[Vision2020] smart growth for Moscow

[Bill London]

 In the Daily News report on Alturas (Friday, May 30), I was labeled
“no-growth” for complaining that my tax dollars were now supporting the
transformation of that technology park into an office mall.
 Calling my position “no-growth” is bogus.  I am not in favor of no
growth, whatever that means.  I have lived in towns experiencing no
growth, or even negative growth, and it is not pretty.  One reason I
like Moscow is that it is growing, has a vibrant culture and a healthy
downtown.  I fully support economic development that is manageable,
sustainable and sensible—in sum, I am in favor of smart growth.
 The key to smart growth is planning and a steady, small growth rate:
like the one or two percent annual growth that Moscow has experienced
over the last decade or so.  That rate of change is manageable, creates
minimal social disruption, and allows for slow upgrades to the roads,
sewers and other infrastructure needs.
The problem comes with faster rates of development, like the ten or
fifteen percent growth in Post Falls and Coeur d’Alene, for example.
There the taxpayers can not fund the schools, roads and other needs—and
the resulting congestion and social upheaval problems are ugly indeed.
That is dumb growth.
The Moscow city administration and economic development interests,
unfortunately, have now formed an alliance to bring this kind of dumb
growth to Moscow (as reported in the Daily News business section on
Saturday, May 31).  They want to loosen zoning regulations, open
farmland around Moscow to sprawl, and cut deals with developers.
This development alliance wants to accelerate the growth rate in Moscow,
despite the costs we taxpayers must already bear from the smaller growth
rate we have experienced.
Here’s some examples of the costs of development that we taxpayers all
must share.  We are being taxed for a new fire station and sewage
treatment plant due to our existing population increase.  We pay to
increase the number of city staff to handle the needs of an expanding
population.  (Despite the increase in staff, they have still not been
able to adequately control that growth—for example, there were not
enough staffers to monitor the activities of the developer of the
housing behind Moscow Building Supply, allowing that developer to ignore
the city ordinance against erosion and flooding the neighboring land
with mud this spring.)
In addition, those of us who live in established neighborhoods near the
city core must endure increased traffic from the cars driving to the new
homes on the city perimeter.
Despite those existing problems with the low rate of growth we now have
in Moscow, this development group wants to boost the growth rate by
remaking city ordinances and plans.  For example, they propose
encircling Moscow with high-speed roads lined with strip mall and
housing developments.  That suggestion would sprawl Moscow into
neighboring farmland, drain vitality from downtown, and create a town
very much like what we see now in Post Falls.
That kind of dumb growth is not for me.  Moscow is just too nice a place
to lose to that kind of short-sighted profiteering.  I support smart
growth instead.
The November election for four city council positions is going to be
crucial.  In preparation, the propaganda supporting more growth and
development is already flowing.  We are already hearing about the need
to diversify our economy (which means change the rules to encourage
development), the positive partnership between the city and the business
community (which means the developers will be pulling the strings), and
of course the standard plea for more economic development (which means
hold onto your wallet, because since there is no free lunch, we
taxpayers are going to be paying for it big time).
BL