CAPE TOWN (Reuters) - The worst drought in living memory has hit vineyards in South Africa’s Western Cape hard, reducing grape harvests and adding to pressure on the region’s centuries-old wine industry, officials said on Tuesday.
I did not endorse either side.
Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Barbara Pahre
I was shocked to find my name on a political campaign endorsement "wrap around" advertisement in the Sunday Napa Valley Register and listed as publicly endorsing No on C. That was an error and a major political misstep. How does that happen?
To the best of my knowledge, I have never given permission for my name to be used in a public endorsement advertisement for either Yes or No on C.
Please correct that error and do not allow that list to be published until my name is gone, as I have never given either the Yes or No on C campaign permission to use my name publicly.
Barbara Pahre
Napa
Disregard the slanted and misleading arguments that are circulating.
Letter to the Editor - The Bohemian by Michael Honig
As the 2017 chair of the Napa Valley Vintners board of directors, I worked with other community members to develop what has become Measure C. I'm writing to encourage you to join me in voting yes on C.
There is a lot of noise out there right now as people take sides and disseminate various arguments regarding development of the Napa Valley. There are those who believe that the future of the valley depends upon more growth, and others who wish to limit growth.
In 1968, when the Agriculture Preserve was originally created, many people voted against their own economic self-interest to protect the land and limit its exploitation. We are facing another such decision, and as a vintner and longtime resident, I am deeply concerned that a no vote on Measure C will erode decades of important protection of our precious land.
Measure C will not stop agriculture and, in fact, only pertains to certain specific areas in the agricultural watershed. Currently, there are thousands of acres that could be developed, as well as thousands more that are already entitled to development but have not been developed. I'm concerned that inaccurate information is being circulated as both sides of the argument fight for a win.
I urge you to carefully read Measure C for yourselves and try to disregard the slanted and misleading arguments that are circulating. After understanding exactly what the measure will and will not do, I hope that you will also vote yes.
—Michael Honig
Rutherford
Here's what the courts said.
Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Robert "Perl" Perlmutter
I am the attorney who represented supporters of Measure C in a recent lawsuit challenging false and misleading statements in the ballot arguments filed by Measure C’s opponents. I’m writing to clear up some misconceptions about the reason behind the Napa County Superior Court’s order directing that five of those statements be deleted from the opponents’ ballot arguments, and to explain the significance of these changes.
Because of the First Amendment, it is extremely rare for a court to order changes to official ballot arguments. Only in the unusual case where an argument contains statements that are objectively false and misleading can a court order a change. Even where there is a settlement, as in this situation, the court must first find that the statements to be changed are objectively false and misleading.
That is what happened here. Don’t take my word for it. Read the Court’s Order (on page 8) here: bit.ly/2HJiymL. In ordering these changes, the court recites that state law prohibits the court from making any changes to ballot arguments unless there is “clear and convincing proof that that the material in question is false [or] misleading.”
That is what the opponents agreed to, and that is what the court ordered. Indeed, it is only because the court sided with the Yes on C campaign about these statements that the opposition campaign was forced to cover all attorney’s fees related to this matter.
Some of Measure C’s opponents have tried to claim victory in this case because there was a settlement and because one of the six challenged statements was allowed to remain unchanged.
But the settlement required the opponents to change five of the six challenged statements because they were objectively false. The one remaining statement concerned the opponents’ opinion about the alleged effect of Measure C.
Such opinions, even if totally unfounded, are protected by the First Amendment and, therefore, immune from challenge. As the courts have explained, opinions about the effect of an initiative — as opposed to facts — are not subject to proof of their truth or falsity.
Still wondering who is right, and who won this lawsuit? You can read the court order and settlement for yourself at YesOnC.org.
Robert "Perl" Perlmutter
San Francisco
Invest in watershed improvements, not taller dams.
Watershed conservation is one of the least expensive solutions to ensure greater water quantity, quality and security, cheaper than building new infrastructure and certainly more cost effective than the initially estimated $1.3 billion price tag to raise Shasta Dam. Unlike large dam infrastructure projects, which consistently have cost and time overruns, natural infrastructure projects have been accomplished under budget and on time. New York City, for example, used watershed conservation policies in the 1990s to clean city water more cheaply than by building a new water treatment plant.
