Complaint Filed with State Elections Watchdog over Official Legal Analysis of Napa County’s Measure C

Napa County – The attorney for the Yes on C campaign filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) late on Monday, May 7th, charging that the Napa County Board of Supervisors, as well as Supervisors Ramos and Pedroza, are “actively engaged in an unregistered and unreported campaign against the Napa County Watershed and Oak Woodland Protection Initiative of 2018, which has been placed on the June 5, 2018, ballot as Napa County Measure C.” Read the entire complaint filed here:

The complaint asks the FPPC to take enforcement action against the county for unlawfully using public funds to prepare a “9111 Report” that advocates against Measure C.  The county’s report was prepared by the law firm the county previously retained to keep a very similar ballot measure off the ballot in 2016. Under the California Constitution, public officials are prohibited from using taxpayer dollars to advocate for or against a ballot measure. Instead, the California Supreme Court has directed that any materials prepared at public expense must be limited to “fair presentation” of “all relevant facts” and cannot be used “to promote a partisan position in an election campaign.”

“The county’s 9111 report on Measure C is so outside the norms of what these analyses typically include that it’s a stretch to call it a ‘9111 report’ at all,” said Robert “Perl” Perlmutter of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP, the law firm that drafted the language of Measure C as well as previously adopted citizens’ initiatives in Napa County, Measures J and P. “The report is campaign advocacy paid for with taxpayer dollars, plain and simple. We feel confident that the FPPC will agree with our position.”

Under state elections law, public agencies like boards of supervisors and city councils have the authority to prepare reports informing voters about the potential impacts of citizens initiatives that affect their local jurisdictions. These analyses, known as 9111 reports (in reference to a section in the California Elections Code), are authorized to examine seven specified effects of county initiatives as well as any other matters the board requests. The county’s report was drafted in a biased manner that did not consider any of Measure C’s benefits and failed to analyze any of the seven effects identified in the Elections Code.

The report contains no discussion of how and to what degree Measure C will further its stated goals of ensuring long-term protections for Napa County’s oak woodlands, streams, and wetlands. The approach taken in the Measure C report stands in stark contrast to the approach taken in past 9111 reports for other Napa County ballot measures.

According to the FPPC complaint, “the 69-page report . . . reads as if it were a legal hit piece prepared for an opponent of Measure C, with the sole purpose of cataloguing every conceivable ground—no matter how flimsy—for potentially challenging Measure C in court.” The complaint points out that the executive summary in the report highlights the allegedly “significant” likelihood that Measure C’s opponents will file litigation against Measure C on numerous grounds. But the report then buries the fact that such potential lawsuits against the measure would most likely fail in court. 

The report repeatedly asserts that key terms in the initiative might be attacked as unconstitutionally vague, without mentioning that those same terms are repeatedly used in the county’s existing laws, the county has never had a problem interpreting them, and they have never been legally challenged.

The complaint also names Supervisors Ramos and Pedroza, who signed the ballot arguments against Measure C that relied on the taxpayer-funded report to promote their political position on this matter. 

The complaint alleges that the board and these individual supervisors violated state law by unlawfully using public funds for campaign purposes. It also argues that “they have violated numerous provisions of the Political Reform Act by: (1) failing to file the required independent expenditure verification; (2) failing to include any legally required disclaimers on certain campaign materials; and (3) failing to acknowledge their ongoing campaign finance reporting obligations.”

“The bottom line is that the county’s report about Measure C is replete with fundamentally misleading, biased, and inflammatory statements. It’s a campaign document, and must be treated accordingly,” concluded Perlmutter.

Letter sent to Fair Political Practices Commission names the Board of Supervisors and
Supervisors Ramos and Pedroza for using taxpayer funds to support campaign activity.

Rights require responsibility – Yes on C.

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Andy Beckstoffer

The anti-conservation forces are declaring that the Measure C protection of watersheds is an assault to their property rights. It is not; it is a normal and expected outcome of increasing density of development.

In the early days of populating an area, the impact of one person is typically negligible, and so there are few formal restrictions. As an area becomes more populated, two things happen.

