Weekly St. Helena Star Column
Saturday, December 08, 2007
FINDERS KEEPERS
Ever wonder what John Locke would think about bringing Walgreen’s to St. Helena? Me neither.
Be patient. I’m way above my pay scale here.
However, there is a legal concept out there which is often referred to as the “right of capture”, or “the right of first possession.”
It can be summed up in the children’s game, “Finders Keepers.” Put simply, he who harpoons the whale ---gets the whale. He who finds the oil gets the oil.
“Finders Keepers” can be traced back to the teachings of Gaius, the first-century Roman commentator who said, “What presently belongs to no one becomes by natural reason the property of the first taker.”
Locke expanded on this principle. He deduced that if one added one’s labor to something which wasn’t claimed by someone else, it was his: “Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.”
In other words, if an acorn falls from an oak tree and someone picks it up, by virtue of his useful labor, that acorn belongs to him.
So to whom does the Napa Valley belong?
Once it was the Wappo Indians.
George Yount, the first honkie to settle this valley, didn’t get here until 1831. Soon, he planted the first grape vine.
In 1836General Vallejo awarded him the Rancho Caymus land grant—some 11,000 acres. No doubt, certain Wappos thought it belonged to them—-at least by virtue of John Locke’s definition. They were right, of course, but didn’t have the “might” to back it up.
Whether by might or right, Mr. Yount kept the land.
(Wonder if they regret not protecting their borders?
Soon, under the auspices of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago in 1848, land was transferred “legally” from one bona-fide property owner to another. No one was “taking it” solely by the virtue of his labor. Legal title had been established.
Napa Valley grew in popularity—expanded—contracted—and grew again.
It’s rather unimportant who was here first. (On the other hand, I was interested how, at a City Council Meeting last week, each citizen tried to present his or her bona-fides with the preface of how long they’d lived in this town).
What might be important, however, is that certain people, either via inheritance, legal transfer of title, or simply physical labor established some roots here. They laid down laws—-some on the books—-some via cultural norms.
Ostensibly, the laws and rules were to either maintain the status quo, or to enable the “first commers” to exploit their natural advantage of having the rights of “first possession”—at least over those who came “later.”
I don’t know how smart the “original” people were. I’m not even sure how to define “original” except to say that it is someone who came before you or I did.
Fact is, for whatever reasons, people who were here earlier, determined that some thins were “on” and some things weren’t.
They decided that certain “Chain Stores” did not belong in this town. Sure—we have chains—gas stations, banks, Real Estate offices and Safeway—to name a few—-but the idea was—for whatever reason, we’d be better off without MacDonald’s, Wal-Mart’s, or Blockbusters.
At any rate, anyone who ever bought a home here knew that going in.
(Personally, I like having the option of a Safeway. I think it’s a little thing which makes St. Helena great. Alas, what I think doesn’t count).
It is a debatable argument. Services and goods would be cheaper with chains. They would benefit the working man the most. But for whatever reason, it was deemed that they were detrimental to the quality of our life up here. The prohibition against chains evolved from sentiment back in the ‘60’s to codification in the general plan of the 90’s.
It’s rather immaterial what side you are on. The fact is, before each of us moved here, we knew what the deal was. In an attempt to maintain “small town charm” it was determined that certain services and conveniences would have to be done without.
(When one comes to a small town, he gives up subways, Neiman’s, Theater, ballet, symphony, night life, high schools with endless electives—the list goes on). He does it in exchange for the benefits that small town living bestow upon him and his family. If he doesn’t get this—he doesn’t belong here.
It is, of course, legal to modify or change the ban on chain stores. There are lots of persuasive arguments to do so.
It does, however, miss the point of “First Possession.” There’s an argument to be made that those that built this Valley that we love so—maybe—knew what they were talking about.
And even if they didn’t—hadn’t they earned the right—through the fruits of their labor—to mold it in the image of their choice?
Chains are neither, empirically, good nor bad. However, if chains are your thing—why not go to a town which shares your point of view?
Why impose your will on some folks who, through the sweat of their brow, developed a town with a different point of view?
This is America. There’s lots of opportunity out there—lots of places to live.
Walgreen’s is a great company. They are not intrinsically bad. Walgreen’s make sense in thousands of towns. This just might not be one of them.
If you disagree with that—no prob. It’s a big country. Find a town where they are embraced. You’ll be much happier. It's what Finder's Keepers is all about.