Don't be mislead by mailers.
Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Yeoryios C. Apallas
"For several weeks now, the opposition to Measure C has spent a great deal of money spreading, what in my opinion is, materially misleading information about Measure C and its impacts on the watershed and the wine industry’s ability to plant vineyards into our precious agricultural watersheds.
Armed with a million-plus in wine and tourist industry dollars, the No On C folks have excoriated the provisions of Measure C and its proponents to the point of mass hysteria. This unrelenting attack on Measure C’s common sense-watershed protection has, in my opinion, brought out the darkest of forces in these industries that seek to continue their irresponsible and heretofore unchecked winery developments."
Brochure knocked my socks off
Letter to the Editor, Napa Valley Register, May 4, by Pamela Jackson
I received a slick brochure recently that knocked my socks off. Opponents of Measure C changed their ballot arguments in a Napa County Superior Court settlement due to objectively false statements, yet this brochure makes it sound as if they won the suit. They did not. They paid $54,000 for their misstatements. Furthermore, the Superior Court did not validate the effects of Measure C.
Here are the “No on C” ballot arguments which were removed per the lawsuit:
1. “Measure C will outlaw future farming in the Ag Watershed;” (Absolutely not true.)
2. “Restrictions from Measure C will prevent property owners from … adding to one’s home” (Actually Measure C exempts a 150 foot radius around houses, more than an acre and a half.)
3. “Please join … Napa County Supervisors and Mayors in Napa County, who all oppose Measure C.” (No, not all of them oppose Measure C.)
4. “Measure C will reverse these protections by allowing 795 acres of oak woodlands to be removed—" (In truth, the 795 acre exemption supports, not reverses, the current protection.)
The brochures that Measure C opponents are stuffing in our mailboxes are shady and misleading. Evidently, there is truth in advertising but not in politics. Profit-motive driven behavior that trumps truth seems to be a profound problem in our national soul lately and it is becoming a threat to our democracy.
But let’s hope we can at least address this in our own backyard. If government won’t limit the greed that leads to the continued slashing of our forests then the solution has to come from the people.
The flyer tells us how far some members in the industry will go. They will deceive -- and that doesn’t set well with me. We need to stand up against big money, stand up for clean and adequate water for our children. The Valley will continue to prosper but let us at least keep the oak trees on the hillsides that replenish our aquifer. Measure C is a visionary compromise of vineyard development and our community’s water needs.
I’ve got my socks back on now; please vote yes on C with me.
Pamela Jackson
Napa
Here’s the Science – Yes on C.
Clarity bought to the watershed debate by a veteran vintner and grower
"[Opponent of C] Mr. Smith sounds the drumbeat of "where's the science?" knowing full well that there is ample science. The Watershed Task Force compiled and summarized the science associated with protecting vs. deforesting watersheds. The Dunne report (2001) systematically detailed the cumulative and permanent impact of deforestation. Mr. Smith has been an active participant in the consideration of the science involved, and his claim that none exists is disingenuous. What science would he like to argue with?
The beneficial services of oak forests? The negative impact of deforestation? The benefits of tertiary and secondary streams? The detriment of Roundup to our waterways? (Higgins, 2018)
Would he like to argue that vineyards don't use water drawn from the water table? He begins to sound like the climate change deniers who look straight at the science and declare it to be opinion. Can he show any science that shows that deforestation is good? A single case? No, I didn't think so."
"Mistruths" are part of well-worn strategy.
Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Joyce Black Sears
"Prove them wrong. Don't be distracted. Protect our water for the benefit of everyone, including those corporate operations. Take back control of our Napa Valley. Vote yes on Measure C in June."
Don't believe the propaganda.
Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Vincent Gewalt
"Measure C is about making sure our woodlands will not be deforested, our streams, our ground water will not be polluted by chemicals, and our habitat will be protected and corporations will be held accountable for any violations.
Please take the time to read both sides and not be misled by out-of-state propaganda in fooling us in believing they want to protect Napa. Vote yes on C."