With the election this Tuesday; I’m encouraging readers to consider the following votes:

Democratic Primary: Mike Thompson for Congress, Noreen Evans for Assembly

Mike stood against the reckless Iraq war resolution, and recently co-sponsored a water-boarding ban that unequivocally says that torture in un-American. He fought hard for working families and agriculture in our district by securing emergency aid for north coast salmon fishers who have been imperiled by alarming declines in threatened salmon stocks, and by bringing funds and attention to the prevention of devastating local crop-threats such as Pierces Disease, sudden oak death, and the olive fruit fly. Mike has fortitude and experience, and is the best choice to represent us in Washington.

Noreen has quickly risen to a leadership position in the Assembly Democratic Caucus and has proven to be an ardent fighter for the environment, healthcare and local agriculture. Noreen has been championing a key health issue that affects millions of women in our state and nation through her Assembly Bill 16, requiring insurance carriers to cover vaccination for young women against a frighteningly widespread and often undetected virus that leads to most cases of cervical cancer.

Keith Caldwell -- Supervisor, District 5

On my first night as a planning commissioner, we were presented with the proposal for American Canyon’s new state-of-the-art, green-building, public safety station. Making the presentation was then-fire chief Keith Caldwell who was totally knowledgeable about all aspects of the project. He then had to leave in a hurry to respond to a chemical fire.

Keith impressed me then, and he impresses me now. He served as the chief executive of the American Canyon Fire District -- which meant managing operations, personnel, and finances; making tough decisions; balancing the budget, and protecting thousands of homes and businesses in a dynamic community. He served as interim city manager when American Canyon was in the process of hiring a new city executive and he has spent his career negotiating, planning, budgeting, and building relationships with city and county decision-makers.

When one listens to Keith dive deep into the issues, from Napa Pipe -- which he was among the first to unequivocally oppose for being out-of-character for the area, to preserving open space, to the MST watershed, to workforce housing- you will hear someone who thoroughly understands the issues and whose mind in constantly working on practical solutions.

Keith’s work ethic and attention-to-detail is reflected by his normal 10-12 hour-days as a city official, his managing of complex projects such as the $8 million public safety station to within 1 percent of budget, and his current campaign where he has come very close to making good on his pledge to knock on all 10,000 doors in District 5.

He is ready for the tough job of governing. Unlike other candidates running for District 5 Supervisor- Keith has the proper experience and tempering for the job, and has demonstrated his willingness to work hard in the role of Supervisor.

No on 98, Yes on 99

I’ll just reiterate last week’s Blog where I argued “no” on Measure 98 -- a disingenuous attack on government’s land-use policing powers, necessary environmental regulations, and rent control at a time when affordable housing is one of California’s most pressing concerns, and “yes” on Measure 99 -- a genuine chance to reform eminent domain abuse without imperiling renter and environmental protections.

No on Measure N

A “no” on N is not the same as a “yes” to Napa Pipe. In land-use law, too many times the unforeseen net effect of populist-sounding, ambiguously sponsored proposals like Measure N is to neuter local land-use policing powers and drive dollars and resources to developers. Certainly the nebulous identity of Measure N’s backers, its sponsors’ failure to seek input from seasoned slow-growth advocates, and the late promise to add an after-thought ‘clean up’ measure to address concerns in the measure’s language does nothing to allay these concerns.

The 9111 impartial analysis of Measure N indicates that the proposition is a Trojan horse: in exchange for its short term promise to kill Napa Pipe, Measure N severely restricts the County’s ability to modify the Housing Element of The General Plan- exposing us to costly future litigation; increases pressure on the County for building agreements with incorporated cities which, ironically, may lead to greater annexation of County land to the cities; and may create future challenges to the long-standing Napa County protections of Measure J and airport residential prohibitions.

Having deep reservations about the current Napa Pipe proposal is understandable, but Measure N is not the fix. The measure is a blunt instrument whose impacts, beneficiaries and costs are far too vague and potentially damaging to vote into law. We’ve already seen that public opinion and pressure has been able to move elected officials on Napa Pipe, and that, coupled with existing land-use ordnance, is still the best option for managing growth in the unincorporated County.