Rich People Are Ruining Wine …and Napa Valley is forever changing as a result (The Atlantic)

"…Thanks to the rise of the lifestyle vintner, the market is now glutted with new wines in a numbingly similar style. Critics generally favor them, most costing well over $100 a bottle, and as a result many of the richest American palates have developed a taste for alcoholic, overripe cabernet. Napa still has its small, inspired producers, but also mega-companies—Constellation, Treasury Wine Estates, Kendall-Jackson, Gallo—that churn out bottles for nationwide distribution.

Lifestyle vintners have also left their mark on Napa’s landscape. Most refer to themselves with straight faces as “farmers,” even as “environmentalists,” while more trees are cut on surrounding mountainsides for yet more vineyards. They loudly praise the valley’s exemplary past and glorious future while exploiting its present. For instance, a prominent computer-boom beneficiary named Mike Davis has spent more millions on his sprawling new winery than will likely ever be recovered through wine sales. Since the Napa Valley floor is all planted, only the hillsides are available for new vineyards. And Davis is bent on scraping out a vineyard high on Howell Mountain that would adversely affect a precious wildlife preserve, one of the state’s most biologically rich remnants. (Davis did not respond to an interview request.)

There’s been a clamor over similar plots of land as a changing climate has prompted vintners to get the most out of Napa before possibly having to move on to the Pacific Northwest or the Rockies. Many lifestyle vintners are developers who resent objections to their plans by members of the community. Such names are common on labels. One—Craig Hall of HALL Wines—has been in a decade-long struggle with a local community that’s trying to prevent his cutting of some 28,000 oaks on more than 2,000 acres in a remote part of the county. A Dallas developer and former co-owner of the Dallas Cowboys, Hall, like Trump, has bounced back from bankruptcy and moves among high-risk investments.

Hall’s new project in Napa would deforest a 2,300-acre untrammeled swath that has never been ravaged by forest fires and supports many very old trees. This destruction wouldn’t be for something useful like growing food, but rather for yet more derivative wine beyond the financial reach of most people. Locals fear that mansions will follow, as they so often do in California. (Hall declined to be interviewed for this story, and a representative of his referred me to the county’s public records about the new project.)

After several disputes like this, social discord has grown steadily in the valley. Thousands of Napans signed a petition to put an initiative on the 2016 ballot to increase regulation of timber cutting in the hills. But a phalanx of trade groups—the Napa Valley Vintners (the host of an exclusive annual wine auction), the Napa Valley Grapegrowers, and the Winegrowers of Napa County (a coalition of corporations and wealthy individuals)—opposed it. The industry’s sway was clear when the county disqualified the initiative on a technicality.

A similar initiative is back on the ballot this year, but as lifestyle vintners leave their mark on the landscape, the influence of a different type of vintner is receding. Salvestrin Vineyards lies at the end of a dirt driveway just up Highway 29 from its antithesis, HALL. Its white-frame farmhouse was built in 1879, adjacent to a vineyard that was planted in 1859. The owner today, Rich Salvestrin, is blue-eyed, burly, and burnished by the California sun. His grandfather came to the area from Northern Italy, via Ellis Island. “He helped neighbors with their vines, and bartered his labor for the use of a horse,” Salvestrin said. “My father took over, and in 1950 bought a tractor. I’ve been tied to this land for as long as I can remember.”

Salvestrin worked in the vineyard growing up and is a useful case study in the opportunities and difficulties of small winemakers in Napa Valley. Salvestrin Vineyards is 18 acres—less than it used to be, as he sold some acreage to the local school—adding value to the crop by turning it into wine that is sold at a much higher price. But there construction stopped. The operation supports his family, including three daughters, and his parents who still live in the house. As for current tensions between development and agriculture, Salvestrin says, “We’re at the tipping point. This place should be about the wine.” More and more people are thinking just that."

I shouldn’t get drawn into this, but no matter how many times people say this, I think it’s far more likely to be 180 degrees wrong.

