The controversy over Measure C has to make all of us think. For example, you would think that the Napa Valley Vintners Association, which helped write Measure C, would be supporting it instead of calling it vague and misleading while spending a small fortune to defeat it.
You would think that a county that just lost a large number of trees to a wildfire would place a high value on its remaining forests.
You would think that a valley that faces a perpetual drought would do everything possible to protect the trees that help provide its supply of clean water.
You would also think that people value breathing clean air (yes, trees make that possible too).
More to the point, you would think that everyone could agree that quality of life is more important than money.
Obviously, the No on C crowd doesn’t think this way. Instead, they think that they can fool Napa’s sophisticated voter base into believing the ever expanding list of “unintended consequences” that appear on countless signs and mailers. These range from the just plain false (Bad for Agriculture) to the curious (Increases Traffic on Highway 29) to the absurd (you won’t be able to widen your driveway).
They also think voters will believe the statements of their bought-and-paid for political leaders who assure us that Measure C isn’t necessary because adequate land protections are already in place. If that were true, then the Walt Ranch project would have been dismissed when it was first proposed instead of being rubber stamped by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Here’s what we think. If you value clean water, clean air, and good quality of life, then you should vote for Measure C. If you like being lied to, enjoy sitting in traffic on Highway 29, and don’t mind seeing this valley run for the express benefit of political and economic elite, then by all means vote against it.
Paul Gridley and Joanie Seidel