Printable View
Here is a link to a Press Democrat article titled "Paul Hobbs buys Goldrock Ridge vineyard."
And, here is an excerpt of that article quoting Mr. Hobbs:
He intends to experiment with different rootstock and clones, along with a growing practice that will include no herbicides. “I really want to push the limits,” Hobbs said.
The notorious vintner Paul Hobbs just bought a vineyard that is 5 miles from the ocean, according to this PD article, thus further damaging our fragile coastline. He claims that he will use no herbicides. He has previously claimed that he farms sustainably, which is not true. It is not until the following last brief paragraph that the truth about Hobbs begins to emerge:
"He has faced criticism for past projects. Hobbs last year paid $100,000 to settle a civil lawsuit brought by Sonoma County prosecutors alleging environmental and land-use violations in three vineyard conversion projects."
"Alleging...violations," the reporter asserts. Some of us witnessed those violations and reported Hobbs.
"Criticisms," the reporter mentions in passing, which should have been detailed in this one-sided article. This biased PD reporter fails to report important details, such as that Hobbs was liable for millions of dollars of fines. For him, that $100,000 settlement is merely a cost of doing business. Hobbs is the one who uses herbicides on his vineyard that was challenged by the Watertrough Children's Alliance because it was next to schools with around 500 students.
This Goldrock Ridge vineyard may bring more gold to Hobbs and with it more damage to the coast.
In response to why Bill Swindell of the PD did not address Paul Hobb's being so unscrupulous you must realize that the writer has always been pro-big wine. He authored an article about the first Prop 65 (Toxic Labeling) legal case to force the wine industry to list ingredients when toxic amounts of inorganic arsenic were found in multiple random samples of California wine. Lead was also discovered as a by product but not litigated. The judge wanted to refer the new law to a higher court but Bill stated in his article the judge said there was not enough evidence. You can see Mike Burg, the chief lawyer and lead prosecutor of this case talk about this on Ring of Fire: https://www.freespeech.org/video/ring-fire-42516 . Interview starts 1 minute 55 seconds in. This case will be up for Appellate Court hearings soon and maybe we can at last find out all those ingredients that the wine industry tries to hide from consumers.
Back to Hobb's....even if Hobb's had to pay $100K for a fine, he got off on other projects with minor fines and made a bundle from selling lands he logged illegally. He is still way ahead. The wine industry considers him a small family run winery despite being in 4 continents because he has smaller vineyards scattered all over. Don't be fooled, he is a global industry like so many here in our county. 12 wineries have 70% of our production. (Sorry SoCo Winegrape Assoc. we know how you fudge your figures).
I don't trust a word Paul Hobbs says. He'll say one thing and do another. Paying a fine is just the cost of doing busine$$ in Sonoma County. Instead of money the penalty should be jail time.
Someone just needs to develop a glassy winged sharpshooter that lives on the toxic pesticides that Hobbs uses to farm. Then simply breed and release. Keep doing this until he can no longer poison the earth with his crap.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Eileen M.:
I think one might get an ultralight plane and crop-dust 'em with Roundup under the radar....get him with his own poison.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:
YIKES! I sympathize with the anger re: Paul Hobbs & the like but please get a grip and a clue - the problem with Roundup and other similar poisons is that they are toxic for all of us & the environment, not confinable to one place or person. Please convert those sentiments to more constructive/appropriate solutions!!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sara S: