" Well, well, Michael. Here ya go again pushing your 3200 new houses at Napa Pipe. So now we are to believe this new city will somehow ease traffic?

Guess you didn't have to get through Jamison Canyon, Cordillia, or to Vacaville last Thursday afternoon. It was solid bumper to bumper. It took almost 2 hours.

We would need an entire new infrastructure in and around Napa Valley before we could ever tolerate massive, concentrated growth, city or county.

You need to reevaluate. "

" I'm not in favor of 3200 units there, I am not sure what the right number is, but I would rather have traffic jams on holidays outside town than be sitting in traffic on Trancas every day.

The fact is that some housing is going to get built. Where is your recommendation for where to build it? "

" My recommendation is...


...Vallejo. "

" Seems pretty clear that Trancas is about as far south as NB ventures. Otherwise, his seeming ignorance of the daily grind on Jamison and on hwy 29 is astounding. And unbelievable. "Traffic jams on holidays outside of town," that's a good one.
I for one would love to see James Marshall spearhead a state-wide initiative to rein in ABAG.
If you don't build it, maybe they won't come!! And if you do build it, welcome to round 2 of an out of control construction industry relying on more immigrants to do the labor, thus requiring even more housing, more roads, more everything - a vicious cycle that will turn and turn until California becomes one gigantic overcrowded prison. "

" So all you Napa Pipe-haters:

The Napa city council & staff share your animosity toward Napa Pipe to the extent that they are offering to take 70% of the county's housing for the next 21 years. In return the county will not pursue housing development at the Napa Pipe site. What a deal -- for the county at least.

So do you think this is a good thing for the citizens of Napa?

Let's assume we all agree that the current housing allocation mandates are a bad thing. Bad, bad, bad. But now on to reality: where should the housing go?

NB keeps posing this reasonable question but I don't see any of you answering it. "

" lwright, even with Napa Pipe we will still have to build a lot of housing here. I am hoping something will turn it around, like changed state laws. Nobody really wants it, that much anyway. The city has to build over 2000 units in the next seven or less years. Taking on another 500 or so from the county adds to that.

Cadence, I go out Jamieson or through American Canyon all the time. In the last five years it has become totally jammed up. My point is why turn another spot like Trancas or Soscol into that?

It will be very difficult to get state or Federal money to widen Trancas or Soscol even if we wanted to, which we really can't. There is nowhere to go.

At least in south county you can build bigger roads, overpasses, frontage roads, etc, to help ameliorate the traffic. And because it is a large area with rooom to do that, and has state highways already, we are far more likely to get the money to fix that in the future than to widen Trancas or Soscol.

If we keep building up the neighborhoods daily traffic inside city limits is going to get intolerable.

Urban centered growth is great for place like Los Angeles, but here with no public transporation and being so small that it doesn't make sense financially, it is going to take a lot longer to get that in place. "

" Where should the housing go?
Assume there were no counties and no county lines. Then a brief regional glance would tell anyone that there is lots and lots of available housing of all varieties. It simply does not exist in the confines of Napa County lines (quick, who knows WHY Napa County is delineated as it is? Old Spanish land grants or other nonsensical "reasons?") but it is standing today in Solano County. There's more available and vacant housing in Lake County.
But ABAG is mandated to sprinkle housing allotments into each and every county for no other reason than that county lines were arbitrarily drawn years and years ago.
If this is smart planning, thank heavens I'm dumb! "

" The approach to development at the so called Napa Pipe complex is misleading at best when using the Keith Rogal model of 3200 homes. This developer has easily taken the wrong shot in presenting his full-blown community and in doing so has alienated much of the Napa community that might see some mixed use at this site.

The County board of supervisors has played a poor second fiddle in this fiasco by assuming it will be able to escape responsibility for future housing needs up valley in existing neighborhoods and unincorporated areas. Yountville, Rutherford, St. Helena, Angwin and Calistoga must be included in the mix they cannot avoid responsibility for housing needs.

So must unincorporated areas of the county where Corporate Agribusiness insists on developing a monolithic wine and grape enterprise. Increasingly they must be held to account for the workforce they demand not only in health and housing but also in transportation and tourism.

Napa Pipe is not a one-stop cure for the thorny problem of growth. It is only a part of the mix. If the economics of diversified industrial use is ignored in favor of a housing habitat and playground then the working base of the Napa Valley will certainly experience degradation in local earning and spending power.

The Napa River is currently kept navigable by the Army Corps of Engineers. When they finally realize that Napa has no place in any strategic defense link the pressure will grow to terminate the pork barrel expense of dredging in favor of spending defense funding where it will truly be more effective. That will shift responsibility to the state and eventually to the county for the rivers maintenance. "

" Bill, you have some interesting ideas, but look what is happening in Angwin? Just putting a few units in there is causing a war.

Corporate agribusiness is not insisting on anything, we are using the land to its highest and best use. We are the leading wine growing region in the country with a business that the world envies it is such a good one. We have the goose that laid the golden egg and ought to appreciate that.

As far as using Napa Pipe for industry, that might happen but we have plenty of other industrially zoned land. In part it is due to the recent agreement with American Canyon, who now has annexed or can annex land that gives it a total of 800 acres of industrially zoned land not yet used. That is huge, the total area for housing at Napa Pipe that is planned is 55 acres.