A sizable segment of people like wine to be clean, ripe, rich, lush, and a bit sweet. Parker became successful and influential because his tastes aligned with these folks — they didn’t switch to having that taste because Parker told them to have it.

If Parker had championed wines like cool vintage Chinon, America wouldn’t be overrun with people making and drinking thin herbal Bretty 12% reds today. We just never would have heard of Parker.

As to yet another pull up the ladders NIMBY opinion (“I moved here when it was less crowded and less expensive, so nobody should be allowed to come here after me and change how I liked things, and oh by the way, it so happens shutting off growth will make my property values go even higher”), those are a staple in California. It’s a big part of the reason housing is so expensive and the ranks of homeless are swelling so rapidly. Anyway, that argument will always go around and around in this state.

Per the article, people who are rich and get into making wine are “grubby”, hate the environment, and aren’t real vintners. Got it.

It was unlikely that I was ever going to buy a wine from Hall in the first place–but certainly going to make a point not to now.

I promise to never go out in a social setting again (like at Marea in NYC or Moo in Boston) and when someone asks me what I “do”," I promise to never ever tell them again that I am a farmer. That would be so wrong. But that could be just what I am. And the part of me that I want to share on a social level. We have private lives, too.

Napa Valley winemaking is a huge target these days. I will be quiet, lest Mr. Freemott attack me (again) for expressing my feelings or inclusion in a thread.

The worst thing about Hall, and I must admit I have not had their wines in a very long time, is that stupid metal bunny sitting at the edge of their property for all to see (whether we want to or not - that is “art?”) Shameful. They know better, is my guess.

I will be quiet, lest Mr. Freemott attack me (again) for expressing my feelings or inclusion in a thread.

Hall Pass has been issued. go for it, i’ll remain silent.

Very decent of you, Christopher.

First of all that article really has nothing to do with Parker. It’s simply a reference. What it deals with is what many people who have lived there for a long time privately express. The place has turned into a playground for the rich and famous, each one trying to out due the other. When I started going up that way 20-ish years ago it was still pretty remote and a full on agricultural community. Hotels and restaurants were cheap and the wines affordable. I don’t remember ever paying a tasting fee back then. Now some places charge over $100 for a fee and you don’t get that waived even if you buy something.

Now it’s super expensive and just about every Cabernet wine is $80-120+ bottle. Heck you can hardly even get a simple Rose or basic white for less than $40 now. Rich people buy property just to say they have a winery, paying someone else to do all the work so they don’t get their hands dirty. Sure they may “help out” at times, but they aren’t doing any hands on day to day work.

Yes a generalization, but sadly that is what Napa has become. I used to go up a couple times a year, now maybe once, simply as it used to be affordable, staying, buying some wines from places I visited. Now a few days up there ends up costing many thousands of dollars. And I’m lucky as a friend and his fiancee live there so I can stay with them which saves a lot. But still the cost of visiting producers and buying $100+ wines adds up quick (Thank you to those who’ve been there a long time and stayed reasonably priced).

This isn’t solely a Napa issue. As wine has gained in popularity it’s happening in other regions around the world as well. So I have to say that article is pretty spot on.

I rather like it when the rich people spend big money on the fruit bomb California wines. Leaves the good stuff for the rest of us.

I wish that was the case. The issue is when everyone else is selling theirs for $100 and yours is $40 people assume yours sucks. So guess what, you raise your prices to stay with the Jones. It’s a vicious cycle.

I used to love Napa, got engaged there, spent time there on our honeymoon and used to go annually with my wife and friends. Then it began to change. Crowds (please not another bachelorette party), prices for food and lodging started to rise and the wines began to get more ripe and more expensive. I don’t really blame anyone – although its always easy to pick a flamboyant outsider and blame them for the problems – its just the evolution of a lot of formerly quaint tourist towns. Try going to the French or Italian Riviera in the summer where formerly sleepy little towns are now a nightmare of tourist buses and impatient tourists beeping at each other in rental cars. Sad, but there are always alternatives.

