POINT:
Napa Valley Register
Thursday 08/12/04
Commentary: Berryessa Resorts Are Not The Problem
By HANK HOWARD
I think the Napa Register makes errors and allows omissions of relevant facts when reporting on Lake Berryessa. Recently a Debra G. Healer, of Berryessa Highlands wrote a letter ("Trailer residents don't own lake," Aug. 4) on the illness of the trailers at Lake Berryessa.
First off, she is not looking at trailers in Steele Park. They are all manufactured homes permitted by Napa County and the Bureau of Reclamation. She forgot to say that the renters own their units, and some are of equal value to her home in the Highlands. Anybody can rent a RV trailer space at the seven resorts for the weekend and not have to drive to Lake Tahoe.
As far as trailers being an eyesore, isn't that in the eyes of the beholder? And this nonsense of taking up the best shoreline is pure Sierra Club trash talk. Lets get real. The resorts take up 12 miles of shoreline around the 165 mile shoreline of the Lake. Less than 4 percent of the actual land mass of the lakeshore is used for resort facilities. Just take a ride around the lake and see the vacant shoreline. Visit the underutilized Bureau of Reclamation sites at Oak Shores and Smittle Creek and sit in the dirt on broken picnic tables.
In regard to the economy, the seven resorts reported total gross receipts for 2003 was $13,597,587.62. This is big money! About a 4 percent increase over 2002 revenues. The writer complained about not having a decent store or gas station in the area. Sounds like creature comfort talk to me. Many Berryessa Highlands residents come to the store at Steele Park for staples and necessities. They have worked out an amicable agreement to access the resort for that purpose.
I agree with you on one point: There are no gas stations in the entire Lake Berryessa basin. Moskowite Corners had one, but it did not do 250,000 gallons a month the minimum the Big 5 oil providers want for service delivery to an area like the lake.
Again the writer talks about exclusive use to resort users. I don't know how to say this clearly, we are paying about $15 a day per unit out of our rent fees for that usage, whether we are there or not. Your development was supposed to have provided you with access to the lake. What happened to that provision? Anyone can enter the resorts and pay the gate posted fees. I have never seen anyone turned away.
It should be known that Napa County is being reimbursed for lake water enforcement and boats on grants from California Boating and Waterways.
Very shortly, the truth squad will get the real facts on what the actual Lake Berryessa government property is costing Napa County. The county has taken the high road and said this area is a cash drain. If so, why are they doing it for free? A day of reckoning and review is coming in the future. Documents are available that every one of the seven resorts were 100 percent approved by Napa County Planning Commission, former Napa County Park Commission and the Bureau of Reclamation. This includes every camp site, trailer location, gates, docks, building, roads and infrastructure. And they were all master planned.
(Howard lives in Vallejo.) ##
COUNTERPOINT:
The Napa Register does what all American media should do and that is allow Americans to speak their mind. Debra G. Healer, of Berryessa Highlands is right that "Trailer residents don't own the lake." The problem is not the trailers, it's the private use of public land.
Trailers in Steele Park are like the rest of the lake's old trailer parks, they are for the most part old out of date 1960's trailers with a facade to give them a pleasant look. But like the other old resort infrastructures, the sewage distribution system is over 40 years old and private use of public land continues. Since the 1960's health and safety laws have changed.
The problem IS the renters own their units, and some are of equal value to her home in the Highlands. In the late 1960's Ralph Nader and the late U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan received complaints from private property owners on private land that they were competing with private property on public land to sell their property. That lead to the 1972 Government Accounting Office Audit which said to get rid of the private use of public land. In 1973, Napa County asked to withdraw from managing the the recreation of Lake Berryessa. In 1974, Congress past the Public Law 93-493 giving Reclamation the management responsibility to make things right. In 1976, Reclamation agreed to allow trailers to remain until the concession agreement expired or were terminated. That's where we are now.
Nobody can rent a RV trailer space at any of the seven resorts for the weekend that comes close to the quality of facilities and services of Lake Tahoe. Partly it's because most long-term trailers are an eyesore. It's also because the best spots are being taken by private users, rather they are there or not. They are taking the space of what could be quality camping, lodging, and other appropriate short-term uses.
The future use of Lake Berryessa development won't be in the other 88 percent of the lake, not even 12 percent of the current resort areas. They will be placed where development is now. Why should the Government come in and disturb more public land for the rest of the country's user's while private uses of public land continues at Lake Berryessa. All of this more than 30 years after the Government says that we shouldn't.
|
