I found the article appearing in the June 8 Napa Valley Register (“Luce opposes city’s ambitious housing plans”) very revealing about the long term goals of pro-growth Napa City Councilmember Juliana Inman. The issue at the forefront of the opposition was the housing element.

The City Council, without all members aware of the application change to Association of Bay Area Governments, were looking to have 3,000 to 7,500 housing units built along Soscal Gateway, under the guise of a “transportation corridor.”

The purpose: grants from the MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) and revenue for the city. With the new transportation terminal being built next to the Napa Expo, these units meet the requirement of having access to a “transportation network.” These units will require intense density of 20 to 75 units per acre, packed in like sardines, and adding 6,000 to 15,000 new commuters along Soscal and Silverado Trail.

The article gives me a pretty good perspective on which City Councilmember is encouraging pro-growth, highly dense multi-story housing in Napa. It will look more like a college campus dormitory system than the great wine country city that it is.

For those who think that their city council and Napa County supervisors control Napa’s manifest destiny, think again. The extremely high-density housing required by ABAG is the direct result of the United Nations Agenda 21.

Briefly, single-family housing is out and high-density housing will be the norm. Populations will be packed together and restricted from open space. As I stated earlier, packed in like sardines.

Cities and counties starved for revenue to feed an ever-growing, unfunded liability issue will look for new ways to feed the beast and preserve their bureaucracies, all at a cost to the citizens. Inman’s comments from the article seem to be in direct conflict with her “carefully managed growth” statement from her campaign website:

“Carefully Managing Growth

Get news headlines sent daily to your inbox

I have supported agricultural preservation and maintaining the RUL as a Napa County Planning Commissioner, a City of Napa Planning Commissioner, and a Napa City Councilmember. Agricultural preservation requires vigilance to prevent sprawl from our cities and inappropriate development at the edges of our communities — such as the massive Napa Pipe development proposed on prime industrial land. As a member of Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) I have studied the needs and infrastructure of Napa County and am committed to managing growth as a key component of maintaining our quality of life. I advocate for clean new businesses, improved technological infrastructure, and managing growth so that existing neighborhoods are not overwhelmed with new construction and traffic. As a member of Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) I have studied the needs and infrastructure of Napa and surrounding communities.”

This article gives me the creeps. The bottom-line issue is money: money for the city. Supervisor Mark Luce, I believe, acted in the best interest of the citizens of Napa. It is clear to me that not every city council member is.

Mark Gasster / Napa


Load comments