First, there are irresponsible people who do things on their land that have negative impacts on neighbors and downstream. Whether carving up a mountain such that it washes into the river, polluting, or creating problems with neighbors, rules are created to make it clear that irresponsible behavior is not allowed.

Of greater significance is the aggregate impact of development when an area attracts many landowners to deforest, build facilities, and scrape the land of natural vegetation. The aggregate and cumulative impact of development has harmful effects for neighbors and downstream communities, even if each individual adheres to a "best practice" approach.

That was resoundingly demonstrated in the Dunne report of 2001. As density increases, the cumulative impact becomes significant, and each landowner has to adhere to increasingly stringent rules to prevent permanent harm to the environment and its citizens. Even the first guy, who operated under no rules and was responsible, has to adhere to the rules that protect everybody. The same rules for everybody.

Is this stealing property rights? No. Nobody has unlimited sovereign rights. In general, you can do with your property as you please, unless it negatively impacts others. You can’t build a rock concert venue down a two-lane road deep in a canyon and you can’t operate a mercury mine (any more).

You can’t light a bonfire in windy dry weather. In Los Angeles in the 1950s, dry trash was burned in incinerators in back yards. The cumulative impact was horrid smog, so it was made illegal to possess an incinerator.

Was this an infringement on property rights? Not at all. It was acknowledgment that with increasing population density, this was a pretty stupid thing to do.

The flip side of the “rights” argument is “responsibility.” Acknowledge that Napa today is not the Napa of 1970. The volume and density of development – agriculture and "hospitality" - is having cumulative impact on the county, and we will have to create rules that protect the environment and communities from the cumulative impact of individually responsible operations.

Property rights are not absolute or infinite. What you can do with your property has always been with consideration to the impact on others. You are part of a community.

Which brings us back to Measure C. It is up to the citizens of our community to pass the initiative that will assure a healthy environment for all of Napa County’s current and future generations. Please join me in voting 'yes' on Measure C.

Andy Beckstoffer

St. Helena

It's only natural: the push to give rivers, mountains and forests legal rights

As reported in The Guardian

"What kind of culture develops the systems we have now that created such devastation?"

Read the entire article here:

Action now on water

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Charlie Toldeo

"Napa County cannot wait another week or years to start being proactive. What we are in the midst of is a major statewide water crisis. If the general public knew how critical the local water situation is, they would be very angry that the legislators have failed the public at such critical junctures."

Read Charlie's letter here:

Initiative process is healthy for democracy.

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Kathy Felch.

 

 

"The initiative process is a healthy one and must be used when our government does not provide for the public good. Our local government’s lack of respect for welfare of the citizens of this county has led in large part to the emergence of these two initiatives."

Read Kathy's entire letter here:

Vote Yes on Measure C and preserve our oak woodlands.

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Richard Niemann

"Corporate wineries and wealthy developers are opposing Measure C for their own profit. They are distorting the facts in their mailings and on their signs. They are hiring out-of-town people to canvas the neighborhoods to spread their selfish message. They have hired political consultants to manipulate the truth."

Read the entire letter here:

Time to vote YES on Measure C

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Geoff Nelson

Even though Napa has been a leader in sustainability, we all feel the negative effects of the explosive growth. As a wine grower for 30 years, I feel it’s time for Yes on C.

Read Geoff's entire letter here:

Reasons to vote 'yes' on Measure C

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Harry Price

There have been a lot of dire claims from Measure C’s opponents about the negative effects Measure C would have on Napa County, but I urge all Napa County voters to ask themselves a few simple questions with their ballots in their hands:

1. Does it make sense that saving trees would raise taxes?

2. Does it make sense that saving trees would increase local traffic?

3. Does it make sense that saving trees would destroy the beauty of our valley?

4. Does it make sense that saving trees from development would cause event centers to spring up?

If you agree with me that none of the above makes common sense, then join me in voting YES on Measure C.

Passage of Measure C won’t solve our environmental problems but will help: help save our oak woodlands; help create more oxygen for us to breathe; help provide food and shelter for wildlife; help reduce carbon dioxide to offset global warming; help to reduce sediment in our waterways and will help re-charge our water supply.

