are so badly needed?
3. If you really support eco-friendliness then you would not support the non-eco friendliness of the huge increase in traffic this project would bring, from Angwin on south; the increased and serious fire hazard, the denial of our water proplems up here; and the building of homes in ag. zones.
4. It has been stated that the retirement community would not be affordable to most Angwin residents so, your point of building it on top of a remote mountain, where loved ones must commute to, to visit their elder? Where greatly increased emergency response vehicles will be needed (elders have high impact health and life sustaining issues).
Nothing you said makes sense or it is not true. Large scale development belongs near the jobs and closer to the city center, therefore reducing the human footprint of commuters, use of natural resources, and availability of public services. "

" There are numerous (a large number) of affordable homes for sale in Angwin right now. If PUC is in need of housing why not buy and rehab. these houses for a much lessor cost?

My real question is this: If there is such a need for housing in Angwin then why are there so many houses, both affordable and non-affordable, for sale in Angwin?

Why does this project continue to even be discussed in this recessed economic and housing market, which is projected to continue over the next few years?

Developers are desperate right now and I foresee TRIAD throwing harder and faster balls at this project than they have been.

Planning commission; all county residents, wake up to this call; your tax dollars will be paying for the infastructure of this larger scale, remote housing development in a recessed economy; houses that only out-of-towners will be able to afford. I know, a handfull of affordable condos are mixed in, as well. "

" Craig, I assume that as a PUC employee, that when you say “we”,you are speaking for the college. Who else would be “we.”

The second radically wrong spin is that “the majority of the community is thoughtfully engaged in helping shape a new neighborhood.” Please tell us that you have done a poll which reflects that “the majority of the community.” Otherwise, back off such claims.

I was at both meetings in which Triad explained the new project, and there was very, very little support expressed. Almost all of the comments were raised by residents who questioned the project.

Third, your figures on 10% and 15% affordable housing are also misleading. 15% is nothing in this day and age. ABAG is recommending 50%. Marin County is requiring 50%. Do your homework.

In short, while I respect your loyalty to your bosses, you need to be much better informed and much more accurate. "

" Reader, who "stated that the retirement community would not be affordable to most Angwin residents"? Why would a small condominium in a retirement center cost more than one of the many large homes scattered all over Angwin? "

" For those interested in the study of rhetoric and language, especially between corporate-speak and human-speak...

Notice the PR 'feel' of the letter? The slick choice of 'corpora-happy-talk' words?

Notice how much more 'human' the replies are?

It's not too hard to see which is which, is it?

~Ruff "

" Prof: Whoa there, is this a retirement facility, as represented by Philpott or condos as represented by you? There is a vast difference between Silverado Orchards and Sun Valley, Az. There are many who suspect this latest permutation is the same poison with a different label, which your statement would support. There have been a kaleidoscope of representations and Triad’s Eco-village website does not even mention retirement. "

" Is this letter serious?

The author is elliptically addressing his thoughts in reference to a letter that he does not identify and I, for one, cannot recall. This is odd. He states as fact the notion that subdivision growth on the top of Howell Mountain is a good thing and anyone who disagrees is an “arrogant” NIMBY. This is odd. He continues with his reference to PUC’s embarrassing abuse of religious liberty, which I thought they hoped had been forgotten. He then references the retirement facility, which in itself is, if it is for real, a noble thing. But the writer’s notion that the center is a boon for traffic, which apparently means that he thinks it will create less traffic than the hay field it will replace, is odder.

Finally, the letter is captioned and concludes with the word asset. But Triad’s subdivision is Triad’s asset, not Angwin’s. In respect to the community and the County it is only a festering liability. This use of the word asset is also odd.

I have been dozing. Can someone tell me why we are still reading about building a subdivision on Howell Mountain? "

" The letter Craig Philpott is referring to was written by Michael Hackett and published on September 29.

