It is presumed most Napa County residents received the No on C flyer in their mail that states on the front "Napa County Superior Court Validates No on C Arguments," and inside the flyer it also states "The supporters of Measure C have stipulated that the Measure has unintended consequences."

Am I missing some important facts here? Did not the Superior Court state that the No on C campaign had four arguments that were incorrect and needed to be removed from their campaign literature? I don't recall reading anything in the results of the Napa County Superior Court hearing stating negativity regarding the Yes on C campaign.

Is this the kind of thing we are currently experiencing from our leadership in Washington, and if so, I am disheartened, especially since the Napa County Farm Bureau and Vintners Association have always been so upstanding in this valley as well as organizations we citizens could count on being upstanding and truthful.

Everyone is celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Ag Preserve, as if everyone was all for it initially. They weren’t, but the visionary Supervisors of that era made it happen nonetheless. If the Ag Preserve were not currently in place and it were to be proposed today, I can only presume that many of the NO on C aficionados would be the same people fighting the Ag Preserve concept just like they are fighting Measure C.

They call Measure C proponents as providing “no science" or “junk science” in their argument against Measure C. Wasn’t it in the fourth or fifth grade where we learned the science of a healthy watershed for sustainability of life? Have those basic concepts become “junk science” today?

How about the destruction of the Amazon rain forests and the resulting devastation in its wake? Isn’t that a reality to be reckoned with, even here in Napa County?

Richard Svendsen


Be the first to know

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.