Jeez, just another class warfare article hidden inside an article that’s supposed to be about wine, but isn’t. I do find it funny that the writer decided to beat up on Craig Hall as the big, bad rich guy. I guess the writer didn’t know that Craig’s wife Kathryn was ambassador to Austria under Bill Clinton. That would have given Craig Hall a pass with that writer.

One thing the author has right is that there are a lot of people who have made a ton of dough in other industries buying wineries that need refurbishing and pouring more money into them than they’ll ever get out. More power to them I say. It’s not a business to them as much as it is a hobby and a place to live. It reminds me of the old saying “How do you make a small fortune in the wine business? Start with a large fortune”.

I do like Napa as a destination, but it’s been a place of expanding prices for at least 30 years. It is what it is. Andy’s well-founded point aside, there’s still decent stuff to be found at a decent price. Otherwise, let someone else cellar the wines for 20+ years and then buy them at auction for less than the release price. Outside of the cult cabs, most Napa cabs tend to be lousy performers at auction.

I agree with all of that. Especially the last part - just go somewhere else. Go to Edna Valley, Paso, Willamette, Sonoma, Lodi, Santa Cruz, Amador.

We can all act put out that Napa isn’t what we wish it were for us personally, and point fingers at boogie men like “the rich,” but the reality is that places change.

Some places like Napa, Park City, Carmel, and countless places in Europe become where rich people want to be, and the places get fancier and more expensive. Other places emerge from nothing to become new neat little places to go. Just adjust.

I’m most concerned as to the land owners who are cutting old forests for more vineyards. Especially if they then say that they are environmentalists, organic, sustainable, and/or biodynamic. I vote with my dollars and will continue to buy plenty of Napa Valley producers. Just from producers who are in it for more than the all mighty dollar.

Digressing, while it’s popular to hate on Parker, and I do dislike flabby wines, I still love Napa. While I solely go for smaller producers, most of the Napa County (and Sonoma) Cabs/Bordeaux blends I’ve had haven’t been flabby; even most of the cheaper and older ones (e.g. Merrill I would say makes wines with tons of fruit–but would never say they are fat or flabby). Especially when I’m drinking wine stand alone, I want something that the balance tends to go more towards fruit (although I starting to learn what sous bois means!). I believe most wine regions have a perfect time and place, including fruit driven Napa Cabs.

I also understand most people don’t have a cellar, aren’t going to age wine, and are overwhelmed when buying wine. For those people–fat and flabby wines probably taste comparatively good to huge industrial made wines. That is why I have more of a problem with this than Robert Parker: Expensive wine is for suckers - YouTube

Not trying to hate on Napa. More hating on industrial wine makers who are in it for money only and celebrity ‘vinters’ who are in it for status, (i.e. making wine and vineyards a velben good). I also value a good land ethic, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

Rich people ruined Burgundy, First growth Bordeaux, top end Rhone, etc…

Rich people ruined watch collecting.

Rich people ruined Hi Fi gear prices.

Rich people ruined performance sports car prices.

Rich people ruined real estate prices on the California coast.

Rich people ruined art collecting.

Rich people ruined caviar prices.

Rich people ruined tiger penis and rhino horn supplement prices.

Rich people ruined reality television.

Rich people ruin everything they touch.

Time for pitchforks and torches storming the high rise condos! (Or in SF, we can just wait for the condo tilt to bring them down to us.)

Rich people ----> [smileyvault-ban.gif]


champagne.gif

How many wine shops are dominated by $100+ Napa wines ?

In my local binnys they probably represent under 1% of wines, there are thousands of other wines starting at $3 for those who want them. In every area of life the rarest high quality items are becoming unreachable but that then drives the rest of the market. This type of article is petty jealously and nothing more, im sure there are legitimate environmental concerns by these apply to the whole of US not just Napa.

I’m pretty sure Jean-Jacques Rousseau said, “When the people shall have no more Napa reds, they will eat the rich.”

Hey, I’m just glad to see an article where millennials arent blamed for ruining something.

Word! champagne.gif