Jeffrey Earl Warren
James Warren & Son
1414 Main St.
St. Helena, Ca.
94574
707-963-2748
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007.
Be patient. I’m way above my pay scale here.
However, there is a legal concept out there which is often referred to as the “right of capture”, or “the right of first possession.”
It can be summed up in the children’s game, “Finders Keepers.” Put simply, he who harpoons the whale ---gets the whale. He who finds the oil gets the oil.
“Finders Keepers” can be traced back to the teachings of Gaius, the first-century Roman commentator who said, “What presently belongs to no one becomes by natural reason the property of the first taker.”
Locke expanded on this principle. He deduced that if one added one’s labor to something which wasn’t claimed by someone else, it was his: “Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.”
In other words, if an acorn falls from an oak tree and someone picks it up, by virtue of his useful labor, that acorn belongs to him.
So to whom does the Napa Valley belong?
Once it was the Wappo Indians.
George Yount, the first honkie to settle this valley, didn’t get here until 1831. Soon, he planted the first grape vine.
In 1836General Vallejo awarded him the Rancho Caymus land grant—some 11,000 acres. No doubt, certain Wappos thought it belonged to them—-at least by virtue of John Locke’s definition. They were right, of course, but didn’t have the “might” to back it up.
Whether by might or right, Mr. Yount kept the land.
(Wonder if they regret not protecting their borders?
Soon, under the auspices of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago in 1848, land was transferred “legally” from one bona-fide property owner to another. No one was “taking it” solely by the virtue of his labor. Legal title had been established.
Napa Valley grew in popularity—expanded—contracted—and grew again.
It’s rather unimportant who was here first. (On the other hand, I was interested how, at a City Council Meeting last week, each citizen tried to present his or her bona-fides with the preface of how long they’d lived in this town).
What might be important, however, is that certain people, either via inheritance, legal transfer of title, or simply physical labor established some roots here. They laid down laws—-some on the books—-some via cultural norms.
Ostensibly, the laws and rules were to either maintain the status quo, or to enable the “first commers” to exploit their natural advantage of having the rights of “first possession”—at least over those who came “later.”
I don’t know how smart the “original” people were. I’m not even sure how to define “original” except to say that it is someone who came before you or I did.
Fact is, for whatever reasons, people who were here earlier, determined that some thins were “on” and some things weren’t.
They decided that certain “Chain Stores” did not belong in this town. Sure—we have chains—gas stations, banks, Real Estate offices and Safeway—to name a few—-but the idea was—for whatever reason, we’d be better off without MacDonald’s, Wal-Mart’s, or Blockbusters.
At any rate, anyone who ever bought a home here knew that going in.
(Personally, I like having the option of a Safeway. I think it’s a little thing which makes St. Helena great. Alas, what I think doesn’t count).
It is a debatable argument. Services and goods would be cheaper with chains. They would benefit the working man the most. But for whatever reason, it was deemed that they were detrimental to the quality of our life up here. The prohibition against chains evolved from sentiment back in the ‘60’s to codification in the general plan of the 90’s.
It’s rather immaterial what side you are on. The fact is, before each of us moved here, we knew what the deal was. In an attempt to maintain “small town charm” it was determined that certain services and conveniences would have to be done without.
(When one comes to a small town, he gives up subways, Neiman’s, Theater, ballet, symphony, night life, high schools with endless electives—the list goes on). He does it in exchange for the benefits that small town living bestow upon him and his family. If he doesn’t get this—he doesn’t belong here.
It is, of course, legal to modify or change the ban on chain stores. There are lots of persuasive arguments to do so.
It does, however, miss the point of “First Possession.” There’s an argument to be made that those that built this Valley that we love so—maybe—knew what they were talking about.
And even if they didn’t—hadn’t they earned the right—through the fruits of their labor—to mold it in the image of their choice?
Chains are neither, empirically, good nor bad. However, if chains are your thing—why not go to a town which shares your point of view?
Why impose your will on some folks who, through the sweat of their brow, developed a town with a different point of view?
This is America. There’s lots of opportunity out there—lots of places to live.
Walgreen’s is a great company. They are not intrinsically bad. Walgreen’s make sense in thousands of towns. This just might not be one of them.
If you disagree with that—no prob. It’s a big country. Find a town where they are embraced. You’ll be much happier. It's what Finder's Keepers is all about.
Jeffrey Earl Warren
James Warren & Son
1414 Main St.
St. Helena, Ca.
94574
707-963-2748
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007.
