CAMPAIGN 2006: Napa County land measure
Property rights activists want county to pay
Officials, environmentalists fight proposal they say could jeopardize land-use rules
By Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Property rights activists in Napa County say their June ballot initiative seems reasonable: If the county approves new laws or regulations that lower a property's value, the county should pay the owner's losses.
But many of the county's political leaders, in addition to environmentalists, are working to kill the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance's Measure A, particularly after polling early in the year showed that voters might approve it.
Critics say that while the measure may sound reasonable at first, it would wreak havoc on local land-use planning and produce a tidal wave of hugely expensive litigation that could drain funds from other county programs.
"Measure A would have horrendous financial consequences,'' said county Supervisor Mark Luce, who is leading the campaign against the measure. He says it would not allow the county to update existing rules and would provide an incentive for filing claims over restrictions now on the books even though it would not be retroactive.
Siding with Luce are such potent organizations as the Napa Valley Vinters Association and the Napa County Farm Bureau, as well as various police unions, business chambers and environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Greenbelt Alliance.
But Mike Rodrigues, vice president of the Land Stewards Alliance, which is backed by the Napa County Republican Party, says the initiative's opponents are engaging in scare tactics.
"Measure A is very mild. Our opponents are making it sound like the end of the world,'' said Rodrigues, a political consultant.
Rodrigues said he got the idea for the measure after leading a successful 2004 referendum campaign that nullified a county ordinance restricting development near streams. The ordinance's definition of watercourses needing protection was so expansive that it would have rendered his own 16-acre property largely unusable, he said.
Measure A would not require compensation to property owners affected by past approvals of county planning rules, Rodrigues said -- unlike Measure 37, a controversial statewide initiative that Oregon voters approved in 2004.
Some critics of the Napa measure had compared it to the Oregon measure but have since dropped most of that rhetoric. Measure 37 took land-use experts nationwide by surprise, as Oregon had long pursued aggressive policies designed to preserve open space and limit urban sprawl.
"Oregon has been a leader in land-use planning for many, many years,'' said Terry Rivasplata, a planner at Jones & Stokes in Sacramento, an environmental consulting firm that is following the Napa County debate over Measure A.
Rodrigues acknowledges being inspired by the Oregon initiative, which has spawned other similar property rights measures around the country, but says he thinks its retroactivity was bad policy.
"None of us are looking to build a shopping mall,'' said Rodrigues. "We're not a bunch of right-wing nuts with bulldozers idling ready to rape the valley.''
Measure A would allow supervisors to avoid paying for the economic impact of a new ordinance or regulation simply by getting voters to approve them or by exempting specific property owners, he said.
"(County supervisors are) just going to have to really think carefully'' before limiting land uses, Rodrigues said. "If it's important to them, they can refer to voters.''
Luce was on Rodrigues' side on the stream-setback issue, and in 2004 the Land Stewards Alliance gave Luce its Community Leader of Integrity Award.
This time, however, Luce is adamantly against his former allies.
"Measure A is a poorly written initiative that may have been well intended but does more harm than good,'' he said. "This is just going overboard.''
E-mail Patrick Hoge at phoge@sfchronicle.com.
Page B - 4
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/18/BAG6LITN7I1.DTL
©2006 San Francisco Chronicle