No protections for 191-unit plan | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

No protections for 191-unit plan

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Comment

Dear editor, Please verify or challenge the validity of Save Rural Angwin’s statements before printing them. In last week’s paper about the revised Angwin eco-village project (“PUC floats new plan,” Sept. 30), Kellie Anderson’s claim of support for “the preservation of the forest and the farms” is inconsistent with SRA’s support of the 191-unit low income housing project.

That project would be built on land that is farmed for soybeans. The 191-unit project also includes no environmental preservation or protections. The eco-village project, however, would permanently preserve more than 1,500 acres of forest, ag land and open space. It would also preclude any future development. In other words, SRA’s support of the 191-unit project is counter to their very mission. How do they justify that? They can’t.

Dale Withers / Angwin

2 comment(s)

ProAngwinConTriad wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:17 AM:

" Mr. Withers, there are enough contradictions on Howell Mountain for you to author several letters. PUC/Triad claims they are offering a developer-free future for our community with their vague easements. The County need only agree to their latest 380 unit dreamboat. (275 plus 105 =380 if you are doing math)

What kind of a sham is this? If they do not obtain entitlements for 380 units are they going to develop more? What is Triad/PUC offering Angwin in exchange for the destruction of our rural community? Right. Nothing. So how does supporting the 191, which more than fulfills the needs PUC articulated 3 years ago, contradict SRA’s goal of protecting rural Angwin from the pariah of developers? Wouldn’t you agree that PUC’s offer to not develop (or its threat that if it does not get its way it will develop) land it cannot develop is a mite cynical?

You will recall a year and a half ago Triad/PUC advised their dreams would not pencil out at anything less than 580 units. Now we hear the same refrain over 380. It is common knowledge that there are developers who thrive (at least in markets when developers thrive) on 20 unit projects. There is one presently being advanced in Calistoga for 24 units. Triad is claiming that 191 will not pencil out. Why? Does this also seem a little cynical? Are you familiar with Aesop’s sheperd boy who cried wolf? "

Jasper wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:11 PM:

" Dale,

SRA did not propose the 191 unit project. That was a college idea, in collaboration with the County. SRA realized at the outset that it could not defeat that project, but it is much better than the Triad proposal which would build houses on the agricultural land in the very heart of Angwin.

Another major advantage of the 191 is that it provides far more affordable units – 113 compared to the Triad’s 59 out of 380– and PUC needs a lot of affordables if it is to realize its dream of expanding someday. One of the tragedies in the Triad plan is that the College does not have a provision for ensuring affordable housing for its faculty and staff. It is betraying its own people.

The shout about no protection is pure malarkey. Those houses will have to be built to Napa Code, which is getting increasing tougher on environmental concerns. Please stop this “no protection” baloney.

Finally, no one trusts that the College will put conservation easements on its vast land holdings.

While I respect your loyalty to your bosses, you need to be more considerate of the total picture. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: