By Hector Olvera | Napa Valley Register, Sunday, January 3, 2010
Thousands of people who work in Napa County have to drive here each day from other counties. These are the workers who pick the grapes, the dishwashers and waiters in our restaurants, the store clerks, the office workers, construction workers, truck drivers, house cleaners, auto mechanics and many others. They live in Vallejo, Clearlake and other places where housing is more affordable and commute many miles back and forth each day.
The economy of Napa County depends on these workers. Our local governments have approved dozens of expensive new hotels, wineries, restaurants and other businesses in recent years but have done nothing to make housing available for all the people who work in these businesses. Wineries provide some bunkhouses where farmworkers can sleep, but the workers have to leave their families behind. That’s a big hardship for the farmworkers and for their families. It’s also not fair to the other counties that have to provide schools and public services for the families of workers in Napa County. And anyone concerned about the environment should ask why thousands of cars are driving all those miles back and forth to work each day. More than 20,000 cars commute into the county each day to work. That’s a lot of greenhouse gas.
Many of the workers who are driving long distances to work in Napa’s vineyards, hotels and restaurants are Latino. Our group, Latinos Unidos de Napa, has been trying for years to get more affordable housing built in Napa County. The county promised us in 2004 that they would provide sites for affordable housing, but most of the sites they designated were not allowed to have water service, so no housing could be built there except for million-dollar mansions. Not a single unit of affordable housing has been built in the unincorporated areas of the county in many years, and very few affordable units have been built in the cities.
The lack of affordable housing discriminates against Latinos and the thousands of other lower-income families who would like to live in Napa County but can’t afford to do so. Latinos Unidos has filed lawsuits to try to stop this discrimination. Persons working in Napa should be able to live here, also. We harvest the grapes, clean the hotel rooms, prepare the gourmet restaurant meals and contribute in so many other ways to the economy of this county. We shouldn’t be forced to live somewhere else because there’s no affordable housing allowed here. Housing choices should be available to all persons working in the county — whatever their income or their race. We hope the courts and elected officials in the county will agree.
This letter is written on behalf of Luis Vera, Ignacio Garcia, Oscar Caceres and others.
(Olvera lives in Napa.)
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Latinos Unidos Sues County Over Housing
Napa Valley Register
By JILLIAN JONES
Saturday, November 21, 2009 12:00 am
Affordable housing advocate David Grabill sued Napa County on Friday over what he says is a failure to provide adequate affordable housing in unincorporated areas of the county.
Grabill, the Santa Rosa lawyer who is also doing legal battle with the city of Napa over its housing plan, claims Napa County is doing too little to promote affordable housing and is out of compliance with state law.
The lawsuit was filed in Napa County Superior Court.
Grabill represents a group of Napa and American Canyon residents called Latinos Unidos de Napa, the same group he represented in a similar lawsuit against the county in 2003 that forced the county into expensive housing deals with the cities of Napa and American Canyon.
His complaint centers on Napa County’s housing plan, adopted by the Napa County Board of Supervisors in June and rejected by the state agency in charge of housing in September. The California Department of Housing and Community Development concluded that Napa County should allocate more affordable housing at the former Napa Pipe site rather than plan for the unlikely event that housing is built in Angwin, Spanish Flat or Moskowite Corners.
Chairman of the board Mark Luce said Tuesday that supervisors will consider leaving the housing plan as is even though it is not certified by the state.
Luce acknowledged the move could put the county at risk for a lawsuit, but he said the board believes the housing plan is legally defensible as it stands.
Jobs and housing balance?
Grabill said Friday that he is suing the county because although the unincorporated areas have seen a large expansion in the last decade in employment, “very little housing affordable to those folks has been built.”
There are 40,000 car trips a day from people commuting into Napa County who can’t afford to live here, he said, resulting in consequences to the environment and the quality of life.
“The county and the city have an obligation to maintain balance between employment and housing, and affordable housing, and that hasn’t happened here,” Grabill said.
He added that since he sued the county in 2003 a settlement was reached in 2004 that involved swapping housing requirements with the cities of Napa and American Canyon — not a single affordable housing unit has been built in the unincorporated areas of the county.
“We’re not happy with how the county has proceeded after the last case, and we’re going to try again,” Grabill said.
Grabill said he wants to see the county designate properties for affordable housing where the homes actually have a chance to be built.
“We shouldn’t have to argue about (the availability of) water and sewer,” he said.
He said that while planning for homes at the former Napa Pipe in south Napa County could be a good solution to the county’s affordable housing problem, the county’s housing plan allows for the development of only about 300 units, far fewer than the 2,580 proposed by developers.
“We don’t think that project will go forward if it’s only allowed to develop (300) units,” Grabill said.
Napa Pipe developer Keith Rogal said that although his lawyers contacted the state earlier this year with similar comments about the feasibility of building only 300 units at Napa Pipe, he does not support suing the county.
Rogal said he hasn’t had a chance to review Grabill’s complaint, but added, “From a general perspective as a taxpayer and a resident, lawsuits aren’t good.”
As for who is paying for the lawsuit against the county, Grabill said only, “I am a public interest lawyer and I sometimes get paid. I sometimes don’t.”
By JILLIAN JONES
Saturday, November 21, 2009 12:00 am
Affordable housing advocate David Grabill sued Napa County on Friday over what he says is a failure to provide adequate affordable housing in unincorporated areas of the county.
Grabill, the Santa Rosa lawyer who is also doing legal battle with the city of Napa over its housing plan, claims Napa County is doing too little to promote affordable housing and is out of compliance with state law.
The lawsuit was filed in Napa County Superior Court.
Grabill represents a group of Napa and American Canyon residents called Latinos Unidos de Napa, the same group he represented in a similar lawsuit against the county in 2003 that forced the county into expensive housing deals with the cities of Napa and American Canyon.
His complaint centers on Napa County’s housing plan, adopted by the Napa County Board of Supervisors in June and rejected by the state agency in charge of housing in September. The California Department of Housing and Community Development concluded that Napa County should allocate more affordable housing at the former Napa Pipe site rather than plan for the unlikely event that housing is built in Angwin, Spanish Flat or Moskowite Corners.
Chairman of the board Mark Luce said Tuesday that supervisors will consider leaving the housing plan as is even though it is not certified by the state.
Luce acknowledged the move could put the county at risk for a lawsuit, but he said the board believes the housing plan is legally defensible as it stands.
Jobs and housing balance?
Grabill said Friday that he is suing the county because although the unincorporated areas have seen a large expansion in the last decade in employment, “very little housing affordable to those folks has been built.”
There are 40,000 car trips a day from people commuting into Napa County who can’t afford to live here, he said, resulting in consequences to the environment and the quality of life.
“The county and the city have an obligation to maintain balance between employment and housing, and affordable housing, and that hasn’t happened here,” Grabill said.
He added that since he sued the county in 2003 a settlement was reached in 2004 that involved swapping housing requirements with the cities of Napa and American Canyon — not a single affordable housing unit has been built in the unincorporated areas of the county.
“We’re not happy with how the county has proceeded after the last case, and we’re going to try again,” Grabill said.
Grabill said he wants to see the county designate properties for affordable housing where the homes actually have a chance to be built.
“We shouldn’t have to argue about (the availability of) water and sewer,” he said.
He said that while planning for homes at the former Napa Pipe in south Napa County could be a good solution to the county’s affordable housing problem, the county’s housing plan allows for the development of only about 300 units, far fewer than the 2,580 proposed by developers.
“We don’t think that project will go forward if it’s only allowed to develop (300) units,” Grabill said.
Napa Pipe developer Keith Rogal said that although his lawyers contacted the state earlier this year with similar comments about the feasibility of building only 300 units at Napa Pipe, he does not support suing the county.
Rogal said he hasn’t had a chance to review Grabill’s complaint, but added, “From a general perspective as a taxpayer and a resident, lawsuits aren’t good.”
As for who is paying for the lawsuit against the county, Grabill said only, “I am a public interest lawyer and I sometimes get paid. I sometimes don’t.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)