 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Home Resource Center In the News Home Greenbelt Alliance in the News |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
Greenbelt Alliance In the News
November 10, 2005 Looking for substance in Land Steward's argument Letter to the Editor By WALTER HAMPEI was amused to read Mr. Steven Levine's commentary in your Oct. 25 edition ("Read it and weep: 'Fair Pay' foes are out of touch"). In what I suppose was meant to enlighten the public about why they should support the so-called "Fair Pay Initiative," his only tactic was to vilify as many opponents as he could list. When I had finished reading the diatribe, I was no more able to find reasons to support the measure than before I read it. Is that perhaps because lobbing slurs on groups and individuals is the high mark of the Land Stewards' campaign? Let's see. Going down the list from top to bottom, the letter demeans Nancy Tamarisk, the Sierra Club, the Greenbelt Alliance, Farm Bureau leadership, Get a Grip on Growth and the Board of Supervisors. Singled out for a special award of defamation was Supervisor Diane Dillon. The only one of these organizations I am a member of is the Sierra Club, which I joined a few decades ago. I left, however, for a few years when our locals became as radical on one extreme as the Land Stewards are on the other. I have rejoined recently since the club has become more sensible. So I am not defending organizations of which I am a member. In fact, I am on public record as opposing some of these groups on other issues. It is just that I don't think that mudslinging is the key to a civilized debate on a public issue that can have such dire long-term effects on the citizens of Napa County. I was especially delighted to read his attacks on the Board of Supervisors, who authorized the expenditure of $30,000 to see what the effects of this measure might be on the county. If you read the consultant's report that was produced by this independent study, you will see why they are so opposed to this minimum expenditure. If only one-quarter of the issues analyzed were to become reality in the coming years, that would bankrupt the county, and $30,000 would seem like the pittance it is. No wonder they have spent so much time attempting to undermine this study. If an independent study of my proposals had refuted me so thoroughly, I would hardly be touting it either. Just as they suggest that you read their initiative, I suggest you read the independent consultant's report, You will discover that this initiative, while "short," is not so "simple" as they claim. The Land Stewards are really out to clothe the Board of Supervisors in the blackest of hats as if they are willfully out to destroy this county. But who elects the Board of Supervisors? We do. They are our representatives, and if they go against the public interest, they will soon find themselves back at their day jobs. While I don't always agree with the Board's actions, these attempts to portray them as a bunch of officials too lazy to read the proposals before them or too stupid to understand what they are voting on are, to me, are disgusting. So why am I opposed to this measure? It is simple. Passage of this measure will threaten the economic and agricultural stability of this county. Perhaps not today or tomorrow, but somewhere down the line, when there is an unforeseen problem or disaster and when the Board of Supervisors are unable to act for fear of destructive law suits, then we will learn of the disaster hidden in this "simple" measure. I think that this measure is a solution looking for a problem. As I look around this county, I don't see any issues requiring such a radical solution. As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Hampe lives in Napa.) ### |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