Any one of the above is reason to vote 'yes' on Measure C. Measure C will point us in the right direction. Join me in voting YES on Measure C.

Harry Price

Napa

Read Measure C carefully, then vote yes

Letter to the Editor - St. Helena Star 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 long-time 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

Time's Up: To protect local water supplies, Napa County voters must approve Measure C

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register, by Measure C proponents Mike Hackett and Jim Wilson

The Napa Valley Register’s recent editorial had a lot of good things to say about Measure C, and for good reason ("The measures on the June Ballot," April 29). Napa County’s water security is in jeopardy and protecting our oak woodlands would go a long way toward improving the situation.

As stated in the editorial, it’s time to “take a hard look at the current regulations protecting the streams and trees in the hills surrounding the valley.” The facts are clear that, “Those forests and streams feed the Napa River and recharge the reservoirs and aquifers that supply the cities and vineyards on the Valley floor. Those trees are not just scenic treasures, but also a line of defense against the looming menace of climate change.”

We agree that we must act proactively to protect Napa County’s water supply, just as we protected the land best suited to farming by establishing the Ag Preserve in 1968. As the editorial noted, “we should not wait until there is a tree-clearing gold rush in our back country, or until our aquifers begin to fail, before protecting the national treasure that is Napa County.”

Where we part ways with the newspaper is in its faith that our Board of Supervisors will improve protections for our watershed lands. Experience proves that the only way to increase protections of our watershed lands is through a citizens’ initiative.

Everyone in the county has known that this initiative was coming for at least three years. We first gathered signatures to place a very similar measure on the 2016 ballot. After signatures were gathered, county counsel identified a legal procedural flaw at the 11th hour, forcing our team to collect a new set of signatures to qualify for the current ballot. That means proponents successfully collected more than 6,000 signatures twice in support of this measure in the past few years.

Once signatures were gathered, the Board of Supervisors had a chance to adopt the measure outright. But did they choose to do so? No. Because the corporate wine industry enjoys an outsized influence over our elected officials.

People who have been tracking the journey of Measure C know, that after we failed to get this initiative onto the 2016 ballot, we worked with leaders from the Napa Valley Vintners to develop the initiative that is now before you. (The NVV has since caved to pressure from some of its largest members, many of which are large corporations without local roots.)

NVV’s leaders knew Measure C was coming. Rather than wait and see what it would include, they actively collaborated to shape the details of the measure. That 795-acre cap for oak woodland clearing in the Ag Watershed for agricultural purposes? NVV suggested that number as a reasonable compromise.

NVV was so involved in drafting this measure, they paid for more than half of the legal bills associated with putting it together. Their leaders had private meetings with every supervisor and our team to introduce the new initiative and ask for support from each of them.

In private, we had firm commitments from at least three of the supervisors that they would support Measure C. All of them made clear that they were supportive because wine industry leaders provided the cover they needed. It was a natural: super-influential wine industry group representing over 500 vintners, aligned in a compromise agreement to save our water supply and oak woodlands into the future. One supervisor even signaled the board would likely adopt the measure outright once signatures were collected and suggested the county have a party to celebrate its adoption in conjunction with 50th anniversary celebrations for the Ag Preserve.

We remember these details clearly because we took detailed contemporaneous notes at and after all of these meetings.

When the major wine industry groups later opted to oppose the initiative, our elected officials lost their nerve. They realized they would have to risk alienating major campaign contributors by taking a stand that might upset a handful of extremely rich and powerful wine industry interests. Rather than take that risk, they caved.

So, Napa County voters should understand why we’re not going to wait and see if our elected officials will take the urgent action needed to protect Napa County’s water supplies. We already know they won’t.

Climate change is not waiting for the supervisors to wake up to the reality of what another harsh and extended drought would mean for our water supplies. Farmers – including grapegrowers – are not waiting for the new regulations to cut down oaks as quickly as possible from our Ag Watershed.

To borrow a phrase from another urgent movement of our era, Time’s Up: The time to protect local water supplies is now, and the citizens can make it happen. Yes on C.

Mike Hackett and Jim Wilson

Proponents of Measure C

4