We need more industrial land like a hole in the head. We need housing. "

" Cadence, we actually have to deal with reality, so you still haven't answered the question. "

" NB, being touchy about monolithic Napa Farm policy and golden goose eggs will not enhance your points. Placing all Napa County’s housing eggs in the Napa Pipe basket is an unwise proposition. Not seeking or even considering exploring other major uses for this site is a critical mistake for the area economy.

Proposing it as a housing recreation area is further evidence that the current developers will not budge outside the box of real estate hustle. Working families already feel they have been “goosed” by a few of those golden eggs. Making a housing project next to a mudflat and former industrial site then beautifying the location of the Napa River as a recreation area (You wanna swim there?) is too much of a stretch.

The accepted conventional hubris of Napa as the elite upscale wine/grape/tourist enterprise machine using the land in your Riccardian economic scheme to the best advantage falls apart because it contains within its structure little or no economic diversity, industrial or agricultural. The prime reason Copia is failing is the poor economic model of tourism it was based on and not the current economy.

If there is no reason for deep-water craft to navigate the Napa River what will be the excuse to keep it navigable, flood protection alone? Should Syar industries ever become irrelevant to the county’s economic base and industrial income be further depleted there will be even less need for a navigable water way. If the sole reason for maintaining the rivers depth is flood control, recreation or access for the wealthy and their boating needs then the majority of the cost will need to be spread across those who benefit from that maintenance. "

" irst I'd reiterate the need to change ABAG procedures. This agency answers to no one except the building lobby and has the power to change forever my home and yours for arbitrary reasons.
Second I'd say that the housing should be scattered all over the valley. I think that resistance to the current ironclad ABAG rules will not occur until everyone is impacted by ABAG decisions. I do not believe that there aren't available sites in Yountville, in Calistoga, and yes - even in Angwin that could accommodate dense apartment-like housing.
The "best" use of the land is best if it does not generate lots of traffic and lots of pollution for neighbors to deal with! It's best when it does not degrade quality of life elsewhere. The plan of having worker hordes living in the south county and clogging roads to get to their upvalley jobs is best for upvalley. Period. It is an insult, both physically and ethically, to the rest of the county.
If I dump my litter on your acreage, it is the best use of my time because I don't have to pay the landfill fee and I don't have to see the trash. But kinda tough luck for you, isn't it? "

" Bill, I do not feel touchy, I am just looking for answers.

One problem with your analysis though is that we already have 800 available acres for industrial in American Canyon now, in the same general area of the county. If all that got built out it would only increase the current problems, more jobs with nowhere for the workers to live.

Our problem is housing, not jobs. We have the second best umemployment rate in the state, we have jobs and lots of good ones at that already. The best way to overgrow the county more is to grow economically, that is what triggers all the rest of the growth. Shutting down building of housing in favor of yet more industry excacerbates the problem.

Insulting the developers, or me for that matter, adds zero to the debate. It is meaningless what anyone's motivation is, what matters is what is the best plan for Napa? If the developer has the best plan I don't care if he is doing it to discover if the moon is made out of cheese.

Spreading the housing around everywhere in the county seems to be the only other viable alternative that you and others have mentioned. We need to study the traffic and other impacts of that and see what will work better.

Napa Pipe will never be able to take all the housing it looks like we will need anyway, even at 3200 units. In two cycles if we are able to keep the current low numbers, and the economy doesn't collapse, we will be well over 6000 new units not even counting American Canyon. "

" 800 hundred acres of land not previously used as industrial as a trade off instead for the 155 acres already existing industrial site hardly appears a viable alternative
It sounds rather like an advocacy for economic development beyond the realistic (notice I do not challenge you to authenticate your numbers). Just how do you see those 800 hundred acres of industrial property being developed?

Am I reading you correctly when you say, and I am paraphrasing, that economic growth will cause greater problems? Only wine grape and tourist growth will not? This is not fiscal responsibility. I realize you probably mean excessive economic growth not necessarily economic growth per se. Your problem from my perspective is that you see but one industry as viable to the exclusion of any others. If you haven’t seen the recent headlines allow me to inform you that jobs are an economic problem. The myopic slant that Napa county numbers are relatively low does not reflect the real pain that exists in local working families homes. Seeing housing as a growth industry and tax base alternative is not a good model.

Housing development previously proposed at Napa pipe were not in the best interests of any of the residents of Napa. Today Rogal appears to have recognized his grand scheme will not work especially in the current economic environment. He seems to have changed his mind after having cost the county and the community a divisive election battle in the face of an economic downturn.

A diversified local economy is much healthier than a single source economy no mater how valuable that single source might appear. If you are really looking for answers then start looking outside the single wine tourism box. "

" If you or the developer feels insulted I suggest you study your inner self and understand just what insults you. I have generally been very mild with you. What do you need to study that tells you that smaller parcels of housing serving the entire valley will have less traffic and community service impact than creating large parcel subdivisions on the grandiose model previously suggested? Do you really need to study that to come away with a concept that smaller enclaves in existing urban areas even unincorporated areas will be a better solution?

You strike a pose and then think that your motivation should not be suspect, of course motive is a part of meaning it is absurd to believe otherwise, whether it be altruism or greed. "