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

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

(16) comments

Buster Friendly
Buster Friendly

Koch works in mysterious ways.

Jane Eyrehead

[quote]freeport56 said: "Wegotthebeat-Councilman Peter Mott did not find out about the3 MTC/ABAG application until a Council meeting."[/quote]

Maybe that's Peter Mott's own fault.


What is really funny to me is that everyone spouts the evils of Napa Pipe and the Traffic it will create. Here Councilman Inman wants a development more than double it's size right in town. That will go from 3rd Street down to where Silverado Trail and Soscol meet.

Sorry to wake you up Raven. It's okay now to back to sleep!



Councilman Peter Mott did not find out about the3 MTC/ABAG application until a Council meeting.




Mark Gasster said: "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.'"

Excuse me?

Which member(s) of the Napa City Council do you know to have been unaware of the application change, Mr. Gasster? And how do you know this?

And last time I checked, it was spelled S-O-S-C-0-L, not S-O-S-C-A-L.


alixzander said on: June 9, 2012, 3:29 pm



And yet I'd imagine that, if your children were not organically, nor sustainably grown (and perhaps also first moistened and then rolled in a bit of organically and sustainably grown granola), they are likely safe from such danger. ;)




John Richards
John Richards

[quote]Hear Ye said: "this message brought to you by the paranoid far right."[/quote]

Hmmm, if they can quote page number and paragraph number from local planning documents, it doesn't seem so paranoid anymore.


Good letter Mark!

The Union shills will continue to attack the messenger, defending the indefensible.

Fortunately, taxpayers are now paying attention, since they are the one's ultimately paying the initial costs.

As the implementation continues, it will effect more and more people and they too will finally realize the resulting loss of not just quality of life, but freedom and liberty, that the is the Left's agenda.

We have to hope that realization happens before it is too late...


The liberal solution … raise taxes because it’s impossible to have too high of a tax on rightwingers, that would be anyone who pays net taxes.
I couldn’t imagine what it’s like to sponge off my neighbors…I’d be more than a little grateful in these Democrat Recession days, so much so I’d be hammering my union to move to the center...maybe even start another union if they continued to roast the goose.
We began our final decline into ruin when Davis turned this state over to the public employee unions who immediately descended upon local governments to take over HR management.
The city has no choice but to find and raise revenue, the logical thing to do would be revert back to pre-Davis benefit packages…that won’t fill the gap entirely but it’s a good start.


I totally agree. The main issue the opponents have been hammering Napa Pipe with is traffic at the intersection of highway 121 and 29. These new residents will create more traffic at that intersection not to mention the amount of traffic it will create within the city. It is now clear to me that the city is opposed to Napa Pipe because if approved their project within city limits would no longer be needed.


It's laid out right there in the General Plan and people still deny it. FYI Smart Growth, Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 are all the same thing. Do the research before you spout off!


Timely article Kevin. The environmental liberals need more education on this. The MTC has approves Napa county's Carbon Action Plan with a comment that it should include parking fees in rural areas of the county. Also check out paragraph 5 on page 4 of this memo from our 9 county MTC to the CA Air Resources board. It spells out the MTC plan tor increasing automobile operating expenses by a factor of 5 and moving 200,000 nore people to San Francisco by 2035. http://apps.mtc.ca.gov/meeting_packet_documents/agenda_1496/6_GHG_Target_Update.pdf

Bill Dyer

The real conspiracy here is Glenn Beck using this Agenda 21 nonsense to stir up the gullible so he can keep raking in the bucks:

Hear Ye
Hear Ye

this message brought to you by the paranoid far right.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.