Subscribe for 33¢ / day

Where is the evidence that the current regulations are not working? The proponents of Measure C have a solution searching for a problem.

The initiative changes are not based in scientific research, but instead are pursuits of special interests, and a small handful of growers that already made an impact on the hillsides, and are now attacking this one arm of agriculture.

Am I missing our hillsides being devoid of trees and over-run with vineyards? The existing regulations we have, Measures J and P, and the Agricultural Preserve, are doing an excellent job protecting our hillsides and watershed.

Measure C is too poorly written and will have far too many unforeseen consequences. Direct democracy has its purpose, it includes stakeholders, and utilizes science and data to make decisions.

The initiative process is the wrong tool for a complicated land use and zoning bill. Unintended consequences often occur with any new endeavor. The permanency of this initiative makes maneuvering those unforeseen situations impossible.

The taxpayers will foot the bill for many court battles that will ensue unless you vote 'no' on C. The 9111 report was clear that this conflicts with Napa County’s General Plan. The results will be costly lawsuits against the county, with the taxpayers footing the bill.

Measure C ends up hurting smaller local farmers, who are the fabric of our community, and pushes us farther down the rabbit hole of increased development of non-agricultural activities in our hillsides. The increasing costs to farm while decreasing sustainable farm land and property value will disproportionately hurt smaller local farmers. Owners will be forced to pursue other avenues for their land when agriculture is no longer the best use of the land.

Let the county and the conservationists keep protecting our hillsides and watersheds and don’t let a few disgruntled individuals circumvent longstanding protections because they have personal grievances with a particular project.

Harvest Scaduto-Duhig