Editorial
Sunday, October 8, 2006
Land use debates are the political battles royale in Napa County. The current debate is over Measure I, a proposal on the November ballot for a new county parks and open space district.
The Register editorial board recently met with impassioned advocates for and against Measure I. In favor were Napa County supervisors Mark Luce and Brad Wagenknecht, Land Trust of Napa County Executive Director John Hoffnagle and Tony Norris, a candidate for the parks district board if it is created. Opposed were Napa County Supervisor Bill Dodd, Napa County Planning Commissioners Terry Scott and Rich Jager, and Michael Haley, who heads the no on I campaign.
The proposed parks and open space district is intended to improve access to some 120,000 acres of public lands, from the Newell Preserve near American Canyon to remote regions north of Lake Berryessa. According to Hoffnagle, Napa is one of only five counties in the state without a parks department.
Foes of Measure I say they do not oppose parks or open space -- what Dodd equated with "motherhood and apple pie." Instead, they are opponents of the new agency, which would have limited taxing authority. They are vigorous opponents of the way financing is addressed, or not addressed, in the ballot measure.
 |
|
|
|
Jager said proponents "are asking us to take them on faith. I cannot take a new bureaucracy with the power to tax on faith."
Here's what the supporters say about parks financing: The county already has funds in the form of increased revenues from the county's transient occupancy tax, paid by visitors to local inns. When that tax was increased in 2004 from 10.5 to 12 percent, county leaders said their intent was to direct some money toward tourism -- a nod to the industry that generates the hotel tax -- and some toward open space.
"We've already got a pot of money," said Luce.
The parks agency would be supported by roughly $350,000 a year in its first years, without a new tax. But a government agency can't do a lot with that amount of money, and that subject spurred criticism from opponents.
They say the county clearly will seek a tax -- sales tax increase, parcel tax, something -- to support this agency. They say those sponsoring Measure I know this but made no mention of it in the initiative in order to improve their chances at the polls.
At the editorial board meeting, Measure I supporters acknowledged that it would take far more than $350,000 to run this agency to its maximum potential. But they emphasized the agency could live within a small budget and still accomplish things -- improve access to the Oat Hill Mine Trail near Calistoga, for example, or start the work of attracting grants and state funds.
A small agency, said Luce and Wagenknecht, would be better than leaving things to the Board of Supervisors, who have done nothing on this topic for decades. Wagenknecht noted county voters approved a parks department in 1975. "It never was funded," he said. "We've had 30 years to make a department. It hasn't happened."
In that light, Measure I foes said supporting parks is simply a matter of political will. If the supervisors already have the money and authority, the county doesn't need a new agency.
Scott, Jager and Haley said they would support some spending on parks -- even a parcel tax to pay for it -- if the county did so without creating a new entity and was "up front" about the budget needs, as Haley put it.
Luce and Wagenknecht said the county has been up front, from the passage of the hotel tax increase to the public parks committee meetings since 2004.
It was a curious debate. Measure I advocates say they don't need a tax increase, but admit that they still need to develop a detailed plan.
Opponents say they'd be willing to see a tax increase to pay for parks and open space, but that the Measure I plan is flawed.
In some respects, they seemed not so far apart. In others, there loomed a gap familiar in Napa County -- not so much over the use of land in this beautiful and vibrant place -- but over who makes the land use rules and how.
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2006/10/08/opinion/editorial/iq_3633090.txt