The retirement center is a new idea, not fully developed, which is now being considered by Triad/PUC because it was suggested by residents of Angwin and supported by some vocal SRA supporters. I don't know whether the units of the retirement center would be for sale or for rent. Either way, I can't imagine the units being larger or more costly than any home in Angwin--or beyond the means of many Angwin home owners. "

" PUC Prof

Someone needs to correct something you have stated. I have talked personally with participants in the Triad meeting in a hotel room in St. Helena. The idea of moving some houses off the ball fields was contributed by one (1) participant, a former PUC professor. The idea of the retirement center was contributed by one (1) other participant, another retired PUC professor. But these two individuals are highly ethical and they would be very uncomfortable with the suggestion their constructive ideas were anything more than their own individual thoughts. NEITHER WOULD CLAIM THAT THEY WERE SPEAKING FOR THE COMMUNITY. I am positive of that.

You also state that the new plan is "supported by some vocal SRA supporters" Of course, "some" SRA supporters like the idea of a retirement center, but where have they been vocal.? They certainly were not vocal at the two Triad meetings where almost no one stood up for the new plan and most of the questions raised by residents were to express concerns.

SRA, representing the concerns of the village, has recognized the limited merits of the new Triad plan but officially has concluded that it is still would put too many houses on prime agricultural land in the heart of Angwin.

This community does NOT like the new plan. Nothing in the two Triad meetings indicated ANY significant community support. I repeat - these two meetings did NOT produce any significant community support. The only advocates in letters to the editors have been by PUC employees. Look at the blogs above. This is the community speaking. And they are almost unanimously expressing anger and distrust of the College. "

" Jasper, I suspect the Triad meeting you referred to took place well after Pieter VandenHoven--a local physician, not a retired PUC professor--wrote a commentary on the subject of a retirement home in Angwin, published in NVR on March 7, titled "A New Dream for Howell Mountain." As you are well aware, the online comments reveal several SRA members who supported that idea at the time, including Vocal-de-local, ProAngwinConTriad and yourself.

Furthermore, the retirement center concept was discussed much earlier. An extensive online discussion of the merits of a retirement center ensued after the article “Bubble Meeting Bursting at Seams” was published by NVR on August 16, 2007, but because nobody had a fixed moniker at the time, it’s hard to tell whether the retirement home supporters were sympathetic to PUC or SRA. I suspect further discussion of the idea could be found in the extensive NVR archives.

Furthermore, I vividly recall a retirement center being one of many suggestions given at the SRA meeting on March 18, 2007. A retirement was also considered by PUC’s board before the ecovillage concept was adopted. PUC supporters clearly have not been the only supporters of the retirement center concept. "

" PUC Prof,

First off, let me thank you for identifying your affiliation with the college, although it appears that you have done some independent research.

Let me explain my position concisely. I think the “idea” of a retirement center has merit. I have supported the “idea”. But I should not support it at this point bccause I do not know what it would become. Perhaps I should say I support it as a concept.

I think the “idea” of moving 105 housing units off the ball fields has merit.

But I am still opposed to the total package OF WHICH THESE ARE JUST TWO COMPONENTS. PUC still wants 380 housing units in the heart of Angwin and on land which has been in agriculture for decades.

I will address the retirement center in another blog. "

" PUC Prof,

The retirement center should be subjected to a lot of debate. That should start with Triad’s revelation of what it has in mind. The demographics might be somewhat different. Maybe. For example, imagine an elderly couple deciding to move off Newton Way and into the Center. Their larger home on Newton would probably become occupied by a family, 1.5 of whom worked and creating 4 or so trips a day, or more if they had school children. So we would have the retired couple in the Center and a whole new family in the community and on the road. So that’s a wash.

A retirement center would create an immediate demand for 35-40 new low income workers. So there is a drain on the 59 afffordable units in the Triad plan. And my understanding is that that would leave precious few for the Low and Very Low Income PUC employees. PUC administrators should be opposing the retirement center.

Dr. VandenHoeven’s hope is for a unique facility, which would create the kind of reputation which the Hospital enjoys with its heart team. In short, a kind of medical establishment, made famous by doctors. Triad would have a very difficult time creating such a facility, and they have not indicted a desire to do so.

Angwin residents have varying opinions on a retirement center, because the proposal is so vague. My position should be that I support the “idea” of a retirment center, but its inclusion in the new package has not led me to accept the new package.

The succession of PUC/Triad plans have not won the support of the community. But have just created a foundation of trust of anything proposed. "